"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

The constitution is not a pie-in-the-sky. It is not an "ideal". It is not a really good idea. It's not a the work of a few great teachers we should really listen to or the Boy Scout handbook of American living. It is the law. As such, it is inviolate. And it is the absolute bottom line.

Thank you.

Not only is it the law, it is the Supreme Law of the Land. It constantly amazes me that people who contstantly insist that the rule of law be upheld (as in this very thread, for example) somehow think that the Supreme Law is somehow exempt.

 

[shanek]

Referring to the constitution to support an argument is an argument from authority. If the issue being discussed is one of legality, it is a valid argument from authority; but if it is a matter of ethics or of what the laws should be (rather than what they are) then the constitution is not a valid authority.

Saying we shouldn't pass laws in abeyance of the Constiutution isn't a valid argument???

 

[Leif Roar]

Saying we shouldn't pass laws in abeyance of the Constiutution isn't a valid argument???

It depends whether you're making a legal argument or an ethical one. (If it's a practical "shouldn't" or an ethical one.)

It's one thing to argue that a particular law would, if passed, be in conflict with the constitution and would lead to either the law being voided or of the law being enacted in direct violation of the Constitution, both situations being undesirable, and that the law should not be passed because of these practicalities.

It's something else to argue that a particular law is unconstitutional, therefore ethically wrong which means it is undesirable and shouldn't be passed. The ethical qualities does not depend on whether the or not the law is constitutional, but upon its effects on human beings (or whatever basis we found our system of ethics on.)

If the constitution prevents the passing of an ethically good law it must, in the extreme case, be amended to allow for the law's passing. The constitutiton does not define what is ethical; it merely tries to adhere to it. As such, while the constitution is the ultimate law of the land, it is not the ultimate law of what is right.

(Edited to fix a choice of word.)

 

[Darat]

Saying we shouldn't pass laws in abeyance of the Constiutution isn't a valid argument???

It depends on how you are using the constitution as an authority.

As you rightly state it is not a fallacy to appeal to the Constitution as a source of authority on what is a constituently sound law or not. However to use it as an authority as to say why people should have a certain right (outside a legal argument) is then the fallacy of "Appeal to Authority", since the constitution as a document of words has no more authority on that then the Bible, Koran or any other piece of text.

 

[shanek]

What if I believe it is ethically wrong to pass a law that is repugnant to the founding document of the country? Not because that document is THE TRVTH, just on general principle. We the people established the Constitution, and, therefore, the government, and are the source of all legitimate power to the government. The government cannot and should not assume powers for itself that we didn't give it in that document.

 

[Leif Roar]

What if I believe it is ethically wrong to pass a law that is repugnant to the founding document of the country? Not because that document is THE TRVTH, just on general principle.

Then you're just ignoring the ethical question. When discussing whether a particular law is ethical or not, the question isn't if that law is constitutional, but if that law should be constitutional.

To say that "X is wrong because it's unconstitutional" is not a valid ethical argument; the fact that something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it have to be wrong (and that something is constitutional is no guarantee that it is right.) The constitution is a legal authority, not an ethical one; so you can't argue an ethical case by referring to the constitution as an authority.

Of course, saying "X is illegal because it's unconstitutional" is a valid argument; but that's a legal argument, not an ethical one.


(Edited for clarity.)

 

[CFLarsen]

In speeding-related single-vehicle fatal crashes, most of the fatalities occur in "rural" roadway class.
p. 31

Speeding is one of the most prevalent factors contributing to traffic crashes. Speeding reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around curves or objects in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels while a driver reacts to a dangerous situation. Higher crash speeds also reduce the ability of vehicle, restraint system, and roadway hardware such as guardrails, barriers, and impact attenuators to protect vehicle occupants [2-5]. Speeding is a factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes. About 1,000 fatalities resulted from speeding-related motor vehicle traffic crashes every month.
p.39

Source: National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Analysis of Speeding-Related Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes

Or something else was going on entirely and the removal of speed limits had absolutely nothing to do with it. Correlaiton ≠ causation.

