Bill in Ohio Will Allow Arrests For No Reason

Originally posted by jsobecky
I agree that it is not a bad thing. The author, however, has a different opinion. I'd like to know why they think that it is bad that we need to show an ID to board a plane.

Here's a good answer for you. (God I wish I could cue up the Battle Hymn of the Republic to play when folks read this...glory, glory, hallelujah...)

Originally posted by Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia

New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman

Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King

Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman

New York - Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton

Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos
FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris

Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett,
Jaco. Broom

Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll

Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr.

North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson

South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney,
Pierce Butler

Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin

Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

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.
www.usconstitution.net...

How about Amendment IV?

Here's a place where you can buy it, in case you want to read it...
www.allposters.com...

Perhaps it is bad to show an ID or go to jail, because unlike whatever drivel you've swallowed over the years, IT ISN'T the government's business who I am or why I want to fly. Contrary to your opinion and that of the State, flying, just like walking around Ohio without your ID Card, and contrary to ruling opinion, IS NOT a privelage. It IS your right as an American citizen protected by the Constitution.

Originally posted by Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
www.usconstitution.net...

And, lest you think that removing our Constitutional rights to privacy, and destroying our rights against unreasonable search and seizure will somehow make us more secure and enhance our national defense, try to remember the purpose of the Constitution in the first place. It goes a little sumthin like dis...

Originally posted by the Founding Fathers
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Thanks, Founding Fathers! I appreciate the liberty you worked so hard to provide me, even if others don't.

I have no problem producing license and registration if I commit a traffic violation, but this is completely unacceptable.

Little by little, a bit here and a bit there, few will even notice. When do we finally learn from the past, stand up, and say no to this.

Eurasia today, Eastasia tomorrow.

Unfortunatly in this country we are not free. They tell us we are so we all fall into line and quietly follow behind. We have luxures and therefore no one really puts up a fight. People are only concerned when they are personally effected. With this mind set, it will be to late to fight when everyone figures out that our government is unjust. How many times has the President said that he doesn't care if people don't like what he does, because he is the one in control, he makes the rules. Lied about the reasons for going to war, killing many young, inocent lives. Taped phone calls without the aproval of the court, because he is the supreme and mighty being. What happened to checks and ballances? Our Country these days seems to be a very fashist state.

I was about to let your condescending little insults slide by, until I read this:

from Hamburglar
How about Amendment IV?

Here's a place where you can buy it, in case you want to read it...
www.allposters.com...

Perhaps it is bad to show an ID or go to jail, because unlike whatever drivel you've swallowed over the years, IT ISN'T the government's business who I am or why I want to fly. Contrary to your opinion and that of the State, flying, just like walking around Ohio without your ID Card, and contrary to ruling opinion, IS NOT a privelage. It IS your right as an American citizen protected by the Constitution.

The founding fathers were smart guys, but I don't see where they envisioned commercial airliners.

The only chance you have of boarding my privately owned plane is if you ask real nice, you do what I say and pay what I tell you to pay, and if I happen to feel pity for you that day.

Same as the bar I own. Or any other private club or business establishment. You have no right to set foot on my plane, or golf course, or whatever. I can refuse to serve you if I want to, even if your rap sheet or pedigree is hanging around your neck for all to see.

And nowhere is there anything written in the constitution to protect you.


[edit on 23-12-2005 by jsobecky]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
The founding fathers were smart guys, but I don't see where they envisioned commercial airliners.

The only chance you have of boarding my privately owned plane is if you ask real nice, you do what I say and pay what I tell you to pay, and if I happen to feel pity for you that day.

Same as the bar I own. Or any other private club or business establishment. You have no right to set foot on my plane, or golf course, or whatever. I can refuse to serve you if I want to, even if your rap sheet or pedigree is hanging around your neck for all to see.

And nowhere is there anything written in the constitution to protect you.

And your point is what? That you know how to make an irrelevant comparison?

Good for you!

