TSA to Require More ID for Flights

[HKGuns]

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, how about weekly or daily inspections of your home and business?

Ah, but we aren't talking about that are we? I thought the subject was ID to board a plane?

Exactly how does ID to board a plane, something that is already a requirement, in any way related to daily or weekly home inspections?

I draw the line at the test of reasonableness. It is reasonable to have you ID yourself to board a plane. You have to pay for it...I suppose you use only cash in your financial transactions as well......I thought not.

Move along and focus on something important.

 

[Igloodude]

If it is so inherently obvious why you should be able to provide identification in order to board a plane (and I personally don't have any problem with doing so if only to maintain passenger manifests so they can figure out who you were when the plane makes an unscheduled landing nose-first into a mountain), why does the law specifying it need to be classified?

 

[Gung-Ho]

Well, whent they do come out with a law that in effect puts a "view screen" in your living room, there will no doubt be the ones around that cry..."so, what do you have to hide anyway." Maybe you will be one of them, and maybe you won't.

 

[musher]

Constitution doesn't grant rights; it places restrictions on government.

That's also not quite right. The constitution is a grant of powers to the government. The underlying assumption is that w/o the constitution, the government would have no powers to exercise. In this sense, the constitution removes restrictions from government.

 

[spartacus2002]

You are correct; I meant to say it doesn't grant rights to people.

 

[Arc-Lite]

Hate to tell you guys this, but your paper trail has been added to since the day you were born. the good point of that is.... there is so much data, it becomes lost in the tons and tons of files.

 

[what42]

Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to fly without identifying yourself?

Fourth Amendment: "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."

I see nothing in that amendment that says searches relating to travel don't require a warrant. Matter of fact, the fourth amendment clearly says the opposite. It says that a representative of the government MUST have a warrant to search me, my belongings, my papers, and my residence. There are no exclusions.

The problem is that we've allowed the government to overstep its bounds way too often. After allowing the government free access to all our papers with the IRS, and allowing seizures in the name of the 'war on drugs' we're having trouble reigning them in.


As a reminder, the constitution is not a document that lists what the citizens can do. It is a document that lists what the government can do. If it is not listed in the constitution, the government CAN NOT do it. (or rather should not. We all know that the American people are allowing it to do as it damn well pleases.)

 

[HKGuns]

Start to learn how to separate fact from fantasy gents. Since when does asking you to Identify yourself equate to a search?

I suppose when cop stops you he shouldn't be allowed to ask for your drivers license (ID) or proof of registration? Hmmmmm....He can ID you but he can't search your vehicle without a warrant or reasonable cause. Isn't it interesting how a search differs from an ID!!!

I now realize you can't argue logic with fanatics. You are all correct, asking someone to ID themselves is yet another form of evil government intruding on your lives. One of these days you bloke's will wake up to the real fights.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Since I refuse to voluntarily get on another plane without my shootin' iron, this topic is moot to me. I still love, however to post the picture of the future of air travel in the US. Total security. Enjoy.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Musher, you might be picking the flyspecks outa the pepper.

When it says, "Congress shall make no law...<snip>...The right of the people..<snip>..shall not be infringed..<snip>" and like on and on is IN FACT placing a restriction .gov.

We might be looking at different portions of the elephant. Article 1, section 8 specifically grants powers to .gov...The BoR specifically places restrictions.

 

[DRZinn]

I suppose when cop stops you he shouldn't be allowed to ask for your drivers license (ID) or proof of registration?

In that case, you have done something wrong, or at least he has probable cause to think you have. Do you suspect everyone who wants to board a plane of illegal activity?

 

[musher]

Well Mr Crop,

I gotta say, I aint never left no flyspecks in any pepper around here. It's pretty easy to get them if you use a magnifying glass, a sheet of typing paper, and a pair of tweezers!

Even the bill of rights doesn't place restrictions on government. As many of the founders argued, it was unnecessary and even potentially dangerous to write the BOR. Their argument was that since infringement of these rights was not a power granted to the federal government, then that goverment would not be able to infringe upon them even absent a BOR. The concern (which has proven well founded) was that explicit statement of a BOR might someday be construed as a grant of rights to the people and a restriction upon the powers of the government--hence the oft ignored tenth. The BOR was intended as a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of rights that were retained by the people and powers retained by the states.

The fact is, that anything not specifically granted as a power to the feds is an extraconstitutional taking of power.

 

[RevDisk]

what do the rest of you have to hide? No qualms here.

Me? Nothing, I'm ugly. I request a strip search just so I can give TSA agents nightmares.

Now my attractive female friends that fly... heh. They hope to hide their undergarments from prying eyes (and hands) of pervs or idiots in TSA uniforms.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Franklin

If I had to choose between living in a 'safe' totalitarian nightmare or an unsafe democracy (Well, constitutional republic. Which is a form of democracy.), I would choose unsafe democracy. But some people prefer the illusion of safety. Anyone with half a brain knows that there is no perfect guarentee of safety in this world. Give up every single civil liberty you possess, and you're still not going to be be safe. Probably be a lot less safe, in reality.