Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The right to travel pre-dates the TSA

Writes Michael S. Rozeff on the LewRockwell.com blog:
According to a UCLA Law Review source dating from 1975 and written by Stewart Abercrombie Baker, Magna Carta (ch. 42, 1215) "guaranteed free passage into and out of the realm." "Blackstone's Commentaries proclaims a right to travel which includes 'the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due process of law.'" (volume 1, *134). "The right to travel was declared ‘natural and inherent' by the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776″ (ch. 1, para. XV (1776)). Article IV of the Articles of Confederation protected "free ingress and regress to and from any other State…" The Constitution dropped that language and instead incorporated the right to travel under the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, section 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Baker writes: "The change was made not to disparage the right to travel, but because specific protection for the right would be redundant. Free travel was considered to be a necessary corollary to the 'more perfect Union' which the Constitution created." The Supreme Court has recognized this right in numerous cases.

I do not claim that the right to travel as interpreted by a Supreme Court of 2010 would allow the traveler unimpeded travel or prevent placing such a burden on the traveler that it would effectively foreclose travel by air. The Court would probably back the TSA and provide some sort of balancing test. I assert that such a test would be unconstitutional and would destroy the right to travel. I assert that the TSA's search procedures place a burden on the right to travel that destroys that right for millions of protesting Americans.
The TSA and other government agencies, however, are quick to remind us that traveling is merely a privilege.


  1. 16 American Jurisprudence Constitutional Law 2nd Edition Section 98 states "No emergency can justify a disregard of the constitution or of the state constitution"

    the supreme court also ruled in Simons v. United States cited at 390 US 389
    "we find it intolerable that one right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another"

    and since the right to travel exists and the right to privacy exists the TSA is violating multiple maxims of law in asserting that the right to travel is less important than the right to privacy.

    also under Crandall v. Nevada 6 wall 35, 46
    "if the right of passing through a state by the citizen of the united states is one guaranteed by the constitution it must be sacred from taxation"

    and currently we pay a September 11th security fee tax to the TSA through the department of homeland security for a flight that costs $161 the fee is 12.40 making the total cost of the trip $173.40 one could argue this tax fee exaction 'taking of money for funding the exaction on peoples right to privacy' is also unconstitutional

    it may perhaps turn out that our rights have been violated by way of stealthy contractual encroachments, that if done by a "private" entity in of and by themselves would be constitutional, however when done by a publicly chartered corporation or public municipality or public private partnership would violate the protections within the constitution.

    careful study of constitutional maxims of law easily erodes any argument brought by the state or federal government for a compelling state interest.

    for it is the primary focus of government to protect our rights and liberties against encroachment stealthy or overt public private foreign and domestic before and above any policy

    see also Norton v. Shelby county for a very good case!

  2. take note to this case below,

    though it is not a binding decision it reflects the views of the court of the time which with some study to compound the support for privacy liberty and the right to travel, it may become a binding decision in the future if you are diligent and smart enough to fight a case all the way to the supreme court, - remember to reserve your best arguments for last if you choose to go that route.


    Since a person's expectation of privacy with respect to his baggage declines as the anticipated public access to the baggage increases, it is not unreasonable, where the police have reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of contraband, to permit use of an external method or device to determine whether the baggage contains contraband. On this ground I would uphold the search here. However, I would strictly limit such a search to cases where there are grounds for such suspicion, similar to or stronger than that present here, and would not permit a wholesale examination of all baggage in the hope that a crime might be detected. Otherwise, as the majority recognizes, the spectre of a "Big Brother" baggage search, uncurbed by the Fourth Amendment, would then loom much larger on the horizon. As more sophisticated detection devices are developed in the future, such a broad authority would be an open invitation to conduct blanket examinations, thus eroding the principles underlying the Fourth Amendment itself.


    the expectation of privacy declines as you separate your self from your property, so if you want to remain private keep your property closer to your person.