Uechi-Ryu.com

On Roy Bedard's forum, there is a discussion on the merits of profiling/not profiling when boarding an airplane and the security checks, etc. Form there, Panther made some informative statements, most of them rooted in civil libertarian principles. So as to not take up Roy's forum, I've moved some of the discussion here, because it belongs here more. With some cutting and pasting...

From me...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
What, exactly, is Security Directive 96-05? Paragraph 1, section C?

What, exactly, is "selectee" status?

Has this Directive changed since 9-11?

In light of the government's Constitutional power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes " , can the government require a photo ID before boarding an airplane?

Can the airlines themselves require a photo ID before boarding? Many businesses require a photo ID before accepting a check or credit card as payment. How is asking for a photo ID before boarding a plane any different?

What about the pilots themelves? They are sovereign on their airplane-whatever they say goes. Can they say to the ground crew, "No one gets on this airplane without a valid photo ID - no exceptions, selectee status or not"?

Does any body or entity, governmental or otherwise, have the right to ask for a photo ID before boarding a plane?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Panther's responses:
Gene, I have no idea if the directive has changed post-9/11 given the fact that we now seem to be operating under secret law (which is Un-Constitutional and is the cause of the lawsuit mentioned in my first post on this thread).

However, pre-9/11, Security Directive 96-05, came from the Federal Aviation Agency and was issued to all airlines in August of 1996.

Its wording is very instructive; it reads as follows:

"IDENTIFY THE PASSENGER --
A. all passengers who appear to be 18 years of age will present a government issued picture ID, or two other forms of ID, at least one of which must be issued by a government authority.
B. The agent must reconcile the name on the ID and the name on the ticket -- except as noted below.
C. If the passenger cannot produce identification, or if it cannot be reconciled to match the ticket, the passenger becomes a "selectee." Clear all of their luggage as noted in Section 6 below. Clear selectee's checked and carry-on luggage, and suspicious articles discovered by the questions asked."

The directive then explains procedures by which luggage may be "cleared" -- most of which in practice seem to involve placing matching orange stickers on boarding pass and baggage -- including: "1. Empty the luggage or item and physically search its contents by a qualified screener, or; 2. Bag-match -- ensure the bag is not transported on the aircraft if the passenger does not board."

I have been told of people that have refused to produce ID and requested to be processed as a "selectee" being accused of being FAA, FBI or other government undercover agents.


...the United States of America still has no "mandatory internal passport" which is required to board the train... Even though many legistraitors lament the fact and work to change it, this nation still doesn't require citizens to "show zem zee paperz" and even though many politicos, judges and LEOs don't like the fact, the citizens of this nation are still protected by the premise of "innocent until proven guilty". (But don't fret... that's changing extremely fast.)


"Can the airlines themselves require a photo ID before boarding?"

Not prior to 9/11/01. That was held to be a violation of your civil Rights to travel and passage... thus the aforementioned Sec-Dec. (Although it does beg the question of 'why do you need to get a driver's license and register your automobile if courts have held that you have a Right to travel freely by the best means available... Hmmmmmm....)

...a businesses refusal to sell you something via check or credit card unless you jump through that businesses' hoops doesn't prevent you from going and obtaining the cash and purchasing the item anyway. The alternative for the airline is to deny you service, which gets them in trouble.

If you believe that pilots are truly sovereign on board their airplanes, then why is there such a fight for them to be allowed to carry firearms? If they were truly sovereign, then they could just do so and wouldn't need any permission from Big Brother, ummm, Big Government, ummmmm, someone else...

"Does any body or entity, governmental or otherwise, have the right to ask for a photo ID before boarding a plane?"

IMNSHO, NO. But then again, I believe that if we had been living in the truly free nation that our Founders created, 9/11/01 wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it turned out...



[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited August 20, 2002).]

(1) It would be really interesting to see if the Security Directive was changed since 9-11. Is there anyway we can find out? Can we call the FAA and get a copy?

(2) I think Panther is wrong to assume that the gov't can't require an ID for air travel. Here's why...

In 1995 the SCOTUS overturned the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In that case the Nine Wise ruled that the federal government:

"may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce...is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities if interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce (emphasis added)...includes the power to regulates those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce".

The case is United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. 514 U.S. 549.

