Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED - Page 3

Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED

This is a discussion on Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense I don't recall privacy being a Constitutionally protected right. Perhaps you can point me to the Article or Amendment in which ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 92

Thread: Real Id - Real Bad: MERGED

  1. #31
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't recall privacy being a Constitutionally protected right. Perhaps you can point me to the Article or Amendment in which privacy is mentioned.
    If you mean this in all seriousness, I urge you to read the 9th Amendment. Further, I urge you to read the decisions of Griswald v. Connecticut (1965), which stated that the 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments suggest a very definitive right to personal privacy. This decision was affirmed later in Lovings v. Virginia (1967) and Roe v. Wade (1973).

    The Constitution does not list the rights of people. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    For what it's worth, I object to REAL ID on grounds of authority and redundancy. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to enact such legislation (whether they do it or not, and the 10th Amendment says that the task falls to the States) and the REAL ID isn't making anything safer that wouldn't be safer if existing laws were merely enforced better. The same laws governing licensing acceptance between states (such as a state driver's license being accepted in all states; I can't remember the name of the law/clause for the life of me) should, if followed correctly, do the same as what REAL ID aims to do.


    -B


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Well gee, a lot of european countries have national identification numbers issued when people are born. And I think a while back one country even had select people get their ID numbers tattooed on their arms for ease of identification.....
    What harm could come from that?
    <sarcasm off>
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array Rossman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bass Lake, CA
    Posts
    551
    Kill Terrorists. I have nothing to hide.

  4. #34
    Member Array What the?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Wayne National Forest
    Posts
    93
    I have read the Federal Register Papers, and I think this is a good idea. Where is it documented that all this info is going to be stored in 'memory chips"? Everything I'm reading sounds like a good plan to help streamline what all the states are already doing (or should be).

    Either most people are believing incorrect info, or I'm just not reading the right federal documents. Can anyone point me to official documents showing the proposal you guys are talking about? All I see, is that only the minimum of info will be stored in machine readable format.

  5. #35
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    To be frank, what the?, it's rarely a good idea to use the federal sources as an educator for new federal bills, laws, propositions, etc. Very often, they leave details out or put a certain amount of spin on it. Government workers are as human as the rest of us, and humans like to personalize things.

    Anyway, your "streamline" suggestions is precisely the problem with the Act that I mentioned when I brought up redundancy; it doesn't "streamline" anything. It patches it, or in other words, adds more instead of adjusts or alters. If the REAL ID really did streamline, it would be more in-depth in changing existing identification laws and procedures and could easily be done as a federal mandate but without federal oversight. That I might be supportive of, as that would help boost efficiency. All of the problems that exist now that the REAL ID Act proposes it would stop would still exist and for the same reason; the concept of enforcement escapes people, it seems.

    Anyway, this Act is being fought tooth and nail by a rather large number of states. Only a few states are actually on-board with it, and many more states openly opposing it and passing state legislation against it, so the whole thing is going to be a nightmare to implement.


    -B

  6. #36
    New Member Array airborne1092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    8
    Mostly, I agree with SelfDefense. However, it is quite a conundrum.

    If everyone who abides with the law and has nothing to hide gets a national ID, then only those who are criminals cannot get an ID. If the Feds require the employers to require an ID, then the milk and honey would surely dry up (in the case of illegals, for instance.)

    Of course, it's not a panacea. With the ID fix, you would have the much feared "Papers, please..." scenario to weed out and FIND the criminals. Our desires would dictate that the Federal Govt would not, or could not use the ID system for neferious purposes.

    I myself? I work for the Govenment and identiy theft is a part of my daily life. I am an open book and for 15+ years, I have given my SSN to anyone and everyone AND their sister. My address, my phone number, my family's SSNs - God - even my shoe size, you could fine with a little research on a saturday afternoon. I have nothing to hide and it's "papers, please..." for me all the time, anyhow.

    Of course, with my Traditional Constitutional Federalist mind, I always try to think of how we can reduce Federal govenment, defer to the States whenever we can, and maintain the spirit of the Constitution for the continued freedoms of the individual. At this point, I would hope folks would be willing to trade a minor inconvience to protect the greater body.
    -Airborne1092

    "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." Frederick Douglass 1818 -1895

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    SelfDefense:

    Would you object to being forced to accept a UNITED NATIONS ID card? I mean, most of these terrorists and ALL of the illegal aliens are citizens of OTHER nations, not the United States, so wouldn't that make perfect sense in terms of combatting terrorism and illegal immigration?

    Or, maybe, because something like that would just bring out the "tin-foil hat brigade", what if each nation just had to use the same STANDARDS for identification documents? You know - unique biometric data, proof of citizenship, standardized data fields for easier sharing of information between governments. Yeah - that'd be kinder and gentler.

    Would you have a problem with either one of those, SelfDefense?

  8. #38
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    If you mean this in all seriousness, I urge you to read the 9th Amendment.
    Here is the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Nowhere in the Amendment is privacy mentioned. Nowhere. In fact, the Ninth Amendment has no value because it says nothing at all. It does not enumerate what rights are to be protected or those that might be infringed. You simply cannot claim a behavior as a right and say, well the Ninth provides for other rights. I want to kill my neighbor because he plays his stereo too loudly. It is my right. Where is that right, you ask? Well, the Ninth protects it!

    What's the problem you might ask? The problem is the entire Bill of Rights, which was forced into the Constitution by the anti-Federalists. To appease the foes of a the Federal Constitutional government, Madison reluctantly agreed to the the 1st ten Amendments.

    The fact that the Court has made up rights is no substitute for a simple reading. In fact, Griswald and Roe are widely used as examples of poor judicial judgement. This is judicial activism at its worst: using an Amendment that says nothing to make immoral and antisocial behavior the law of the land.

