Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-14-2013, 06:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: The New Delta
Posts: 115
FYI: My wife and I went from MSP to LAX then continued to Hawaii. The flight was a thru flight in LAX with an equipment swap from a 73N to a 757. We did not get upgraded in MSP (shocking right?) but the leg from LAX to OGG was wide open since Delta doesn't allow miles upgrades to Hawaii. When we inquired in LAX as to why we weren't on the upgrade list, we were told that you have to clear on the original flight or you can't be upgraded on the 2nd segment. I was floored! So, short version is: my wife and I sat crammed in the back of a 757 for 5.5 hrs while skywest employees and buddy pass riders stretched out in 1st class!
Also, you are not eligible for premium seats (exit rows, economy comfort, certain isle seats, etc..) unless you pay for it!
Good luck!
11-14-2013, 06:38 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 136
I've got to stop you right there.…
I think you missed my point. There is no "Of course the federal government should protect unalienable rights.," like you say. The only thing there is, is that the federal government can't pass laws that violate our unalienable rights.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights then take a look at your example of the 14th Amendment. There is a big difference. None of the Bill of Rights specifically state that the States themselves can't pass laws that restrict unalienable rights. The first 10 Amendments talk about what Congress can't do and what the federal government can't do, but not the States. But, look at the 14th Amendment. It specifically states that States can't do a number of things.
If you are a textualist, and you want the federal government to stay within the frame of what the Constitution specifically states it can do, you cannot be for the Supreme Court incorporating any parts of fundamental rights the Bill of Rights enumerates to have to apply to the States. Why? Because it's not written anywhere in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution.
Simply put, the Constitution does not say the States can't pass laws that infringe against fundamental rights. The Constitution does not say the federal government has to protect citizens against states that pass laws that pass laws that infringe on our fundamental rights. The Constitution only says that the federal government cannot pass laws that violate the Bill of Rights.
Without the Supreme Court going outside the framework of the Constitution, the ban on handguns in Chicago would stand because it's a state law and there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives the Court the power to override State law when it comes to the 2nd Amendment like it does with the 14th Amendment.
It seems as though you want the Supreme Court to protect our unalienable rights that are in the Bill of Rights. But, by your own standard, it's judicial activism.
I think that's your paradox
P.S. The U.S. Constitution is superior to federal law.
I think you missed my point. There is no "Of course the federal government should protect unalienable rights.," like you say. The only thing there is, is that the federal government can't pass laws that violate our unalienable rights.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights then take a look at your example of the 14th Amendment. There is a big difference. None of the Bill of Rights specifically state that the States themselves can't pass laws that restrict unalienable rights. The first 10 Amendments talk about what Congress can't do and what the federal government can't do, but not the States. But, look at the 14th Amendment. It specifically states that States can't do a number of things.
If you are a textualist, and you want the federal government to stay within the frame of what the Constitution specifically states it can do, you cannot be for the Supreme Court incorporating any parts of fundamental rights the Bill of Rights enumerates to have to apply to the States. Why? Because it's not written anywhere in the Bill of Rights, or anywhere else in the Constitution.
Simply put, the Constitution does not say the States can't pass laws that infringe against fundamental rights. The Constitution does not say the federal government has to protect citizens against states that pass laws that pass laws that infringe on our fundamental rights. The Constitution only says that the federal government cannot pass laws that violate the Bill of Rights.
Without the Supreme Court going outside the framework of the Constitution, the ban on handguns in Chicago would stand because it's a state law and there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically gives the Court the power to override State law when it comes to the 2nd Amendment like it does with the 14th Amendment.
It seems as though you want the Supreme Court to protect our unalienable rights that are in the Bill of Rights. But, by your own standard, it's judicial activism.
I think that's your paradox
P.S. The U.S. Constitution is superior to federal law.
For example, for many years after the Constitution was ratified, individual States had a "state religion". There was no conflict with the 1st Amendment because it doesn't apply to the states.
Most of us don't like it, but Utah could have Mormanism as their state religion, Texas could be Baptist, California could be Hindu, and NY and Illinois could ban every gun.
It's a different, but much clearer way of understanding the government our Founders gave us-Federalism.
The Radical Republicans and Whigs of the 19th Century got us a little confused about that.
Back to slot discussions.......
11-14-2013, 06:46 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
A great point that is rarely made....
For example, for many years after the Constitution was ratified, individual States had a "state religion". There was no conflict with the 1st Amendment because it doesn't apply to the states.
Most of us don't like it, but Utah could have Mormanism as their state religion, Texas could be Baptist, California could be Hindu, and NY and Illinois could ban every gun.
It's a different, but much clearer way of understanding the government our Founders gave us-Federalism.
The Radical Republicans and Whigs of the 19th Century got us a little confused about that.
Back to slot discussions.......
For example, for many years after the Constitution was ratified, individual States had a "state religion". There was no conflict with the 1st Amendment because it doesn't apply to the states.
Most of us don't like it, but Utah could have Mormanism as their state religion, Texas could be Baptist, California could be Hindu, and NY and Illinois could ban every gun.
It's a different, but much clearer way of understanding the government our Founders gave us-Federalism.
The Radical Republicans and Whigs of the 19th Century got us a little confused about that.
Back to slot discussions.......
11-14-2013, 06:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: Right Seat
Posts: 136
Uh oh! I'm sure ill be welcomed with open arms!
11-14-2013, 07:06 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
No, that used to be my favorite show. There was a short time that I thought I should go to Law School. I got accepted by Columbia and then decided that wasn't for me. For me, I made the right choice.
11-14-2013, 07:21 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
Well, you have got to give them this. Our boys know how to play in the present "deregulated" environment with such levels of govt interference in commerce and enterprise. This just makes me laugh.
Delta Plans Expansion at Dallas Love Field - Yahoo Finance
Delta Plans Expansion at Dallas Love Field - Yahoo Finance
TEN
11-14-2013, 07:24 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Hey! It's not too late to go. In fact, you might be able to finish by the time the December bid results come out.
11-14-2013, 07:26 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
When does the bidding close for that, anyway?
11-14-2013, 07:27 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 7ERB
Posts: 2,039
TEN
11-14-2013, 07:28 AM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
Kinda funny story on law school. Someday if I ever meet you, I'll tell it to you. Not my proudest moment.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
