It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police state=Loss of freedoms.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 


Slowly but surely.
We are gearing towards a second civil war. The way things are going it makes sense to say that.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
yeah, that one quote about "...half the population" wasn't mine. It was just my retarded use of the quote buttons.

The Supreme Court will never rule against anti government speech.
Speech is protected pretty good and most of it gets strict scrutiny review.
The States interests needs to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interests. An easier way to look at it is.... Any law that gets that standard of review, "strict scrutiny" is deemed unconstituitional on its face and it is the governments burden to prove otherwise.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


The reason that freedom of speech is looked over more carefully is because every person in the USA knows that they have the right to say what they want.

I ask you now how many people are aware that they have the right to deny and officers request to search their belongings. I am pretty sure that if as many people knew about their fourth amendment right as they did their first then we would not have these checkpoints because when the supreme court was ruling on checkpoints we would have protected our fourth amendment right.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
...I stand by my first post because it is the stance of the Supreme Court.
What more do you want?

That's exactly what I've been saying too...I research Supreme Court precedence as well as the Constitution. But I've also been saying that any private Citizen that signs a "waiver of Rights" (ie: the Driver's License) with the State authorities has to abide by the State Laws that replace the Rights that were waived. My whole post included basic information on how to avoid waiving your Rights. When the woman signed her Driver's License, she allowed the State DMV re-classify her...She was no longer a Rightful Traveler, but a Vehicle Driver. As such, she had signed away her Right to Travel Freely & fell under jurisdiction of State Traffic Laws.

I do concede that the police were a bit "heavy-handed" & violated other Rights (not including the Right to Travel Freely, which she already waivered by signing her Driver's License) but she also refused to abide by those Laws that allowed the police to escalate their response.


Originally posted by caballero
Its the same thing with this police state concept, the police are getting more power when they should NOT have a lot of the powers they do have. This checkpoint thing is one of those powers, they should not be allowed to set these things up because they infringe on my rights as a sober law abiding driver.

I agree...But for the police to quit stopping & hassling anyone other than a commercial vehicle driver/operator at such checkpoints, then every private Citizen who is not conducting any kind of business or commercial venture must know how to retain their Rights. Once those Rights have been signed away, then every private Citizen on the road is subject to the same regulations as anyone else who uses public roads to conduct some kind of business.

Here's a link to the Supreme Law Firm...From the indications of the legality of who really owns your car, once you register it with the State:
Supreme Law Firm, Lesson 1, Item 5

Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor Denise Rottero told Judge Greer how Tennessee's auto registration process works...

The process begins with the "surrender" of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin ("MSO") by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue, in exchange for a Certificate of Title. Asked if a Manufacturer's Statement of Origin is proof of ownership, legal title to the automobile, Ms. Rottero said, "Yes."

"Are you telling me that ownership of an automobile must be surrendered to the State before it can be registered?" she was asked.

"Surrender title, yes." Rottero said.

The certificate of title to your automobile is Not title, it's merely evidence that title exists. Your car's legal TITLE is the MSO, which the dealer surrendered to the State. Ms. Rottero said the MSO is put on microfilm for permanent
keeping, the original is destroyed.

After the trial, spectators expressed shock that their personal automobiles were actually owned by the state. "No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason!" said a housewife. "If your car's got a Tennessee plate, it's
theirs, and they can do anything they like to you!" That's the law, but it's voluntary. No one but Judge Greer had dared say that if you don't surrender your car to the state in exchange for plates, you go to jail.

Once you've surrendered ownership of your automobile, the State DMV automatically classifies it as a Motor Vehicle (technically defined as a vehicle for commercial use)...From there, they can "regulate" anything they want concerning that vehicle...Including the licensing of the vehicle itself & anyone who climbs behind the wheel to use it, including granting the authority for the police to demand examination of the driver's license or conduct a roadside sobriety test (for two examples).

The State won't let an ordinary "traveler" use their car, only a Driver or Operator: So if you've registered your automobile, you've actually given it to the State & will be required to obtain a License to drive it, because it's their vehicle.

This is part of the whole deception of legislation that's designed to enslave you & prevent you from owning your own property...Such as the one about your name being on your Birth Certificate being written in all capital letters & makes you an "item of inventory," enslaved to repay the national debt. All of which is, of course, depriving you of your Constitutional Rights to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness."

