You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
betrayal by the House of Representatives
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
IZHUMINTER
New member
The Real Id is constitutional
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Drivers licenses are public records, and Congress has the power to standardize them. I'm amazed they took this long to do so.
I'm confused, though, so maybe someone here can explain it to me. How does a standard ID document, whether it is issued by a federal, state or municipal government, automatically equal an internal passport? How does the fact that you carry a card with a unique identifying number (*cough* Driver's License...Social Security Card *cough*) and some basic identifying data suddenly subject you to a single additional restriction on your travel that you don't already face?
If anything, having such an ID is beneficial, as if you can firmly prove your identity, you cannot be arbitratily detained by "public servants." If they know who you are without a doubt, they either have to charge you or release you. You don't have to "prove who you are," or wait for your prints to be run before you can go about your lawful business.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Drivers licenses are public records, and Congress has the power to standardize them. I'm amazed they took this long to do so.
I'm confused, though, so maybe someone here can explain it to me. How does a standard ID document, whether it is issued by a federal, state or municipal government, automatically equal an internal passport? How does the fact that you carry a card with a unique identifying number (*cough* Driver's License...Social Security Card *cough*) and some basic identifying data suddenly subject you to a single additional restriction on your travel that you don't already face?
If anything, having such an ID is beneficial, as if you can firmly prove your identity, you cannot be arbitratily detained by "public servants." If they know who you are without a doubt, they either have to charge you or release you. You don't have to "prove who you are," or wait for your prints to be run before you can go about your lawful business.
Izhuminter:
I had not said that the "standardized id document" was an Internal Passport. What I did say was that the imposition of such could and likely would lead to same. In any event, the standardized ID document is one large step closer to the National ID Card, which I find troubling, to say the least.
As for those public servants you mentioned, and the individual having to prove anything in particular to them, given that I'm part of the public, I would have thought that they were my servants. Seems that things have gotten kind of twisted around, sad to note. In any event, absent activity on my part that demonstrably injures the public safety, I don't have to prove anything to these public servants, nor do you, or so it seems to me, unless we have undergone the change from a constitutional republic, to a police state. My eyes are not all that they once were, but have I missed noticing such salient change?
Regarding your reference to the "sosch", otherwise the Social Security Number, my card, circa 1948 reads as follows, in large type face at that. FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION. I cannot help but wonder as to how come so many are unable to understand that simple, 7 word admonition. Of course, others cannot seem to understand equally simply constructions, such as are found in The Second amendment, preferring to twist it's wording into something that speaks to "collective rights", when "individual rights" were obviously under discussion. I know that this is off point, I simply could not resist inserting same.
Charley:
Re the current fiasco, a whole lot of it appears to revolve about soothing the ruffled feathers of Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, the originator of H.R. 418, from which was taken this bit about "minimum standards" for drivers licenses. His proposal lingers in senate Judiciary Comittee, seemingly going nowhere. He was promised, re this, that he would be allowed to attach his proposal to "the first must pass bill of this session". That happened to be this so-called emergency Military Funding extravaganza, which absent his rider, and some others, might have all manner of virtues. Problem is, as I see it, that the individual rights and privacy of American citizens should not be offered up as scarifies to the graven image of Jim sensenbrenner's ruffled feathers, which is exactly what has been done. Mind, it's all according to Hoyle, and the rules of the Senate, which opens the door to inspection of other problems, they being the way that The House and The Senate handle the People's Business.
As to border security, that might be attained if illegal entrants were deported, forth with. It appears that such is not the case, and the Band Plays On. Nothing else happening, the American Citizen and his/ her rights is always fair game, or so it seems. We seem, more and more drifting if not rushing toward a police state, or at the very leasdt, one that is a whole lot more authoritarian than I care for. There is, by the way, no way in hell that such arrangements will even slightly inconvenience criminals, let alone professional terrorists, just the ordinary citizen.
I had not said that the "standardized id document" was an Internal Passport. What I did say was that the imposition of such could and likely would lead to same. In any event, the standardized ID document is one large step closer to the National ID Card, which I find troubling, to say the least.
As for those public servants you mentioned, and the individual having to prove anything in particular to them, given that I'm part of the public, I would have thought that they were my servants. Seems that things have gotten kind of twisted around, sad to note. In any event, absent activity on my part that demonstrably injures the public safety, I don't have to prove anything to these public servants, nor do you, or so it seems to me, unless we have undergone the change from a constitutional republic, to a police state. My eyes are not all that they once were, but have I missed noticing such salient change?
Regarding your reference to the "sosch", otherwise the Social Security Number, my card, circa 1948 reads as follows, in large type face at that. FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION. I cannot help but wonder as to how come so many are unable to understand that simple, 7 word admonition. Of course, others cannot seem to understand equally simply constructions, such as are found in The Second amendment, preferring to twist it's wording into something that speaks to "collective rights", when "individual rights" were obviously under discussion. I know that this is off point, I simply could not resist inserting same.
Charley:
Re the current fiasco, a whole lot of it appears to revolve about soothing the ruffled feathers of Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, the originator of H.R. 418, from which was taken this bit about "minimum standards" for drivers licenses. His proposal lingers in senate Judiciary Comittee, seemingly going nowhere. He was promised, re this, that he would be allowed to attach his proposal to "the first must pass bill of this session". That happened to be this so-called emergency Military Funding extravaganza, which absent his rider, and some others, might have all manner of virtues. Problem is, as I see it, that the individual rights and privacy of American citizens should not be offered up as scarifies to the graven image of Jim sensenbrenner's ruffled feathers, which is exactly what has been done. Mind, it's all according to Hoyle, and the rules of the Senate, which opens the door to inspection of other problems, they being the way that The House and The Senate handle the People's Business.
As to border security, that might be attained if illegal entrants were deported, forth with. It appears that such is not the case, and the Band Plays On. Nothing else happening, the American Citizen and his/ her rights is always fair game, or so it seems. We seem, more and more drifting if not rushing toward a police state, or at the very leasdt, one that is a whole lot more authoritarian than I care for. There is, by the way, no way in hell that such arrangements will even slightly inconvenience criminals, let alone professional terrorists, just the ordinary citizen.