Originally Posted by studentff
My understanding is that the ruling requires you to state your name to a LEO upon request but not to present any documentation. The basic argument was that a name alone does not constitute incriminating information, not that all persons must carry ID papers at all times (as is required in many other first-world countries). I may be wrong and am welcome to hear more details/explanation on this ruling.
The ruling also was an upholding of a state law establishing this requirement. Such laws exist in a handful of, but certainly not all states.
Contrary to popular opinion, you do not need ID to travel by air in the US, unless something has changed recently. However, if you do not present ID, you will be subjected to automatic SSSselectee SSSscreening. There have been a small handful of posts on this issue here as well as a few other websites. Also, many airline employees (and TSA checkpoints) have never run into this situation and may freak out.
DHS/TSA types are looking to expand the ID/checkpoint and CAPPS system to trains and busses. MBTA already did this with their disgraceful random ID checks on trains in Boston. We already do not have the "right" to travel by car: some have no choice (blind people, extreme physical disability, old age) while others choose to give it up (drunkenness, reckless driving).
I don't believe that foot/bicycle constitutes reasonable anonymous travel. I don't even believe train/bus/car does--it is not reasonable for me to have to take 3-4 days to go IND-LAX when I can do it in 4-6 hours for the same price.
I am hopeful that someday the right to travel by air (and bus/train) without interference by the government unless by due process (hint: no fly list is not due process) will be established by legislation or courts.
(I also don't care if an airline decides studentff can't fly on them as long as they are a private business. I'll go to another airline. But I don't think the government should make that call without due process. As the government has shown no tolerance for allowing busses/trains/airlines to excercise their "right" as a private business to deny services against black people, muslims, whatever, it amazes me that the hypocritical government then requires the airlines to deny travel based on a secret list with no due process.)
Flying is no longer a luxury for the rich. Many of the posters here would lose their jobs if they were denied air travel. Others would essentially have their personal and family relationships destroyed or seriously degraded (I'm in this category: with a girlfriend in LAX I'm certainly not driving there 4-7 times per year.)
Glad you're finding FT an interesting place (in reference to your post in another thread).
I understand your point and as a person I understand your frustration. As a government employee, however, I must advise you that you have no right to have travel to have a job, a mate nor a family. There was no such thing in the Framer's time. They simply decided that one should be able to go from place to place without papers but not how one gets there.
You must also realize that the Bill of Rights (which limits governmental influence) has absolutely no bearing in non-criminal acts. In other words, you have almost no Constitutional rights when there is no criminal penalty attached. That is just the way it is - if there is no criminal sanction then the Bill of Rights does not apply.
As far as airline travel goes, the number one concern of any country security-wise is its airspace, followed by marine waterways and lastly their land border. If 9/11 demonstrated nothing else it showed that civilian aviation can have a monumental impact upon the economy, infrastructure, and indeed the very survival of a country (many countries would not have survived such an attack).
And thanks for the welcome. It is much appreciated.