But, what has any of that to do with the topic? Who cares if they envisioned commercial airliners? And further, the topic of this thread is not even about commercial airliners. We are talking about compulsory ID showing with threat of arrest to back it up. This is a clear violation of the Constitution, regardless of who owns what bar and whether or not I want to fly on your plane (both of which, by the way, are protected against seizure under the same amendment).

And if you're trying to suggest that showing an ID to board a plane is the product of the commercial airline industry, think again. That's government regulation left, right, and center. Even if the government doesn't codify it, they just say, "remember that $2 billion bailout, well you only get it if you start checking IDs." Government-mandated either way. A violation of my constitutional rights, either way.

As for your bar, good, check IDs. It's your place. That's your right and I don't care.

Don't try to muddle the issue for everyone else by insinuating this is as innocuous as a bar owner ensuring that his patrons are 21. It's not the same, and I sincerely hope you know it.

Finally, my "condescending insults"... You know, it's just like with a puppy who craps on the rug too many times. Eventually, you just have to rub his little face in it, because it's the only way he'll learn. Next time, bone up on your civil liberties before you try to tell everyone else it's okay to lose them. And next time, I might not rub it in your face.

" Ok. It's bad enough that we have to show an ID to board a plane, after the first of the year will need a passport to go to Canada or Mexico; in 2008 will need an "internal passport" to fly WITHIN the United States; but now, if you live in Ohio, you can get arrested if you don't show your ID?

Now, you don't have to be a suspect or commit a crime. An officer on the street can just come up to you and say "Let me see some ID", and if you don't produce some sort of identification, off to jail you go!

Papers, please! "

Exactely like in the Soviet Union. The problem is that it's not the S.U but the U.S.A.......An " internal passport "....

And for you, Intelearthling, you have to kow these kind of " communist-nazis " style laws are ESPECIALLY targeting ordinary " Joe ". Otherwise who do you think these laws are targeting ? Senators ? Rep ? Powerfull bizness men ? These laws are for YOU and JUST for YOU.

And your point is what? That you know how to make an irrelevant comparison?

No, sistah, and I believe it was you who sidetracked the topic.
My point is, and remains the same, that you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege:

Contrary to your opinion and that of the State, flying, just like walking around Ohio without your ID Card, and contrary to ruling opinion, IS NOT a privelage. It IS your right as an American citizen protected by the Constitution.

I'll give you the chance to redeem yourself here: where is your right to fly specified or protected under the constitution? And don't hide behind your right to be happy.

And if you're trying to suggest that showing an ID to board a plane is the product of the commercial airline industry, think again.

I'd bet the airlines are in favor of it.

If this is your attempt at explaining what's so bad about the airlines checking ID's, it's the lamest one I have heard yet.

Don't try to muddle the issue for everyone else by insinuating this is as innocuous as a bar owner ensuring that his patrons are 21.

You really are without a clue, aren't you? I don't care if you're 81; if I don't want to serve you, I won't.

No such right? I didn't think so.

Finally, my "condescending insults"...

show your lack of maturity and how easy is is to be a cyber tough guy. There's a thread going on right now that addresses juvey behavior like yours, among other things. Read it - you might learn something.

Nah, that'll never happen.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I guess the question is, why in the world would you not co-operate? To be obstinate? Or because you are truly concerned about a 4th amendment infringement? And I'm not putting forth the argument of "If you're not guilty, then why not co-operate?"

I think that if you're not doing anything wrong you should have a right to your own privacy. It's the same with warrantless searches, until the police has evidence that you've actually commited a crime or are plotting a crime then they have no right to search you, your house, your car, your library records, etc...

And if you think that we shouldn't have any right to privacy and you want to give that up just so you can feel more "secure" you might as well install a telescreen in every room. If you really need to feel more "secure" you should consider moving to a country where they don't have anti-gestapo laws in the foundational legal document; because one thing that America isn't and should never become is a police state.

