Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
According to Gilmore, the judges claimed that the right to travel was not violated because denying a person a single mode of transportation did not hinder that right. The case they used to back that assertion was one where the person was denied an drivers license. Making the case that denying a person the ability to operate a vehicle is the same as denying a person the ability to ride in a vehicle is a very weak argument.
The TSA's measure of rule covers all modes of transportation and their rules can easily be transferred to the other non-aircraft modes.
Denying a person the use of a mode of transportation without a compelling reason fitted to that particular mode to me would be unconstitutional because the right is the freedom to travel the width and berth of the nation without undue hindrance.
Because the forced ID verification does nothing to enhance the safety of the aircraft, I contend it is an undue hindrance. There is no compelling Government interest in denying a person the ability to ride in a plane without an ID.
Contrast that with screenings, there is a compelling Government interest in denying a person the ability to ride in a plane without them being screened for weapons, explosive and incendiaries.
The crux of the matter comes down to whether or not the TSA can make a case that their is a compelling interest in that failure to ID inhibits their ability to secure aviation domains.
At this point many of us have opinions as to whether that's the case or not, but they're just that - opinions. It hasn't been tested yet.