Wow! Doesn't the 1st Amendment mention something about "Congress shall make no law...abridging" Citizen Rights? Even legislation that enjoys "due process" is "legal" but otherwise violating Citizen Rights is Unconstitutional...Constitutional & legal are two different things. But most courts are more firmly under UCC and/or Admiralty Court control & barely pay lip service to the Constitution at all...More accurately, they enforce "due process of law" as compared to "due process of The Law (ie: The Constitution)." The violation by the legislature exists when they are not acting "in pursuance of" the Constitution...Which is an impeachable offense.


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Show me one case where your idea of getting around not having a DL has been successful here in the United States.

I don't know of any particular instances...Because anyone who's registered their car with the State is legally required to obtain license to drive what is a State-owned vehicle. The deception exists in the fact that most people don't know this & have suffered under "non-disclosure of contract terms," which is why it's so important to know your "remedy & recourse" under the UCC (& why you must include the UCC reference near your signature).

If you can successfully buy a car & get the title (not just the MSO) to it, then it belongs to you, not the State & you don't need the license for yourself to "travel" in it. Use of the phrases "under duress," "all rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207" can help you--And once again, I urge you to research this for yourself because you have to fully understand it before the judge will take you seriously.


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I will respond to dude about the lengthy lesson about "Right to travel"
You forgot to mention that you don't have a Right to travel outside of this Country. If you are going to give me a long disertation on freedom of movement, then you needed to put that in.

Yes, that's right...But only because the Constitution was written to be enforceable within the boundaries of the States of the Union. The Founding Forefathers knew that there would be no way to guarantee or enforce any Citizen Rights while outside of our boundaries.

Don't feel too bad if you don't recognize the difference (One key clue is their use of capital letters in the right places on official documents)...They've been practicing blasphemy against the Natural Laws under the Constitutional Republic of America for well over a hundred years, so they've gotten well versed in the arts of deception.


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
I mentioned before that what is and what isn't Constitutional, (as a real world, practical matter) is not going to be determined by your knowing the written words of the Constitution by heart.

I don't know it by heart, I just keep a copy of it handy.
And I also back it up with research into law & court cases. No, I'm not a professional lawyer...Because to pass the BAR exam you earn a foreign title (such as "Esquire" for example) & that technically excludes you from US Government service under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8, even though many currently in the Government does hold such titles (& should be impeached for it). The title of Scholar (just above my avatar pic) has to be earned at ATS...

You may find this thread to be a handy place to start some lines of research.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


WHOA! you are a hard hitter on this subject.

So what you're saying is that the whole concept of Drivers licenses and the DMV are unconstitutional as well?
I am also confused on one point are officers able to pull over truck drivers, commercial drivers, with no probable cause? well it seems that you were saying police officers can pull any one over without probable cause but can they search through your car considering thatits theirs?

Goodness you have just opened a door for me. It all seems like a bit of conspiracy if you look at it in a certain light. First they own all the cars and can do anything they want because its theirs BUT they gives us this false sense of security, we think we have rights protecting our (though its not really ours I guess) vehicle. Why do they do this?

All I know is that something is terribly wrong when the state government has control of ALL the cars and can legally punish us for anything they deem unfit for the road. Think of what they can do with that power.

Also I checked that link out and it seriously gave me a headache all the stuff that they are able to do. They can take a mothers baby away for no reason, because signing the birth certificate is signing your child into servitude to the country, THATS INSANE!!

[edit on 7-6-2008 by caballero]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Be it The United States, The United Kingdom, The United Arab Emirates or Manchester United, the simple fact is that the lady in question should of handed over her license upon request.
The joy is not in the rebeling against the officers request for the license but in aquessing to the request and proving yourself to have nothing to hide and to be one of the few citizens to reside within the law.
The law is the law and even if we don't agree with it, without laws would we have order? would the lady of even been able to drive safely in the first place? we need laws and good ones at that, we do not need people antagonizing an already overstreached and under resourced group of public servants who are just trying to do thier jobs.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by smokey101]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by smokey101
 


It shouldnt matter whether you have anything to hide or not, I will not condone an illegal stop at an illegal checkpoint by giving the officer my ID. Yes we need laws but we had laws before and the only reason they didnt work in this video was because we had to different sets of laws fighting for dominance. the woman was upholding the constitutional laws, the officers were upholding a new fascist set of laws.

I would have done the same thing that she did because I do not agree with the fascist laws our government is trying to pass. sometimes you have to break the law, when you know a law is wrong why would you still follow it? In this case the law is wrong and I will not follow it.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Thank you, brother. May our light overcome the darkness that has come to our world.

If the law is wrong I will not follow it either. It's about right and wrong and good vs. evil, and light and darkness.

