On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit appeals court decision which found that Americans do not have a “right to travel by any particular form of transportation” and do not have the right to know the laws and regulations they must obey.
The justices let stand without comment the January 2006 appeals court decision.
In 2002, John Gilmore attempted twice to board an airplane without showing government-issued identification and was denied boarding both times. Officials repeatedly refused to show him a law or regulation which required him to show ID, claiming it was sensitive security information, and he went to court.
Copies of the security directive in question have been leaked and have been available on the Internet for years. It does not require passengers to show identification, but does require that anyone who does not show identification go through secondary screening and requires special handling procedures for their checked baggage.
But Gilmore’s Supreme Court appeal wasn’t about being asked to show ID so much as being asked to follow a law without being able to know what the law says.
According to a statement by the Identity Project, which Gilmore heads and funds, “We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public.” — 27B Stroke 6
Gilmore calls secret law “an abomination” and says that it violates his right to due process. But now, with the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear this case, Americans can be subject to secret laws. Didn’t think that sort of thing could happen here? It can now.
Oh, and as the Ninth Circuit said in its decision, “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” You don’t have the right to travel either, according to these people.
The noose tightens.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3286 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Fraud Guy
Jan 09, 2007
So, we are now required to follow a (law/policy?) that we don’t know, so we don’t know whether or not we are in violation, and those who are in charge of enforcing it don’t know the law either, so that we don’t know if they are applying it correctly, or not, and neither do they, and this is now accepted by the Supreme Court, or not, because we don’t know if they know the law or not.
So then if I broke this law, I would not know it, unless I was caught by one of its enforcers, but since they do not know the law, they would not know whether I had broken it or not, but they still could arrest me because I may have, or not, but then how could I defend myself, without knowing the law, and whether it applied, or not, and…..ok, my brain hurts enough, now. This sounds too much like a children’s logic game (I know that you know that I know that you know, but you don’t know that I know that you know that I know that you know, and so….).
“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
–Lewis Carrol
Matt
Jan 10, 2007
Screw the judge I’ll travel in whichever way I find displeases him most.
Dave
Jan 10, 2007
If they haven’t already, they might as well just go ahead and shred the Constitution.
There’s this, there’s the eminent domain fiasco, and the medical marijuana which the court said the states could not decide for itself.
Land of the Free? Give me a $%^&! break.
7734
Jan 10, 2007
“Those who would give up essential liberty for a few moments of temporary safety deservce neither libery nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.
Seems to me that with the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court we have just gone the way of the beginnings of Nazi Germany. Wasn’t there a war to stop that type of abominal government wherein SECRET LAWS were used to conduct the business of the NAZI PARTY for the empowerment of the NAZI Leadership?
It scares the hell out of me when you have secret laws (used to protect you from all manner of terrible people) and you have no right to know those laws.
At the same time how do you protect your citizens from craven cowardly terrorists unless you have security measures that are effective and can identify accurately those terrorists? This absolutely does not mean to allow the airlines to run security. Look how well they did on 9/11. I wouldn’t get on a plane or within 100 yards of one if the airline industry was solely responsible for security.
I do agree that relying on IDs at security checkpoints is pretty well useless. Since anyone with a good computer and printer/scanner can make about any type ID that would pass most airport security checks it only makes more sense to have better/more screening of persons and baggage. But then again, someone will whine and complain the lines are too long, the searches of person and baggage is unlawfull, the security personnel are rude, and on and on and on. But let something happen in the airport or on the plane and these same people would be the first to scream “SUE” because they weren’t protected well enough.
Slim
Jan 10, 2007
So now not only do you need to know every law that is on the books because ignorance is not a excuse but you also need to know the laws they can’t/won’t show you and obey them.
Q
Jan 10, 2007
actually since we’re on the topic, you don’t need a license to operate a motor vehicle either –something about common roads law. the license was originally for people who charge other people to transport them the term driving is a trick word, you’re not driving a car, to drive someone you have to be charging them money, you can’t charge yourself. you’re traveling in a conveyance, and there was to be no fee or tax for traveling on common roads.
The IRS is not an official government agency, they were set up to collect money during war time, it was suppose to stop after the war was over, someone should tell them.
back to the original point of the article. these supreme court people were almost all chosen by Bush, so is it really a surprise? I expect him to find some reason or way to lengthen his term when his time is up, Rudy tried it.
