mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
Please go read case law that actually explains just how wrong you are. It's ok.
Third Class Reform By End of July?
- Thread starter MichiPilot
- Start date
Please go read case law that actually explains just how wrong you are. It's ok.
Again, horse hockey. There has to be a legitimate reason to deny, else you have recourse. It's as simple as that;
FAA: "Yes your Honor, he's qualified, passed the test, check ride, and physical. But he said mean things about us on the Internet, so we denied".
How's that gonna come out? It's silly, of course, because most of the time no one at FAA would be that harebrained.
My point was, for practical purposes, the ticket is a lot closer to a right, once you jump through the hoops. And to stay on point, the third class requirement is a hoop that is without merit.
FAA: "Yes your Honor, he's qualified, passed the test, check ride, and physical. But he said mean things about us on the Internet, so we denied".
How's that gonna come out? It's silly, of course, because most of the time no one at FAA would be that harebrained.
My point was, for practical purposes, the ticket is a lot closer to a right, once you jump through the hoops. And to stay on point, the third class requirement is a hoop that is without merit.
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
Again, case law states driving is a privilege. You say it doesn't. Show me the case that states it is a right and I'll show case by state that says it is
FlyingElvii
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2016
- Messages
- 798
- Display Name
Display name:
flyingElvii
There are hundreds of older 150's/152's/172's and others out there rotting, largely because the pilot population is aging, and the barrier-to-entry for the largest group that can afford them, (older Americans now free of child obligations) is too high. Medical reform will go a LONG way to changing that.
And don't even get me started on the 1500-hour rule. Until the airlines grow some stones and single out DC for cancellations due to "Pilot Shortage" this is only going to get worse.
I'll refer you to Websters for "de facto" - the state (or FAA) can paint it pink and call it Mary; at day's end, the appelation isn't relevant; for practical purposes, they have to issue, absent a legitimate reason not to. And they need a legitimate reason to pull your license or ticket, once issued.
Being practical here - voting is a "right", too. Enumerated as such. Can also be curtailed in some places by a felony conviction. Absent that, you register, you vote. You pass the drving test, you get to drive.
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
You can keep saying it but it does not make it so. Case law does but you keep refusing to admit that
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
The Supreme Court did a review of case law in Shapiro v. Thompson, and concluded that travel is a right, and that it must not be unreasonably burdened or restricted:
"This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement."
So if we're going to take case law seriously, then we have to conclude that prohibiting someone from driving a car or piloting a plane must not be done "unreasonably."
Although I'm personally not comfortable with the word "privilege," I'm far more concerned with whether the above principles are applied than with what terminology we use.
mulligan
Cleared for Takeoff
This will not only be my last post on this thread but also my last post in this board. You sited free travel but yet the issue at hand here is driving as a privilege and not free travel. Courts have ruled time and time again that driving is in fact a privilege and not a right. Your case site free travel and not driving. There are far too many ass hats that just argue to be a pain in the ass. I don't have the time or energy for any of it. I'll go elsewhere to get my entertainment then this **** board where people have no common ****ing sense
MichiPilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2014
- Messages
- 375
- Display Name
Display name:
MichiPilot
this is why we can't have nice things or a decent discussion.
DFH65
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 2,616
- Display Name
Display name:
DFH65
Mulligan you are the exception in many ways and I will just leave it at that.
While I agree that in some ways flying can drive people to stay healthy, I lost 80 pounds (still need to lose more), but the other reality is many people don't seek medical attention because they don't want to lose their medical.
Privilege or right is irrelevant at least to me. You are obviously the type of person who wants the government to control their lives and the people around them. I would wager most of the others here are not. It's fine you also have the RIGHT in this country to be wrong.
While I agree that in some ways flying can drive people to stay healthy, I lost 80 pounds (still need to lose more), but the other reality is many people don't seek medical attention because they don't want to lose their medical.
Privilege or right is irrelevant at least to me. You are obviously the type of person who wants the government to control their lives and the people around them. I would wager most of the others here are not. It's fine you also have the RIGHT in this country to be wrong.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
You haven't provided any case citations. I have.
Driving is a form of travel. The Court said that the right to travel may not be "unreasonably burdened or restricted." I'm saying that denying a person a specific form of travel without a reasonable justification would be an obvious violation of the principle that the Supreme Court stated.
It sounds like there's about to be one less of those on this board.
The problem is that you're getting too wrapped up in the definition of terms. What matters is the principle involved. Whether you call it a privilege or a right, restriction of specific methods of travel should be reasonable, and that means that they should have a rational basis.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
True. The following poll is based on an inadequate sample, so we don't know how many fall into that category, but the results are at least suggestive that it may be a significant percentage:
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...-affect-how-often-you-consult-a-doctor.67412/
midcap
Pattern Altitude
No reason to leave over a matter of semantics.
ircphoenix
En-Route
Driving is a privilege. Not a right.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
I see that people are still wasting their time on terminology. Only one of those cases was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but all three involve reasonable denials of driver's licenses, and therefore they do not violate the principle I quoted from Shapiro v. Thompson.
Jeffythequick
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2015
- Messages
- 356
- Location
- Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Jeffythequick
In simple terms, just because it made one person take better care of themselves is a great thing. My adventure through getting a class 3 (still haven't gotten it yet) made me take better control of my health as well, but I don't want my motivation to be an impediment to others.
It's as if the FAA is charged with the impossible: making sure that anyone they give a class 3 (or 2 or 1) to doesn't die in the air, or make it so they don't on the ground when they smack into it from altitude.
In the end, the regulations they impose start making it a choice between lying and flying or never staying on the ground, forever wishing we could be up there. I'm for 3rd class reform, mainly because freedom with responsibility is a good thing.