Why do I suspect that people with your mentality would be the type to spy on your neighbors just in case they might be a "secret terrorist"? In reality the war on terror is a farce. All the evidence from 9/11 tells us that the real terrorists are the ones currently in the whitehouse.

I'm going to be patient and take this piece by piece:

Why do I suspect that people with your mentality would be the type to spy on your neighbors just in case they might be a "secret terrorist"?

For several reasons:
1. You don't know anything about my mentality
2. It might be a result of your own suspicious, paranoid nature.

I think that if you're not doing anything wrong you should have a right to your own privacy.

I agree, but then I think your understanding of the "right to privacy" is superficial at best. Not to despair; you can still learn, if you keep an open mind.

The right to privacy is one of the most hotly contested issues in the courts, up to the SCOTUS. Are you old enough to remember David Souter? The question put to him was

Does the Constitution recognize and protect an unenumerated right of privacy?

I'll never forget the stunned faces among senators and spectators on the day 15 years ago when Supreme Court nominee David Souter answered that question in the affirmative. It was the first answer of his Senate confirmation hearing, and it showed that he embraced the legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade's protection of abortion rights. Conservatives were furious, never forgiving President George H.W. Bush for naming Souter. Liberals were shocked, but pleased, and many quickly endorsed his nomination.
Privacy?

Good reading, look it up sometimes. Here's another:
more

After all I've typed here, I guarantee that you still don't know anything about my "mentality".

The problem is, if someone does not disagree, or hate, as much as you do, you immediately see them as against your pov. That type of thinking is like junk food for your brain. But it's a product of the kbd and screen, imo. It's too easy to get your opinon out to the world, before it's even half-baked.

I can usually tell a person that was communicating before the computer era. When not even email was around. Those people had a tendency to think about what they wrote, and took the time to read what was written. It was harder to communicate, but it ended up making it easier for our offspring to be better communicators. At least it should have. It also made jumping to conclusions easier to do.

Is reading comprehension even taught in schools anymore? Or has it been replaced by "Spellcheck for Dummies?"

Remember: don't pre-judge people with a different pov. Maybe they are just playing devil's advocate. You'll never know if you jump to conclusions.

Finally, I still want to know what is wrong with asking for an ID before you board a plane. Have you ever entered a courthouse with a firearm strapped on your belt? (Please keep the authorized carriers out of this). Is the act of passing through a metal detector an infringement of your rights? Carrying a weapon onboard a plane, or into the courtroom, is much more dangerous than faking an ID, isn't it? So searching you with a metal detector is a much more flagrant violation of your rights, isn't it? At least, that's what I'm hearing you argue.

Now you see, I could have ended this with a statement such as "Why do I suspect that people with your mentality would be the type that want terrorists to carry handguns onto airplanes?", as you did with your post. But that would have been totally unfounded, right? Understand?

cool:

I and others I believe disagree with this bill because our constitution states that we the people have the right to be
quote from Go Washington above:
....be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,... end quote
and that this right shall not be violated.

Therefore stopping someone for any reason whatsoever and asking them for id is in violation of the constitution along with this bill if it states that. The bill needs to state when searches and id will need to be required and why in my opinion to make it constitutional. I don't think that is asking too much. If the police want to be able to id everyone entering areas they deem to be critical transportation infrastructure for safety reasons, then they should specify what are the critical areas and why id is required in my opinion.

I don't believe the police should have the authority to arrest anyone walking about or riding with someone just because they didn't have an id or refused to give it out if they aren't breaking the law or a suspect.

Last year I wouldn't have thought twice about calling my friend in London to wish him a merry Xmas while sitting on a park bench enjoying some fresh air and a cup of coffee.

The nut jobs who were responsible for 9/11, supposedly inspired by their intense hatred of our freedoms, should be dancing in the streets with the news from Ohio.

I live in Ohio and if this does pass I'm going to die. Seriously the USA just keeps on getting worse and worse.

