The Best of Both Phone, and Tablet
January 26, 2006 10:30 AM PST
Court says ID checks at airports constitutional
- Related Stories
-
Airport ID checks legally enforced?
December 8, 2005 -
Tens of thousands mistakenly matched to terrorist watch lists
December 6, 2005 -
Senate scrutinizes air travel database
March 13, 2003
Airlines and the U.S government may keep passengers from boarding planes if they refuse to show ID, a court rules.
The story "Court says ID checks at airports constitutional" published January 26, 2006 at 10:30 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
25 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
some loser puts some crap in your file and then you cant even buy beer......
John, I stand by you. You are a rarity of prophets who decide to take action. Most future workers are merely drones.
although they [Amtrak] are fairly lax about
checking it on the West Coast.
Greyhound's official policy is that they do not
currently require ID, Gilmore claimed in an
interview to have seen someone denied boarding
for lack of an ID. Greyhound's terms of service
claim that tickets are nontransferable, and may
be confiscated if this happens (implies an
ability to demand ID).
federal program that required airlines to get
your ID prior to flight. The TSA and airlines
both originally contended there was no such
requirement, yet they refused to transport those
that would or could not produce a valid ID.
However, subsequently, the TSA and airlines were
forced to admit that the DHS had issued certain
secret (unavailable for public review)
regulations that the airlines were required to
comply with, including the ID requirement. To
date, the regulations and laws involved are
acknowledged to exist, but they are still
secret.
In this case, the airline is acting as an agent
of the federal government. And no, he can't
drive without an ID anymore than you can.
Several recent cases have also upheld the right
of the government to arrest and charge those
that don't produce ID when demanded -- in those
cases, the individuals were walking, waiting for
a bus, and sitting in the passenger seat of a
parked car. So, while there's no requirement for
an ID to walk, you can still be arrested for not
having one.
This suit contends that a prior legal restraint
on travel for lack of registration with a
government agency violates the 1st and 4th
ammendments. Namely, it prohibits anonymous
travel and stifles the freedom of assembly. Also
that by enacting secret laws there's little
possibility for petition or redress which would
constitute a both a deprivation of due process,
and, specifically in this implementation, a
violation of security of ones self and ones
papers. Doubly so since the TSA admitted that
people that don't have or refuse to produce ID
when requested are targetted for surveillance
and a placed into a registry of watched persons.
This case is interesting in that if the
precedent remains, it will permit the government
to issue "internal passports" and regulate
travel of citizens within the US. The DOJ has
already floated the idea of a mandatory national
ID card (that would required for domestic
travel, to get employment, to open a bank
account, etc.).
I don't think he should get fined. He brought a
very legitimate legal problem before the court.
His only problem was that there's more than just
one issue at stake. And I think it's good that
someone like Gilmore does it now.
No ID, no flight.
case. The rule he was filing against was a
GOVERNMENT imposed regulation. He has a medical
condition that precludes driving also. I
believe the gist of his argument was that the
Constitution doesn't give the government the
power to demand an ID. IF you bother to
actually read the Constitution you will find
that such power is not specifically stated.
They infer such power from other rights the
government is granted. It is an interesting
argument. I personally believe he was wrong but
his point is not stupid.
it the same way the Republicans do, by twiddling
the vote totals in the MS Access "database".
HTH, HAND
machines vote for you, and they vote
republican :).
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm#3" target="_newWindow">http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2006/index.htm#3</a>
All a voter ID will do is make it easier to cheat. (ever notice how easy it is to enter this country illegally and then get high quality phony ID's and SSA numbers? )
Maybe we should have a law that any citixen who faile to register to vote within three years of his/her eligibility to vote or fails to vote in any three consecutive elections automatically loses his/her citizenship? Right?
Washington fear mongers took full advantage of the situation to push through as quickly as possible MANY new laws (some secret, as we can now see) to supposedly 'protect' you from all the evil terrorists in the world.
Gee -- I wonder if your 'homeland security' is facing as real threats as the still yet mysterious and unfound weapons of mass destruction?
