reynolds357
New member
The Constitution would not support forced medical procedures. There is a bit of case law about dead beat dads and vasectomies.
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.
Microchip prohibited persons
- Thread starter dfwkid
- Start date
reynolds357
New member
Never sacrifice liberty for perceived safety.
Pathfinder45
New member
The United States could never stoop so low. In order to make life better for you, the Federal Government wisely spent American taxpayers money on this valuable experiment over the course of 40 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experimentWhat a load of malarkey.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.
Here's the opening paragraph:
An even better example might be the Agent Orange experiments conducted upon incarcerated Americans at Holmseburg Prison.Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[a] was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service.[1][2] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men in the study were only told they were receiving free health care from the United States government
It's not hard to find other examples.
Dfariswheel
New member
"Mission creep" in laws is very much a problem. What absolutely would not be tolerated can, over time become permissible.
As example are seat belt laws.
When first proposed, people objected that police would use it as an excuse to stop cars.
The authorities promised faithfully that NEVER, EVER under ANY circumstances would this happen. The law would only be used if someone was stopped for another reason.....
Today police in most areas routinely stop people for not wearing a seat belt.
There's an old Science Fiction story about a man who's about to be executed and his organs harvested who attempts a daring escape from jail.
After science discovered ways for any organ to be transplanted in to nearly anyone, aging politicians and citizens began making more and more "crimes" punishable by death so the organs could be used to keep them alive.
Turns out the desperate escapee from death row was convicted of speeding a couple of times.
As example are seat belt laws.
When first proposed, people objected that police would use it as an excuse to stop cars.
The authorities promised faithfully that NEVER, EVER under ANY circumstances would this happen. The law would only be used if someone was stopped for another reason.....
Today police in most areas routinely stop people for not wearing a seat belt.
There's an old Science Fiction story about a man who's about to be executed and his organs harvested who attempts a daring escape from jail.
After science discovered ways for any organ to be transplanted in to nearly anyone, aging politicians and citizens began making more and more "crimes" punishable by death so the organs could be used to keep them alive.
Turns out the desperate escapee from death row was convicted of speeding a couple of times.
[QUOTEWhat a load of malarkey.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.][/QUOTE]
What I learned in my limited study of how the US Government works is we are not a Democracy. Clear back to the Greeks Democracy was a failed experiment.
Tyranny of the majority. A lynch mob. A dozen coyotes and a sheep working out a menu. "Majority rules" is NOT what we have and not what we want,regardless of the millennials with their "Life Center" smart phones .
"We can do everything like "America's Got Talent" Just text...…
And dump the electoral college. NYC and LA can run the country to suit them. To heck with Wyo.
I don't think so.
We are a Constitutional Republic .The Constitution protects the Individual Liberty by limiting the power of Government.
Remember that the point is to protect the Individual Liberty of the minority of one . ONE! Not the majority.
It does not matter if 200 million people text whatever so long as the Constitution says the Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
We do have a Constitutional Process to Amend the Constitution.
By Consent.
A problem with today's Middle School Civics....IF its even taught,its taught with bias.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.][/QUOTE]
What I learned in my limited study of how the US Government works is we are not a Democracy. Clear back to the Greeks Democracy was a failed experiment.
Tyranny of the majority. A lynch mob. A dozen coyotes and a sheep working out a menu. "Majority rules" is NOT what we have and not what we want,regardless of the millennials with their "Life Center" smart phones .
"We can do everything like "America's Got Talent" Just text...…
And dump the electoral college. NYC and LA can run the country to suit them. To heck with Wyo.
I don't think so.
We are a Constitutional Republic .The Constitution protects the Individual Liberty by limiting the power of Government.
Remember that the point is to protect the Individual Liberty of the minority of one . ONE! Not the majority.
It does not matter if 200 million people text whatever so long as the Constitution says the Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
We do have a Constitutional Process to Amend the Constitution.
By Consent.
A problem with today's Middle School Civics....IF its even taught,its taught with bias.
It would and it does. Lethal injection is, perhaps, the most extreme forced medical procedure that has been declared Constitutional, but there are other extremely invasive procedures can be forced upon people who have been convicted of sufficiently serious offenses.The Constitution would not support forced medical procedures.
We're not talking (at least I wasn't) about microchipping everyone, only people who have already forfeit their rights to purchase firearms by being convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.