Q
Jan 10, 2007
while we’re on the subject of secret laws you should start looking around for “the original 13th amendment” just Google that and be astonished.
Trust me when I say we are FVCKED!! people just keep letting their rights be taken away. you know, if all travelers in America would just stop using the airlines, you bet they would change that sh!t. they’d have no choice. but you depend on it like you do your blackberrys so as i said we’re screwed
Q
Jan 10, 2007
If we are now subject to laws of which we have no knowledge, may we then assume that ignorance of the law has become a positive defense? Thorny issue, that.
GAZ
Jan 10, 2007
Everybody read the decision. Turns out you can still fly without presenting ID, but you must submit to secondary round of searches (which Gilmore refused).
Seems like he might have had a better case if he focused only on the issue of being shown the rules. Most people are not outraged by the ID policy but by the fact that the policy (in its entirety) can be kept from the public.
Then again there might be something to the TSA’s contention that that there are items in the security policy which if they were made public could be more easily circumvented.
Here is bar far the most relevant part of the initial decision:
“In support of his vagueness challenge, Gilmore relies principally on Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), in which the Supreme Court held that a California statute was unconstitutionally vague because it did not clarify the requirement that a person who loiters or wanders on the street provide “credible and reliable†identification when requested by a peace officer. Although the statute was struck down because it was unconstitutionally vague, Kolender is easily distinguishable from the present case. The statute in Kolender, California Penal Code § 647(e), was penal in nature. In applying the void-for-vagueness doctrine to the statute, the Supreme Court stated that this doctrine “requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.†Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357 (emphasis added). Unlike the penal statute in Kolender, the identification policy here does not impose any criminal sanctions, or threats of prosecution, on those who do not comply.
Rather, it simply prevents them from boarding commercial
flights.”
citizen
Jan 10, 2007
Everyone needs to learn the difference between a U.S. Citizen and a Citizen of the united States of America. The government of THE UNITED STATES is a Corporation ( stared in the 1870′s) and assumes that Everyone is under there control.
This is not tinfoil hat shit. It is real.
The problem starts when you ACCEPT the social security number, this creates a fake “person” that becomes bound to the UNITED STATES. And no, there is no law that you must have a SSN. Yes i have a letter that says so from the Feds themselves.
Start reading.
lordmetroid
Jan 11, 2007
No the problem doesn’t start with you contracting for a SSN. It starts with your birth certificate which is a contract of “exchange of property”. The state becomes the property owner of the child. And he can in exchange get a passport, go to public school, get public scholarship funding, further contract with the state, get employement as an official in any of the government agency’s including being a representative and voting.
The SSN is a contract to enter public commerse, you become a taxpayer or in plain words you accept that you are responsible for the deficit and agrees to use FRNs as tender and you contract away your labour. In return you get to do business as a government agency by seting up your own public corporations and get limited liability and the social Servies will fund you.
The Official marriage license is another tricky contract which says that you give the ward of the child to the state and in return you get some tax-benefits. This contract is an extra-special contract which means you sign them with 2 parties. Your partner and the state and the state is the only one that can repeal the contract to be in eliglable.
Quite a scary system of deceaving communism. Because as you get a US. Citizenship through the birth certificate or immigration you become an agent of the government and so you are owned by the people like any other official who takes the oath of office.
citizen
Jan 11, 2007
Lordmetroid: Thanks for saying that. You are correct.
Max
Jan 12, 2007
check it as it covers the whole federal reserve system…
Max
Kevin Fields
Jan 14, 2007
This is extremely disappointing, but I’m sure the Supreme Court is just looking at its docket and trying to figure out what the more pressing issues are right now.
That doesn’t mean that this is the end of the road, though. It is simply a start. I’m sure that there are more individuals besides John Gilmore who have been directly affected by this. Like Gilmore, they will need to stand up and have the bravery to challenge these laws in court again and again until it becomes a higher priority for the Supreme Court to address. Perhaps Mr. Gilmore will volunteer to help fund these legal challenges.
Apr 04, 2007
Red Pills » Because we’re the government and you’re not
Mandy
Aug 12, 2007
You libertardians are nuts…
jgroup01@hotmail.com
Nov 22, 2009
Corporation(s) can pass LAWS ?
NOPE… Those are RULES for employees