    Of course, ReadID has nothing to do with privacy so even that argument fails. Real ID is about identification. Or does the Ninth provide a right to anonymity?

    For what it's worth, I object to REAL ID on grounds of authority and redundancy. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to enact such legislation (whether they do it or not, and the 10th Amendment says that the task falls to the States) and the REAL ID isn't making anything safer that wouldn't be safer if existing laws were merely enforced better. The same laws governing licensing acceptance between states (such as a state driver's license being accepted in all states; I can't remember the name of the law/clause for the life of me) should, if followed correctly, do the same as what REAL ID aims to do.
    In fact, the Federal government has every authority to provide for national security. It is well known that the states vary as to their acceptance of illegals (perhaps terrorists) and their willingness to provide driver's licenses. By the credit clause that mandates states accept other states' driver's licenses (why not CCW permits?) causes this to be an interstate commerce issue, and again the authority rests with the Federal government.

    Real ID will make it easier for employers to comply with the law. It will make it easier to track the movements of illegals and terrorists. Are you aware that one of the 9/11 terrorists, whose visa had expired, had a valid Florida drivers license that he used freely? He would not have had a Real ID and would never have been able to board that fateful flight. That would have been a good thing, right?

  9. #39
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    SelfDefense:

    Would you object to being forced to accept a UNITED NATIONS ID card?
    The United Nations has no authority over American citizens. The UN cannot force the United States to do anything.

    I mean, most of these terrorists and ALL of the illegal aliens are citizens of OTHER nations, not the United States, so wouldn't that make perfect sense in terms of combatting terrorism and illegal immigration?
    No, why would you suggest the UN could or should be a force in combating terrorism or illegals violating our sovereignty?

    Or, maybe, because something like that would just bring out the "tin-foil hat brigade", what if each nation just had to use the same STANDARDS for identification documents?
    Bumper warned me against debating the arguments provided by the conspiracy theorists in another thread so I will refrain from commenting other than to say that whatever other nations do has no bearing on what the United States does.

    Would you have a problem with either one of those, SelfDefense?
    Yes, I would. And that is not what the Real ID is intended for or what it will accomplish.

    By the way, the intellignece organizations of the United States do share some data (but not all) with other intelligence agencies from other countries.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Array Sergeant Mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Yes, I would. And that is not what the Real ID is intended for or what it will accomplish.
    Other than being an edict of the United States government to its States, as opposed to an edict of the United Nations to its Nations, how would it be different at all?

    Oh, I'm sorry....I forgot that you were advised not to debate with "conspiracy theorists" such as my 24-years-in-government-service self......

    Nevermind.

  11. #41
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Mac View Post
    Other than being an edict of the United States government to its States, as opposed to an edict of the United Nations to its Nations, how would it be different at all?

    Oh, I'm sorry....I forgot that you were advised not to debate with "conspiracy theorists" such as my 24-years-in-government-service self......

    Nevermind.
    Sergeant Mac,

    I did not want to suggest you are a conspiracy theorist. I certainly see an infinite difference between our duly elected Constitutional government regulating state conduct within its authority and the UN, which has no authority over anything or anyone dictating anything at all. The UN has no authority whatsoever over member nations.

    Certainly, you agree with that, yes?

  12. #42
    Member Array LastManOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Emmaus, PA
    Posts
    420
    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.


    I repeat: Do you want a LEO walking up to you, while listening to a soapbox political speech and saying," Your Papers Please!"? or your REAL ID please.

  13. #43
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by LastManOut View Post
    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.


    I repeat: Do you want a LEO walking up to you, while listening to a soapbox political speech and saying," Your Papers Please!"? or your REAL ID please.
    No. But I do want illegals and their employers accountable for their actions and terrorists thwarted. The issue has bever been 'Your papers please,' which without probable cause I would be against. as I am ahainst the DUI checkpoints for the same reasons. However, providing difficult to counterfeit identification for employment, air travel and other identification purposes is a very good idea.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Well folks here is a thought for you all......
    A while back T.S.A. was talking about setting up a list of prefered frequent fliers that would have an abreviated security check at the airports. If the Real ID was made voluntary, but it would get you from check in to gate in five minutes, would you opt in?

    As far as "papers please" goes. I fail to see how a different card can bring that scenario about. They could just as easily ask for them with the various licenses we have now. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to wake up tomorrow and have to show our papers on demand to any LEO, wouldn't a standardized identification, that is easily checked get us on our way sooner?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array raevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    washington
    Posts
    4,849
    I am glad I live in a state that has rejected Real ID. I also am glad that by the time all our rights will be removed I will be dead. If Washington ever goes to Real ID I will quit driving. There are already enough things being done to take away all our rights that the younger generation don't care about (they don't bother to register to vote) that I don't care if they lose them or not. My generation wasted their time and passed a lot of bad laws and our children and grandchildren are being brainwashed so they won't miss the rights they lose.

    This thread is an example of the problem that we have now. Those willing to give up ANY freedom to feel safe don't deserve the freedoms they have.

    We stepped onto the slippery slope in the 60's with all the Hippys and it keeps getting steeper and smoother. The longer people wait the harder it will be to stop the slide, if it can be stopped at all.

    My opinion, rant over.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. This guy is a real nut!
    By TedBeau in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 18th, 2010, 12:25 PM
  2. Is that a real gun?
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 14th, 2009, 12:38 AM
  3. You know it is getting real bad when...
    By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 13th, 2009, 01:36 AM
  4. OMG! Is this for real?
    By Flippinstk in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: May 16th, 2009, 12:40 AM

Search tags for this page

is international real id bad
,
samuel e.rohrer right to travel
,

state representative samuel e. rohrer right to travel

Click on a term to search for related topics.