The key is the level of the crime which someone has committed and has been convicted for. I'm absolutely not suggesting that it would be reasonable to microchip everyone any more than I would suggest it would be reasonable to imprison everyone for 15 years or to give everyone a lethal injection.There is a bit of case law about dead beat dads and vasectomies.
reynolds357
New member
You are missing how the law is applied. Lethal injection is applied to an inmate under sentence. A person who has completed their sentence can not be subjected to a mandatory medical implant.It would and it does. Lethal injection is, perhaps, the most extreme forced medical procedure that has been declared Constitutional, but there are other extremely invasive procedures can be forced upon people who have been convicted of sufficiently serious offenses.
We're not talking (at least I wasn't) about microchipping everyone, only people who have already forfeit their rights to purchase firearms by being convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.The key is the level of the crime which someone has committed and has been convicted for. I'm absolutely not suggesting that it would be reasonable to microchip everyone any more than I would suggest it would be reasonable to imprison everyone for 15 years or to give everyone a lethal injection.
Chemical castration has never been ruled unconstitutional (given an applicable and appropriately severe offense and conviction) and is certainly a forced medical procedure applied to certain felons who have already served their time.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons, just responding with my opinion on the question of whether it would be constitutional or not. As far as I know, it would be given an appropriately severe offense and conviction.
If you have some sort of information about a ruling to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it, just out of curiosity--not because I'm planning to start a campaign to have prohibited persons microchipped.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons, just responding with my opinion on the question of whether it would be constitutional or not. As far as I know, it would be given an appropriately severe offense and conviction.
If you have some sort of information about a ruling to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it, just out of curiosity--not because I'm planning to start a campaign to have prohibited persons microchipped.
My personal opinion on this whole chip implant is - - our .gov isn't stupid.
They know you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
Since implanting people, against their will, would raise many objections - I believe they would tie the implants to some sort of .gov "freebie". Probably health care related.
You want that new fangled cancer vaccine?
Fine, we have to implant this chip in you - sign right here and don't bother reading all that gobbledygook fine print (that says you allow us to program whatever we want into that chip & monitor whatever we want that you do or where you travel,,,,)
People would line up in droves for that......
Once the chips became common place - then the mandatory implanting at birth would be only a matter of time.
They know you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
Since implanting people, against their will, would raise many objections - I believe they would tie the implants to some sort of .gov "freebie". Probably health care related.
You want that new fangled cancer vaccine?
Fine, we have to implant this chip in you - sign right here and don't bother reading all that gobbledygook fine print (that says you allow us to program whatever we want into that chip & monitor whatever we want that you do or where you travel,,,,)
People would line up in droves for that......
Once the chips became common place - then the mandatory implanting at birth would be only a matter of time.
Didja hear that from Alex Jones??????My personal opinion on this whole chip implant is - - our .gov isn't stupid.
They know you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
Since implanting people, against their will, would raise many objections - I believe they would tie the implants to some sort of .gov "freebie". Probably health care related.
You want that new fangled cancer vaccine?
Fine, we have to implant this chip in you - sign right here and don't bother reading all that gobbledygook fine print (that says you allow us to program whatever we want into that chip & monitor whatever we want that you do or where you travel,,,,)
People would line up in droves for that......
Once the chips became common place - then the mandatory implanting at birth would be only a matter of time.
Nope - I learned that from life.
One day, God willing, you'll pick up on it too.
Until then, go ahead and have a chuckle - I know I did when I was younger.
I used to giggle a little bit about old timers having to make some hard financial choices & think I would never, ever, ever let myself get into that position.
Then along came Obama Care & the restraints taken off prescription medications.
The same prescription medication I pay $399 a month for is available worldwide for $11.
The same medication my wife has to pay $1700 a dose for, is available worldwide - for under $10.
Would I line up to get a .gov implant, that would allow me to get those medications for what the rest of the world pays?
Where's the line?
One day, God willing, you'll pick up on it too.
Until then, go ahead and have a chuckle - I know I did when I was younger.
I used to giggle a little bit about old timers having to make some hard financial choices & think I would never, ever, ever let myself get into that position.
Then along came Obama Care & the restraints taken off prescription medications.
The same prescription medication I pay $399 a month for is available worldwide for $11.
The same medication my wife has to pay $1700 a dose for, is available worldwide - for under $10.
Would I line up to get a .gov implant, that would allow me to get those medications for what the rest of the world pays?
Where's the line?
reynolds357
New member
Chemical castration is only legal if the offender agrees to do it. They can be chemically castrated as part of a deal for early parole or as part of a deal to avoid jail time.Chemical castration has never been ruled unconstitutional (given an applicable and appropriately severe offense and conviction) and is certainly a forced medical procedure applied to certain felons who have already served their time.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons, just responding with my opinion on the question of whether it would be constitutional or not. As far as I know, it would be given an appropriately severe offense and conviction.
