As posted on Legal Blog Watch:
I'm now so paranoid about losing my ID on airplane trips that carrying my driver's license just doesn't cut it. I mean, what if I lost it? Hey, I've lost worse in World's Biggest Purse.
So I bring my passport. And a copy of my passport. And, just to be safe, a copy of my driver's license. But here's the part that makes me realize I've completely lost it: The copies are in plastic baggies. Separate ones. Just in case, somehow, a pool of water materializes in any airport I might visit, and said documents manage to escape World's Biggest Purse.
Perhaps this is why I am so impressed by John Gilmore's decision to put his many millions of dollars behind the question "why do we have to show ID?" Gilmore is now in his third year of litigating the federal requirement that commercial airplane travelers show ID before boarding planes (see Justin Scheck's story). Gilmore argues that this law is an invasion of his privacy. At the end of last week, Gilmore v. Gonzales made its latest court appearance, this time in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His lawyers "asked the judges to remand the case to the trial court, where a record could be established for the 9th Circuit to review," and plans to challenge all transportation-related ID checks if they do, Scheck writes. The government, "on the other hand, asked for a complete dismissal -- or for the 9th Circuit to address it directly," Scheck adds.
There's been lots of blawgging fallout about the hearing, and not just about the Dr. Seuss socks Scheck saw peeking out from under Gilmore's Birkenstocks. The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drumm wrote on Saturday:
"John Gilmore is suing the government because he doesn't think he should be required to show ID before boarding a commercial flight. I think this is stupid and he deserves to be thrown out of court.
"At least, that's what I'd think if it weren't for this:
'The Bush administration ... claims that the ID requirement is necessary for security but has refused to identify any actual regulation requiring it. ... 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.
"WTF? Call me naive, but I've never heard of a secret law. I've heard of secret courts and secret evidence -- which are bad enough already -- but not secret laws. When did this happen?" Much more here. (For Gilmore's account, read the official Web site, where Gilmore or one of his team describes the original incident at San Francisco International Airport.)
I don't think it's as bad as you think it is, responds Volokh Conspirator Orin Kerr to Drum. Kerr takes on the case in a lengthy post, from which I'll excerpt this nugget:
"I think reasonable people can disagree on whether TSA's practices are a big deal. Some will find them deeply troublesome, and others won't.
"At the same time, I think it's important to recognize that this dispute appears to be significantly narrower than Kevin's post suggests. First, Congress isn't passing any secret laws; the undisclosed authority is a regulation, not a statute, and the TSA's requirement is widely known. Second, no one is being arrested; as I understand it, the issue is only who can be let on an airplane.
"Finally, the court isn't being called on to interpret a law it has never seen. DOJ filed a motion attempting file [to] a version of its brief under seal ... "
What do you think? Does it make you feel better to show your ID? Is it an invasion of your privacy? Both? I welcome your thoughts. I also recommend the comments on Drumm's and Volokh's blogs.
It's pointless to check IDs when the state gives IDs to illegal immigrants.
It is an invasion of privacy but if they do rule in favor of cheking IDs I'm infavor of it, let's check everyone's ID & then boot all the illegals.
Hoist the state upon their own petard.
Posted by: Smitty | December 15, 2005 at 01:27 PM
I really don't mind showing my ID, I just never know where it is!! I'm much more concerned about secret laws. WTF is that all about. Next thing I know the secret police with be breaking down my door because I've broken some law I don't even know about. Christ I have enough problems with the laws I do know about. When are the citizens of this country going to say enough is enough!! At some point in the future (which is getting nearer, I am afraid) I envision myself as one of those folks up in some remote mountain cabin, armed to the teeth, holding off the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, and probably the damn IRS, yeah, most certainly the IRS!!!!
Posted by: Debby | December 17, 2005 at 05:38 PM
I hear you, Debby. It was no surprise to me when my home state of Montana passed bi-partisan legislation urging state and local officials (including librarians, natch) not to enforce certain provisions of Patriot Act I.
Montana followed Idaho, by the way! When people from two red states covered in yellow ribbons start pushing back on Washington for crowding American rights, it should be a clear indicator to elected officials that party rhetoric isn't the solution...
Posted by: Lisa Stone | December 18, 2005 at 10:31 AM
Don't give up!
The time for a fight AND when it's the most important is when
it's this obvious that these people have noones best interest at heart.
They aren't going to just leave...we have a fight on our hands.
Someone with the same mentality that urges a schoolyard fight
and ten stands back and watches with sociopathic slobber
running down thier mouths...is responsible for all this
shit our great country is going through right now.
Rise to the occasion is whats called for...the orignial minutemen
were not professional soldiers or mercenaries.
They were smart enough to enjoy regualr honest life...untill
they were harrassed by beligerent tyrrant followers who
have not the ambition to find honest work in the best country
and economy in the world!
That is excactly why we shouel NOT fear them.
They indeed do posssess inferior minds.
Fear not ~ but rest not..this is not a time for complaicency.
Posted by: china west | October 28, 2006 at 07:49 PM