Yet, you had no problems claiming that the one year you focused on in the Hijacking thread was evidence enough.

You cherry-pick when it suits you.

(from shanek's post)
Thus, even the seemingly remarkable "near doubling" of the fatality rate in Montana is not convincing. The counts are just too low.

Whoa, wait a second! If you want to point to too low counts, then you can't use those numbers to show that no-speed limits actually make the numbers drop.

Will you retract your claim? I doubt it.

You're a fake.

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue.

 

[CFLarsen]

Edited by Darat: 

As per my announcement I am indicating that this post is borderline as it is focusing on a Member not the actual issue.

I disagree. It isn't focusing on a member. I am pointing out that shanek cherry-picks his data. That makes him a fake.

If I had merely called him a fake without providing evidence, then it would have been OK to say it was focusing on a member.

If we can't point out the consequences of fakery, then we can't be skeptics.

 

[shanek]

Then you're just ignoring the ethical question.

No, I'm not. I can examine the ethics of an action from more than one standpoint. I can also believe that an action is both legally and ethically wrong. This is all just a red herring, and I don't know what you think you're trying to accomplish other than another desperate attempt to try and discredit me.

When discussing whether a particular law is ethical or not, the question isn't if that law is constitutional, but if that law should be constitutional.

Well, that depends on whether or not you think the ends justify the means. I don't. You can work towards an end that would be equitable; if you use improper means to get there you have still behaved unethically.

 

[Darat]

I disagree. It isn't focusing on a member. I am pointing out that shanek cherry-picks his data. That makes him a fake.

If I had merely called him a fake without providing evidence, then it would have been OK to say it was focusing on a member.

If we can't point out the consequences of fakery, then we can't be skeptics.

If you wish to discuss any particular comment I've made under the aegis of my recent announcement please do so in Forum Management

 

[Leif Roar]

No, I'm not. I can examine the ethics of an action from more than one standpoint. I can also believe that an action is both legally and ethically wrong.

Of course. My point is merely that the constitution is not an ethical authority, so that saying that "X is ethically wrong because it is uncostitutional" isn't a valid argument.

This is all just a red herring, and I don't know what you think you're trying to accomplish other than another desperate attempt to try and discredit me.

Actually, my initial post on this subject was a repsonse to a post by DragonLady.

Well, that depends on whether or not you think the ends justify the means. I don't. You can work towards an end that would be equitable; if you use improper means to get there you have still behaved unethically.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that we should pass an unconstitutional law because we find that law ethically right and simply ignore the fact that it's unconstitutional.

I'm saying that when discussing whether a suggested law is ethically right, then, for the sake of the discussion it is immaterial if the law is constitutional. Because if we find that the law is ethically wrong, we should not attempt to pass it, and the question of constitutionality is moot. If, on the other hand, we find that the suggested law is ethically right, we should ideally attempt to pass it into law -- if necessary by first amending the constitution (through the enshrined legal process for such) to allow for the law's passing.

Of course, this is the idealised case and for pragmatic reasons we will often decide that although a suggested law is ethically good and desirable, the effort or side-effects of passing the law are too great compared to the benefits that would have been given by the law, and thus decide not to pass it.

 

[Thanz]

No, I'm not. I can examine the ethics of an action from more than one standpoint. I can also believe that an action is both legally and ethically wrong. This is all just a red herring, and I don't know what you think you're trying to accomplish other than another desperate attempt to try and discredit me.

Well, that depends on whether or not you think the ends justify the means. I don't. You can work towards an end that would be equitable; if you use improper means to get there you have still behaved unethically.

Let's transport the discussion to Canada just for a minute to avoid the whole constitutional issue. In Canada, airports are under federal jurisdiction as is the regulation of air travel. The security you go through in Canadian airports is much the same as in US airports - metal detectors, x ray for carry on luggage, that swab for explosive stuff, random further checks, etc. And yes, you do need ID. These regulations and security measures are constitutional and legal.

My question then is for shanek - are these gov't mandated and controlled (whether they are done directly by gov't or done by third party contractors) searches ethical?

