If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:56:54 -0700, "John Lakesford"
wrote in :: As someone noted here previously, there is nothing in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about aimlessly. Actually, anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is a right of the people or states. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"John Lakesford" wrote As someone noted here previously, there is nothing in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about aimlessly. TROLL ALERT ! ! ! ! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 17 May 2005 18:22:34 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in : : Unfortunately, the government takes the commerce clause as justifying "delegated to the US." Given the definition of the word 'commerce": Main Entry: commerce Pronunciation:*k*-(*)m*rs Function:noun Etymology:Middle French, from Latin commercium, from com- + merc-, merx merchandise Date:1537 1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments 2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place 3 : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE synonyms see BUSINESS How does the government justify such a position in the case of recreational flyers? Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be confirmed by the this act: Federal Aviation Act of 1958: PUBLIC RIGHT OF TRANSIT Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States. Source: Sec. 3, Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Note that Sec. 104 does not grant the right to fly, it simply recognizes that it exists. None of our rights are granted by the government, we simply have them. Now, there are certainly rules to be followed, but those rules don't take away from your rights, they protect the rights of others. You have a right to fly, it is not a privilege. If you meet all the requirements, you cannot be denied an airman's certificate, you have a right to it. However, it seems the Law Judge sees it otherwise: From: "Rick Cremer" Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting Subject: Arrrgghhh!! FAA strikes again... Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:02:45 -0500 Message-ID: [...] NTSB Hearing Order EA-4232; Docket SE-13136. Here is [sic] the pertinent parts of that Law Judge's finding: The FAA is charged with being sure that it fulfills its mission to the public and that is keeping the airways and aircraft that use these airways safe. Flying is a privilege, it is not a right and all airmen are charged with discharging their duties in a highly conscientious, responsible and prudent manner and at all times. [...] |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Larry Dighera wrote:
How does the government justify such a position in the case of recreational flyers? Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is. Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be confirmed by the this act: The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it. Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States. There two key issues he 1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace, not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself. 2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in : : Larry Dighera wrote: How does the government justify such a position in the case of recreational flyers? Because the courts have interpretted [the government's Constitutionally granted right to manage interstate commerce] to mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is. I'm not arguing with you. I'm seeking information from someone who professes to be familiar with the subject, and am grateful for the information you provide. So your understanding is, that the government considers all interstate travel to be commerce. To me, that seems to contradict the meaning of the word 'commerce', but I'm not a Judge. Surely, it appears to leave room for argument at least. Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be confirmed by the this act: The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it. Given, that Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress the power: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. I assume that you mean this is where the government's authority over the skies originates, so the government wouldn't specifically have Constitutionally granted jurisdiction over the skies unless commerce were occurring in them? From my point of view, it would seem that the government has jurisdiction only over those flights that actually involve commerce, and those recreational flights during which no business is conducted, would be exempt from Constitutionally derived governmental jurisdiction. Of course, 230 years ago the drafters of the Constitution had no idea that the issue of airborne commerce would ever develop, given that the tenuous, first balloon flights occurred in 1783. So that document couldn't logically be interpreted as specifically including air travel among it's dictates. Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States. There two key issues he 1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace, not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself. If the government recognizes my right to transit through navigable airspace without their qualifying the means of said transit, it would seem that those means are left to my discretion. 2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace. It would be interesting to find the government's official definition of 'navigable airspace'. I presume they mean any airspace on which they haven't placed restrictions. But from a strictly logical interpretation, it would seem that such restrictions are based on Constitutional authority granting the government the right to regulate commerce, and if a flight isn't conducting commerce, it would be exempt from such governmentally imposed restrictions. While I can appreciate the chaos that might occur as a result of such an interpretation, it none the less may be a useful basis for someone who is willing to take the issue of governmentally imposed penalties resulting from an airspace incursion to the Supreme Court. Thank you for the information you have provided. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote: Larry Dighera wrote: How does the government justify such a position in the case of recreational flyers? Because the courts have interpretted to mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational). Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is. Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be confirmed by the this act: The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it. Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace of the United States. There two key issues he 1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace, not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself. 2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace. There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a nighmare that would be! Klein |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The new owner of the "horse farm" that is under the departure end of RW 30
at Somerset Airport and is a common reporting point, firmly believes that he owns the airspace above his farm. He has been harrassing the airport for over a year, sending faxes and calling with tail numbers when he can, any time someone flies "low" over his house. For a while he had "NO FLY" painted on the roof of the house. More seriously, he recently got elected to the Bedminster Town Council, and has been organizing the airport neighbors against the airport. A lunatic, but a dangerous one. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "Klein" wrote in message ... snip There is also the interesting detail that Federal jurisdiction over airspace means that we do not have to secure permission of every landowner to fly through the airspace over their land. Imagine what a nighmare that would be! Klein |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Morgans wrote: "John Lakesford" wrote As someone noted here previously, there is nothing in the Constitution of this country that gives us a "right" to fly about aimlessly. TROLL ALERT ! ! ! ! I want to see them stop birds or insects flying in 'closed airspace. ROTFL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Busted ADIZ - What Now? | Scott Lowrey | Piloting | 25 | August 24th 04 06:13 AM |
Regarding the Subject of the ADIZ and Other Restrictions Following 9-11 | Larry Smith | Home Built | 1 | November 22nd 03 12:31 AM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
that Mooney in DC ADIZ | Cub Driver | Piloting | 10 | November 13th 03 09:15 PM |
DC-VA-MD ADIZ | Marissa Long | Piloting | 2 | November 11th 03 09:36 PM |