Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
I assume that's sarcasm. But I don't see the case explicitly establishing a right to travel by a particular mode. That's not the way I read the quoted text.
We seem to interpret it differently; I see it as establishing the right to travel by any mode (of interstate commerce). I think if the Court had wanted to exclude one or more particular modes, they would have said so.
More recently, and thus perhaps relevant
, the 9th Court of Appeals (
Gilmore v. Gonzales) concluded there was no constitutional violation because air passengers could still travel without identification if they instead underwent the more stringent "secondary screening" search. To me, that reads that had there not been that alternative then there
would have been a 1st Amendment violation. YMMV.
(
Gilmore should have been about 4th Amendment reasonableness but the plaintiff's lawyers opened the door to the 1st and the government successfully diverted the court. Straight out of
Boston Legal).
Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
I find it hard to see exactly what that section does. Any law has to be understood in the context of surrounding statutes and the neighborhood here is such a hodge-podge that it seems hard to understand. You can't just look at the literal language here and jump to any conclusion.
I'm not sure that particular code has anything to do with being a
passenger on an airline.