Is air travel a right or a privilege?

[Coder]

Breaking this off into a new discussion.

Is air travel a constitutional right? If not, is it a natural right?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread632385/pg1

Is traveling by air a right or a privilege?
Is an airline ticket a private contract between yourself and the airline?
Is an airline ticket a warrant?
Does the government have the right to poke, prod, grope, or x-ray us?
When the government insists on using these measures, is it not hindering our right to travel?
Is it executing its proper authority in keeping commerce regular, per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3?
Or is it hindering commerce and travel among free people?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[NC Bullseye]

It's just as much a right as it is to buy Twinkies.

[Coder]

I'll also add that when our fledgling country was debating whether or not to have a "Bill of Rights", the argument was made by many that if all of our rights were to be written down, that this would fill volumes (and therefore we shouldn't list any). I think that if our founders were to write these "volumes" of rights down today, included would be air travel.

[mcp1810]

Numerous courts have held that restricting one mode of transportation (flying) does not infringe on your right to travel.

[bigmacque]

Neither. It's an option.

[varob]

I too say neither, it's a service for fee.

[ctsketch]

Buy your own plane, problem solved

[azchevy]

Travel is a service offered for a price in a free market and just another thing that is regulated by the feds

[MattInFla]

Breaking this off into a new discussion.

Is air travel a constitutional right?

I cannot find anything in the Constitution that identifies air travel as a right, nor anything which protects or reserves such a right.

If not, is it a natural right?

Sure - if you can naturally fly, then it is your natural right to fly.

Matt

[OPFOR]

If driving has long been legally established as a priveledge, it's hard to argue that flying is not... Legally, this matter isn't even a question. What we'd LIKE it to be, certainly, is much more open to debate.

Obviously, the Framer's couldn't envision commercial air travel. Nor could they enumerate every single right that they believed was "natural" to mankind. That said, almost all air travel is interstate (and, even if it isn't, the plane, the crew, the airline etc are all "interstate" in some manner or another) and some nexus is therefore created to the (much overused) interstate commerce clause. By purchasing a ticket, you are agreeing not only to abide by regulations, but by the airlines rules as well, and all airlines that I am aware of have restrictions on what you can bring, how you can act, etc while on their "property." What lengths they (or the govt) can go to to enforce these rules is less clear, but it is undeniable that you are VOLUNTEERING to fly, and therefore agree to abide by all the rules (governmental and otherwise) that apply.

[ctsketch]

if driving(a privileged granted when proven responsible) and other types of travel(commercial services) are not rights...then why should air travel be?

[Coder]

Sure - if you can naturally fly, then it is your natural right to fly.

Ha! Nice...

[azchevy]

So if they start using car bombs all of you who support the tsa are cool with random checkpoints and stops to ransack your vehicles regardless of your time commitments to ensure public safety? I mean driving is a privilege like air travel right? You drive you are subject to car inspections on the road without probable cause

[Daddy Warcrimes]

A right to fly? Yes, we have a right to fly.
Several "howevers" to this:

Most flights at some point pass over private property. It is completely reasonable for them to do this. Air traffic at high altitude does very little to disturb those on the ground. It is further reasonable to grant easement to the airspace above private property.

As air traffic is an essential component of interstate commerce; the federal government therefore has a mandate to ensure it's continuance. They may do this by partitioning airspace and establishing standards of movement.

They also have a duty to protect the property below, and therefore may create standards of skyworthyness for the equipment and personnel involved.

Since planes have been shown to be a popular and effective improvised weapon, it seems reasonable that a standard for cockpit security might be established in the form of hardened doors for passenger craft of a certain size.

Beyond that, I can justify very little of the government's intervention.

[bigmacque]

I've actually always had a problem with driving as a privelage -- the taxes I pay build the roads, I buy the car with my own hard-earned money, and even in that light it's still just an option: I don't have to buy a car or drive, I could bicycle everywhere I want or need to go.

Air travel is a little different in that it's subsidized so much, and it takes so much more regulation for basic safety that it takes more of our tax dollars - of course, the auto industry is now also subsidized.

But what if all of it were treated as an option? What if we threw out all of the regulators, and let a free market truly rule how you travel, by what means, what vehicles you drive, etc? Would the same approach work with air travel?