Seems nobody is seeing all your freedoms and rights to privacy being stripped away one by one. Once instant DNA tests become available, the world of Gattaga is not so far away!
A waste of tax payer's money if you ask me!
You can be asked for an ID when using a $50 or $100 bill. You can be asked for an ID when purchasing a Money Order. You can be asked for your ID if stopped by Police. Banks can ask for ID. Any place you cash a check can ask for ID.
So why should Airports NOT be allowed to ask for ID prior to boarding an aircraft... especially after 9/11...
It's rediculous that this got into court in the first place!
Walt
to ask for ID if you pay with a $50 or $100 bill
-- but most places reserve the right to refuse
you service for any reason.
You can be asked for an ID when purchasing a
money order, but it (presuming you
provided cash) wasn't required until recently --
but even then, the law requiring it is
"secret" (American citizens without security
clearance are not permitted to read the law).
You can be asked for an ID from police, but
until recently it was considered
unconstitutional to require it of anyone not
engaging in an activity that required a permit.
The Constitutional protection for persons to be
"secure in their papers" had been interpretted
to cover this case and that of securing one's
personal records (financial, legal, and
otherwise) for the past 200 years. Not so today,
where you can be jailed for not
producing your papers (no law, mind you,
requires it, but case law now exists to support
it if authorities choose to require it).
Banks not only can ask for ID, but they are now
required to. They must also turn over all of
your financial records to the federal
government, permit access to your safe deposit
boxes to government officials, and report
interpersonal transfers and substantial or
frequent cash transactions associated with your
account. They must also deny you access to your
account, on request of law enforcement and they
are required to not inform you that any such
request has been made. The fourth amendment
might preclude this activity too, but luckily
this law is secret and not available for
judicial review, so constitutionality is moot.
And yes, places that accept checks are permitted
to ask for ID -- that's the law, you can look it
up.
In this particular case, the complainant brought
suit because he was being forced to comply with
laws that were "secret" -- not accessible to the
public -- because he was not permitted to
challenge the law, and because it was impossible
to obtain counsel on how to comply or challenge
the law, and because the law itself has dubious
constitutionality (keep in mind, the airline has
no use for the ID -- they are collecting by
direction of the federal government).
It's really simple. Our government has a new
class of law. It's a type of law written by the
executive branch of government, unpublished,
strictly enforced, and not subject to appeal,
oversight, or the requirements of the US
Constitution.
I personally don't have much use for Gilmore, who is too overbearing and self-righteous for my taste. Nonetheless, he deserves more respect than he gets here from the uninformed readers of this article.
The comments here show that there is widespread support for restricting internal travel of all citizens by the Federal gov't. What should be clear from the court ruling is that there is, under present interpretation, no constitutional right of unimpeded travel within the contintental United States by U.S. citizens. As others have pointed out, you can be arrested for failing to produce ID while travelling in a car as a passenger, as well. IOW, if you are barred from flying due to failure to produce ID, you can be then barred from travelling in a car, train or bus for the same reason.
Yes, the sheep are about to be sheared. It absolutely beats me why people who routinely complain how untrustworthy the gov't is, at the next breath announce that they will give up all their civil liberties, as long as that gov't promises to "protect" them.
"Give me liberty or give me death." Not a majority sentiment around here, is it?
I don't see that I've lost any freedom or liberty since 9/11. What we have given up are some conveniences that we had taken for granted. You people trivialize our freedoms when you try to elevate every little thing to the status of god given right and declare that we're living under a totalitarian regime whenever you're denied some minor thing that you've been whining over.
When the government starts threating our liberties, I'll be on the line to resist, but we're not even close yet. The other problem with you guys declaring the sky is falling all the time is that, if it ever does, the people will be too burned out to care anymore.
To me it's very reminicent of grade-school history lessons of the kinds of tactics (and mistakes) of far right- and left-wing countries of the last century.
I hope as a nation you pull it together before it's too late for a vote to make a difference.