Cranberry

For a disinterested third party, you are very interested. I’d hate to see your enthusiasm if you were an interested first party. You might post even more.

President Trump even said that on the 4th of July they took over airports. So yeah I think the founding fathers had a good idea about aviation.

Excargodog

Nonsense. What the FAA should NOT be able to do without Congressional action is to promulgate rules that have the force of laws. Congress can take advice from alphabet agencies, and having known a few Congresspersons I’d strongly suggest that, but then Congress should actually TAKE A VOTE to pass legislation and have to be responsible to their constituents for their decisions. Congress pushing their own responsibilities off on unelected bureaucrats is dereliction of duty.

If you are looking for a disagreement from me you are going to have to choose a different subject.
​​​​​​​

Av8ing4u

JSX is flying scheduled flights with traditional Regional Jets. The only thing separating JSX from other airlines operating these jets under Part 212 is the amount of seats on their planes. It's imperative that the FAA acts fairly in this case and treats JSX the same way they do every other scheduled airline flying E135/145's. JSX is using a technical loophole to gain an unfair advantage over the competition and not even compliant with the maximum 9 seat rule for scheduled 135 operations. This is clearly an unfair business practice and it needs to be stopped ASAP. The FAA implemented new rules on pilots in the interest of safety, why should this not apply to JSX? Because they have less seats on their planes than the competition?

SonicFlyer

No, but they created the ability to amend the document if the need arose.

SonicFlyer

Yeah I agree with this. But the FAA, like most of what the rest of the federal government does, is unconstitutional.

SonicFlyer

Of course. But that's why they put in a provision to allow for amendments.

Blatantly false. Dunno who told you that, but they lied to you.

Please cite the phrase in the Constitution that allows the feds to regulate air travel?

The 10th Amendment says otherwise.


The 9th Amendment says otherwise.

JamesNoBrakes

Insert Looney-Tunes "screwball" picture here.

JamesNoBrakes

Hey, I can help you:​​​​​​​It's amazing that people think they didn't actually cover this in law. I mean, you might find a loophole somewhere for something...but for basic stuff, you're off your rocker. It's amazing that people spew this kind of stuff and think it's correct/real.

idontknoworcare

i know its in the law. but the idea that driving is a privilege is complete bs. i HAVE THE RIGHT to transport myself from point a to point b. and requiring me to get a drivers license is a hoop that i have to jump through to exercise this right. if its a right i just straight up have it its not a privilege that can be taken away. inalienable rights are inalienable because you cant put a lien on them. they CANT be taken away.

JohnBurke

Driving an automobile on property other than your own, is not a right. It is a privilege. The law requires a driver license. The law can take away the driver license. It is a privilege. There's no room for debate on that. There is no right established b any doctrine or document which give s you the right to travel by car. You have a privilege. Were driving an inalienable right, inherent and an article of citizenship, then you'd have no suspension or revocation of driving privileges. You wouldn't need a driver license. Driving, however, is a privilege, and holding that privilege is dependent upon passing written and practical driving tests, and upon observing the laws associated with driving. Privileges may be suspended or removed entirely based on any number of failures to abide the law.

You have a right to move yourself from A to B. You do not have a right to drive a car to get there, or fly an airplane. You have privileges that will allow you to use those methods of transport, and you can lose those privileges. Likewise, you can ride a train or bus or take a commercial flight, but you can also be denied from any of those, if your behavior becomes egregious. You can be banned by an airline, or a bus line; a bus line might deny you transit or throw you off the bus if you don't follow the rules. Drinking on the bus, for example. Passage on those transport mediums is not a right; it is a privilege contingent on your ability to abide the rules which govern the use of that transport.

You can fly your private airplane with your private pilot certificate, both of which are privileges contingent on your ability to meet the practical standard to become a pilot, and the airplane that meets airworthiness requirements. Compromise either, and your privileges are reduced or removed. Likewise, a medical certificate is not a right, but a privilege and a requirement in order to exercise your airman privileges. You may end up losing medical privileges, and thus your airman privileges, because you abuse your driving privileges by driving and drinking alcohol. You can sit in your living room and drink to your hearts content on your property, but not get drunk on a road or a public space: both can result in loss of privileges, or even loss of freedom, and many other privileges.

Not rights. Privileges for which thresholds must be met to obtain, and to keep. These can be lost, taken away. Not rights. Privileges contingent on behavior and ability and compliance. You can call a horse a cow, but it's still a horse, and you can call a privilege a right, but it's still a privilege, all of your ranting to the contrary, aside.