Freedom of Movement Under United States Law, Should Kill the No Fly List
In a recent Page it became apparent that some think the government can arbitrarily impede our travel from city to city, state to state. No they cannot. And the idea that the court cases predate flight and so don’t cover it is as ludicrous and damaging as the idea that the police could grab our private email communications without a warrant and use it to prosecute us. Telephone conversations? Private, get a warrant.
Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” As far back as the circuit court ruling in Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), the Supreme Court recognized freedom of movement as a fundamental Constitutional right. In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.”[1] However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the “privileges and immunities” clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883).[2][3]
More: Freedom of movement under United States law
Or Put another way…
RACIAL PROFILING IN THE NAME OF
NATIONAL SECURITY: PROTECTING
MINORITY TRAVELERS’ CIVIL LIBERTIES
IN THE AGE OF TERRORISM
Yevgenia S. KleinerAbstract:
Government-sponsored ethnic and racial profiling in the form of computerized and behavioral screening initiatives implemented as a response to 9/11 has led to the subjection of minorities to increased scrutiny and suspicion in American airports. In the name of national security, safety protocols are being enacted in non-uniform ways that disproportionally infringe on minority passengers’ civil liberties and reinforce harmful racial stereotypes. Focusing on the dissonance between basic freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the
security policies implemented by the federal government, this Note argues that the disparity in scrutiny received by minority travelers is counterproductive because it reinforces racism and ethnocentrism as social norms and fails to ensure a consistent level of protection for all passengers. This Note ultimately advocates for a federal government mandate that delineates a universal, race-blind standard for the level of scrutiny (and accompanying procedures) that all passengers should be subjected to while traveling aboard commercial aircraft.
How bad? Check this out
Muslim travelers say they’re still saddled with 9/11 baggage
This was the welcome that Hassan Shibly, traveling with his wife and infant son, said they received in August 2010, when they returned to the United States from Jordan, after traveling to Mecca.“Are you part of any Islamic tribe? Have you ever studied Islam full time? How many gods do you believe in?” “How many prophets do you believe in?” the agent at New York’s JFK Airport asked, according to Shibly, 24, a Syrian-born Muslim American. He said the agent searched his luggage, pulling out his Quran and a hand-held digital prayer counter.
“At the end — I guess (the agent) was trying to be nice — he said, ‘Sorry, I hope you understand we just have to make sure nothing gets blown up,’” said Shibly, a law school graduate who grew up in Buffalo.