Originally Posted by
law dawg
Hell, we have to have government-required ID to drive too, do we not?
Only to drive on our public roads. And the identification is less significant than the licensing. We're required to receive a license in order to operate motor vehicles on public roads. Similarly, we're required to receive a license in order to operate an airplane in our public airways.
No license is required to ride as a passenger in a motor vehicle or an airplane.
Originally Posted by
law dawg
Hell, we even have to have government-required ID (SSN) to do a lot of things. Loans, home purchase, etc. is near impossible without it.
In this case, "required" and "near impossible" are at odds. Semantics aside, you have provided two examples of private agreements in which one party would reasonably expect to confirm the identity of the other party as part of the agreement.
It's reasonable for a lender to demand identification of someone to whom it lends money as a condition of the agreement between it and that person. It's not reasonable for our government to monitor our movements or to require us to request and receive permission to move about our country.
Originally Posted by
Spiff
Government-required identification for travel immediately comes to mind [as an example of TSA's mission or actions being unconstitutional].
Hoshman responded:
Originally Posted by
hoshman
Other then revenue protection for the airlines, the ID check accomplishes nothing, except opens up the system for Constituitional abuses.
I disagree.
The ID check also facilitates TSA's policy of restricting people's freedom of movement using blacklists. I believe this is TSA's only interest in determining the identities of passengers.