Answering C. J. Campbell on the Issue of Improper Questions Asked on the Airman Medical Application

jls" wrote in message
...
And he asks this nosy, meddlesome affront to the Constitution on your
application for a third class medical.

Here's the question: Do you have a history of nontraffic convictions
(misdeameanors or felonies)? And take a look at the intrusive question
next to it. Then ask yourself wtf that information has to do with a third
class medical. Oh, and by the way, the Social Security Act specifically
guarantees that the social security number is for social security and
social
security ONLY.
That is a myth. The Social Security Act never has said such a thing. At one
time Social Security cards had the warning "Not to be used for
identification" printed on them, but that was not because it was illegal. It
was because anyone could get a Social Security card with any name they
wanted printed on it. You could get more than one Social Security number if
you wanted it, each one with a different name. Also, the cards were easily
duplicated at any print shop and there was no law against counterfeiting
Social Security cards. Hence they were useless as identification. Newer
cards are harder to duplicate and no longer bear the warning that they are
not to be used as ID.
A series of executive orders dating back to the earliest days of Social
Security have required that all Federal government agencies use your Social
Security number as a single identification number. The IRS took a long time
to comply with the requirement, but eventually fell into line with everyone
else. The current FAA practice of issuing a pilot certificate number that is
not your SSN actually required an executive order releasing the FAA of this
obligation.

See the Privacy Act of 1974, which reflects the public's intent in an act of
Congress not to have private SSN's scattered here and yon.


There is also no Constitutional prohibition against anyone asking about your
criminal record for any purpose.


Nobody said there was and you are trying to be cute here. The point is
that petty misdemeanors have nothing to do with an airman medical unless
related to safe flight, such as crimes involving drugs or alcohol. In
addition there is ample caselaw on the subject of due process when an airman
is indicted and prosecuted for giving false answers on the airman medical
application. Where the airman gets in trouble he has falsified concerning
a record of alcoholism or alcohol- or drug-related convictions impinging on
his ability to fly safely. No one would disagree with the reasonableness
of that inquiry on the airman medical application.



At one time pilot certificates were
required to be issued only to persons of "good moral character."


Furnish proof. Good moral character is a prereq to licensing an ATP, just
as it is to licensing the pilot of a ship which carries passengers to sea.



Things
could get a lot worse. [as the detractors said to the participants in the
Boston Tea Party, just before the tea began to fly.] The FAA could stop
asking about your criminal history
and various states and municipalities could then demand that you get a
thorough background check before getting a pilot certificate.

Nope. The feds have the jurisdiction here.


No court has ever held that you have an unlimited right to conceal your
criminal history


Wrong again. Ever heard of expunctions? Have you heard of judicial
remissions of juvenile crimes? I know of a burglar who became a lawyer and
a grand thief who became a banker because of the niceties of the expunged
criminal history and the fact that in both cases the criminal had
"aristocratic" family connections. The father of the burglar was a
Superior Court judge. Admit that the law is for the wealthy and powerful
and not for you or me, unless of course you happen to be a member of the
upper class. In addition, admit that you are wrong here, because you most
certainly are.


or go through life without a SSN.


But people do, and it is entirely legal, if this has anything to do with the
issue at hand, which apparently you are unable to face.


In fact, the thirteenth
amendment specifically states that your Constitutional rights may be duly
revoked as a punishment for crimes.


Wrong. One may lose one's rights of citizenship as a result of a felony
conviction, never for a misdemeanor. In my state those rights are restored
upon the end of incarceration, whereupon the ex-convict may resume his right
to vote.


You may even be legally enslaved.

Nope and what are you smoking? Where is your support for this absurd
contention? You ought to read United States VS. Kosminski and the various
civil rights acts and stop misinterpreting the 13th Amendment. Plus you
need to stop holding yourself out as someone learned in the law. I have
forgotten more law than you know, and I haven't forgotten much.


The
ninth amendment is the basis (rightly or wrongly) for many important
rulings, including the right to privacy, the right to an abortion, the right
to travel, and the right to be informed of your rights when you are
arrested.

Wrong. You're running up a score, aren't you? The Supreme Court has
been terrified of the 9th Amendment now for decades. See 2 books by
Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg on the subject, and you can google my comments
on them in other NG's. You are in deep error here. Privacy caselaw comes
from the 4th, 5th, and 14th; Miranda rights from the 5th and 14th, for
example.


The courts have consistently held that none of the enumerated
rights nor any other right 'found' by the courts are absolute.


Cite? You are wrong, of course and do not furnish any authority for this
ridiculous statement. Do you see anything ambiguous or non-absolute, or
conditional about THIS right?: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people.

Or this one?:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws .



All rights
have certain limitations attached to them.

No, they most certainly do not. Congress shall make NO law respecting an
establishment of religion. Is there some limitation attached to this
declaration? No, there is not.


Hence the right to bear arms does
not include a right to possess nuclear weapons, you may not shout 'fire' in
a movie theater when there is no fire, you are restricted in your right to
publish defamatory statements


Prior restraint? Nope. But you may be called to answer for defamation.



[.] You are, of course, free to express your disagreement with
the courts, but you are obligated as a citizen to obey the law of the land
while you enjoy the privileges, protections and security of those laws.

You need to read more law which obviously you have read too little of.
Unconstitutional laws you are not required to obey.

As penance for your rant, you are hereby required to tattoo your SSN on your
forehead and the palm of your hand. You also need to set up an appointment
with your doctor so that he can implant your microchip.

OK, I take your humor here with a smile. And note that I had to find your
reply by googling for it in Google groups because my ISP, Bellsouth, in its
infinite wisdom and as hovering parens patriae decided it was not suitable
for my reading, or replying thereto.

If you really knew anything about the law then you would not be shooting
your mouth off about the loss of all our Constitutional rights. Very few
lawyers think that anything of the kind has happened.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
If you really knew anything about the law then you would not be shooting
your mouth off about the loss of all our Constitutional rights. Very few
lawyers think that anything of the kind has happened.

Cite?

And I notice you never provided any cites to all your other zany contentions
either.

Involuntary servitude legal? That's hilarious.