A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 02:35 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Sancho Panza writes:

A law passed by Congress and signed by the President prohibits that.


You know, it's not that hard to actually look things up.

The "law passed by Congress" is 49 USC § 40127. The authority to pass this law
is granted to Congress by the Constitution.


But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing. It can be
repealed by a simple majority of Congress (Again under authority granted
under the constitution) without having to go through the rigamoral that
is required if you want to change to the constitution itself.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #22  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 03:34 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

On 11/1/2011 9:35 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Sancho Panza writes:

A law passed by Congress and signed by the President prohibits that.


You know, it's not that hard to actually look things up.

The "law passed by Congress" is 49 USC § 40127. The authority to pass this law
is granted to Congress by the Constitution.


But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing. It can be
repealed by a simple majority of Congress (Again under authority granted
under the constitution) without having to go through the rigamoral that
is required if you want to change to the constitution itself.


Federal laws are considered to have "constitutional backing" until they
are challenged and held to be otherwise by, say, a Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court. This is all basic civics that anyone commenting on
such questions should have down pat.

  #23  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 03:36 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

On 11/1/2011 12:06 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Kurt Ullman writes:

Constitutional rights only impact on governmental actions, not the
actions of a private entity.


Completely false. Every entity must respect most Constitutional provisions,
not just the government.


The O.P. is apparently unaware of the civil rights protests at places
like lunch counters and other privately owned public accommodations.


The best you might be able to do might be
kidnapping or something similar because you were held against your will,
but I wouldn't want to press it.


I would. In fact, I'd just open the door, blow the slide, and leave.


  #24  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 04:13 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

Kurt Ullman writes:

But the law itself has no other Constitutional backing.


It was passed by Congress, which is only possible because the Constitution
says that Congress can do this. Therefore it is backed by the Constitution.
  #25  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 04:40 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,830
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

Kurt Ullman writes:

Nope. I can kick you off my property at will even if you are OWS and
are occupying. No repercussions because there is no requirement that I
give you freedom of speech.


These actions do not generally conflict with the Constitution. However, if you
attempt to prevent a person from voting, or if you attempt to punish him for
exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech (as by firing him for
endorsing a political candidate, for example), you run into conflict with the
Constitution.

The first amendment, for instance, says specifically that Government
shall not, etc.


In general, and by extension, things forbidden to the government by the
Constitution are also forbidden to private entities. The government cannot
seize property under certain conditions, and by extention, this restriction
also applies to private entities such as corporations.

The reason corporations are not always required to guarantee freedom of speech
is that they do not have a monopoly over the means of expression--you can
express yourself outside the company even if the company prohibits this on its
premises. But if, for some reason, you do not have other options available to
you, the restrictions applied by a corporation might be unconstitutional.

But then you have violated (techically anyway) violated federal law
and you could be subject (technically anyway) to criminal prosecution.


Yes. But sometimes that's the only way to get the law changed. It would be an
interesting case, and could set useful precedents.
  #26  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 09:48 AM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In message someone claiming
to be Mxsmanic typed:

DevilsPGD writes:

No; but not due to constitutional restrictions, there are other laws
which prohibit such (or rather, which define penalties for doing so)


The "other law" is 49 USC § 40127 (a). I guess I'm the only person here who
actually looked it up rather than try to bluff my way through it.


I wasn't bluffing, I knew that the law exists, I just didn't know it's
particular name. Thanks for putting in the leg work.

--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
  #27  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 12:55 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

Nope. I can kick you off my property at will even if you are OWS and
are occupying. No repercussions because there is no requirement that I
give you freedom of speech.


These actions do not generally conflict with the Constitution. However, if you
attempt to prevent a person from voting, or if you attempt to punish him for
exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech (as by firing him for
endorsing a political candidate, for example), you run into conflict with the
Constitution.

