Since the amendments refer to "people" without any specifications and restrictions, one would assume the protects apply to all people in the US.

the preamble - the United States are exactly that, a collection of united States, the 'federal' only exists because the States agreed to be united.

Therefore, any reference to the State is a reference to the agreed united States.

(I am not an American however, natives may be able to explain this in a more fulsome way).

That would be my assumption, though I didn't want to state it as fact lest someone with more knowledge than me point to another clause or perhaps court decision where a distinction is made. However it is still the 4th and 5th offering that protection when dealing with federal authorities, not the 14th.

I am a native, but I still do not agree with you. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all civil liberties granted by the federal government to United States citizens were respected by each state, with regards to enforcing state law. However, the only implications for the federal government are in terms defining citizenship. The second half of section one makes clear reference to individual states.

but it is the 14th which clarifies that all persons are included in being subject to protection of the law.

Yes, but that particular clause refers to protection under law as administered by an individual state, not the federal government. Read the first half of that sentence:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Clearly the sentence, in its entirety, is referring to states making or enforcing laws in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, since federal law has previously been covered in other Amendments (4 and 5 in this particular case). While the first part of Section 1 discusses citizenship as it applies to both state and federal authorities, the second part of that section refers to state laws that are in conflict with rights granted by the federal government.

The rights secured in the Bill of Rights are limitations on government power to act, not an enumeration of rights bestowed by the government. Accordingly, it makes no difference whether the government is acting against a citizen or a non-citizen with respect to trespass on those rights -- it is an unauthorized power and therefore unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment recognizes the same principle with respect to state government. The entire Bill of Rights, with the exception of a small portion of the 8th and, arguably the 2nd, has been extended to constrain state (and municipal) government through a process called selective incorporation through the 14th Amendment.

Dupe ...

Thank you PTravel. I knew that you would make an appearance on this thread.

You must provide your name, date of birth and gender pursuant to 49 CFR § 1540.107(b)(2) when you make a request to enter the sterile area.

You are not obligated to provide this information after you have been granted entry to the sterile area, but it appears that you must provide it until you have been granted access. If the question booth is between the TDC and the checkpoint exit, it seems one is required to provide this information and nothing more.

It says that you must provide that information when reserving an airline ticket, OR when attempting to enter the sterile area. It does not say you have to do both, and since everyone provides this when buying a ticket, I would say that there is NO requirement to provide that information at the checkpoint, if their basis for the request is 1540.107(b)(2).

I actually read the "request for authorization to enter a sterile are" differently. To me the "request" is when asking the airline or airport for a gate pass when no ticket is present (such as accompanying a UM to the gate or going to a meeting at an airport club room), as opposed to getting passed the TDC. We all no that the TDC has no means to verify if you are or are not on a watch list and that this is left up to the airlines and their computers (which feed into DHS' systems for watch list verification).

My only point was that, required or not, information verifying I am who I say I am (but not enough for anyone else to successfully pretend to be who I say I am) doesn't bother me. It's the request for non security-related information (like what I'll be doing at my destination and for how long) that bothers me. If they want to see how you react, ask unrelated questions; to a trained professional, the answers to these will likely be more telling (do you not think that terrorists have rehearsed answers to "security" questions a thousand times?). It's as if they expect a terrorist to answer the final destination question with an "I expect my right half will end up in Kansas, my left half in Missouri".

As was pointed out above, this is the SecureFlight data. (2) applies in the case of somebody not flying. And "request for authorization to enter a sterile area" means obtaining a gate pass, not presenting oneself to TDC.

But has anybody noticed that there's a problem here? The regulation says "gender", but then says it has to agree with what's on the identify document. But those documents don't list gender, they list sex. Those are not the same for everybody!

Non-Verbal Response!
 

==================================================
:cool: I agree you must provide this information BUT I do not interpret it to mean that you must verbally state the information. Does anyone? :)