Well, I am flying out of there Tuesday morning.

If they ask for two IDs I will ask for a Supervisor. I may miss the plane, but since it's the "nightmare" that is MCO I generally arrive early anyway!

I don't take much from the TSA and "let's make up some new rules" pretty much means I get to talk to the supervisor LOL!

I stand up to them.... (I am honestly suprised that I am not on the "no fly" list after I found a supervisor and complained, sent a letter to the TSA and to my elected officals regarding a jerk at BNA!)

I'm actually curious if even TSA is legal to even identify you. I posted another post about how they don't legally have a legal right to search you or your bags as they are government and all government needs a warrant to search. With that, how is there any legal right to stop and identify you? The airlines can hire private companies to do this and require it, but they can't even hire the government to do so. They can hire off duty cops and whatnot, who then work as private citizens.

The 4th Amendment provision for a warrant does not apply to an administrative search (the TSA), according to the courts. Is this simply playing fast-and-loose with the language ? You betcha, but we're stuck with it unless a higher court overturns the others - ain't gonna happen in my lifetime .

The ID thing has not actually been ruled on. The only case so far (Gilmore q.v.) got sidetracked and the 9th conveniently found a way to avoid making a decision on the ID issue specifically.

There is also a very vague provision somewhere in the labyrinth of statutes and regulations that says the FSD may impose 'additional' procedures at his/her discretion. Two pieces of ID may fall under that, but there ought to be a requirement for justification. Yeah, yeah I know...

Just keep objecting. Vociferously.

So basically then the courts have just made things up. It is pretty straight forward that the 4th amendment means ALL government.

Not at all.

I answered you in another thread but here is the full definition of the term and case references:

TSA searches are considered nonarbitrary since all pax are subject to screening for WEIs and authority to conduct searches was granted by those pesky regulators known as Congresscritters. To challenge the TSA's authority in court one would have to address (at least) the notions of scope, probable cause, nonarbitrariness, and particularly, reasonableness -- a very tough argument to advance, in my humble layperson's opinion.

The Constitution is not the sole source of law in this country. Case law, statutes and regulations also contribute to our body of rules.

*Source: Legal dictionary, lawyers.com

Yes, but let me show you something that trumps that.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution:
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Most of the 'laws' on the books are illegal. THe 4th amendment includes all of government, even administration. All government. Only private companies hiring private people can require ID checks, but government can not.

Wow man, you are a true progressive. The Constitution trumps all other laws.

And you want to bring up case law? Where is case law the law? Case law is NOT the law, never has and never been. If you follow case law it came up form the early 1900's by progressives to go ahead the Constitution and other laws. If you follow cases that claim case laws you will see people breaking laws on the books BUT that judges ruled with case law nulling the crime that had taken place. If a judge rules that a murder murdered someone for the heck of it but rules him innocent for some reason reason (maybe dad molested him) that then creates case law to let murderers off. Yes this is a very extreme example but it is what case law can do.

Just wow, you think the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land. It is nothing trumps the constitution.

In matters where the federal constitution is silent I'm pretty sure trump is impossible.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I'm inclined to respect SCOTUS and lower court decisions as constitutive of The Law, along with statutes, regulations and state and federal constitutions.

I think you misconstrue my comments.

But rather than flay the deceased equine any further, I'll rest my case.

Case law is not the law is a fact, not an opinion. You can not show one legal document that shows that case law is the law. I can show you proof that says it is not legal. Even in April 9, 2009 the Supreme Court ruled on New Yorks v. Belton, a 1981 case. Their ruling came down that cops need a search warrant to search a car even if you have been arrested. This case was used as 'case law' which other cops use to search your car if they have arrested you. This case alone shows that case law is not the law and that what was being done based on this case was and is ILLEGAL. Just like it is NOT the law for a cop to read your Miranda Rights. Judges started throwing about case if they weren't read but there is NO WHERE in any legal law that requires Miranda rights read. This is only augured as case law but again, there is actually no law for Miranda Rights to be read and there is no law that says case law is the law. If case law was the law then it would bypass the laws on the books, it would bypass the legal systems we have, it would bypass the elected officials and voters. You have judges creating laws, not the elected officials and or the people.

And yes, the Constitution trumps all laws. The Federal governments duties are only what is specifically laid out in it, plus the Bill of Rights. States may allow the feds to do more then what they are legally allowed to do but they also have the right to not allow it. This is what we are seeing today with several States now nullifying Federal laws in their State.

How about we keep a perfectly relevant discussion in TS/S and not in OMNI PR Hell? That said, your are all a little right and a little wrong.

The Constitution IS the supreme law of the land, but the 4th Amendment specifically has been interpreted using both the warrant and the reasonableness clauses. Until a few recent rulings (such as Gant), much of the jurisprudence has expanded government's ability to make "reasonable" invasions on a person through both search and seizure. This is where the whole Limited Administrative Search doctrine comes from.

Also, "case law" is the law in a Common Law system, which is the basis for federal law and the law of 49 states (bonus points for any non-lawyer who knows the exception). That is the very definition of the Common Law. Its why I laugh so hard when people talk about "activist judges" when it is perfectly within the rights of a judge to interpret statutory wording, constitutionality and even make law where there is an absence of statutory authority (most states will call it "public policy").

Well, the Wikipedia says it's Louisiana, but for all I know, some FTer may have just edited it, to prevent others from getting their bonus points!

Louisiana is correct.

/lawyer

The funniest (or scariest) part of all this is that your average bouncer or liquor store clerk is much more likely to be able to pick out a fake ID than any of these blue-shirted morons. Seriously, a fake can get you on a plane but can't get you into a bar. Glad to see that the government has its priorities straight -- it's clearly more important to keep college kids from drinking than random people from boarding planes.

What would happen if the 2 forms of ID did not match exactly? I am running into a situation where we are going to take a vacation in Germany. My passport says "Doggy Dooright Daddy" and my DL says "Doggy D Daddy". Continental only knows me as "Doggy D Daddy" and issued my ticket as such. I called CO and they confirmed that the ticket has to match the Passport, and changed the ticket to "Doggy Dooright Daddy", but said that I would not get One Pass miles for the flight as they only know me as "Doggy D Daddy". I would have to send in a letter, along with a Birth Certificate, and get a new One Pass credentials, so I could get my miles.
I tried to defuze the situation somewhat as my DL was up for renewal. In NJ, you can only get a DL with a middle initial, so from now on, I will have to use my Passport for ID when I fly. Kind of sucks! Oh well!


DD

For exactly that reason, starting Jan 1 2015, people with middle names will no longer be allowed to fly on commercial aircraft. TSA realizes that this will cause some slight inconvenience, but it's all for your safety. Remember 9/11. Think of the Children. Better safe than sorry.

(You may think the above is sarcasm, but if I'd told you 10 years ago that you wouldn't be able to bring a can of Coke or a snowglobe through security, you would've laughed too. )

As does mine.

My passport has my full middle name, and my tickets sometimes have my middle name, my middle initial, or not initial at all. It makes no difference; I am permitted to fly, and UA credits the miles.

Hopefully the people at none-pass who decide such nonsense will be fired after CO merges with UA.