Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless incarcerated/legally restrained, we all have the "right" to travel across the country by multiple modes of transport ranging from foot to highway to rail.
No one has a "right" to travel by airline. Those are companies that comply with regulations designed for the common safety of their passengers and crew.
Real ID only limits that single style of transfer.
The last time I took Amtrak, they warned me to carry photo ID, but never checked. I think it was just to check people traveling under the senior citizen discount. One look at me assured them I qualified. The only thing they looked at was my ticket.
You know this discussion is about the US, right? I've been all over this country and not once have I encountered a "barrier", physical or otherwise, when crossing state lines. What are you even talking about?
Have they removed the agricultural quarantine barriers for entry into California?
The last time I took Amtrak, they warned me to carry photo ID, but never checked. I think it was just to check people traveling under the senior citizen discount. One look at me assured them I qualified. The only thing they looked at was my ticket.
I was last on Amtrak at Thanksgiving and there was no ID check. In the 7-8 times I've traveled by train in recent years, there was never an ID check. Just a scramble to get to the boarding gate when it was announced at the last second.
Like you, nobody ever questions my senior status. I kinda like how they now check "tickets" via smart phone these days - like the airlines do.
On the other hand, the real ID law, combined with state laws on the provision of services which require people to give a government-issued ID, as well as laws requiring you to provide ID to obtain employment, effectively infringe on the right to travel because you must actually have a physical residence to obtain the ID card (PO Boxes are not allowed). Indeed anything that requires that you provide documents (which you can only receive by snail mail) infringes on your right to travel because it means you must have a physical residence and must be present to receive mail at that residence.
Given the complex requirements of the real ID law, it is hard to see how it is possible for a person to receive a driver's license and be able to use it to obtain services or board an aircraft unless they remain in a state for at least a month or two for documents to be sent back and forth by snail mail, due to complex bureaucratic rules and processes. How is this not inconsistent with a supposed "right to travel"?
Many states have provisions to cover these cases - often allow use of temporary addresses. You can travel all you want - but no one has the absolute right to fly or drive. Bus, train, hitchhiking or walking are always options
Actually the guy that used the 'driver/traveler' argument in an attempt to get out of a speeding ticket (that was in BentBows thread), the judge agreed with him and dismissed the ticket, after about 45 minutes of going back and forth, the guy had done his homework!
Here is the video from BentBows thread (driver getting out of a traffic ticket claiming he was 'traveling' not driving)
The guy is a whacko. He is hung up on the Supremacy Clause. He throws out a lot of legal citations, but he has no idea how to apply them. The context of the case is the assignment of error, snipping phrases has never had any place in jurisprudence without proper application.
The video poster is calling the trier of fact a Judge, more than likely a traffic court magistrate who has tons of cases to try and simply let the guy off to stop his stupid rant. Nowhere in the video did I hear a "Not guilty". "Case dismissed", gavel down, does not mean his argument was persuasive enough from a legal standpoint as to a finding of defacto not guilty, period.
I travel on Amtrak fairly often and have never been asked for an ID.
There is somewhere around three million people in the US that are nomadic at least for part of the year. They might have a base but are mostly moving around. There are migrant workers that move with the seasons.
If you are familiar with the mystique of Historic Rt. 66 and travel that route on occasion you will see lots of people, many of them foreigners, following the "mother road". The Sturgis Rally would not be a "thing" if people felt that they couldn't travel. Probably the same with Burning Man.
Have they removed the agricultural quarantine barriers for entry into California?
No, but CDFA's quarantine initiatives have nothing to do with this thread, unless you're a fruit or vegetable. If you were a tomato or something, I suppose you could claim your right to travel is being infringed upon. However, I suspect you're aren't a tomato, but thanks for proving my point about SovCits and their twisted logic.
The guy is a whacko. He is hung up on the Supremacy Clause. He throws out a lot of legal citations, but he has no idea how to apply them. The context of the case is the assignment of error, snipping phrases has never had any place in jurisprudence without proper application.
The video poster is calling the trier of fact a Judge, more than likely a traffic court magistrate who has tons of cases to try and simply let the guy off to stop his stupid rant. Nowhere in the video did I hear a "Not guilty". "Case dismissed", gavel down, does not mean his argument was persuasive enough from a legal standpoint as to a finding of defacto not guilty, period.
Yep. These guys will occasionally claim a "win" when the truth is that the judge, magistrate, or police officer simply grew tired of their BS and had better things to do than deal with some nutjob.
On the other hand, the real ID law, combined with state laws on the provision of services which require people to give a government-issued ID, as well as laws requiring you to provide ID to obtain employment, effectively infringe on the right to travel because you must actually have a physical residence to obtain the ID card (PO Boxes are not allowed). Indeed anything that requires that you provide documents (which you can only receive by snail mail) infringes on your right to travel because it means you must have a physical residence and must be present to receive mail at that residence.
Given the complex requirements of the real ID law, it is hard to see how it is possible for a person to receive a driver's license and be able to use it to obtain services or board an aircraft unless they remain in a state for at least a month or two for documents to be sent back and forth by snail mail, due to complex bureaucratic rules and processes. How is this not inconsistent with a supposed "right to travel"?
There was an implicit right to travel for centuries - up until 9/11.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