What will the the freedom be anymore?

And the thing is I havent even heard it on the news.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by mnmcandiez]

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm going to be patient and take this piece by piece:

And ignore half of what I said.

I think that if you're not doing anything wrong you should have a right to your own privacy.

I agree, but then I think your understanding of the "right to privacy" is superficial at best. Not to despair; you can still learn, if you keep an open mind.

I'm pretty sure I wrote "I think" and not "The law says". I personally beleive that we should have a right to privacy in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. That personal beleif does not need to take into account court decisions, executive orders, or legislation because it's a personal beleif. If I were writting about the right to privacy in current legal practices things would be a bit different now wouldn't they?

The problem is, if someone does not disagree, or hate, as much as you do, you immediately see them as against your pov. That type of thinking is like junk food for your brain. But it's a product of the kbd and screen, imo. It's too easy to get your opinon out to the world, before it's even half-baked.

I can usually tell a person that was communicating before the computer era. When not even email was around. Those people had a tendency to think about what they wrote, and took the time to read what was written. It was harder to communicate, but it ended up making it easier for our offspring to be better communicators. At least it should have. It also made jumping to conclusions easier to do.

Is reading comprehension even taught in schools anymore? Or has it been replaced by "Spellcheck for Dummies?"

Remember: don't pre-judge people with a different pov. Maybe they are just playing devil's advocate. You'll never know if you jump to conclusions.

You're right, I was out of line. I'm sorry.

Finally, I still want to know what is wrong with asking for an ID before you board a plane. Have you ever entered a courthouse with a firearm strapped on your belt? (Please keep the authorized carriers out of this). Is the act of passing through a metal detector an infringement of your rights? Carrying a weapon onboard a plane, or into the courtroom, is much more dangerous than faking an ID, isn't it? So searching you with a metal detector is a much more flagrant violation of your rights, isn't it? At least, that's what I'm hearing you argue.

At first you condemn me for jumping to conclusions, then you jump to a false conclusion yourself. I never said being searched with a metal detector is a flagrant violation of your rights, that's an assumption you made. The issue here isn't about being asked for ID or searched with a metal detector before boarding a plane (you were subject to both of those things before september 11th). It's about being asked for your name, address, and birthdate when you're walking your dog at the beach or taking your kids to their little league game and then being arrested if you refuse to provide that information. Do you really think that the police should be able to arrest you for the simple fact that you dont want to give them your information, even when you're minding your own business and not actually commiting a crime? I for one do not, and it sickens me to hear anyone including you argue in favor of legislation that directly contradicts the laws set down in the Constitution.

Now you see, I could have ended this with a statement such as "Why do I suspect that people with your mentality would be the type that want terrorists to carry handguns onto airplanes?", as you did with your post. But that would have been totally unfounded, right? Understand?

Pardon me if I make any false assumptions about you in the following statements:

This is where you and I run into problems. Our government had a hand in 9/11. The evidence is there, it's just that you refuse to see it. My main frustration with you lies in that you buy into the whole "War on Terror" and cant see that:

#1. Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida is a problem that the United States created. President Bush has close ties to the Bin Laden family.

#2. Unless the terrorists managed to teleport material from a neutron star into the WTC there's no way that it's physically possible for a "pancake" type collapse to occur at terminal velocity. The Twin Towers were most likely demolished.

#3. WTC 7 was most definately demolished.

#4. Based upon the Official 9/11 report authorities knew the first plane was hijacked for 35 minutes before it impacted, which means they had 35 minutes to scramble fighters to the airplane. In the year leading up to 9/11 there were 67 incidents where fighters were scrambled to intercept suspicious aircraft, yet even with a 35 minute warning fighters never reached the hijacked aircraft on 9/11.

There's plenty of other evidence out there, these are just the most compelling points. If you still beleive there's an enemy "lurking" out there somewhere in the shadows waiting poised with his boxcutter and turban, and that we have to give up our constitutional freedoms that protect us from an abusive government in order to fight that enemy then that is where you and I must intellectually part ways. Because I beleive I know something that you do not: That the real terrorist is George W. Bush.

