Grounded: Millionaire John Gilmore stays close to home while making a point about privacy

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, Feb. 27, 2005 | Dennis Roddy

[TheBlackFeather]

He's unable to travel because he refuses to present a government-approved ID

SAN FRANCISCO -- John Gilmore's splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

[Smartaleck]

"At no time in this ongoing discussion has it been established that Mr. Gilmore hopes to overturn this law, he simply wants the process to be visible and acknowledged."

Not quite that clear. The judge hearing the case couldn't even figure out what he wanted and adjourned without ruling. The gov't did cite law for the ID but he has other issues.

That's the problem with relying solely on one piece of info as some have.

My best guess from what I've read is that there is more to it from the gov't.'s point of view. This is a dance to avoid other issues I guess, they feel may come to light if they let this "small matter" get by.

Not saying it's right or wrong. The SC has given mixed messages on ID presentation.

For example, the 4th amendment isn't always practical when danger is eminent. This is pretty vague and leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.
Lincoln has been soundly criticized for his draconian methods yet is held as one of the greatest presidents.

[tahiti]

"They are saying that you cannot enter a privately owned jetliner unless they have a reasonable idea of who you are, so that they can check to see if you are on a terrorist check list."

Just as long as the "privately owned jetliner" personnel are doing the asking as their "privately owned" policy and I have no problem.

Amendment IV says our government, meaning TSA, has to have a warrant and probable cause, detaling exactly what is going to be searched for and seized.

Unfortunatley, too many citizens and judges read Amendment IV as if our government can conduct "reasonable" search and seizures without a warrant.

Well, who defines "reasonable." In each instance, do we have to go through the long and ardulous procedure of trying to be heard by the Supreme Court and get permission for our right? Talk about a proactive judiciary.

I propose an amending of the wording of Amendment IX, so that we can return to the original intent.

That wording change would be as follows:

"Because the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Badray]

I think what it comes down to is that people are afraid of liberty and afraid to be responsible for themselves.

I almost feel sorry for them. It must be awful living a life like that. I prefer the animating contest of freedom with both the risks and rewards.

[Badray]

For example, the 4th amendment isn't always practical when danger is eminent. This is pretty vague and leaves the door open to a lot of possibilities.

Not vague at all. Why must a door be kicked down to affect an arrest when the person inside can usually be captured outside without incident? Is it for the adrenaline rush from a dynamic entry?

Lincoln has been soundly criticized for his draconian methods yet is held as one of the greatest presidents.

Yeah, he is. By the same crew here that thinks that the government can do any damn thing it pleases.

[tahiti]

"We see it demonstrated in this thread that the ability to intellectually defend individual rights is almost non-existent anymore."

No truer words have been spoken. But that aside, let me comment on another remark that you made.

"Though I side with the group who did not want to ennumerate the rights,"

I presume you say this because there are those who say if the rights are not enumerated they do not exist.

James Madison supposedly took care of this problem when he composed Amendment IX to placate the anti-federalist.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people." (not enumerated)

[epow]

Given the latter part of your statement, what are your thoughts on the National Firearms Act of 1934?

I believe it is clearly unconstitutional. That act imposes a tax on the exercise of an individual right, one that is unquestionably guaranteed by the Constitution. The power to tax is the power to destroy, therefore taxing the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right is totally at odds with the intent of the authors. Again just MHO.

Even more egregious yet is the law which doesn't just tax but actually denies exercise of the right to possess certain arms manufactured after 1986. Namely, arms comparable to those currently in use by our national armed forces, which are exactly the type arms the authors intended the amendment to protect.

[Copernicus]

Sooner or later, the laws of nature will catch up with us. In our case, I believe this will occur when China replaces America as the new global superpower. A nation of 1.5 billion slaves will outperform a nation of 0.3 billion slaves anyday.

Great observation! Keep swinging. It is unlikely to make any difference on this thread but a few of us in the peanut gallery always appreciate the efforts of other peanut gallery posters!

Best regards,

[Smartaleck]

"What page are you on?"

See #62 ID'ing passengers.

[Mulder]

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthen itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle."

Thanks for posting the entire quote! I wish I could convey my thoughts as well as Madison, Jefferson, etc.... could.

[Smartaleck]

"I don't understand the point that you are trying to make."

Just some background on the plantiff. Looks like he's been working on this for quite some time.

[tahiti]

"The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce,"

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

When and how did a privately owned airline, owned by the citizens, become either a "foreign nation(s)" or one of "the several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"

"they only restrict his access to privately owned facilities such as airlines and passenger trains."

