Source: Wayne A. Logan (Florida State University – College of Law) 3/22/22
Americans, it is commonly believed, have never been required to carry and show upon demand personal identification documents; the belief, however, is incorrect. Over time, select sub-populations have in fact been subject to such a requirement, including free-born and emancipated African-Americans until after the Civil War. This article examines the targeting of yet another disfavored sub-population: individuals convicted of sex offenses, who are required to register with government authorities.
Today, roughly a dozen states require that registrants obtain and carry identification cards or driver’s licenses signifying their status. Often, the branding is very overt, such as a stamp of “SEX OFFENDER” or “SEXUAL PREDATOR” in bight colored lettering. At other times, it is more subtle, such as use of a “U,” denoting that the individual is a “Sexual Deviant.” The federal
government also brands registrants, requiring that their passports display a “unique identifier” stamped in a “conspicuous location.” The passports must be shown to airport and customs officials, as well others when traveling abroad. With state laws, disclosure is even more pervasive: not only to police, upon demand, but also to myriad other individuals encountered in daily life,
such as bank tellers and store clerks.
Read the full overview and download the paper
I’m sure this article will bring many comments as to this unique identifier type of branding of a human in this modern day understanding.
The courts rationale in saying that the government labeling Registrants as “Sexual Predators” on passports is constitutional because it is based on “factual” and not “ideological” speech – is like the Nazi Germany’s rationale in labeling Jews with giant stars on them during great Anti-Semitism – by getting around that pesky Constitution that protects what should be our sacred rights – and picking out key words to twist their meanings and render our rights meaningless.
What a bunch of malevolent a$$holes…
From the paper, the court dismisses, IMO, the fact the passport does double as an ID (“just not used as one very much for the public to see”), is more than just a way to travel overseas, and is shown to the public if needed, e.g. overseas at hotel lobby counters, and in the USA when needed. Maybe the judges don’t travel overseas very much or at all, but should be aware of how it is used beyond just the immigration desk at the port in which someone is entering.
While there are other second IDs in the USA, the passport remains as one as well and should be free of the marker regardless if it is used as one or not. A limited amount of being shown is not justification for keeping the marker.
Good paper overall