*shrug* The subway and the Boston police think it's somehow useful against terrorists to stop subway trains randomly to check the passenger's IDs. It's, as far as I'm concerned, unconstitutional, and (depending on particular circumstances) I don't plan on doing it. Yay civil disobedience!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I really need to head to lunch. Quit responding. ;)
The amendment, in my reading, does not say that listed rights can't infringe upon others. It says: Just because we've specifically pointed out some of the rights of the people, that doesn't mean they don't have others that we haven't listed.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But were you unreasonably searched, or, heaven forbid, seized?
If I were stopped while on my commute to work or my boyfriend's house and asked to produce ID, that would be an unreasonable search of my papers and effects. The police would have no probable cause and they certainly wouldn't have a description of me and my photo ID or a warrant (because I haven't, as far as I know, broken any laws.)
See, in my country, I would go 'of course officer - what is this in relation to? the case number? random search without cause? could I just take your number? thank you. goodbye'
I stand very similarly, except this isn't one renegade cop being stupid. I can't report him to his superiors and get him in trouble. This is becoming a phenomenon of our government as a whole... and I'm not going to sit down and let it happen. I'm going to protest.
I'll still be as polite as hell to the cop. CIVIL disobedience. :)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Freedom of anonymity is not a specifically listed right under the U.S. Constitution. Therefore I will say spirit. However, see what I wrote above in response to etherial.
The Fourth and Fifth amendments are what are in question. An individual has a constitutional right not to respond to police inquiries, regardless of whether it would actually be more reasonable for him to answer the questions and be on his way. “Reasonableness” serves as a limitation upon state action, not upon the conduct of its citizens. Simply because people often share their identities under mutually agreeable circumstances does not mean that the State can demand it in circumstances a citizen may find less favorable. Demanding the production of identification by armed police officers (with the uncertain outcome of refusal) is not only an assault on anyone's absolute interests in their personal privacy and secuirty, it is a direct assault on acknowledged Fourth and Fifth amendment protections granting the right to remain silent. The State has not asserted a specific threat. Both Ashcroft and Ridge were on the air yesterday saying that there was nothing specific and the terror level was not being increased. Yet we have these new "mandates"--not laws, not regulations--in place as a response to nebulous security concerns. Failing to answer questions about one's identity is not facial proof of criminal intent or a threat to public safety.
Of course, this all may be moot because no one seems to know what the consequences are if you refuse to identify yourself.
Granted, not all of my own words, I'm borrowing some from the ACLU amicus brief (PDF) for Hiibel v. Nevada
So there's a big huge complicated following my post, so I'll just discuss it here.
The Supreme Court of These United States has repeatedly ruled in favor of anonymous travel under the FIrst Amendment, that this is guarranteed by "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" - in order to ensure that right, the State cannot ask who you are or where you are going.
Hurm. It's interesting to cite First Amendment rights, however, I think that's shaky ground in this case. I am not "assembling" by boarding a subway. All of the recent anonymous travel cases have involved Fourth Amendment citations and/or challenges.
as a form of transportation, the MBTA and its various security forces are subordinate to your right to travel suchly. The T is there to provide you a way to travel cheaply and anonymously, and is sadly the only way to do so anymore.
In practice and in principle I agree with that, I'm just pondering your choice of First instead Fourth Amendment grounds. I was poking around on FindLaw and couldn't find any arguments supporting First Amendment principles in this situation, only Fourth and some Fifth, if you happen to be arrested while in transit.
try looking up roadblocks and domestic air travel. I first heard about this reading about a guy who tried to take a transcontinental flight but wasn't allowed to get on because they wanted him to demonstrate that his laptop was real and he wouldn't give them his ID.
Yeah, first amendment issues come up on cases where roadblocks are used as a tactic designed to prevent people from assembling for a demonstration. The last time I remember this tactic being used was against a environmental rally (I think FotE) against logging in a forest on the West Coast. The cops set up roadblocks on all roads leading to the area.
The infamous Gilmore case, which is the one I think your thinking of, cited a First Amendment violation because he alleged he was prevented from attending some rally but the court found that he wasn't being prevented from assembling, just using an airplane to get there because he refused to show identification--indirect perhaps, but not a facial challenge. (I think that's the one where he was also wearing a button reading "POTENTIAL TERRORIST". That might have been a different lawsuit, though.)
