Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection. "Are they just basically saying we just can't travel without identity papers? If that's true, then I'd rather see us go through a real debate that says we want to introduce required identity papers in our society rather than trying to legislate it through the back door through regulations that say there's not any other way to get around," Gilmore said. "Basically what they want is a show of obedience."

Well then sir think about this... Try getting stopped driving a motor vehicle without you DL in your wallet. If that happens you can almost rest assured you will recieve a summons to appear in court. And before you say anything, it's the same as what you quoted. With out that lic you are traveling without proper ID are you not? Or identity papers as you are calling them.

It is contingent that you have earned a driver's license to drive, not travel within or between states - at least not yet. Do you want it that way? Do you want to be ID'd wherever you go?

The fact that you believe you must have an ID on you at all times simply to go anywhere is extremely telling to everyone how conditioned you have become.

(don't feel badly it's happening everywhere)

It is contingent that you have earned a driver's license to drive, not travel within or between states - at least not yet.

You can TRavel between states without ID.  No one said you could not.  However, there is nothing in the constitution that says you are 'entitled' to a plane ride.  You can walk, ride a bike, thumb, or whatever.  You can still travel.  But if you are going to use a private transport, you have to do so by their rules.

It is contingent that you have earned a driver's license to drive, not travel within or between states - at least not yet. You can TRavel between states without ID. No one said you could not. However, there is nothing in the constitution that says you are 'entitled' to a plane ride. You can walk, ride a bike, thumb, or whatever. You can still travel. But if you are going to use a private transport, you have to do so by their rules.

BINGO!!!

It is contingent that you have earned a driver's license to drive, not travel within or between states - at least not yet. Do you want it that way? Do you want to be ID'd wherever you go?

If it can save "one" American life then hell yes! I don't have a problem with it at the present time. As someone who carries a concealed firearm I MUST carry ID with me at ALL times.

It is contingent that you have earned a driver's license to drive, not travel within or between states - at least not yet. You can Travel between states without ID. No one said you could not. However, there is nothing in the constitution that says you are 'entitled' to a plane ride. You can walk, ride a bike, thumb, or whatever. You can still travel. But if you are going to use a private transport, you have to do so by their rules.

It's by conforming to the regulations that our society imposes that we agree to the social contract.

While your initial point is valid, that we as a society have become passive and apathetic towards the intrusions into our privacy, the so-called "right to privacy" is overruled by the desire to "promote the general welfare" as claimed by the Declaration of Independence.

You can walk anywhere in this great country of ours. From 1996-2000, my uncle walked from Minneapolis to Northern Virginia as a homeless person.

You can also drive, with a license. My dad tried to "revoke" his own drivers license, along with his social security card and other "identity papers". And every time he got pulled over, usually for expired tags (since he refused to renew his plates), he would spend at least a week in the clink.

Instead of a virtuous Daughter of the Revolution she is instead a whore dressed as a handmaiden to those taking the quick and easy route to accomplishing the original task of government - protecting it's citizens. Those perpetrators are the signers of the Patriot Act and the legislators of other equally heinous legislation such as the Real ID Act and we; the inactive people and lackadaisical guards of our own civil liberties granted us by some of the wisest men in the world are welcoming the slutdom.

America's not a police state, as your inflammatory words imply. It's a social contract. And if the lawmakers get out of line, it is up to informed and intelligent citizens to stand up and fix the abuses.

Without those cameras, def, where would we get the material for those wacky "Dumb Things People Do" TV shows?

Cheers,
Daiwa

You can still travel. But if you are going to use a private transport, you have to do so by their rules.

Since both you and Drmiler have seemingly missed this semi-important passage mentioned in the article which addresses your valid point I will repost it here:

The gate agent asked for his ID.

Gilmore asked her why.

It is the law, she said.

Gilmore asked to see the law.

Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is "Sensitive Security Information." The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection.