If you have some sort of information about a ruling to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it, just out of curiosity--not because I'm planning to start a campaign to have prohibited persons microchipped.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
Microchipping people on Probation, out on Bond, etc is no different from those w/ Home Arrest bracelets on. And they don't always work, as the wearing finds ways of getting past them.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Of course they are different. An ankle monitor clamps on externally; a microchip is placed by a surgical implant. You can argue that it's "minor" but, as far as I know, at least under the laws of my state if the skin is broken it's legally a surgical procedure. Removing an ankle monitor involves unlocking it. Removing a microchip requires a second surgical procedure.Kevin Rohrer said:Microchipping people on Probation, out on Bond, etc is no different from those w/ Home Arrest bracelets on.
They are VERY different, IMHO.
Maybe in some places. In others (TX, CA, FL, AL), it's involuntary. There can be a voluntary component in the sense that in some areas the offender can opt for surgical castration as an alternative.Chemical castration is only legal if the offender agrees to do it.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/chemical-and-surgical-castration.html
It does appear to be controversial, but there haven't been any rulings that it is unconstitutional at this point.
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping (nor in favor of chemical or surgical castration), just pointing out that there are involuntary medical procedures haven't been ruled unconstitutional, even for offenders who have been released from custody.
reynolds357
New member
The way I read the article the "mandatory" was not mandatory. It was "mandatory" for release from prison. That is totally legal because its voluntary.Maybe in some places. In others (TX, CA, FL, AL), it's involuntary. There can be a voluntary component in the sense that in some areas the offender can opt for surgical castration as an alternative.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/chemical-and-surgical-castration.html
It does appear to be controversial, but there haven't been any rulings that it is unconstitutional at this point.
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping (nor in favor of chemical or surgical castration), just pointing out that there are involuntary medical procedures haven't been ruled unconstitutional, even for offenders who have been released from custody.
The way I read the article it's mandatory because, well, because it says it's mandatory.
As far as I can tell, it is constitutional to enforce severe rights restrictions and penalties on convicted felons, even after their release. That appears to include medical procedures far more invasive than microchipping.
If anyone has any information about rulings suggesting that medical procedures enforced against convicted felons are unconstitutional, let's look at that rather than dig farther and farther into the weeds of chemical castration laws or argue about the definition of "mandatory".
"Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders..."
The law forces adult sex offenders whose victims were 12 or younger to begin the treatment at least a month before getting released on parole and continue until a court determines that they can stop.
As far as I can tell, it is constitutional to enforce severe rights restrictions and penalties on convicted felons, even after their release. That appears to include medical procedures far more invasive than microchipping.
If anyone has any information about rulings suggesting that medical procedures enforced against convicted felons are unconstitutional, let's look at that rather than dig farther and farther into the weeds of chemical castration laws or argue about the definition of "mandatory".
berettaprofessor
New member
What most people forget is that the first country the Nazi's conquered was their own.
Thank you, 44AMP. Making that my signature line.
From post #16
""Your facial scan is already in data bases somewhere. With the proliferation of security cameras we are all in a system somewhere. It would just be a matter of centralizing the data.""
If you dont have a "REAL ID" drivers license you soon will have. I believe all w/ one have their photo (facial reconizable)on file w/ that DL.. Real IDs required by Oct 2020 to fly, get in govt bldg and others...
""Your facial scan is already in data bases somewhere. With the proliferation of security cameras we are all in a system somewhere. It would just be a matter of centralizing the data.""
If you dont have a "REAL ID" drivers license you soon will have. I believe all w/ one have their photo (facial reconizable)on file w/ that DL.. Real IDs required by Oct 2020 to fly, get in govt bldg and others...
reynolds357
New member
Mandatory before being released on parole. They have the option to stay in prison and not parole.The way I read the article it's mandatory because, well, because it says it's mandatory.
"Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders..."
The law forces adult sex offenders whose victims were 12 or younger to begin the treatment at least a month before getting released on parole and continue until a court determines that they can stop.
As far as I can tell, it is constitutional to enforce severe rights restrictions and penalties on convicted felons, even after their release. That appears to include medical procedures far more invasive than microchipping.
If anyone has any information about rulings suggesting that medical procedures enforced against convicted felons are unconstitutional, let's look at that rather than dig farther and farther into the weeds of chemical castration laws or argue about the definition of "mandatory".