 

[shanek]

Of course. My point is merely that the constitution is not an ethical authority,

It doesn't need to be for the point I was making. If you're going to harp on the rule of law for the law you're trying to support, but then ignore it when it comes to the Supreme Law, I'd say you've got an ethical problem as well as a legal one.

I'm saying that when discussing whether a suggested law is ethically right, then, for the sake of the discussion it is immaterial if the law is constitutional.

I understand that. But if you're going to appeal to the "rule of law" for support for enforcing the law, then what is it if you ignore the Constitution?

 

[Checkmite]

I was under the impression that the TSA's authority was granted by Congress under Article 1, section 8, paragraphs 3 and 18 of the Constitution.

 

[shanek]

In Canada, airports are under federal jurisdiction as is the regulation of air travel.

Actually, there is at least one private commercial airport in Canada. It was featured on a Stossel special.

My question then is for shanek - are these gov't mandated and controlled (whether they are done directly by gov't or done by third party contractors) searches ethical?

I'd need more information, such as whether or not the private airports are required to do this screening or if there's any other way competition can step in.

 

[shanek]

I was under the impression that the TSA's authority was granted by Congress under Article 1, section 8, paragraphs 3 and 18 of the Constitution.

Clause 3 is the so-called "commerce clause," and this is just one of the many blatant misuses of the clause. Clause 18 is the "necessary and proper" clause, and although it's been misused as well, its proper use requires a specific power " vested by this Constitution."

 

[Thanz]

Actually, there is at least one private commercial airport in Canada. It was featured on a Stossel special.

Where? Is it a major international airport?

I'd need more information, such as whether or not the private airports are required to do this screening or if there's any other way competition can step in.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it applies to any airport, or section of the airport, that the public has right of access to by purchasing a ticket for air travel. That is, it applies to everyone who buys a ticket on a commercial airline, but would not apply to someone who flys their own Cessna for pleasure.

Much like a bar that cannot sell alcohol to minors, an airport could not allow access to ticketed passenger areas without the mandatory minimum security screening.

 

[shanek]

Where? Is it a major international airport?

Yes. It was an airport in Toronto; that's all I remember.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it applies to any airport, or section of the airport, that the public has right of access to by purchasing a ticket for air travel.

Then it's not, as they have no business using force to make everyone subjects to what they think is best.

 

[Thanz]

Yes. It was an airport in Toronto; that's all I remember.

The Toronto area international airport is run by the GTAA, who describes themselves thusly:

7. The GTAA (Greater Toronto Airports Authority) is a corporation without share capital, whose mandate is to provide the Greater Toronto Area with a regional system of airports to meet the current and future demands for air services. Under the federal government’s National Airports Policy, the GTAA is authorized to operate airports on a commercial basis and to set all fees, rates and charges for the use of Pearson Airport. On December 2, 1996, the GTAA assumed the operation, control and management of Pearson Airport from Transport Canada pursuant to a Ground Lease between the GTAA and the federal government.

They operate the Airport, but they do not own it or the land it sits on. It's operation was outsourced, but I don't think that makes it "private".

Then it's not, as they have no business using force to make everyone subjects to what they think is best.

I am not sure what you mean here. But first, some facts. After 9/11, the pre-boarding screening (PBS) and security for airports has been taken over by CATSA. Their website is here

They now run all of the PBS and security at airports across the nation, though they can sub-contract to airports or to other security providers. The standards, however, are all set by CATSA. They were set up through specific federal legislation, which is constitutionally acceptable as the feds have the power over airports and air travel.

As for your assertion that it is wrong because it is the use of force to make everyone subject to what they think is best, well, that's a little to broad an explanation. ALL governmental action could be summarized this way - even the parts you agree with. The criminal law is about the government using force to subject everyone to what they think is best.

In essence, the gov't has passed a law saying that the gov't agency is responsible for airport security and will now be doing same. Is your problem with the gov't doing this at all (I think it is) regardless of the content of such security? IF so, why, specifically? What is it about airport security that makes you think the gov't should f off?