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.

[P_A_I]

It may be "spelled out nicely" but findlaws conclusion is nevertheless faulty reasoning, as it's writer inadvertently admits, here:

"The power has been exercised to enforce majority conceptions of morality, to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations, and to protect the public against evils both natural and contrived by people. The power to regulate interstate commerce is, therefore, rightly regarded as the most potent grant of authority in Sec. 8."

Yes indeed, -- "the power" has been exercised [read misused] to enforce "majority conceptions of morality" & to protect us from contrived "evil" -- in the past.
Not "rightly", but that is how it was used.

It is now time to stop such infringements of our individual rights to life, liberty & property. The commerce clause is being used to rule the USA by a 'democratic' tyranny of the majority.

That's why FR exist. Have any ideas how this should happen?
458 Smartaleck

Sure. -- We could start by disbarring all the smartaleck lawyers who violate their oaths to support the Constitution's principles as written.
Then we could start impeaching all the politicians who do the same.

[ActionNewsBill]

Freedom is a messy business. And scary. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.

George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace.

'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are.

Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Billy: Mmmm, well, that don't make 'em runnin' scared.

George: No, it makes 'em dangerous.

[Smartaleck]

"Sure. -- We could start by disbarring all the smartaleck lawyers who violate their oaths to support the Constitution's principles as written.
Then we could start impeaching all the politicians who do the same."

The lawyers write the laws reviewed by lawyers sitting on the bench. Fox guarding the henhouse. Not likely to happen soon.

Maybe Levin's book will inspire some to do the right thing?

[tahiti]

"It is now time to stop such infringements of our individual rights of life, liberty & property. The commerce clause is being used to rule the USA by a 'democratic' tyranny of the majority."

Well said and thank you for your help and support of my contention that we have to start looking at our Constitution's, whether federal or state, from the "presumption of liberty" versus the "presumption of being governed."

[Old Professer]

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.

When danger is imminent, actions are often taken that won't pass review; restrictions on government is the basis of the constitution and the amendments thereto, not restrictions on the people at large, many laws have been repealed and many arrests expunged and convictions set aside when emotions abate.

Lincoln's reputation rests on the foundation of victory in a great contest and the winners always write the history books.

I am not saying that the law in question here is a bad law. I am merely agreeing that no good comes of deeds done in darkness.

My wife made airline reservations last night for herself and my daughter to travel to Great Lakes via Midway airport and she is fully prepared to make the check-in process as painless as possible, she will be taking 3 forms of identification to show eligibility and means to use both the airplane and the rental car.

These things are minor intrusions accepted on balance for the good we receive.

[Old Professer]

He demanded only one thing of Southwest; access to the regulation they were unable or unwilling to supply.

It is clear from the article that he had no real expectation of flying that day, he was simply creating his own soapbox; to be heard, one must sometimes shout.

[Badray]

I know the rule, but I question its utility. If I am a terrorist, would I use my real name or a known alias? Or would I just get another new name. If I have no weapon and present no threat, how is any business of the government if I am on that plane? It wasn't for the first 60 or 70 years of passenger flight? Did ID's stop 9/11?

The people who know that I'm flying and am on the plane can look for me later if it crashes.

[Badray]

Can create a lot of frivolous lawsuits to. I personally don't find it scary at all.

Apparently you do. You want the nanny state to make you feel safe by pushing feel good security measures that are useless, but quite expensive.

[Old Professer]

Greyhound had a problem not long ago where people were badly injured and fatalities resulted; they don't ordinarily maintain passenger manifests. Of course the first reaction from the lawyers, political bricklayers, and professional worry warts was to demand a change in their operating rules to include a manifest on every passenger even though the mechanis of such a task would certainly prove to eliminate Greyhound's traditional policy of picking up a passenger along the road or in remote areas. Carry this down a step further and city buses, subways and taxis would be overwhelmed by such a proposal to the point where gridlock would replace passenger travel without appointment.

Laws, nested on laws are the modern-day equivalent of a house of straw.

[Badray]

LOL

I normally refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression, but we have enough side battles on this thread that I didn't want to start another.

I'm born and raised in PA, but I've been a rebel at heart all my life.

I've heard of Mr Martin and have heard some of his writing by one of our local talk show hosts, but I've not read anything in depth. When you have the time and inclination, check out www.warroom.com or use the link on the home page here. It's the Jim Quinn Show. You can listen in archive format from their website. He has a lot of good links too.

[Badray]

EXactly.

[Orange1998]

because the Feds do recognize and respect individual rights.

I assume you were referring to illegal aliens rights. <>.

[Badray]

You keep arguing that we have no right to see information.

No one is arguing that we should.

We are arguing that there should be no secret laws which is what appears to be the case here.

[Old Professer]

Restrictions are always only temporary, they no longer are in force upon your death.

[Old Professer]

When/if permanent and definitive verification of identity is made possible we still must face the all too frequent pretender who has been laying in wait to dispatch as many of his enemy as he may manage.

Risk can never be obviated, but only inconvenienced.

[Smartaleck]

I flew less than two weeks after 911 as a show of support for those who I believe are doing their job, in support of the industry, and in a very small way, an in your face to those who would intimidate us.

If I hear what your saying, it's, give people a reason?

In some manner that's what Gilmore is saying in part. He also apparently has some other issues or points he's trying to press.

I'm not sure why the gov't doesn't lay out what is public information and dispense with the mess. Must be something larger here at stake and the gov't doesn't want to "start down the slippery slope?"

[Smartaleck]

"You want the nanny state to make you feel safe"

If the world were %100 percent safe, would there be any reason for any rules or laws at all?

[Smartaleck]

"Carry this down a step further and city buses, subways and taxis would be overwhelmed by such a proposal to the point where gridlock would replace passenger travel without appointment."

Any time there's a headline accident the politicians can't wait to get their name in the paper.

There is a difference with the airlines versus the examples you gave.

It's not likely anyone is going to flag down a plane for a ride anytime soon. Two, when a plane goes down its a rather catastrophic event and few if any are likely to survive unlike the other modes of transportation Wouldn't be surprised to see a tightening of rail movement/security if we have an incident as they did in Spain. .

[Smartaleck]

"I assume you were referring to illegal aliens rights."

According to the courts they must. =:-O

[Smartaleck]

"We are arguing that there should be no secret laws which is what appears to be the case here."

It's not about a secret law, it's about laws that protect sensitive information from what I see. What does your research show?