It's as if the FAA is charged with the impossible: making sure that anyone they give a class 3 (or 2 or 1) to doesn't die in the air, or make it so they don't on the ground when they smack into it from altitude.
In the end, the regulations they impose start making it a choice between lying and flying or never staying on the ground, forever wishing we could be up there. I'm for 3rd class reform, mainly because freedom with responsibility is a good thing.
Jeffythequick
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2015
- Messages
- 356
- Location
- Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Jeffythequick
ircphoenix
En-Route
Only one was decided by the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court's decision is notable insofar as it deliberately states that driving is a privilege... as noted by the use of the term "driving privileges."
You're right to an extent. Case law has established that a state cannot arbitrarily deny a license without a process that is based on non-discriminatory standards and has a process for review of that denial. But semantics are SUPER important when discussing legal issues. Privilege and right cannot be used interchangeably. TRAVEL has been determined to be a fundamental right. The means by WHICH you travel are NOT necessarily rights. There's a substantial difference.
Neil Rubin
Pre-takeoff checklist
The notion that "X is a privilege, not a right" is something that you often hear from laypeople, but lawyers and courts don't use the words "privilege" or "right" to make this sort of distinction, and I'm not aware of any modern Supreme Court doctrine that depends on classifying something as a "privilege" versus a "right."
Indeed, the "right" of interstate travel that everyone in this debate seems to agree exists (i.e., the right to travel by some means, not necessarily by your preferred means) is one that the majority of the Supreme Court in at least one case has suggested is based upon the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of Article IV of the Constitution. Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 66, 73 (1982). In other words, the majority of the Supreme Court in that case was willing to accept that a portion of the Constitution that guarantees "privileges" created a "right to travel."
Perhaps those on this board who are so convinced that they can answer a debate by saying "privilege, not a right" should explain to the poor benighted Supreme Court that it has been reading the Constitution incorrectly.
As for what the cases that you cite actually held, Miller v. Reed said that a man that refused to give his social security number to the DMV to renew his driver's license because he claimed that sharing his social security number violated his religious beliefs had no right that the state was violating. Dixon v. Love said that the state could temporarily revoke a driver's license for three speeding violations in a 12-month period prior to holding an evidentiary hearing (the driver argued that the revocation should not have happened until after the hearing). In Berberian v. Petit, a driver whose license was revoked for a second DUI challenged the revocation because it was made by the state registry of motor vehicles, not by a court, and the court said that there was no violation of the driver's rights.
Really, none of these cases was about the right to travel. Miller was really a religion case, and both Dixon and Berberian were due process cases, where the question was not about whether the right to drive could be taken away for repeated speeding or DUI (the drivers in both cases appear to have conceded that it could be) but about the level of procedural protections the state needs to provide before it takes away that right.
As these cases show, the cases where people argue for a "right to travel" by car tend to be brought by unsympathetic drivers, that are arguing there can't be any rules at all, have demonstrated repeated unsafe driving behaviors, or are claiming implausible religious beliefs. For understandable political reasons (most voters depend on the ability to drive to work and/or carry out basic tasks in life), governments in the U.S. very rarely try to impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to drive. If a state really tried to enact a crazy restriction on driving (e.g., nobody can drive in the state on Tuesdays), I suspect the courts would find a way to conclude that there is a right to drive a car.
Neil Rubin
Pre-takeoff checklist
Only one was decided by the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court's decision is notable insofar as it deliberately states that driving is a privilege... as noted by the use of the term "driving privileges."
You're right to an extent. Case law has established that a state cannot arbitrarily deny a license without a process that is based on non-discriminatory standards and has a process for review of that denial. But semantics are SUPER important when discussing legal issues. Privilege and right cannot be used interchangeably. TRAVEL has been determined to be a fundamental right. The means by WHICH you travel are NOT necessarily rights. There's a substantial difference.
The Court in Dixon does refer to "driving privileges," but nowhere does it say that those privileges are not rights. That's not a distinction that the Court ever makes in that opinion. Indeed, the Court expressly held that suspension of a driver's license is subject to the Constitution's Due Process Clause (a clause that, in its Fifth Amendment form appears in the Bill of "Rights"). It also refers to the driver's license as a "property interest" and refers to the driver's "procedural rights" with respect to the driver's license suspension. The Court does say that the state did not need to hold a separate formal evidentiary hearing before suspending the license of a driver that was already convicted of speeding three times in a 12-month period. But, the main reason that the Court gives that a hearing was unnecessary is that the driver already had the opportunity to contest the three speeding citations in court and was convicted each time--i.e., that there was really nothing further to be decided in a hearing.
If anything, Dixon makes clear that the government needs to apply procedures that are reasonable under the circumstances to suspend a driver's license, just like the government does when it takes away "rights." It is true that the Court uses the words "privileges" or "interests," but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck (or in this case, a right).
Anyway, this debate is all hopelessly off topic. Congress is probably going to pass the PBOR2 sometime in the next few months. And that's going to happen because powerful members of Congress want it to happen (and because of a concerted lobbying campaign), not because there is a "right" to fly without visiting an AME every couple years.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Thanks for the clear analyses!
Yeah, I can see how this discussion misses the point regarding third class medical reform. I think there are things FAA Aeromedical does that are unreasonable or violate due process, but I don't think the mere existence of medical certification for pilots of small private aircraft is one of them.
Yeah, I can see how this discussion misses the point regarding third class medical reform. I think there are things FAA Aeromedical does that are unreasonable or violate due process, but I don't think the mere existence of medical certification for pilots of small private aircraft is one of them.