Now we are going to need passports to fly in the US? This can't be constitutional.

Pay Up -- Or Lose Your Passport

_____ (insert here) has poised to enact a law denying or revoking passports for _____ (insert here)

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

The IRS should have no say on whether a person can travel or not. That is just my opinion though.

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
a reply to: AttitudeProblem

The IRS should have no say on whether a person can travel or not. That is just my opinion though.

Hey, thanks to ACA (aka Obamacare) the IRS is all up in your HEALTH INSURANCE business.... just saying.

a reply to: lcbjr1979

This Forbes article discusses the issue as well, and I'd call them a reliable source -

Passport s Required For Domestic Travel In 2016, But IRS Can Revoke Passports For Taxes

This is clearly not Constitutional. Free travel in the country should be guaranteed for citizens. The IRS angle is even more disturbing. Seems like they are using travel as a way to penalize people for tax issues. It's all tied tot he Real ID business, which is, in itself, overstepping federal authority.

a reply to: eluryh22

Oh I know they are. It is insane. They collect tax, deal with healthcare, and now travel. What's next?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The Forbes article is actually used as a source in the article I posted. You are right, they are reliable.

a reply to: Gothmog

I tossed out a thought there with out much consideration. However, for the sake of discussion, I have given it more thought.

Yes, I guess they did not define how that travel takes place. However I do not think that they thought it would be ok to jump in someone else cart and ride along with out permission of the owner. But that is a stupid point, though it sets up the next point which is in line with my earlier suggestion. That we do not fly of our own accord. We fly in other peoples conveyances. The airlines. How they, along with the laws that they will or will not go along with are how this issue will be decided.

But for the sake of preserving the intend of the Constitution, I think that what they were after was to not prevent people from going from here, to there, or there to here. That the states cannot prevent you from travel from one state to another.

As for restriction of travel don't we already have that in abundance? We need licenses to drive, not ride (yet) from state to state. And how many states restrict travel on freeways other than on a motorized vehicle. How many states prohibit hitch hiking or even standing on the roadway to solicit a ride. Most.

And how about trains. Jumping on a train is illegal. How many states will stop you if you are walking along the freeway or riding a bicycle on a freeway? Bunches. I was picked up for walking along the freeway in Colorado in 1969, just for walking and driven to the state line and dropped in the middle of nowhere.

Will an airline allow us to fly with them without sound identification? Hell no. All this is is hopefully, to the government, sounder identification.

I get the froth over having to produce 'papers' in order to travel, in order to walk down the street, hell, to even have to carry them with us at all times. Repugnant. but more and more reality.

So ten years ago, when I first heard what was coming down the pike , that all of us would need passports to go along with our drivers licenses, you know what I did? I went out and got a passport. As much as I hate being controlled by the laws of the establishment, I got a passport. And you know what? So far I am still, in accordance with what I believe to be the spirit of travel as laid out by the Framers, I can still travel freely.

Shiny, new alien spacecraft. Good one.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I know I will get no sympathy here (made my own bed and all), but I have a twenty year old felony that prevents me from obtaining a passport. I also live in Mn. So now I wont be able to fly either? Not that I would want to these days. Seems I just keep losing privileges no matter how clean I keep my nose these days. I would have to say that that is how it affects me. But hey, as long as it's no problem for you, why worry eh?

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

Now, THAT IS disturbing. Your blanks from the link are Congress and serious tax debt. The 'serious' tax debt offers to be one of vacillating standards. That is also disturbing. And Congress.. that would be the Republican controlled Congress? if it mattered.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Awesome comment. I can see your train of thought, no pun intended. I probably would not have as much of an issue if the FAA was the one in charge as opposed to the IRS. As you said, we travel on planes owned by others. Those planes are regulated by the FAA. See my train of thought there? It would make much more sense to me to have a government body that actually has something to do with air travel be in charge of this situation.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yup the tax stuff was in the article I posted.

a reply to: regor77

I give you sympathy. You are not the only one who is going to be in this situation. And you may think that you will never fly but you never know. The government should not force the option on you. You should still have a choice.

a reply to: lcbjr1979

Never wanted to visit those states anyway.

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
a reply to: eluryh22

Oh I know they are. It is insane. They collect tax, deal with healthcare, and now travel. What's next?

It's actually worse in some ways.

Think about the Louis Lerner debacle. Anyone, ANYONE with common sense knows she had her subordinates work against conservative/republican/tea party groups seeking non-profit status. Even if one is against some of those groups (which admittedly, I am), it was/is painfully obvious to see what was going on.

When called out on it...? The e-mails were gone? Lost? The e-mails were GONE??? Yep. (When I was a kid that was known as "The dog ate my homework excuse." Especially in this day and age where the same U.S. Government records every single phone call, saves every single e-mail the populous sends. Then all she had to do was plead the fifth and neither herself nor those above her in the executive branch ever had to answer for it.

So you tell me.... what exactly IS the IRS to us "regular joes"?

a reply to: regor77

I can sympathize with your situation.

Even though you paid your debt, you are still getting punished and running into road blocks at every corner. Sucks.

a reply to: eluryh22

Couldn't agree more. If we start losing planes like the IRS loses emails then we are in trouble.

This would be racist. It's like asking for ID's when voting

a reply to: thinline

Fair point

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
This is the first I have heard of this law that is ready to go into effect on January 1, 2016. If you live in MN, LA, NH, and NY then you better get ready, especially MN which has no waiver on this law and goes into effect in 2 months. This is crazy.

I apologize if this is not the proper forum for this. Please move if you feel it belongs somewhere else.

A law requiring a passport book or passport card for domestic travel goes into effect in 2016. The United States Congress passed H.R. 22 when it passed the House of Representatives on January 6, 2015, and the Senate on July 30, 2015. Currently, the bill is in the phase just prior to being signed into law by President Obama. This new law will be attached to the tax code in section 7345. The title of section 7345 is “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies.”
Read more at www.inquisitr.com... KgIL.99

www.inquisitr.com...

Read the Constitution, there is no right to travel. The government can deny you the ability to travel any time, anywhere, for any reason they want.

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well, is marriage a constitutional right? That went all the way to the supreme court and the banning of same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Plenty of things have gone to the supreme court that are not specifically listed in the constitution.

That's not what was argued in front of the supreme court. The marriage ruling was that if the government is going to provide benefits to marriage then they're not allowed to be discriminatory in who can get married.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
This is the first I have heard of this law that is ready to go into effect on January 1, 2016. If you live in MN, LA, NH, and NY then you better get ready, especially MN which has no waiver on this law and goes into effect in 2 months. This is crazy.

I apologize if this is not the proper forum for this. Please move if you feel it belongs somewhere else.

A law requiring a passport book or passport card for domestic travel goes into effect in 2016. The United States Congress passed H.R. 22 when it passed the House of Representatives on January 6, 2015, and the Senate on July 30, 2015. Currently, the bill is in the phase just prior to being signed into law by President Obama. This new law will be attached to the tax code in section 7345. The title of section 7345 is “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies.”
Read more at www.inquisitr.com... KgIL.99

www.inquisitr.com...

Read the Constitution, there is no right to travel. The government can deny you the ability to travel any time, anywhere, for any reason they want.

Where in the Constitution are there restrictions (within the United States) put on travel?

I'm no expert, not by any means, but from my understanding the Constitution (as a general rule) LIMITS the role of government on the lives of individuals.... it doesn't LIMIT the rights of the CITIZENS.