This means there can be no public debate about the secret law. What happened to transparency in democracy? If there are laws written that cannot be disclosed to public view then they are authoritarian in nature and not subject to the usual safeguards in our democracy.

Singrdave,

I'm very aware of the social contract. I would suggest to you that the contract has become unilaterally changed due to citizens' uninformed apathy, disinterest, and disregard for being party to the democratic society. This, combined with a heavy dose of fearmongering continually raining down upon us from our governmental leaders and the MSM has led us to a more draconian form of government our forefathers would likely not recognize as their own brainchild.

The fact is, many citizen groups that are against the new government superstructure are finding themselves targeted:

The ACLU being persecuted in the public arena as it fights for civil liberty is a good example, the antiwar protestors being targeted by the NSA is another example, my little brother being visited by the FBI and told not to bother showing up for the RNC in Boston last year to protest is another example, the NSA probe to find out who leaked the information about the secret executive order is another example...time and time and time again the evidence mounts - but we keep getting this excuse that people are voluntarily 'rolling over' so that they may be 'protected'. We get this excuse that if someone wants to do something about this predicament of an ever tightening noose strangling our autonomy then someone can 'do something about it'.

The fact is, groups that are 'doing something about it' are being met with retaliation to keep the current agenda of a prison without bars rolling.

If you are familiar with the prison without bars analogy then you understand that an innocent person placed behind bars will often try to find some means of escape. Because they can touch and see and feel the bars and enclosing walls they fully understand they are trapped and will look for inviting weaknesses that will provide a route to freedom.

If, instead, you take an innocent person and trap them in a space without bars and walls they can see, they will assume they are 'free' and not bother trying to escape from the space they are actually enclosed in.

Enable yourself to see the invisible bars: the establishment of secret laws, silent executive orders, and obscure language found in public documents deceitfully sold to the public by career politicians once shifty - eyed attorneys have backhandedly found ways around your social contract, singrdave. How many bills passing through the house lately have you contacted your representative on and even received an answer? Public servants are supposed to be reachable by their constituents. Did you even know of the Real ID Act before it's passing? Did you get a copy of the Patriot Act to read before giving the thumbs up to your senator? Did your Senator even read the whole damned thing the night it was printed up because it was passed the day after...

It's taken me nearly a year to convince some of my family members of the Real ID bill's existence as no one believed a National ID card would ever come in to being. The MSM was deathly silent about it. Though I spent 10 months telling my Mother (a dyed in the wool yellow dog Democrat) of the Republican Sponsored bill she failed to believe in it until she actually heard it reported on NPR. Nearly 10 months after the bill's passing and only now is it being reported on? Only now is a controversial Republican sponsored bill being reported on by what some refer to as 'liberal media'? The rest of the MSM was equally quiet about it and only began the reporting of it nearly ten months after it's passing. Something is wrong.

This is the problem I'm attempting to address, singrdave, people aren't listening because they are busy being lulled in to a very un-American way of life and if they do have their eyes and ears out for potential problems they look like Cassandras (see: mythology) because the MSM busy telling people how the world is is busy telling people how the world isn't.

Naysayers keep telling 'Chicken Littles to stop clucking' but g*dd@mn big f*cking pieces of the sky are falling all around us.

Deference,

I've already detailed why I don't lend a great deal of weight to Patriot Act intrusions. It's not that I don't see the Patriot Act as wrong. I definitely do. It is, rather, because in the Patriot Act, we are dealing with very real albeit hypothetical violations of our civil liberties while the same pundits who stand on this soapbox ignore the very real, very pressing FACT that in the present, more than half a million children live in US foster care, the VAST majority of those removed from their parents without a CRIMINAL finding of guilt or neglect on the part of the parent in violation of nearly ALL of the spirit of the Bill of Rights. Until you and others like you are willing to be EQUALLY vocal about these very real, very present intrusions, I refuse to be a part of your protest against hypothetical future intrustions.