So, the federal government can regulate:

{1) Channels of interstate commerce (roads, airports, seaports, and the like).
(2) Instrumentalities of interstate commerce (things moving in interstate commerce, such people, vehicles or goods)
(2) Those things that substantial affect interstate commerce.

Within this power, the Feds can, among other things, set standards for airline pilots. This is because the pilots are an "instrumentality" of interstate commerce. This includes telling them they can't have guns on airplanes. Also, it is this authority that gives the gov't the right to tell piltos what they can and cannot due on their airplane (hence the sovereignty, sort of). So yes, the pilots DO need permission to carry guns, b/c the federal government has the authority to ban/allow the practice.

The Feds can also require a photo ID at check-in, because passengers are also "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce.

Gene



[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited August 20, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:
(1) It would be really interesting to see if the Security Directive was changed since 9-11. Is there anyway we can find out? Can we call the FAA and get a copy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer to both questions is "no". As I wrote in first post on Bedard-Sensei's forum, that is exactly the reason why John Gilmore has filed a federal lawsuit. (found at: http://cryptome.org/freetotravel.htm) It is still Un-Constitutional to have "secret laws", but that is where we're at under the current rules/directives.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>(2) I think Panther is wrong to assume that the gov't can't require an ID for air travel. Here's why...

<deletion of GFSZ90 overturned by SCOTUS>

The case is United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. 514 U.S. 549.

So, the federal government can regulate:

{1) Channels of interstate commerce (roads, airports, seaports, and the like).
(2) Instrumentalities of interstate commerce (things moving in interstate commerce, such people, vehicles or goods)
(2) Those things that substantial affect interstate commerce.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but you have to read the rest of the ruling and other rulings along the same line of thought... SCOTUS was saying that the Federal Government can only regulate those things which are involved with interstate commerce. And that was why (in part) they overturned GFSZ90. SCOTUS ruled that 1) the person traveling past the school was not engaged in "interstate commerce", 2) persons living within a state and traveling within that state are not considered to be "engaged in interstate commerce" (with few exceptions), 3) (regardless of Congress' insistence otherwise) the fact that the firearm in question was manufactured in another state does not mean that the person carrying said firearm was/is "engaged in interstate commerce".

Please note the common thread. Interstate commerce... Both words have specific meanings and both are necessary for the Federal Government to have the Constitutional power to regulate an item. In fact, that is the only area that the Federal government has regulation/statute/law-making power within the boundaries of the States! (The Constitution doesn't just say what the Federal Government can do, it was intended to be a limit on the powers of the Federal Government. It wasn't until early in the 20th Century that some bright weasel figured out that if they can claim that something has to do with "interstate commerce", then the Feds have the power and now all those laws/statutes/regulations/etc that we are innundated with from the Feds all have a clause that claims they have something to do with "interstate commerce"! (unless, of course, they fall into the original powers granted to the Federal Government by the States through the Constitution... )

Even though GFSZ90 was held to be Un-Constitutional by the SCOTUS, the Legislative branch also knows that any law they pass is "presumed to be Constitutional until it has been overturned by the Judicial branch". Just what does that mean? Well... It means that Congress just turned around, rewrote the section in GFSZ90 that said it relates to "interstate commerce" (they basically added something that in effect says, "yes it does too have to do with interstate commerce... and this time we really mean it!") and then re-passed the same exact law that SCOTUS had held as Un-Constitutional!! That "new" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) law, since it has not been challenged, is still in effect!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Within this power, the Feds can, among other things, set standards for airline pilots. This is because the pilots are an "instrumentality" of interstate commerce. This includes telling them they can't have guns on airplanes. Also, it is this authority that gives the gov't the right to tell piltos what they can and cannot due on their airplane (hence the sovereignty, sort of). So yes, the pilots DO need permission to carry guns, b/c the federal government has the authority to ban/allow the practice.