You are either for freedom or against it. There is no if, an, butts or in between.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Then if you choose not to follow the law you may find yourself in a cell someday.
You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which not to, if you refuse to follow a certain law then that makes you a criminal in the eyes of the police.
Now i am not saying that the laws are right, for instance i live in the U.K. and i detest the damn smoking ban, but if i choose not to follow the ban and smoke in a non-smoking area then i will be fined wether i like it or not, and if i don't pay then i will be arrested wether i like it or not.

Basically my point is like it or not, good or bad, if you don't abide by the laws then the cops will come knocking on your door and resist too much and you may find yourself knocking on heavens door.
Follow the laws and work for change within the law, after all its easier to fight from the inside than from the outside.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by smokey101]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
So what you're saying is that the whole concept of Drivers licenses and the DMV are unconstitutional as well?

No, the Feds & the State are authorized to regulate companies because it's considered a privilege to conduct business for profit/gain...But they also Unconstitutionally trick the average American Citizen into declaring themselves as some type of "commercial entity." The difference is there, but it's subtle.

I'd mentioned the Birth Certificate earlier? By putting the child's name in all capital letters, this basically turns "Joe Blow," the Citizen into "JOE BLOW," the corporate entity. There is recourse for this, but the timing is critical--The parents have a time limit to change the birth certificate & the child can change it within a time limit after his 18th birthday.

But since very few parents recognize this, it becomes a problem when the child grows up & starts participating in contracts as an adult. This is why it's so important to include the "UCC 1-207" phrase when signing contracts of your own...Knowing the meaning of the recourse & remedies under the UCC allows you to participate in contracts while still retaining your Rights as a Citizen, instead of your privileges as a "corporate entity."


Originally posted by caballero
I am also confused on one point are officers able to pull over truck drivers, commercial drivers, with no probable cause?

Yes, because truck drivers, cab drivers, etc. are all "Driving" a vehicle as a requirement of their employment...Which is what Driver's Licenses were originally designed for.

Originally posted by caballero
well it seems that you were saying police officers can pull any one over without probable cause but can they search through your car considering thatits theirs?

Yes. Since the vehicle belongs to the State, the State authorizes the police to conduct searches of vehicle, driver & passengers (if any).


Originally posted by caballero
It all seems like a bit of conspiracy if you look at it in a certain light...
...Why do they do this?

Because it is a conspiracy. Such a conspiracy is striving for as much surveilance & control as they can grab...The Constitutional Republic of America, with its guaranteed Rights & liberties, is a complete anathema to this goal.


Originally posted by smokey101
The law is the law and even if we don't agree with it, without laws would we have order?

The point I've been making is: The Constitution was written to be the Supreme Law of the Land in America--Second only to the Laws of Nature as set forth by the Creator...The "conspiracy" lies in the government creating its own "laws" & otherwise doing everything they can to chip away at the Real Laws a little at a time so that most people don't recognize the shift from Freedom to Tyranny. Once Hitler-like control is achieved, then the People who do notice the shift can be labeled as some sort of enemy & dealt with easily. The government's ability to declare certain types of people as "enemies of the state" is a powerful tool to rid themselves of potential political threats to their power...Machaevelli (sp?), eat your heart out!



Originally posted by caballero
the woman was upholding the constitutional laws, the officers were upholding a new fascist set of laws.

And this is the mark of a true patriot, when you must support your nation against a destructive government. This is why those particular Rights were mentioned in the 1st Amendment...To have a peaceful means to secure your Rights before it comes down to the 2nd Amendment Rights to defend yourself.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 


While you make some excellent points, allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

So, what about my "right" and my family's "right" to not be killed by a drunk driver? While you may consider them unconstitutional, DUI checkpoints have succeeded in catching drivers under the influence and possibly saving the suspect's life and the lives of everyone on the road by stopping them.

While it may not be the case in all areas of the country, every DUI checkpoint that I have ever witnessed or been stopped in was not some random stakeout instituted solely to violate innocent people's rights. They are often implemented on holidays or holiday weekends when drinking and driving is most common, and in locations that most drivers must travel through to reach their destination in the area. Furthermore, such checkpoints are announced publicly (often printed in the local newspapers) well ahead of time, including the date, time and general location of the checkpoint.