Gideon,

Because of the laws in place allowing the government to snatch children away exists, the abuse naturally follows. At some point, the 'hypothetical' bars become very evident real ones to those affected.

Those bars are still very much invisible to all those people not affected (the government can take my children away without cause? No...surely not) and coexist in the same dream world of shoulder shruggers of Patriot-Act like legislation.

I understand you frustration Gid, I have been following your blog; we only have to fill a gap to guard against tyrrany.

When I worked in law enforcement in Texas...you could be fined for not having an ID....if an officer got out of his car and was talking with you and asked for id and you didn't have any, he could write you a ticket....of course he could only use the name you gave him and the DOB you gave him...so most times people would lie, get the ticket under someone else's name and then there would be a warrant out for that person when the ticket wasn't paid.

Isn't that messed up?

Oh yeah, it was called "failure to identify." It may be called something else now.

Very interesting, Tova.

I don't know Texas state law but I will take a few stabs at guessing the way the state would have gained satisfaction when dealing with someone not carrying identification.

1.) Not having an ID could be an arrestable offense; i.e., they could take you in and attempt further identification from there.

2.) License tags / plates come up with a description of the driver.

3.) Now, I don't know how long ago this was when you worked in law enforcement, Tova, but I know that today, anyone who has ever had a state id of any sort is automatically entered into a database with your face and personal information permanently retained.

For example:

If I was walking along without my id and got picked up for , I don't know - molesting a dumpster - the officer can simply match my face with one found in his in-cruiser laptop linked to the state database or take me in and hold me until they identify me by the same means.

You can still travel. But if you are going to use a private transport, you have to do so by their rules. Since both you and Drmiler have seemingly missed this semi-important passage mentioned in the article which addresses your valid point I will repost it here: The gate agent asked for his ID. Gilmore asked her why. It is the law, she said. Gilmore asked to see the law.

I would have thought that the answer was clear....There is no such law and the person at the gate was talking our their butt.

This means there can be no public debate about the secret law. What happened to transparency in democracy? If there are laws written that cannot be disclosed to public view then they are authoritarian in nature and not subject to the usual safeguards in our democracy.

I can tell you it is by the rules of the mighty fahvad! as long as I dont single you out, I am not discriminating, and if you are going to ride my see-saw, you play by my rules.

Period. Since you failed to understand private property ownership.

Period. Since you failed to understand private property ownership.

It's a shame you fail to do research before opening your stinky trap, Dr. Guy, you always make yourself sound so dumb in your haste to be so ignorantly bellicose. But hey, I forgive you.


I would have thought that the answer was clear....There is no such law and the person at the gate was talking our their butt. -drmiler

Okay, let's answer this question, the law is a federal one which cannot be discussed under order of the administration. To give you both a better idea of what we're dealing with here, I've provided a link and an abstract.

...The libertarian millionaire sued the Bush administration, which claims that the ID requirement is necessary for security but has refused to identify any actual regulation requiring it.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed skeptical of the Bush administration's defense of secret laws and regulations but stopped short of suggesting that such a rule would be necessarily unconstitutional.

"How do we know there's an order?" Judge Thomas Nelson asked. "Because you said there was?"

Replied Joshua Waldman, a staff attorney for the Department of Justice: "We couldn't confirm or deny the existence of an order." Even though government regulations required his silence, Waldman said, the situation did seem a "bit peculiar."

On the courthouse steps after the arguments, Gilmore said he felt confident about the case and welcomed a verbal concession from the Justice Department. "I was glad the government admitted it was 'peculiar' and Orwellian to make secret laws," Gilmore said.

The Justice Department has said it could identify the secret law under seal, which would be available to the 9th Circuit but not necessarily Gilmore's lawyers. But any public description would not be permitted, the department said...


Full text available at:

Link


Even if this 'secret law' is 'legal' the sixth Amendment would prevent anyone from being charged under the law as it would have to be published to inform the accused of the charges.

It's very interesting to see the two 'dr's' backing a big government secret law. What happened to you guys?