[edit on 24-12-2005 by ShakyaHeir]

If I choose to fly on someone elses airplane, I'm happy to show an ID. If I drink a dangerous substance in someone elses place of business, go ahead and card me. If I am to be allowed the responsibility of driving what is basically a moving weapon, I have no problem providing my identity.

But, if I'm walking down a public street which my tax dollars have already given me partial ownership of and paid for, not doing anything wrong or dangerous, then it is no ones business who I am or what I'm doing. If am in my own dwelling, not hurting anyone, not bothering anyone, and fulfilliing my responsibility as a citizen, then it is no business of anyones what I do there, what I ingest, read, or think.

This used to be a free country. It's not anymore and I'm old enough to remember when it was. There used to be a presumption of innocence. Now, with the Us vs. Them attitude practiced and encouraged by law enforcement and government, everyone is assumed to be a crimminal until they can prove themselves otherwise.

I truely believe that if thought monitoring were possible and practical, there are those who would find it acceptable and justifiable to do it.

It is a police state now, never mind becoming one. It has been imposed incrementally, law by unjust law, and it will continue to get worse until there is no freedom left to us. The majority of Americans are too dumbed down, chemically medicated, or distracted by "bread and circuses" to realize it. If they do realize it, they are too afraid to do anything to change it, or among those who prefer it.

Recently, for the first time in my life (and I'm over 40), I find no pride or hope in being an American. Maybe people do get the leaders they deserve. If so, it says some really bad things about us all.

I still love my country, but I see no evidence at all that it still loves me. I cry for the ideals my country was built on, while those ideals vanish into the darkness of totalitarianism, fascism, corruption and greed.

We've all heard the following words, but I must post them again since at no time in history have they been more important for us to remember:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir

Well now, here's a rarity - someone who disagrees with me, but is still willing to debate the issues and not each other.

I'm pretty sure I wrote "I think" and not "The law says". I personally beleive that we should have a right to privacy in accordance with the principles of the Constitution. That personal beleif does not need to take into account court decisions, executive orders, or legislation because it's a personal beleif. If I were writting about the right to privacy in current legal practices things would be a bit different now wouldn't they?

They would be entirely different. The law dictates how we will interact with each other.

At first you condemn me for jumping to conclusions, then you jump to a false conclusion yourself. I never said being searched with a metal detector is a flagrant violation of your rights, that's an assumption you made.

I want to make sure I understand... do you think it is OK to be searched (via a metal detector or otherwise ) before you boarded a plane?

It seems that you are saying that you're OK with that. And that is totally the opposite of how I would expect you to feel. Since you did nothing wrong, there should be no reason for you to be searched before you board a plane, right? How is that different than being asked for ID?

The issue here isn't about being asked for ID or searched with a metal detector before boarding a plane (you were subject to both of those things before september 11th). It's about being asked for your name, address, and birthdate when you're walking your dog at the beach or taking your kids to their little league game and then being arrested if you refuse to provide that information. Do you really think that the police should be able to arrest you for the simple fact that you dont want to give them your information, even when you're minding your own business and not actually commiting a crime?

I don't think an arrest is warranted in those cases, but then again, I don't think the cop should be asking you for ID out of the clear blue sky.

My question is, where do you draw the line? And how is this proposal any different than the way things actually are today, other than putting ink to paper?

A cop can always find a reason to pull you over if you're driving. "Your Honor, the defendant appeared to weave in his lane." He can always find a way to stop you while walking down the street. "Your Honor, Sir, the defendant looked like the individual in an APB photo I had seen last month."

It sucks, but it's true. That's just the way things are with any police force.

