Originally Posted by docmonkey

your hypothetical security scenario might cause more travel deaths and injuries.

Originally Posted by docmonkey

If you really wanted to make air travel safer, you would suggest spending less money on ID checks and more money on cargo screening, air traffic controllers, runway improvements, maintenance inspections, etc.

Originally Posted by 2lazytothinkofname

This is beyond absurd and you know it.

Originally Posted by 2lazytothinkofname

Why does it have to be either or...spend money on all of it, ID checking, cargo, you name it, spend money on it.

Originally Posted by 2lazytothinkofname

If we can afford to waste billions of dollars buiding bridges to nowhere in Alaska, we can find some money for air security.

Originally Posted by MSY-MSP

The problem is that most likely a court would say you still have a choice. Ok so that choice may be walk or swim, but it is a choice. right?

I read the opinion and the way I interpret the facts of the case, there are two issues here. the first issue is a contract issue. i.e. between Gilmore and the airlines. This is two private entities who are free to contract as they will. The second issue is the government regulation of the private entites.

With regards to the first issue. Any airline can make any rule they want with regards to the contract, so long as those rules are in effect at the time of the contract. If the airlines want to see photo ID when you check in then that is the airlines right. It may be for revenue protection or it could be for security reasons it doesn't matter. The airline is free to have what ever rules it wants in place, and the customer is free to decide if they want to contract with the airline based on these rules. Private contracts are not subject to constitutional challenges, unless the private individual is acting for the government or is violating the "civil rights" of the customer. (In otherwords refusing the carry the person based on a protected category.) From this grounds the ID requirement is fine.

The second issue is the government requiring an ID to use a private carrier or access a public building. This issue is where there is a constitutional challenge, that may or may not be sucessful. Currently, I can get through an entire airport without anyone from the airline I am flying every actually seeing my ID. However, the government requires ID to access the security checkpoint. (Well you still don't need ID you just get SSSS). Currently, every person is entitled to a right to privacy. However, SCOTUS has been slowly eroding the full right to privacy. We have to provide our name when asked by the police or other law enforcement, but up to now we have not been required to show ID. There is no current requirement in the US that you have an ID. However, having one does make your life simplier. If the Gilmore case does go to SCOTUS, the issue will turn on 2 issues. 1) does congress have the right to regulate the activity, and 2) Does the regulation unreasonably interfere with constitutional gaurentees? I think most likely the SCOTUS would rule against Gilmore on appeal for the following reasons.

1. Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has the implied power to regulate intrastate commerce, when the intrastate commerce effects interstate commerce. If we look back at the depression era cases, such as Wickerd v. Filborne, the SCOTUS ruled that the simple act of growing food for yourself in your garden effected interstate commerce so that it could be regulated by the FEDs, it is more than likely the SCOTUS would rule that even a flight entirely within the state of CA would be under the control of the commerce clause. Thus congress has the power to develop regualtion in this area

2) is the ID requirement reasonable to meet the stated governmental purpose? This is the tougher question. The court would have to look to the alternatives available to Gilmore and if any of those alternatives are reasonable. This court has given reasonable a wider definition than many of us would deam reasonable, but that is the way it is now. Most likely the court would rule that Gilmore, could use several modes of transportation to get where he wanted, where the government regulation requiring an ID is not present. Currently, the federal government does not require an ID to ride the bus, take a train, walk, ride your bicycle, or ride in a car as a passenger. The court would then rule that Gilmore has the option of these modes of transportation. While these may be more expensive, less convientient or even take significantly longer none of them are per se unreasonable. Thus the regulation would most likely pass this muster as well.

I guess what I am saying, is while I don't necessarily agree with having to show ID to go places by air, I cannot say this ruling is legally and constitutionally wrong.

Where I would like to see the challenge is access to a government building, that one needs to access and there are no alternatives available. The one I can think of is accessing a DMV.

Just had a second thought that may work on this case, but not likely. If I was Gilmore's attorney, I would go for the arguement that not requiring all passengers to have ID is the fatal flaw. In particular, children under a certain age get a free pass without an ID. It is possible to get a government ID for a child, therefore, allowing children through without ID is creating a different category of person and is not providing equal protection under the law. Further by exempting children congress is failing to meet the stated goal. Therefore the imposition is not narrowly tailored to meet the goal. The problem with this arguement is that it is easily fixable by Congress, and we won't like the fix.