I fail to see how someones rights are violated by having to show their drivers license, or even insurance and registration cards. If you do not have all of the above-mentioned items, or if any of them are invalid, then you shouldn't be out on the road. I certainly don't want someone with no valid license or insurance getting into an accident with me. And I certainly don't want someone with a suspended license who is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs getting into an accident with me. And if a DUI checkpoint is going to take even one of these offenders off the road, then I think it is worth it. Although I am not familiar with the statistics (if there are any) related to DUI checkpoints and their success rates, costs, etc., no one can say for sure how many lives may have been saved by having them. No one can say for sure how many people chose as designated driver or called a taxi because they feared being caught in one of these checkpoints. The deterrence factor is definitely there, as I have heard people firsthand warning each other about having a drink and getting behind the wheel because there were likely checkpoints in the area.

All that being said, the police officer in this case obviously overreacted. If she did not appear to be intoxicated, and if the officer ran her license plate and it came back clean, then he should have let her go on regardless of her willingness to produce her license. But on a personal note, I have no problem showing a police officer the proper documentation if I'm caught up in a checkpoint. I know that he/she is simply doing their job and following orders in an effort to protect those of us innocent people out on the road. And since I know that I am not guilty of any crime or in violation of any law, I will always willingly participate. I liken it to the checkpoints at airports. Even though I know that I am not a terrorist and that I do not represent any kind of threat to the plane or passengers, I have no problem taking part in the required security measures. This includes the sometimes extra and random procedures that are done. I am GLAD that such measures are taken because they are protecting ME and my loved ones. So, the same goes for DUI checkpoints.

I'll close by reminding everyone that this post was simply a case of me playing Devil's Advocate. I am not saying that everything I wrote above is actually my opinions/beliefs, and I'm not saying that they aren't. I just felt the need to show the other side of the coin. This whole situation could have been avoided if this woman would have just shown her drivers license rather than trying to play "Rosa Parks". I blame her just as much, if not more, than the officer who overreacted. The local police force is made up of men and women just like you and I. They are often normal people who lead normal lives, and they are just doing their jobs. They have no desire to institute a "police state". It's absurd to think that they are. This woman should have understood this as well as the fact that the police were doing what they could do to prevent innocent people from being killed, including her. Maybe a DUI checkpoint isn't the most effective way of doing this, but it is certainly better than doing nothing at all.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   
You may interested in this compilation of videos: www.liveleak.com...




A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when by means of physical force or show of authority his freedom of movement is restrained, and in the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave.


These aren't DUI checkpoints, these are suspicionless internal Department of Homeland Security checkpoints.

A quick question about the law. Not at any point did the officer say it was against the law to fail to show your license. He arrested her for obstruction of justice.

So although she may have been in the wrong in account of failing to show her license, she wasn't arrested for that. I don't think she was obstructing justice. She does have a point, what justice was she obstructing? The officer failed to answer that.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by blahdiblah]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
No, the Feds & the State are authorized to regulate companies because it's considered a privilege to conduct business for profit/gain...But they also Unconstitutionally trick the average American Citizen into declaring themselves as some type of "commercial entity." The difference is there, but it's subtle.

I'd mentioned the Birth Certificate earlier? By putting the child's name in all capital letters, this basically turns "Joe Blow," the Citizen into "JOE BLOW," the corporate entity. There is recourse for this, but the timing is critical--The parents have a time limit to change the birth certificate & the child can change it within a time limit after his 18th birthday.

But since very few parents recognize this, it becomes a problem when the child grows up & starts participating in contracts as an adult. This is why it's so important to include the "UCC 1-207" phrase when signing contracts of your own...Knowing the meaning of the recourse & remedies under the UCC allows you to participate in contracts while still retaining your Rights as a Citizen, instead of your privileges as a "corporate entity."



Ok i know this is of topic but i think i finally get the Capital Letters law jargon.

Although are you saying everyone who has their name printed in capitals on a birth certificate, drivers license, etc is therefore deemed a cooporate entity not a citizen and only has privileges instead of rights?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by blahdiblah]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If you are going to talk about commercial activity or travel then you need to look at the commerce clause....but please don't attempt that topic.

That seizing quote up there was about spot on.

You might want to look up the definition of ownership. The way you explain it we own nothing. But that isn't practically the truth is it?
I don't own land or "real property" because I'm always being taxed on it and in some fracked up circumstances the gov. can take it away (albeit pay for it)

Some? members of Congress have JD's? come on....maybe you should have said...some don't.

Most of this thread reads like Anarchy for the people.

Research, stare decisis, etc......it sounds like you do exactly what Judges do and that is how they decide the constitutionality of the laws.

I would argue that Scalia takes that piece of paper pretty seriously.