Pardon me if I make any false assumptions about you in the following statements:

This is where you and I run into problems. Our government had a hand in 9/11. The evidence is there, it's just that you refuse to see it. My main frustration with you lies in that you buy into the whole "War on Terror" and cant see that:

Although I never stated that, your assumption is right on the money. Because then I'd have to believe that this Ohio proposition is a logical, planned outcome of 9/11.

These next points have been covered ad nauseum here and other places, and I reject their premise. Point 4 deserves a response, however:

#4. Based upon the Official 9/11 report authorities knew the first plane was hijacked for 35 minutes before it impacted, which means they had 35 minutes to scramble fighters to the airplane. In the year leading up to 9/11 there were 67 incidents where fighters were scrambled to intercept suspicious aircraft,

and 462 incidents in about the same period since 9/11, meaning what? Meaning that our mindset had changed. Prior to 9/11, no commercial airliner had been used as a bomb.

And most of those 67 incidents you cite did not include commercial airliners. Most were small aircraft, like the Payne Stewart incident.

yet even with a 35 minute warning fighters never reached the hijacked aircraft on 9/11.

Even if a hijacking were suspected, history had show us that hijackers invariably followed a pattern: hold the passengers hostage until a list of demands was met. Not crashing it into a building.

There's plenty of other evidence out there, these are just the most compelling points.

If that's the best you got...

If you still beleive there's an enemy "lurking" out there somewhere in the shadows waiting poised with his boxcutter and turban,

or setting off homicide bombs in places like Amman, maybe?

and that we have to give up our constitutional freedoms that protect us from an abusive government in order to fight that enemy then that is where you and I must intellectually part ways.

You're beginning to backslide into unfounded conclusions again. But, hey, it's been real!

Because I beleive I know something that you do not: That the real terrorist is George W. Bush.

With that attitude, you'll never grow in your thinking. Someone disagrees with you, so therefore end of discussion, eh? That's OK - as long as there are people who think like you do, and can tell you what to believe, you don't have to think for yourself.

Well, after researching this bill, it seems that it is for real - it is Ohio's version of the Patriot Act. And I have noticed that not too much discussion has centered around the bill's authors, Ohio state legislators.

You see, those are the people you should be questioning. Go sing Battle Hymn to them. Instead, you rise to the bait of someone who wants to get the expected response from you. Why? Because you're so easy to mess with!

Instead of looking in the mirror, you predictably accuse Bush. And the emotionally-laden "Papers, please" rhetoric starts to flow.

Of course, it's a given that this old saw would be regurgitated:

I still love my country, but I see no evidence at all that it still loves me. I cry for the ideals my country was built on, while those ideals vanish into the darkness of totalitarianism, fascism, corruption and greed.

We've all heard the following words, but I must post them again since at no time in history have they been more important for us to remember:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Ben Franklin

You should cry. You're getting what you deserve. The entire citizenry of Ohio is getting what they deserve. After all, they elected these birdbrains. And instead of recalling them, or firing them, you re-elect them. It reminds me of the battered spouse, who continues to take her abuser back in.

So you get what you paid for.

Not to despair, because the ACLU will take this law to court and it will get thrown out because of the fourth amendment. As it should. And you will be protected and saved by the same system that you just finished condemning.

I daresay that this law would never have seen the light of day in the state I live in. We have a rich history of hanging politicians that try to take our rights away.

So who sponsored this law, Ohioans? And an extra 20 points for those who can tell us who wrote the bill.

Here's an interesting article:

A swift effort by Ohio State Senator Jeff Jacobson helped to pass a spine-chilling bill named the Ohio Patriot Act in March. It now stands before the Ohio House in all of its anonymity.
Jacobson, by all accounts, is an intelligent guy. Sometimes, acquaintances even characterize him with the word, “brilliant.” That’s why there’s some concern that no one in Columbus really knows who, in fact, wrote the Ohio Patriot Act.

The brilliant Jacobson doesn’t actually know who wrote the bill that he sponsored. Or he’s just not comfortable saying.
Link

It's a decent starting place.