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

Oh you didnt buy your Obamacare and owe the penalty fine? You are not going anywhere. In fact we may just relocate you to a nice comfy Fema camp with a special showers........ LOL

originally posted by: eluryh22Where 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.

The Constitution does no such thing. It delegates certain powers to different branches of the government, but it specifically empowers the government to do just about anything it wants in the name of defense or general welfare (which basically means anything the government sees as a positive to the country), it is not a small government document. There are no protections for the people in the Constitution, it doesn't even give you the right to vote.

The Bill of Rights however mentions specific things that the government cannot do, nowhere in that list of rights or in any following amendment is there any mention that the government can't restrict a person from travel.

Anyone on ATS a constitutional lawyer? Lol.

a reply to: lcbjr1979

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I will have to read the bill, any statutes at large, what I can find in the federal register... If it goes in the tax code, I am almost certain it will not have implimenting regulations published in the federal register, thus only be prima facie evidence of law and very rebuttable.

What is funny about revocation of a passport, is this: It means squat. I can take my birth certificate and two [ID'd] witnesses who can affirm under a perjury oath, that I am who I say I am, to the country clerk all on a rudimentary affidavit of identity with a photograph. Get it notarized, clerk certified and authenticated, then go to my secretary of state and get it apostilled as an 'additional' identity document for travel to a non hague convention country; send an origional to the US secretary of state for authentication and voila... Government 'issued' Identity document authorized by the secretary of state for international travel. What was a passport again?

...and yes, I do maintain a document such as this, I haven't gone past my county clerk authentication simply because it works just fine locally and I keep a copy on hand so I don't have to carry numbered IDs when out and about that I can loose or have stolen.

a reply to: eluryh22

The answer to most of these posts and their subsequent speculations is in your post.

It's the states' fault for not wanting to update their ID cards. Somehow, people are going to blame the IRS though.

a reply to: lcbjr1979

A law requiring a passport book or passport card for domestic travel goes into effect in 2016.

LOL, you got to great length to defeat the USSR back in the old days now just only to become what you were fighting... LOL

Remember, the USSR required "permission" just for domestic travel at large, not just for the couple closed cities.

Now American must defect to Russia to stay free. Never thought I would ever see such upside down world in my lifetime!!!

fly by private charter....it's cheaper and ya get to board in a hanger......

I'll fly out of Dallas for 140.00 Dollars to Denver or New Orleans...In a little Ted Smith Aerostar 600...Turbo

In and out of Broomfield north of Arvada....

a reply to: links234

So that then begs the question; is failure on the states part to accept those ID requirements an infringment of one's freedom of movement as derived from Art. 4 Sec. 2 Cl. 1 of the Constitution and affirmed in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) and United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920)? And subsequently, can the government act to prevent [if determined to be] state infringement as determined in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)?

Quite the quandry.

In regards to air travel, this is the general rule.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 (A)(1),(2) Basically Government controls US airspace and a citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

Note it says 'public right'... Another word for 'civil right', and thus a revokable privelidge.

Not saying its right, but I await the challenges to this 'law'.

ETA: 'Transit' is also used in many places in law to mean 'public transportation'. Anything 'public' or of 'public right' is expressly bestowed by government.

These states refused to comply when all others did so. As a result their IDs are not sufficiently vetted/background checked enough to meet the criteria to get on a plane. Passports, if they have or want to get them, are an acceptable substitute.

a reply to: eluryh22

Sounds like Soviet Russia is becoming a new reality, in the old days it was "We don't do things like that here" but just look around.

a reply to: lcbjr1979

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

No, but its part of training people up to carry their passport as their internal identification. Just getting people used to the idea by bringing in this rule.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Think of it this way; if you take a picture of yourself and glue it to a piece of paper and write your name on it, is that an acceptable form of ID? Why or why not? Under whose authority?

In regards to air travel, this is the general rule.
49 U.S.C. § 40103 (A)(1),(2) Basically Government controls US airspace and a citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

You can't fly on a plane without proper identification, public right or not.

