Boggie Dog

Is any method of travel excluded? Why should government get involved between a common carrier and myself?

Section 107

The concept of "common carrier" is something that is created by law, something the government is necessarily involved in.

In the United States and other common law countries (but also similarly in civil law countries regarding public carriers), the federal (and even state/local) government is involved, in part as ShipCameIn explains, but more importantly because it is well-established in the Constitution and through statute that there is a federal interest in regulating interstate commerce in general, and common carriers and aviation in particular (though aviation itself is, of course, not enumerated in the Constitution). This interest goes way back in English Common Law. The concepts are similarly well-establish in civil law countries for public carriers (though the details of the philosophic underpinnings of the law are different).

Discussion of the merits of whether or why that federal interest exists is best left to a law school environment.... however, I cannot imagine anyone gives even half-a-minute of serious thought to the idea that having a governmental entity regulate the use of the public airspace, use of publicly-owned airfields and in establishing and enforcing safety standards through a regulatory scheme is not a positive thing.

Now, you could travel by contract or private carrier and then the various levels of government would be much less involved in that transaction although they would still involved in regards to contract law, use of public infrastructure and intra-/inter-state commerce.

WillCAD

That's a specious argument at best for implementing an unwarranted, unnecessary, and ineffective restriction on freedom of movement.

The argument you make is valid when saying that one does not have the right to a product or service provided by a private party - i.e., one has no right to travel on someone else's private aircraft or through someone else's private property without the owner's permission, and without paying whatever compensation the owner demands.

However, the argument is meaningless when it comes to government restrictions or interference in the exercise of a right. There is no right to travel on someone else's aircraft without their permission and without paying them whatever price they set, but the government has no authority to prevent you or restrict you from traveling by any means you choose - including paying someone else to travel on their aircraft - without due process of law per the Fifth Amendment, applied to all people equally per the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ID requirement to board an aircraft is just such an unequally-applied infringement, applied as part of a blanket regulatory scheme without due process, and the Real-ID requirements are simply a more invasive, more onerous infringement, taking the violation of rights to a higher level.

ID doesn't matter. As I've said before, I don't care WHO a person is when they board a plane. All I care about is that they have been physically screened by the least invasive methodology necessary, in light of current technology, to detect the presence of WEI, confined in good faith to that purpose. Mandatory identity verification as a form of security or screening to board a common carrier is a completely ineffective - hence totally unnecessary - infringement upon the freedoms of movement and association. The more intense the identity verification, the more intense the violation of rights. Hence, the current ID requirements are wrong, and the Real-ID enhancements of those requirements is even wronger.

QtownDave

I’m about as big a anti big government guy as they come but I don’t see the hysteria about Real ID. All it basically does is have you provide some proof of who you claim to be.

WillCAD

And the point of all of this is:

You don't need to prove who you are to exercise your Constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms.

WHO you are makes absolutely no difference when boarding a plane, and is nobody's business but yours.

Real-ID costs money and time and effort to comply with, all of which become a sort of 'freedom tax' - if you have to pay to exercise your rights, it turns them from inalienable rights into revocable privileges. Which is really, really bad for any society.

gsoltso

You are correct, ID is not required to fly domestically on a common air carrier. TSA has procedures available to those that do not have an ID, or even if they just choose not to show ID. It takes a bit longer than the average trip through, but it is a process available.

Responding to other comments up thread (sorry, can't get the multi-quote to work for some reason) - The Right to freedom of movement is not infringed in the case of TSA screening and requirements, because there are rules applied to the industry based upon federal funding, it is also a part of a regulatory screening process that is based upon the safety of the nation as a whole (which is specifically carved out with regard to the 4th). You can argue the validity or application or any number of points about the need for ID, or screening in any way shape or form, but those are the arguments that will be used to pretty much quell any serious legal challenges.

nrr

As noted in several posts in this thread, for most people, a pp requires less documentation than REAL ID and is accepted in lieu of RI--so in effect the RI requirement is sort of a sham.

QtownDave

Obviously my lack of hysteria is not shared by all. But you are arguing against the perfect so I wish you good luck there.

QtownDave

Government bureaucracy doesn’t make sense? Tell me more.

I remember when lighters were banned but matches were allowed.

Section 107

It is simply not true that constitutional rights may not be infringed. It has long been established that constitutional rights may be infringed as long as the infringement is not an unreasonable burden. If the burden is unreasonable then it is unconstitutional and not allowed. What is reasonable is, of course, regularly litigated.

You argue that the ID requirement is an "unequally-applied infringement" but how so? If it applies to all passengers then how is it unequally applied?

More to the point: since one will still be allowed to board a commercial flight with a non-real id compliant document and, in fact, without any identification documents at all, how is the right to travel, and by air in particular, being unreasonably infringed?

Certainly possessing a "real" ID will make commercial air travel much more convenient and not having such a document could (and government employees of a certain agency are sure to make that "could" be "will") result in significant inconvenience and cost due to delays and missed flights. But not having it does not preclude such method of travel.

I do not like this either; but if and when SCOTUS takes up a REAL ID case, my bet will be on the Court ruling it passes constitutional muster; based on previous cases it is almost assured.

GUWonder

I can fly domestically in some countries without showing any ID. I can even fly internationally on some routes using scheduled commercial carriers and do so as Dr. Ship Came In .....even as I’m no physician and Ship Came In isn’t the name on any of my ID.

Boggie Dog

I’m confident that some TSA checkpoint will turn away a traveler for not having Real ID in October, then the opportunity to pushback will be enhanced.

shipcamein

GU Wonder - of course you can - fly in SOME countries without ID, or using a facetious name or credential. But we're talking about MOST countries here, not the the unicorn exceptions.

Regarding something unreasonable about the NFL - (Section 107 and WillCad) - all of the things you mentioned (due process, etc.) don't (necessarily) apply to non-US citizens. And I'm not saying I agree with it anyway - I'm just saying, that's how it is. A dear friend of mins shares the name (but not the habits) of someone on the FBI wanted list...and whenever he travels he gets "special" treatment, particularly at border crossings, but also at many domestic airports. Is it some violation of the Wanted Man's rights that he cannot fly? I'm sure he violated someone else's rights to life and happiness, so I'm OK with the trade. Others may not be.

jfunk138

My suspicion is that the federal government very much desires the creation of a "national id card". There is sufficient opposition to this idea that it is politically impossible at the moment. Real ID was sold as a way to "protect us from terrorists" but nonetheless was a backdoor method of creating a national id card. In the "Anything for security!"™ days immediately post 9/11, it passed. Various states still opposed it even specifically outlawing implementation. 15 years later, implementation was still horribly low, so the feds stopped allowing non-compliant state id access to military bases... somehow the outcry from the right people was loud enough to force implementation but adoption still low. The "air travel" threat is their way of forcing adoption, not because there is actually a security justification but for political reasons. This is very similar to the way the feds are currently going after "sanctuaries" with the Global Entry shenanigans in NY: 'Do what we want or we will use travel to get our way with some dubious "security" justification'

If adoption remains low, expect they'll stop allowing the passport as alternative id or find some other place to make your life difficult if you carry a "Not for Federal ID". This isn't about security, it's about creating a national id card.

QtownDave

IF the federal government very much desires the creation of a "national id card" they picked the absolute dumbest and most ineffective way to do it.