Airport ID Checks Constitutional

chill wrote to mention the decision handed down from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of appeals in the case of Gilmore vs. Gonzales. The court found in the government's favour, saying "We hold that neither the identification policy nor its application to Gilmore violated Gilmore's constitutional rights, and therefore we deny the petition ... The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."

Comments

Re:No particular, but any?

[Chagrin]

Saenz v. Roe, there are three components to the right to travel:

        (1) "the right of a citizen of one state to enter and leave another state";
        (2) "the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second state"; and
        (3) "for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that state."

Re:No particular, but any?

[ChildeRoland]

http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/index2.html

I think this website gives plenty of info. We _are_ in such a society, and the courts have upheld it.

Re:Huh?

[arbitraryaardvark]

1) Explain how my inability to travel anonymously prevents my petitioning the goverment for the redressing of grievances
2) Point to where in the constitution they said you were guaranteed anonymity

1)'s a little tricky. It's not so much "prevents" as chills and infringes on.
The right to travel to the seat of government to petition for redress is one of the privileges and immunities protected by the 14th amendment p&i clause.
2) We have the first amendment because Peter Zenger was busted for running a printing press to print anonymous criticism of the king's goons.
Talley v California, 1960, explains that the right to free speech includes anonymity and privacy. Thomas, concurring in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, explains the history in more detail.
The other two cases that discuss the constitutional right to anonymity are American Constitutional Law Foundation and Watchtower v Stratton. You can read those cases at majors.blogspot.com or findlaw.com.

Re:Your papers are not in order!

[kraada]

Nonsense. If John Gilmore purchased a ticket from the airline in California, and boarded the plane in California, no interstate commerce is involved

Not according to the SCOTUS definition of interstate commerce. The SCOTUS definition of interstate commerce includes growing wheat for yourself in your own farm for your own consumption. As established in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

Further, the reason why the medical marijuana case (Gonzales v. Raich (2005)) was decided in favor of the U.S. Government was due to the fact that selling marijuana in California affects the underground market for the drug, which crosses state broundaries.

Given these two SCOTUS decisions it seems pretty clear that purchasing a ticket in order to leave one state and enter another is interstate commerce. Further, boarding in one state and exiting in one state is probably interstate commerce too as the option to buy that seat was open to others outside the state and thus your action influenced their market value.

It's a crappy interpretation, imho, but it's currently what we've got.

Re:No particular, but any?

[Dausha]

"Minding your own business, causing no trouble, cops come up, and demand your papers. They detail you, question you about your intentions in a particular location and use your identification to establish if you have any wants, warrants, or are a known criminal type who may be in the area to cause trouble.

Unamerican, huh?"

Actually, quite valid and entirely American. IANAL, but if you are in public, the cops can question you, and you can walk away. If they physically detain you, then you have them for false imprisonment and illegeal seizure. If you resist arrest at that point, then false imprisonment flies out the window. If they ask for your identification, you can refuse. If you comply, then you consented--entirely Constitutional. You can also challenge them. Without your consent, a warrant, then they must have a reasonable suspicion that there is a crime afoot and you're the culprit.

If they did all this to you, then you should file suit or stop complaining about it. Except, it happened two years ago, so the statutory limitations period has likely expired in your jurisidiction.

"When a law enforcement officer stops you anywhere, and you are not free to walk away, you are technically under arrest. If you don't believe it, try walking or driving away next time a law enforcement officer asks you to stop. You'll then be charged with any of a variety of charges, which will land you in jail for months to years."

Except, you can walk away. If you try it and they arrest you, then you can sue them for abuse of police power and any other number of torts. They may charge you with various crimes, but the prosecutor has to press them. Then, go for malicious prosecution. Especially when you a have a bouncer and other witnesses.