The No-Fly List and WHY It Is Un-Constitutional

From Wikipedia (source):

Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”  The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.  By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.  For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.

What do you call a list that prevents people from exercising their basic Constitutional right of travel when it grows exponentially from 16 names to 1,000 in 1 year, and skyrockets another 69,000 names in three more years?

I call it a problem, particularly when:

A)  Honest, law-abiding citizens are placed on the list without being informed that they’ve been placed on the list

no-flyB)  They are not given an opportunity to defend the allegations before they’re placed on the list

C)  The first time they learn about being placed on

These aren’t the actions of the Constitutionally-based Republic we know as the United States of America.  These are the actions of Nazi Germany’s Schutzstaffel, literally the “Protection Squadron” originally assigned to protect Nazi Party meetings in 1925.  From Wikipedia (source):

“The Schutzstaffel (SS; also stylized as Runic "??" with Armanen runes; German pronunciation: [???ts??taf?l]; literally “Protection Squadron”) was a major paramilitary organization under Adolf no-flyHitler and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP; Nazi Party). It began with a small guard unit known as the Saal-Schutz (“Hall-Protection”) made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich. In 1925, Heinrich Himmler joined the unit, which had by then been reformed and given its final name. Under Himmler’s direction (1929–45), it grew from a small paramilitary formation to one of the most powerful organizations in the Third Reich. From 1929 until Nazi Germany’s collapse in 1945, the SS was the foremost agency of surveillance and terror within Germany itself and the occupied territories in Europe.”

The key word that leaps out at me from this paragraph is terror.

When someone has to explain Due Process to another American, let alone a law officer high up in the federal government, then that law officer is NOT QUALIFIED for the position and should be FIRED.  Here’s a prime example:

Without due process of law, whereby individuals have the opportunity to answer for any alleged wrong-doing, no-fly lists are UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.  Here’s why:

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.  The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may plausibly be inferred from the clause, as has been the case in several notable court cases.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause says that a citizen of one state is entitled to the privileges in another state, from which a right to travel to that other state may be inferred.  Indeed, in the 1982 case of Zobel v Williams, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the Privileges and Immunities Clause plausibly includes a right of interstate travel:

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner:  “Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause has enjoyed a long association with the rights to travel and migrate interstate. The Clause derives from Art. IV of the Articles of Confederation. The latter expressly recognized a right of “free ingress and regress to and from any other State,” in addition to guaranteeing “the free inhabitants of each of these states . . . [the] privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.” While the Framers of our Constitution omitted the reference to “free ingress and regress,” they retained the general guaranty of “privileges and immunities.” Charles Pinckney, who drafted the current version of Art. IV, told the Convention that this Article was “formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present Confederation.” Commentators, therefore, have assumed that the Framers omitted the express guaranty merely because it was redundant, not because they wished to excise the right from the Constitution. Early opinions by the Justices of this Court also traced a right to travel or migrate interstate to Art. IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause….Similarly, in Paul v. Virginia, the Court found that one of the “undoubt[ed]” effects of the Clause was to give “the citizens of each State . . . the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them….””

In conclusion, without due process protections so that citizens are not put on the list until AFTER a proper vetting and rebuttal process, the no-fly list VIOLATES our Constitutional rights.