Please keep in mind I have been writing patent applications all day so I may not make a whole lot of sense here.

Originally Posted by docmonkey

With hardened cockpit doors and a policy to not cooperate with hijackers, air travel is already amazingly safe. Inspecting all cargo would make it safer.

The added ID check training from your hypothetical may not save one life. In fact, these security measures might increase the cost and hassle of air travel so much that some people would choose to drive instead. Since driving is much more dangerous, your hypothetical security scenario might cause more travel deaths and injuries.

If you really wanted to make air travel safer, you would suggest spending less money on ID checks and more money on cargo screening, air traffic controllers, runway improvements, maintenance inspections, etc.

When the costs and benefits of security are weighed rationally, only people who are truly paranoid about terrorism believe that more ID checks are needed, since money spent on ID checks comes at the expense of other safety measures.

I'm definitely interested in hearing more analysis of the case at hand, but what's unreasonable about my thinking?

Originally Posted by Wally Bird

"He was not threatened with arrest or some other form of punishment; rather he simply was told that unless he complied with the policy, he would not be permitted to board the plane. There was no penalty for noncompliance."

Originally Posted by Wally Bird

"The Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation."

Originally Posted by michaelchertoff

My issue with this line of reasoning is that it is only true if it is performed in a vacuum... that is, if it is the only element of security.

Originally Posted by 2lazytothinkofname

Having a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything the TSA or government does with respect to security is very unreasonable indeed.

Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775

The interstate commerce clause has been eroded since 1995, when SCOTUS decided in Lopez that a federal statute banning firearms within 1,000 feet of schools did not implicate the interstate commerce clause. However, I agree that SCOTUS would likely find some inherent police power justifies the requirement of showing ID. I like the equal protection argument, but unfortunately the climate in today's United States is not solicitous of privacy, especially with the War on Terror raging.

Originally Posted by 2lazytothinkofname

OK let's say every new TSA employee goes to 2 years of training in everything from expolsives detection, to ID forgery to psychological interogation techniques. They need to pass rigorous exams to qualify, are tested regularly and must constantly update their skills. They are paid six figures a year.

Would you then be OK with that employee checking your ID? This of course wil not satisfy the anti-government extremists as they will cry foul at the cost but I think most reasonable people can see the benefits.

Originally Posted by MSY-MSP

I agree with the Lopez decision. Lopez took the commerce clause a lot further then it every should have been, and the SCOTUS put it back to where it should have been. In fact I think Wickard went too far, but that is so long ago that is beside the point. I am a federalist at heart, but must deal with the facts as they have been given to us. I believe that the founders gave a document that the states gave up only that which is specifically stated in the constitution and all other powers remained in the states. Any attempt by the federal government to usurp power from the states is a violation of the constitution. However, I would be hard pressed to find more than two justices on the supreme court to agree with me. Right now I think Scalia is the most federalist justice on the supreme court right now.



No that is not what i am saying. The only thing I am saying here is that the ID checkers have no training in what they are actually doing. I honestly would feel better if the TSA agents were checking the ID's. At least then there would be a consistency in who is checking the ID's, and they would have been trained in the whole aspect of security. Further, then there is at least a commoniality in function that shows at least a multi-layer approach to security. However, I do not think this is the real case.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Do the bazillions of illegal criminals taking over our country from Down Sur ever have to show ID when they fly? Or if they can sneak into the plane are they okay?

Originally Posted by MSY-MSP

Any airline can make any rule they want with regards to the contract, so long as those rules are in effect at the time of the contract. If the airlines want to see photo ID when you check in then that is the airlines right. [...] Private contracts are not subject to constitutional challenges, unless the private individual is acting for the government or is violating the "civil rights" of the customer.

Originally Posted by MSY-MSP

ID checking is only effective if the people who are checking them are in fact trained in the other areas.

Originally Posted by Wally Bird

Guess that ends a long-standing debate here.