The Feds can also require a photo ID at check-in, because passengers are also "instrumentalities" of interstate commerce.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummmm... Not quite. As the example of the SCOTUS opinion on GFSZ90 showed and has been held by SCOTUS (and other courts) in other cases, if I purchase a ticket for transport within a State, the "commerce" has occurred within that State. I have a Right to Freedom of Travel and that Right extends to a Freedom of Travel between the States. Even though I have traveled "interstate", I have not engaged in "commerce interstate". If I ship a package from State "A" to State "B", I engage in commerce of hiring for the delivery of that package within a State. (not "interstate") Therefore, I can ship parcels of coffee to Tony-San without "engaging in interstate commerce". However, if I charge a price for that product being shipped from MA to FL... then I've met the criteria for "engaging in interstate commerce". Alternatively, if I ship those very same parcels to Gene and we are both within MA, regardless of whether I charge for them or not, it is not "interstate" commerce. The whole reason the "Commerce clause" was put into the Constitution in the first place was because all the colonies/States had their own laws and it was to keep States from levying tariffs, taxes, etc on the goods from other States. To insure that interstate commerce would be and remain free of artificial encumberences. (Since it really has nothing to do with this discussion, I will refrain from arguing the CSA position that the US Constitution was being blatantly violated in the 1840-60s by certain States levying tariffs and taxes on goods from other States... )

Back to your last points... I can see the argument that since there may be "interstate commerce" occurring on the airplane that the Feds have the statutory ability (Government's do not possess Rights, only individuals do) to regulate aspects of that travel, However it still ignores the fact that such statutes mean we are slipping all the way down the slope of having a "mandatory internal passport" and being required to "show our papers" like good little German Jews. Lawful United States Citizens are already disarmed by our own Government in far too many instances... I abhor the thought of walking into a situation as disarmed as a jew at Aushwitz! Which is exactly the position hundreds of U.S. Citizens flying on 9/11/01 were placed. IMNSHO, that should be the focus of outrage post-9/11/01, instead of worrying about "security failures"... Security will never be perfect, even if We, the People end up living in a police state. Therefore, I reiterate my position from Bedard-Sensei's forum... Why not Freedom?

The court held that (in the Lopez case),

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

where the interstate and intrastate aspects of commerce were so mingled together that full regulation of interstate commerce required incidental regulation of intrastate commerce, the Commerce Clause authorized such regulation

Also (from Lopez citing another, earlier case),

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The court held that intrastate activities that 'have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions' are within Congress' power to regulate

and also

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end

The court also ruled against a farmer who grew his own wheat, mostly for personal/farm use (but some he sold locally-intrastate). The lower courts fined him, b/c he violated the federal Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. In that case, the court ruled

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

So, even though you might fly from LA to San Francisso (in the same state), that trip might bear some effect of interstate commerce, which is under the Fed's control. And of course you are using a airport that is under the Fed's control.

If you ship Tony some nice Colombian blend, that is also under interstate commerce. Why? Because you are using a channel of interstate commerce (the airlanes, the sealanes or the highways), you are substantially effecting interstate commerce (b/c Tony is buying less imported coffee in another state).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

it still ignores the fact that such statutes mean we are slipping all the way down the slope of having a "mandatory internal passport"

Which is why I didn't vote for King George II, nor did I support his nomination of John Ashcroft as AG. Yes, it chills me too. We don't even want a National Health Insurance card, let alone a National ID Card.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I have a Right to Freedom of Travel and that Right extends to a Freedom of Travel between the States.

What Constitutional provision/Court decision/law grants this right?

You comment regarding showing "show zem zee paperz" is well taken. But what Constitutional provision/Court decision/law prevents the Feds from requiring this?

Remember too, that even if the Feds don't have the power to ask for ID at check in, do the individual states? After all,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> the powers delegated by the ... Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite (emphasis added)

James Madison, The Federalist No. 45 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can the states require you to show ID at airport check in if the Feds don't have the power to? What Constitutional provision/Court decision/law prevents this?

Can the states themselves require you to "show zem zee paperz" if the Feds don't have to power to?
What Constitutional provision/Court decision/law prevents this.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

It means that Congress just turned around, rewrote the section in GFSZ90 that said it relates to "interstate commerce" (they basically added something that in effect says, "yes it does too have to do with interstate commerce... and this time we really mean it!") and then re-passed the same exact law that SCOTUS had held as Un-Constitutional!!

You might not like it (and no, you don't), but I see nothing wrong with this practice, in general. They took an illegal law, and made it legal...so far. We can, of course, talk about the merits of this particular gun law, but that's another discussion.

Panther,

Please understand that I am not questioning the veracity of your arguments. Nor am I questioning your facts. I legitimately wish to learn more about your civil libertarian position, and the facts/court cases/laws you are using to back up your position. Please use as much detail about the facts/court cases/laws you are using, if you please. This is good stuff.

