People charged with a crime often have a their movements restricted as a condition of their bail.
Yes, people charged with a crime often have their movements restricted as a condition of bail, a fact which has nothing to do with the TSA's idiotic no-fly list. See people who are charged with a crime and who have had their movements restricted have had the benefits of a little thing called due process of law and the fifth amendment to the Constitution. See, if you've been charged with a crime and have had your movements restricted that means that you've been arrested, charged in a court of law, allowed to have counsel to represent you. You can also appeal the judgment that restricts your movements, confront the witnesses against you and you have the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in your favor. You have none of this with the TSA. The TSA restricts your liberty to travel without telling you why they've done so or what evidence they used to make this determination and gives you no opportunity to defend yourself. The TSA no-fly list is essentially nothing more than the imposition of Soviet style internal passports that has nothing to do with protecting citizens and everything to do with restricting their movements.
If the States all decided they wanted to ban free speech and private ownership of guns, they could easily pass a new Amendment completely overturning the 1st and 2nd. The only reason this doesn't happen is that it'd be extemely unpopular and because it's really hard to get all the States to agree on Constitutional changes, which of course was the intent of the Founders when they devised the Amendment process.)
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Jesus you are fucking stupid. You are so fucking stupid that you should be shot in the fucking head for writing something this stupid. Go read the Wikipedia article on "Substantive Due Process" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process The useless racists in the southern states tried this shit back in the 1960s when they said that state laws overrode federal laws in matters relating to desegregation, interracial marriage and the like and the federal government said "Wrong fucking answer and in one case even sent in federal troops (Little Rock, AK, 1957) to get the point across. God you're fucking stupid.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
So according to this section of the Constitution Congress can consent to grant states the ability to tax imports and exports from that state, and by imports and exports the founding fathers meant not just commerce with foreign countries but commerce with other states. Right now online merchants have a huge and unfair advantage over brick and mortar merchants because they can set up in states without sales taxes and then sell to residents of states that have sales taxes without collecting any taxes. Why don't you do us all a favor you ignorant son-of-a-whore and take one of your guns, jam it into your mouth as far as you can and blow your fucking head off.
The Constitution was not written with words and phrases having only the meaning stated in the dictionary. The Constitution is a governing document very similar to a power of attorney, and the phrases and terms used should first be considered from what the ratifiers considered them to mean.
Cool story bro. Tell us, who died and left made you the authoritative scholar as to what the original intent of the founders was. Do you have access to the same Magickal Jeezus Originalist Dictionary of Constutional intent that Antonin Scalia does?
With your bare hands?!?