Actually, I can fire a person in many states for endorsing a
candidate. If you are in an at-will state and have no other contractural
agreements (such as union or employment contracts), I don't even need a
reason to fire you. Even if I do get in trouble (legally) it won't be
because of first amendment issues, but because of employment law issues.
Laws only say I have to give you an opportunity to vote. If, for
instance, the polls don't close until 6 and you get off at four, I
usually don't have to give you any time off during work hours. So, I
probably could legally fire you for taking off early to vote.


The first amendment, for instance, says specifically that Government
shall not, etc.


In general, and by extension, things forbidden to the government by the
Constitution are also forbidden to private entities. The government cannot
seize property under certain conditions, and by extention, this restriction
also applies to private entities such as corporations.

The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause). The limits are placed by laws. What state and local governments
can do is limited by paying for it AND whatever their constitutions
allow (since states may place limits on emminent domain).
The restriction on corps (unless assisted by a governmental entity)
is related to theft, contract, and other laws. There is no
constitutional issue.



The reason corporations are not always required to guarantee freedom of speech
is that they do not have a monopoly over the means of expression--you can
express yourself outside the company even if the company prohibits this on its
premises. But if, for some reason, you do not have other options available to
you, the restrictions applied by a corporation might be unconstitutional.

But then you have violated (techically anyway) violated federal law
and you could be subject (technically anyway) to criminal prosecution.


Yes. But sometimes that's the only way to get the law changed. It would be an
interesting case, and could set useful precedents.


--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #28  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 07:18 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause).


Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration.
  #29  
Old November 2nd, 2011, 09:33 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Kurt Ullman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,653
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In article ,
Sancho Panza wrote:

On 11/2/2011 7:55 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause).


Courts have not upheld that overly broad declaration.



It is a little bit of superfluity, but not all that much. At least at
the Fed level, there has to be some public purpose, but the courts have
pretty much said public purpose is whatever the government says it is.
The ability to invoke eminent domain has always been around, viewed by
the courts as being inherent in sovereignty. It rests in the legislature
to say what can be condemned, but can be delegated to others.. say RRs
or utility.
The "public purpose" is the use defined in the constitution, statute
or ordinance. Berman v Parker set the modern definition of "public use"
when it decided the government could take the land and lease it to a
private developer for $1 a year. The same with Kelo v New London (CT).
In that case a resort hotel and conference center, new state park,
80-100 new residences, research, office and rental space, was a public
use and New London could condemn it. (Although these are related to
state or local condemnation, they all raised Fed constitutional
questions of what was a public purpose under the US constitution.
Find me a FEDERAL ruling that says differently from what I
mentioned.
States can, and do, add things to their laws on emmenient domain.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
  #30  
Old November 3rd, 2011, 01:51 AM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 79
Default At least 4 jets strand Conn. passengers for hours

In message someone claiming to be Fly Guy
typed:

But with regard to holding me on a plane for 7 hours against my will,
here we have a corporation (a legal person) interfering with my
liberty. Unless this has already been dealt with by the supreme court,
I say that it's high time that it should be.


First off, let me say that I agree completely; however, I'm going to
play devil's advocate a bit here.

So here's the question: Say someone takes it to court and the court
rules that people have the unqualified right to leave whenever they
want. Now what?

You're flying from city X to city Y, you've landed in city Z and are
stuck on a plane for 6 hours and decide to leave. What's your next
move?

--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passengers Trapped on Runway for 8 Hours at JFK Agent_C Air travel 106 February 20th, 2007 03:24 AM
JetBlue Passengers Stranded for Almost 11 Hours Ablang Air travel 0 February 18th, 2007 08:42 AM
AA holds passengers hostage in airplane for 9 hours James Robinson USA & Canada 0 January 11th, 2007 03:22 PM
Passengers Aboard Flight Delayed 18 Hours Larry R Harrison Jr Air travel 296 January 10th, 2005 11:31 PM
USA detains BA passengers for 3 hours nobody Air travel 28 January 4th, 2004 10:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.