"Rich S." wrote in message
...
"Dale Scroggins" wrote in message
...

. . .Because flying over other people's property without permission has
never been a right, and certainly was not even a privilege at the time
the Constitution was written, how do you libertarians come up with any
basis for arguing that the government has limited authority in regulating
aviation?

I suggest a quick review of the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the
Constitution of the U.S. It has become a common fallacy to say. "if a
certain right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it therefore does not
exist". Nothing could be further from the truth. The Constitution does not
grant rights to the people - it restricts the powers of government.

I admit it has been a few years since I have reviewed the Ninth and Tenth
amendments. In twenty years of legal practice, I've not seen any
substantial claims or arguments based on either of these amendments. Most
references I see to them are in political arguments or usenet postings.
Could you point me to some references showing the impact of these amendments
on airspace law? I'd be especially be interested in the rights of states to
regulate air commerce, and of citizen rights to trespass in airspace owned
by others.

For that matter, perhaps you could point me to any significant body of case
law based upon either of these amendents.

Aviation would not exist in this country without government action.

You cannot be serious.

Trespassing is serious in my part of the US. Trespassers are regularly
shot. I've patched bullet holes in airplanes that flew too low over hunting
leases. Property rights are deadly serious business here.

If you like, I can e-mail you articles on development of airspace law in
this country and others. Dry reading for most people.


Rich S.
(retaining the cross-posting because I assume Mr. Scroggins is reading
rec.aviation.piloting)


I began building airplanes in 1972. I read rec.aviation.homebuilt
occasionally. You assumed wrong.

Dale Scroggins