On Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:50:35 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:

A Q&A exchange between me and Eugene Volokh: [Eugene's responses in square brackets.]

The topic was Gilmore v. Ashcroft -- FAA ID Challenge in which John Gilmore is suing the Feds to be allowed to fly domestically without ID.

So, does John have a chance?

[No.]

So it is your view that the Feds can ban anyone (except those wealthy enough to rent, buy, or build their own aircraft) from flying, for life, using secret orders, and without any access to judicial process.

Seems a bit extreme to me.

To put this in a broader and an historical perspective, let me point out that the government of the United States moved from the eloquent ideals and words of the Declaration of Independence, to a law that declared that any treasonable activity, including the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing," was a high misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, in just 22 years and 10 days. By virtue of this legislation, twenty-five men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down.(The Sedition Act, 1798, Section 2, http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/s-2.html ). As the newspapers were shuttered, the 1st amendment was only 6 and a half years old. I would submit for your consideration that governments of whatever stripe tenaciously and constantly move to expand the span and scope of their control, either with support of seemingly innocuous "stepping stone" laws, or by blatant disregard of law, precedent, or whatever else impedes that expansion. The most favorite tactic of those governments pretending western-style democracy is to implement secret, draconian controls and chilling surveillance to "protect the children" or "wage war on terrorism" or other real and imagined violent threats, over-hyped. The government uses the same pitch that comes from organized crime: "You want protection (security), you have to give up some money (freedom). You are either with us or against us. We cannot wait while dangers gather." Want to put a couple hundred thousand US citizens in concentration camps because of their ancestry? The Supreme Court sees nothing in the constitution to interfere with that. The DOJ today is quite adept at actions which it holds to be immune from judicial review, so the inconvenience of a judicial rubber stamp is no longer needed. And you wonder if the government can require a licence to be a passenger on an airliner? They can require a license to leave your house on foot, and they are in the process of doing so. "Have papers? Proceed. No papers, oh, you are not under arrest, but we need to check into a few things. This will only take a couple of hours or so and then you'll be on your way (to the next checkpoint). It's for the children, you know?" The first step will likely be for airline flight. With travel security papers, come to the airport 1 hour before departure. Without travel security papers, come to the airport 3 hours before departure. Then we can expect to hear, "May I have your travel security number please?" You know the drill. In about 27 minutes, the credit information service companies will also have that number. It will be your license, revocable at will, to move about the country, to buy, to own, to lodge. Has the president suspended the writ of habeas corpus? Sorry, that's secret, and since you asked, we must watch you carefully, because as our Attorney General says, civil liberties questions like that just give comfort to the enemy. I know full well that a substantial percentage of readers sees this line of thinking as paranoia. I expect that percentage to drop rapidly. "What do you have to hide?"