Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 01/26/2006 3:06:53 PM PST by SmithL
San Francisco -- An appeals court Thursday dismissed a Libertarian Party activist's legal challenge to federal airport regulations requiring passengers to show identification before they can board planes.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected claims by millionaire John Gilmore, an early employee of Sun Microsystems Inc., that the policy constituted an illegal search and violated his right to travel freely.
After privately reviewing the government's identification policy that was not disclosed in court for security reasons, an unanimous three-judge panel said the policy was not overly intrusive or illegal. Gilmore, the court ruled, could leave the airport if he didn't want to show his ID and had other ways to get around besides air travel.
"We reject Gilmore's right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation," Judge Richard Paez wrote.
The court also rejected assertions that the act of showing identification was an illegal search.
Gilmore's lawyer, William Simpich, said if the government wants to enforce regulations, it should disclose them in writing to the public. He said he is weighing whether to appeal the decision.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It was a legal no-brainer :)
Hands up anyone else, who initially was wondering what Intelligent Design has to do with airports. 8>)
Are you talking about this case or the 9th Circuit?
LOL. Both :)
Gub'mnt regulation at work!
Hmmmm. This seems contrary to the USSC's ruling in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the landmark case in which the hotel refused to rent rooms to black patrons. In that case, the court said that the restrictions in adequate accommodation for black Americans severely interfered with interstate travel.
The court did not conclude that blacks could always leave that hotel and stay someplace else.
"We reject Gilmore's right to travel argument because the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation," Judge Richard Paez wrote.
Great legal reasoning. So where in the Constitution does it say government can restrict travel if you don't show an ID? Must be in the penumbra orbiting Pluto, where one can find a constitutional right to abortion, homosexual marriage, the seizure of your property for a Ritz-Carlton and a fairy shrimp has a de facto priority claim to your five acres.
Too many cows and sheep in this country. I'd trust my safety to the military and an armed citizenry rather than a government ID.
His right to travel freely includes the right to put one foot in front of the other and repeat ad infinitum. It does not involve free access without ID to equipment which has been shown to be highly convertible in the wrong hands into a weapon which can kill thousands and cause hundreds of billions of dollars damage to our economy. End of story.
That statement sort of just jumps off the page.
I don't like government intrusion but as far as air travel is concerned they can't go far enough to identify my fellow passengers.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Everyone of the hijackers on 9/11 had id.Hell they had dozens of id cards. and you know what they still hijacked the airplanes and flew them into the world trade center and the Pentagon because the plastic id cards didn't jump out of their back pockets and knock the box cutters out of their hands and hold them in the corner until the plans could land safely.Plastic credit card sized id cant keep anyone safe they are inanimate objects.Showing id wont prevent any crime if the people committing the crime are going to go on a suicide mission.
see post 14
"I have to show a picture ID at all of the branches to make a deposit"
BS, anyone can make a deposit to a bank account yours or anyone elses.
One time I made a deposit to a customers account that was short of funds a small amount to cover a check he had given us that was over $20,000 and immediatly cleaned out his bank account by cashing his check.
that ID requirement at your credit union is their policy, not a government one.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The constitution did not delegate to the federal government the right to restrict air travel without showing an id so the right to travel by air without showing id is retained by the people of the united states
This is one of the very rare times I have to disagree with muawiyah and one of the first if not the very first time I agree with robertpaulsen.Im pretty sure that is one of the first sign of the apocalypse btw.
After privately reviewing the government's identification policy that was not disclosed in court for security reasons, an unanimous three-judge panel said the policy was not overly intrusive or illegal.
"You can't see if there is a law. Besides, the law is what we say it is."
Pre 9/11 I read a couple articles wherein the authors challenged the airlines to show them the federal law or regulation requiring them to show their ID. Neither of the airlines could produce the supposed law.
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.