actually i do. your pilot certificate would never be toast. you would be able to excercise the privilages any time you decided to comply with all applicable far's. you'd still have your pilot cert. in your pocket and should you choose you could obtain certification to fly a glider or balloon and fly those the rest of your life with no medical certificate whatsoever. or you could fly light sport aircraft without a medical cert.

what you referenced applies to pilots flying for a far 121 air carrier. [appendix J to part 121] copied from your reference. you might have referenced far 135 and far 125 as well as i pointed out in my reply to you. unless you work for such an airline or charter operator, drug testing is not required by the faa and the faa never issues such tests anyway. as i said, drug testing is required by each airline's operating specifications which must be approved by the faa. you gave a urine sample at your last ame physical for testing two substances. blood and sugar. your urine is never tested for drugs, alcohol or anything else for issuance of any class medical certificate. far 67 will be of some help to you there.

i'm always anxious to learn, especially when it comes to flying. as an faa designated pilot examiner with the authority to issue certificates up to and including the level of airline transport pilot i've done my best to stay abreast of the many regulations that apply to flying and i readily await any new knowledge you might shed upon me.

you and i don't get to decide what is and is not illegal, jeannie. that's what courts do.

then perhaps you can point to some case history that shows the letter is used as a basis of founder's intent. i've known the federalist papers to be used to establish intent but never this letter. doesn't mean it hasn't happened just means i haven't seen it. but again, you might point me in the right direction with litigant's names, case number, whatever.

there have been numerous challenges to the second amendment as to it's meaning many of those by the nra or it's factions. it's true that the supreme court had not accepted a case for more than seventy years before heller but that was because it found no fault in lower federal court rulings that would merit an argument. but the district courts have seen challenges to gun laws often lately based on the second amendment.

actually the second amendment was written and rewritten no less than seven times but that's a moot point. the amendment as it stands today is what governs law. several militia acts now define the national guard as a state militia for the purposes of the second amendment. for instance, the militia act of 1903 was used as a basis for the national guard to remove george wallace from the steps of the university of alabama to enforce the civil rights act. but yes, the word, "state" in the amendment applies to government, either federal or state. it never applied to individuals before dc v heller.

oh yes, read the letter years ago. was not in any case history though nor have i seen it cited as a point of law.

quite simple really, a federal court ruled such a requirement as unconstitutional.

the court did not consider who's money was who's. it considered what is and is not an illegal search.

having been a professional pilot for four decades i must say that i've never had to renew my pilot certificate and for damn sure have never been drug tested by the faa or any other government agency. yes, the faa does require that employers perform pre employment and random drug testing for crew members, mechanics, etc., in the case of a company operating under the requirements of an air carrier certificate, ie, far 135, 121, 125, etc., but no pilot flying outside the requirements of these FARs is required by the government to be drug tested. but again, i suppose i could have missed something during all those years and nineteen thousand hours of flying as an atp and faa designated pilot examiner. but then i never was issued a "pilot's license" in the first place as i've always carried a pilot CERTIFICATE on which i can find absolutely no expiration date.

as regards what i may have missed regarding convicted criminals and parolees, due process of law and probable cause apply. it's near impossible to understand any of the amendments and the rights that they protect without seeing it in context with other amendments and the constitution itself. the fact is that the court found that drug testing does amount to an illegal search in welfare cases.

most americans have never read the constitution, for that matter.

i've read much case history as regards the right to bear arms. i suppose i could have missed something but nowhere have i read that the founder's intent of the second amendment was that the people would have the means to overthrow the government. indeed it was only recently, heller, that the supreme court applied the second amendment in any fashion other than a state right to form a militia, ie., national guard. since heller, of course we have the right for our self defence but numerous gun restrictions are still in force to the point that it would be virtually impossible for the people to be able to outgun and overthrow the government.

here's what many seem to be missing. drug tests when performed by an employer or potential employer are not protected by the fourth amendment. if you want the job, you submit to the test. there's nothing illegal about the "search". but when the government does a drug test without probable cause that a crime has been commited and no warrant issued it becomes an illegal search. you folks can argue all day that the court got it wrong but that will not make these laws constitutional.

i cannot think of a right whether listed in the bill of rights or anywhere else that the founders meant to protect absolutely in all cases. free speech is not protected if the speech incites violence for instance. at any rate, the first amendment is a tough subject when discussing separated from the rest of the constitution where due process of law, etc., is in play. if the question is, have anybody's first amendment rights been violated as shown in the video, my answer whould be NO.

true. but absense of evidence does not even a theory make.

wondering why you begin a thread with a question when you think you have all the answers, jeannie. "nothing" cannot exist???

i guess i'm the only one here old enough to remember the manufacturing flop that the ford PINTO was. nevermind.

afterlife; unknowable.

when we were dating my ex used to tell her friends that she'd finally found mr. right. after we'd been married a couple years she'd tell them that come to find out my first name is always.

oh yeah, then try and understand the pinto.

hawking postulates that there was nothing before the big bang. no time, space, nothing.

Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy.


Albert Einstein

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html