Now should these arbitrary stops happen on subways inbound to Boston during the DNC week, you could add a First Amendment violation to the challenge. What's happening "today" is more arbitrary on people moving from place to place. I have no plans (today, anyway) to attend rallies in Boston but I like to go to the MFA. I suppose I could claim First Amendment issues but I doubt it would be a factor in the decision.
Having said all this, we are probably in agreement that what's going on is bad. I just like using a sniper's bullet instead of a shotgun when making a case.
A sniper bullet will kill anybody because people are all vulnerable in the same place.
A shotgun will kill anything because it eventually, it hits everything where it is vulnerable. When talking politics, I'd rather convince everybody with one argument than convince one person at a time with every argument.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 27 May 2004 06:01 (UTC)But no ID checks.
no subject
on 27 May 2004 06:08 (UTC)no subject
on 27 May 2004 06:36 (UTC)no subject
on 27 May 2004 06:35 (UTC)no subject
on 27 May 2004 07:03 (UTC)no subject
on 27 May 2004 07:29 (UTC)... God bless the free world.
no subject
on 27 May 2004 07:58 (UTC)Damn, I checked the wrong box! I thought it was the organ donor box, really, officer.
You are correct
on 27 May 2004 08:36 (UTC)Re: You are correct
on 27 May 2004 08:50 (UTC)Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Re: You are correct
on 27 May 2004 09:15 (UTC)Re: You are correct
on 27 May 2004 09:17 (UTC)Re: You are correct
on 27 May 2004 09:21 (UTC)See my other response re: amendment IV.
Re: You are correct
on 27 May 2004 09:22 (UTC)*ahem*
on 27 May 2004 09:15 (UTC)Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-------------------
Do I need to explain further?
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 09:19 (UTC)That Amendment merely says 'Because a right is here, you can't use it to remove another right', and I'm not sure how that's related to this?
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 09:21 (UTC)The amendment, in my reading, does not say that listed rights can't infringe upon others. It says: Just because we've specifically pointed out some of the rights of the people, that doesn't mean they don't have others that we haven't listed.
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 09:23 (UTC)Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 10:25 (UTC)Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 10:27 (UTC)But were you unreasonably searched, or, heaven forbid, seized?
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 10:31 (UTC)Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 10:33 (UTC)Not so sure where you stand, though.
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 10:57 (UTC)I'll still be as polite as hell to the cop. CIVIL disobedience. :)
Re: *ahem*
on 27 May 2004 09:19 (UTC)Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
no subject
on 27 May 2004 08:49 (UTC)no subject
on 27 May 2004 09:17 (UTC)no subject
Of course, this all may be moot because no one seems to know what the consequences are if you refuse to identify yourself.
Granted, not all of my own words, I'm borrowing some from the ACLU amicus brief (PDF) for Hiibel v. Nevada
no subject
on 27 May 2004 10:26 (UTC)yeech
on 27 May 2004 10:44 (UTC)The Supreme Court of These United States has repeatedly ruled in favor of anonymous travel under the FIrst Amendment, that this is guarranteed by "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" - in order to ensure that right, the State cannot ask who you are or where you are going.
Re: yeech
on 27 May 2004 10:59 (UTC)Re: yeech
re: shaky ground
on 27 May 2004 13:57 (UTC)Re: shaky ground
hmm...
on 27 May 2004 16:31 (UTC)Re: hmm...
The infamous Gilmore case, which is the one I think your thinking of, cited a First Amendment violation because he alleged he was prevented from attending some rally but the court found that he wasn't being prevented from assembling, just using an airplane to get there because he refused to show identification--indirect perhaps, but not a facial challenge. (I think that's the one where he was also wearing a button reading "POTENTIAL TERRORIST". That might have been a different lawsuit, though.)
Now should these arbitrary stops happen on subways inbound to Boston during the DNC week, you could add a First Amendment violation to the challenge. What's happening "today" is more arbitrary on people moving from place to place. I have no plans (today, anyway) to attend rallies in Boston but I like to go to the MFA. I suppose I could claim First Amendment issues but I doubt it would be a factor in the decision.
Having said all this, we are probably in agreement that what's going on is bad. I just like using a sniper's bullet instead of a shotgun when making a case.
Re: snipers versus shotguns
on 28 May 2004 10:57 (UTC)A shotgun will kill anything because it eventually, it hits everything where it is vulnerable. When talking politics, I'd rather convince everybody with one argument than convince one person at a time with every argument.