Posted on 09/07/2004 1:26:56 PM PDT by eno_
We did until some lawmaker had to go do #2 and ran out of tp.
" He claimed in his lawsuit the ID requirement was vague and ineffective and violated his constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures."
Just how can this guy claim that it is secret and vague at the same time ?
Why do you see that as a contradiction? It is a secret law we are all supposed to somehow obey. That would be the very essence of vagueness.
Don't fly then.
Simple.
Words on parchment cannot restrain the state. I just thought of a word: post-constitutionalism.
My Life in a Bush of Ghosts -
Effing brilliant.
"Post-constitutionalism."
That is our government today.
It isn't just about flying. Did you find it palatable to keep anti-abortion protesters in a "free speech cage?" Yeah, that's not in the Constitution either.
I really hope this guy kicks the government's ass on this, but we all know how this is going to turn out. No court is going to overturn a law that requires id for boarding a plane, constitutional or no.
If the clanging of the cage door gets loud enough, more people will wake up.
There are probably lots of secret laws. If you don't have a need to know, you won't be told unless you transgress.
Kafka's "The Trial" does come to mind.
I'm sure that sentiment was expressed often in opposition to the revolutionaries who brought about the freedoms we claim to value. If you don't like a law, you challenge it. Throwing your hands up in the air when you have the power to fix a government wrong is incredibly irresponsible and lazy. It's people like Gillmore who keep liberty afloat in this country.
The government contends its court arguments should be sealed from public view and heard before a judge outside the presence of Gilmore and his attorneys.
How can his attorneys argue against the government's position when they don't know what the government's position is? Shoot, even in the Star Chamber you at least got to be there for the proceedings.
Can't be much of a secret if he can identify it as being vague ? How does he know ? If it exists it might be very precise...
Just what is he talking about anyway ? - the ID requirement is not a law - the airlines would not be arrested if they refused to do it, they would simply not be allowed to fly
Yes, it's breathtaking. I wonder who exactly in the DoJ has the chutzpah to think this would get by a Stasi clerk magistrate much less a true review in light of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't equate showing an ID to board a plane with free speech cages. I dislike free speech cages, but having to show an ID to board a plane is not on the same level. Having to show ID is a deterrent... if, however, they turned the ID requirement into authorizing a complete background check before you board... that will be a problem. Free speech cages are more on par with requiring background checks to buy a ticket to get on a plane.
Now, when the latter happens... I'll protest, but I trust that it will never happen because Americans love their right to privacy... and if we have to have our name on the ticket, showing a picture ID isn't a violation of privacy... because they already know our name, and that is all they get from the ID besides the picture.
So, what are you saying? That he can't make the assertion that something secret is vague?
This is a court action after all: if it is vague, let the judge decide.
You seem to be opposed to the idea even being brought up that this secret law could be vague. What offends you about that? Are you so fond of secret laws, you don't like them being questioned?
And if we have to suspend or amend the Constitution to allow warrantless seraches, then let's put that process into motion.
Meanwhile, we should obey the Constitution.
And speaking of the Star Chamber, it is notable, too, that under the Tudors, the proceedings were public.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.