Have a nice day

Gene

[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited August 23, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Please understand that it isn't my intention to blow you or this thread off, but I don't really have the time to do the research for you. Perhaps later when I'm not so busy. My apologies...

Things are tough all over! No offense taken or apology needed!

Gene

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gene DeMambro:

You might not like it (and no, you don't), but I see nothing wrong with this practice, in general. They took an illegal law, and made it legal...so far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they did not... They simply repassed the original law with a section that says (in essense) "we really mean it!" Since all laws are held to be Constitutional until challenged, this is just a defacto way for the lizards to tie the citizenry up in litigation regarding every damn one of their UN-Constitutional laws... perhaps we should start enforcing that little law against treason. Given that most legisTraitors have either proposed or voted for Un-Constitutional laws, and since that is a direct violation of both the Constitution and their oath of office... let's enforce that law and I'd bet that we'd get a whole lot less trash for laws.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Panther,

Please understand that I am not questioning the veracity of your arguments. Nor am I questioning your facts. I legitimately wish to learn more about your civil libertarian position, and the facts/court cases/laws you are using to back up your position. Please use as much detail about the facts/court cases/laws you are using, if you please. This is good stuff.

Have a nice day <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gene,

Please understand that it isn't my intention to blow you or this thread off, but I don't really have the time to do the research for you. Perhaps later when I'm not so busy. My apologies... I have most of the cites in various texts here in my personal library, but don't have them at my "finger-tips" as it were. I will attempt to revisit the various issues here when time permits. However, as for our Right to travel freely, there are various court cases that have held as much (and are in part the reason for the previously mentioned Security Directive) as well as the ultimate Law of the Land, the Constitution. Try Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You see, some Rights were considered so fundamental by the Founders that they felt no need to list them specifically. In fact, reading the Founding Documents and believing in our Rights, Liberties and Freedoms completely, IMNSHO (and many concur) that We, the People would still have the inalienable right, given to us by our Creator to keep and bear arms, worship as we see fit, speak our beliefs, publish our words/beliefs, gather together, be secure in our homes (HA! tell that to the IRS, BATF, FBI!), not to talk or incriminate ourselves, not to be tried twice for the same offense, not to live under ex-post-facto laws, etc, etc, etc... AND to travel freely.

How 'bout this, Panther, for a summary.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Although the Articles of Confederation provided that "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,"{14} that right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created.{15} In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution. See Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 97; Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 (concurring opinion), 181 (concurring opinion); New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 6-8; 12-16 (dissenting opinion).

United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or this, from the same case,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further.{16} All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now 18 U.S.C. § 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, 129 F. 630, 633.

Since the Right to Travel is a protected "fundamental right", under what conditions can the right be infringed?

Do the current ID requirements legally or illegaly infringe this right?

Gene

[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 14, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

we now seem to be operating under secret law (which is Un-Constitutional and is the cause of the lawsuit mentioned in my first post on this thread).

While I agree with you, what about Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution that says (of both houses of Congress), in part:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,

Can they give themselves the authority to pass "secret laws"

And what about (from the same section)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgement require secrecy;
and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So not only can they keep their proceedings secret, but if more than 80% agree, then they can even keep their votes secret on any one vote, even if the rest of it is published from the journal.

Gene




[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 14, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Try Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. You see, some Rights were considered so fundamental by the Founders that they felt no need to list them specifically.

Quite true. This has been used in the last 40 years to expand and reinforce our Constitutional rights, especially the right to privacy.

From another post on another forum:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

It's all encompassing... Even the Founders (in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers) wrote that it was all encompassing.

Is it so encompassing that nothing can be regulated/banned? Surely there must be some limit to its interpretation?

How 'bout this definition. In this case, the SCOTUS ruled that

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is free to regulate the procedure of its courts in accordance with its own conception of policy and fairness unless, in so doing, it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.


Snyder v. Massachusetts 291 U.S. 97 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

fundamental = Constitutional

That's one common law definition of an unenumerated (i.e. Ninth Amendment) Constitutional right.

Or this one, maybe:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The fact that the right involved is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions" (Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316),

Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely there are those practices/actions that you, I or anyone else might wish to engage in that do not meet these standards? In that case, our right to do whatever it is we want is not a Constitutional right.

If the Ninth Amendment is the "We can do what ever the hell we want" Amendment, then we'd have public chaos. No?

Gene

[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited September 14, 2002).]