That's about the only point in the article I agree with. IMHO Gilmore isn't being denied a Constitutionally guaranteed right by being forced to show ID in order to travel in the manner he prefers. It isn't up to him to decide if the law makes sense, if the law was duly enacted and doesn't violate any of the people's rights that are protected by the Constitution his approval isn't necessary to establish it's validity.
The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, so it has authority to set the rules for interstate airline travel. Those rules do not deny Gilmore's right to travel from state to state, they only restrict his access to privately owned facilities such as airlines and passenger trains. He, or any of us, may object to those rules and believe they are stupid and useless, but they were made by our elected representatives and it must be presumed that they reflect the will of the people. If not, they are subject to revision or revocation if the majority of voters make their will known to their representatives, or failing that, at the next election. The system is called representative government, and it has served the republic pretty well for over 200 years.
Just because some of the people don't agree with a law doesn't make it null and void for those people, it applies equally to those who approve it and those who don't. Mr Gilmore has the right to challenge the law in court if he disagrees with it or believes it to be unconstitutional, but he still must obey it until it is either struck down by the judicial branch or repealed by the legislative branch.
After having said all that, I want to affirm that I fully believe we have the right to see and read the laws which we are required to live by, and I support Gilmore's attempt to challenge that part of the law which denies him, and all of us, that right. IOW. although I don't agree with his contention that his rights are violated by the law, I fully agree that he has the right to see and read the law. Gilmore's situation regarding the air travel security regulations is essentially the same as that of someone being arrested for speeding on a public street where the speed limit is deliberately kept secret from the motorists who use the street.
Given the latter part of your statement, what are your thoughts on the National Firearms Act of 1934?
Watch yourself. You've slid all the down the slope and almost said the "D" word.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!
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.
"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.