If this is not applying to all states and someone has a connecting flight in one of the states listed and they didn't know about the law about needing a passport would they now be stuck in that state or would they be free to travel since they've already boarded the flight?

With how much traveling I've done this will only effect me a little since I have a passport already. But I don't see how this really helps with ID'ing people, they already ask for ID when you check in for a flight, it's just not a passport when in the states. Also the cost of the ID's that are currently taken by the FAA are much cheaper to get then a passport also easier. While I don't personal find it that hard to get a passport, I know from watching the number of people being turned away from the counter that it's not so easy for many.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: lcbjr1979

About 10 years ago the feds raised the standards for ID's (to prevent counterfeits). The four states you mentioned opted not to change to the new standard. This is the rationale for needing further ID (i.e. a passport) to fly from these states with ID's issued in those states.

Not saying I agree with it. That's just what I understand of this new rule.

For once.... you actually CAN blame it on W.

I am not sure I agree with you on blaming W for the current legislation. W raised the standards for ID's but I am fairly certain he didn't know ten years ago that the current administration would focus passport revocation on those four states for tax delinquency.

I don't see what good it would do to enforce passport rules for flying state to state without also enforcing the same restrictions on driving. If the purpose is to stop terror attacks, what would stop a terrorist from driving to the target state and taking an intrastate flight? If your target is NY, drive to Buffalo then take a flight to NY.

Add a couple nice false flags to the mix and I can see this legislation expanding overnight.

originally posted by: lcbjr1979
Now we are going to need passports to fly in the US? This can't be constitutional.

A Republikkkan contribution?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The passport requirements for crossing the US/Canada border had nothing to do with Sept 11. I crossed the border several times AFTER that without a passport.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: lcbjr1979

But flying is a privilege isn't it?

Not a constitutional right...

Or am I missing the amendment?

Constitution doesnt grant rights. Traveling is a human right. This is the reason the SC overturnrd the do not fly list. Get an understanding of law, constitutional, and otherwise.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: eluryh22Where 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.

The Constitution does no such thing. It delegates certain powers to different branches of the government, but it specifically empowers the government to do just about anything it wants in the name of defense or general welfare (which basically means anything the government sees as a positive to the country), it is not a small government document. There are no protections for the people in the Constitution, it doesn't even give you the right to vote.

The Bill of Rights however mentions specific things that the government cannot do, nowhere in that list of rights or in any following amendment is there any mention that the government can't restrict a person from travel.

Added bolding for emphasis,

So you don't think these amendments apply?

AMENDMENT IX

[I]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[/I]

AMENDMENT X

[I]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[/I]

The reason "it" does not "give" you the right to vote is that the federal government has no jurisdiction to do so. According to the preamble the government does not "give" rights that existed well before the document was written anyways, they were self evident and were reiterated in the constitution.

Lets take this statement,

but it specifically empowers the government to do just about anything it wants in the name of defense or general welfare

I would seem if the above statement were true that we'd long ago had "national ID" issued by the federal government, why don't we have that? because its blatantly unconstitutional for it to do so.

Instead what we have going on is misuse of the interstate commerce clause, which is used to go around rest of constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[I]The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[/I]

A clause intended to prevent individual states and nations from unhindered use of regulation, tariffs, taxes and excise fees
to unfairly promote or protect business and industry.

Today it is used as a catchall to enable that which is clearly unconstitutional otherwise according to bill of rights.

Nearly all laws (bills) passed by congress nowadays cite "commerce clause" as the enabling reason no matter the subject. otherwise standing on their own merit, would be deemed unconstitutional.

In the case of REAL ID, its deemed "interstate commerce" to fly, not travel.

The government can't restrict travel but according to its own rulings it can restrict interstate commerce if rules are not met.

wait! wait! are these some of the same jackwagons that claim that requiring ID to vote is discriminatory?