Even assuming that you are correct in assertion that Congress has the enumerated "power" to "regulate" private property, that power still cannot violate the Bill of Rights.

For example, using your assumption of the power of Congress emanating from the "commerce clause," then Congress has the power to regulat a newspaper company.

However, Amendment I prohibits Congress' power to regulate the content of a newspaper.

Well, the TSA laws violate Amendments II, IV, V, IX, and XVI at a minimum.

[Smartaleck]

"When and how did a US business, owned privately by the citizens, become either a "foreign nation(s)" or one of "the several state(s)" or an "Indian tribe(s)?"

It's spelled out quite nicely here since the Constitution was written.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html

Original intent discussed here.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/32.html

[Blue Jays]

Hi O.B.-

"...Post November 2, DUmbs realized that they needed infiltrate the VRWC and bring it down from the inside..."

---

An intelligent and eloquent poster had mentioned earlier that whether the statists are Republicans or Democrats, they're equally dangerous...as they're cut from the same fabric.

Your assessment that many of the Democrat statists have come to Free Republic as a result of the last election is very interesting...it also makes reasonable sense.

I was complaining about enduring two license/insurance/registration roadblocks in the course of one day recently. Unbelievably, I just got stopped in yet another one this past Thursday morning. Statists just LOVE those kinds of infringements for their beloved War on Terror^TM efforts. They can't see the principle for which this man and his refusal to show ID was standing.

~ Blue Jays ~

[ArmyTeach]

OK. My reference was to LT Ilario Patano, who gave up a six digit salary to join the marines after 9/11. He and his unit were sent to investigate and clean out an area suspected of being a terrorist hideout and bombmaking facility. They found the bomb factory and two suspects attempting to escape in a white SUV type vehicle. His men shot out the tires of the vehicle to stop it and the two terrorists were ordered (which is apparently against standing procedures) to clean out the vehicle in search for bombs. The two were talking quietly, and at some point broke and ran at the Lieutenatnt. He ordered them in Arabic to stop - twice- and finally shot them both. He is now facing prosecution for - get this - PREMEDITATED murder. My first thought was "this is really Kafkaesque."
Franz Kafka was a German author famous for short stories/novellas about impossible, insane, nightmarish situations.

[antiRepublicrat]

"Do you know who I am?!" just doesn't cut it in today's world.

I know, we now live in a "Papers, please" country. Do you like that? I don't.

[antiRepublicrat]

How do so many of these whiny libs get so rich, anyway?

In his case, by being a damn good programmer, and being one of the first employees of Sun.

But as far as "lib" goes, I thought it was a conservative thing to want government intrusion and tracking of its citizens at a minimum, also I thought conservatives believed in government being accountable to its citizens. Unfortunately, I have noticed that many on FR believe in a powerful, intrusive federal government.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[epow]

My rights are not subject to anyone's vote even if they go thru the entire amendment process and are successful. My rights are mine by virtue of my birth and are unalienable. Government may choose to violate them, but they do so at their peril.

I can agree in principle, but in the real world no man lives unto himself. By agreeing to live as citizens of the US and thereby enjoy it's protections and benefits we accept an implicit contract with government and agree to the limitations the Constitution allows government to impose on some of our natural rights. The Constitution grants certain specified powers to government which necessarily impose some restrictions on the exercise of our liberty. In theory at least, those limitations are only those which are necessary to allow government to protect the common rights of all citizens. To quote the familiar old saw, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose". IOW, it is not reasonable to expect to exercise every right to the degree you may feel entitled to if that degree substantially infringes upon another person's rights.

In regard to Gilmore and his refusal to obey the government's air travel regulations, It is unquestionably within the government's Constitutionally granted power to place restrictions on commercial interests which operate across state lines. Therefore his 10th amendment unspecified right to travel conflicts to a degree with the government's specified power to place conditions on his use of the regulated airline's services. In that case it is my opinion that the safety of the traveling public and the duty of the airline's owners to obey government regulations overrides Gilmore's right to unrestricted travel. He is free to travel across state lines by non-commercial means without showing ID, but in order to use a regulated commercial service he must abide by the government's rules which govern that service. As I said previously, the only violation of Gilmore's rights that I see is the government's denial of access to the regulations he refused to follow.

[The Westerner]

I shudder at the thought.

[The Westerner]

Thanks for the compliment, Tahiti! Even though Madison tried to remedy that problem, I still think the Constitution is weaker for having the Bill of Rights. How about all the "rights" that have been added?

In this anti-intellectual age, everything is considered a "right". Probably doesn't matter anymore. It was a brief moment in the Enlightenment that gave birth to America. WIthout reason and understanding of our laws, our time will pass.