ADIZ incursion - where were the lasers?

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:35:16 -0400, Ron Natalie
wrote in : :

Larry Dighera wrote:


How does the government justify such a position in the case of
recreational flyers?

Because the courts have interpretted [the government's
Constitutionally granted right to manage interstate commerce] to
mean any interstate travel (even personal or recreational).
Don't argue with me, I'm just telling you how it is.

I'm not arguing with you. I'm seeking information from someone who
professes to be familiar with the subject, and am grateful for the
information you provide.

So your understanding is, that the government considers all interstate
travel to be commerce. To me, that seems to contradict the meaning of
the word 'commerce', but I'm not a Judge. Surely, it appears to leave
room for argument at least.



Are you able to provide any information detailing the government's
revoking a citizen's _right_ to fly? Such a right seems to be
confirmed by the this act:


The Federal Aviation Act would be without meaning without the commerce
clause. It couldn't grant any rights or place any restraints without it.

Given, that Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress
the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes.

I assume that you mean this is where the government's authority over
the skies originates, so the government wouldn't specifically have
Constitutionally granted jurisdiction over the skies unless commerce
were occurring in them? From my point of view, it would seem that the
government has jurisdiction only over those flights that actually
involve commerce, and those recreational flights during which no
business is conducted, would be exempt from Constitutionally derived
governmental jurisdiction.

Of course, 230 years ago the drafters of the Constitution had no idea
that the issue of airborne commerce would ever develop, given that the
tenuous, first balloon flights occurred in 1783. So that document
couldn't logically be interpreted as specifically including air travel
among it's dictates.



Sec. 104 [49 U. S. Code 1304]. There is hereby recognized and
declared to exist in behalf of any citizen of the United States a
public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace
of the United States.

There two key issues he

1. Right to transit means you can be on a plane through that airspace,
not necessarily that you can pilot it yourself.

If the government recognizes my right to transit through navigable
airspace without their qualifying the means of said transit, it would
seem that those means are left to my discretion.

2. Navigable airspace doesn't mean all airspace.

It would be interesting to find the government's official definition
of 'navigable airspace'. I presume they mean any airspace on which
they haven't placed restrictions. But from a strictly logical
interpretation, it would seem that such restrictions are based on
Constitutional authority granting the government the right to regulate
commerce, and if a flight isn't conducting commerce, it would be
exempt from such governmentally imposed restrictions.

While I can appreciate the chaos that might occur as a result of such
an interpretation, it none the less may be a useful basis for someone
who is willing to take the issue of governmentally imposed penalties
resulting from an airspace incursion to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for the information you have provided.