Asinine Watch cites Senator Menendez

Wanting businesses to tell people what they are paying surcharges for is asinine? If airlines want to build all these into the set price for the ticket, then expecting them to itemize is not a good idea. But if they are going to add surcharges, fees and other incremental additional costs that make the flight significantly more expensive than advertised then why shouldn't people be told what the cost is?

I think Mr. Sabrin just got his own AW.

Is nothing but a spokeman for third world values. His love affair with the illegal immigrant community is both disgusting, costly and wrong for NJ

Sunshine is generally good, I wish there was more of it.

Is it the most pressing issue today? Of course not, but it should be easy to implement and is a general plus for consumers.

Must be a very slow day to find that to make a complaint about Senator Menendez.

what bergenite wrote. and disgusting, is your ignorance.

The egos are apparently out of control here.

The issue here is not Dr. Sabrin's ego, but rather the legitimacy/efficacy of a particular government program or the proper exercise of an alleged government power. Clearly, under the U.S. Constitution's enumeration of delegated powers set forth in Article I, Congress has no power to compel any such delineation of costs in private industry (no bootstrapping here, please . . . Congress has no power to bail out the airline industry, either). All of this so-called "consumer protection" legislation is also unconstitutional, a clear violation of the doctrine of enumerated, delegated powers and limited federal government.

Governments have no rights, just powers delegated to them as agents of the principal (We, The People). Anything that government does that is not expressly granted to it by its principal constitutes an ultra vires act and is, by definition, illegitimate. See, for example, Declaration of Independence.

Governments get away with exceeding their powers in the same way as criminals often get away with their crimes. The only difference is that criminals are more honest than government in that they don't try to convince us that their ruining of our lives and stealing our existence are in "our best interest" and done "to protect us" and "for our own good". They simply rob us and then leave us alone.

Sure wish the statist Menendez-types would behave more like the highwayman . . . respect our intelligence, and all that.

The intent of the Framers is not determinative in deciding what the Constitution empowers the Congress to do. What matters is what the original meaning of those various general constitutional clauses was at the time they were adopted and ratified. Definitive, scholarly books and law review articles have been written and published on the subject of the original meaning of those clauses. Most notably are the works of Prof. Randy E. Barnett of the Georgetown Law Center. Has his own website . . . you can access the law review articles on line. In connection with this issue, I also recommend that you read his book, Restoring the Lost Constitution".

If The People really want to change the powers (governments have no "rights" as such) delegated to the federal government, Article V provides the ONLY legal, constitutional method for such a change. The mere fact that a majority of the voters voting in any given election in any state or congressional district elect a particular congressperson with views that are inconsistent with the limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution does not validate the subsequent ultra vires activities of that Congressperson. Period. Think "Bernie Sanders".

Thus, your arguments are inapposite. The point is not whether any particular voting constituency favors a change in the powers delegated to the Congress and articulates that preference by voting for a particular candidate who favors those changes. The point is whether anyone so elected to a federal office can exceed the powers delegated to that office by and through the U.S. Constitution.

In a democratic republic, the voting polity gets to elect representatives who are obligated to do the job as set forth in the U.S. Constitution . . . whatever that is and nothing more. Currently, the Congress has no delegated, enumerated authority to either bail out the airline industry or to require any particular form of airline ticket with any particular form of information.

If anyone wishes to change the existing power delegation, they are invited to refer to Article V and to follow the instructions. Note that Article V DOES NOT ALLOW CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS TO CHANGE THE POWERS DELEGATED TO THE CONGRESS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

As far as I have understood what Dr. Sabrin has said on this matter in the past, Sabrin apparently understands that the U.S. Constitution can be changed via Article V. I would understand that he might oppose any proposed amendment giving Congress power to regulate business on the basis that Sabrin favors political and econiomc liberty, self determination and the right of free persons to contract freely for the provision of airline and and travel services. He might also oppose it on the basis that Congress surely lacks the institutional competence to effectively run a business or to make business decisions (the so-called "business judgment" rule). Neither of these positions are in any way "crackpot", but are rather fundamental to any understanding of the market economy.

Finally, "fairness" is undefined and undefinable, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to ensure "fairness", even by your definition. You can look it up.