But for a final note here and to make things even more clear than a couple of posts here have also tried to do.
If it is "illegal" it is "illegal" you will have to obey. If it is unconstitutional then you may some day be vindicated....if....the case....when....the case....ever gets decided that way by an Appellate court.
So......you will never ever ever be successful explaining to a cop that the law you just broke, is unconstitutional, therefore, let me go about my business.
oh, of course you own your car if you have the title. You can not drive on public roads (with the rest of society) and think you can drive any speed you want....go through red lights....or any other nonsense.
The "Right to travel" has more to do about the other States treatment of you then it does about driving your car to Walmart.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokey101
Then if you choose not to follow the law you may find yourself in a cell someday.


That's the whole point - when our home has been turned into a virtual prison cell, because when we leave we are under controlled movements through the use of checkpoints - our lives become just like inmates, but we haven't been convicted - yet that's how we are treated. If I'm going to be treated like an inmate before I've done anything wrong, it's only natural that I'm going to rebel against those attempting to imprison me in my own home.



Now i am not saying that the laws are right, for instance i live in the U.K. and i detest the damn smoking ban,


Well, I detest all the years I had to breathe the dirty smoke if I chose to be in a pubic restaurant or bar. However I don't agree with the ban and think club owners should have been able to make that choice for themselves. Where I live, before the same smoking ban took effect, we had smoke bars and restaurants and smoke free. Now they have stupid rules that you have to be 20 feet from the door ect...



Basically my point is like it or not, good or bad, if you don't abide by the laws then the cops will come knocking on your door and resist too much and you may find yourself knocking on heavens door.


People are dying for what they believe in everyday on the earth, I hope it doesn't come to that for me, but free men can only be pushed so far before they begin to push back.



Follow the laws and work for change within the law, after all its easier to fight from the inside than from the outside.

Again, no doubt about that, but what do you do when they turn the outside to in?



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by caballero
So i just watched a video of a DUI checkpoint somewhere in the east coast, where a middle aged mother who has no criminal record of any sort was being stopped. The woman was very upset she was being stopped as she had done nothing wrong and should not have to be stopped


Are police mind readers or god now, and know if she had really done nothing?


Originally posted by caballero
, however the police felt differently. When the police asked to see her drivers license she did the smart thing and asked if she was being charged with anything


The smart thing would have been to give him her license when he requested it, since that's the law.



Originally posted by caballero The woman did not let him see her ID and protected her Constitutional Rights very bravely.


Where in the constitution does it say you don't have to give a law enforcement officer your ID?



Originally posted by caballero

- DUI check points are unconstitutional and should be illegal because they take away our fourth amendment right, which protects us from unreasonable searches or seizures.


How was she being searched or seized? He only wanted to identify her via her license to make sure she was operating a car legally, and to see if she was impaired.


Originally posted by caballero
-Then the police officer stops and detains a woman who has not broken any laws and is not being charged for any crime which is also illegal for the police to do, if you didn't do anything they cannot legally detain you.


o rly? Are you a lawyer, or an officer? There's a thing called reasonable suspicion. en.wikipedia.org... In a nutshell, if an officer believes you have committed a crime or are about to commit a crime, they can detain your or search you/your property.



Originally posted by caballero
-The police officer reached into her car and pulled her out when she has not been charged has not done anything wrong


Yes she did, she broke the law when she failed to show the officer her license like they politely requested. They then had reasonable suspicion to believe she was operating the motor vehicle illegally.


Originally posted by caballero

Im sorry but she knew more than they did about her constitution


Apparently not.



Originally posted by caballero

Looking at this situation we can see that the police broke the law on every level.


Can you cite which laws they broke?


Originally posted by caballero
This happens every day to ordinary people.

Yes, ordinary people who are breaking the law.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
So, what about my "right" and my family's "right" to not be killed by a drunk driver? While you may consider them unconstitutional...

I never said that they were Unconstitutional...At least the Constitution & the other (lesser) law structure provides for DUI stations to stop commercially driven vehicles with drunk drivers.


What's Unconstitutional is that the State (& the Feds too) tricks the unwitting Citizens into waiving their Rights. Even police stationed at a DUI checkpoint may notice a Rightful Traveler who is weaving around would have reason to stop them. Even though any drunk in his right mind (Hmmm...An oxymoron here?) may have enough sense to go around checkpoints that have been pre-announced. In that case, that's what patrolling cops are for.

Even if the drunk gets missed by all cops & still hits your car, the drunkard has still violated your Rights & must be held accountable (assuming he's still alive, of course). "Devil's Advocate" or not, I should mention that for all Rights enumerated under Constitutional Law, there is a corresponding responsibility to not violate the Rights of others even while you're exercising yours. That is the only applicable restriction to the exercise of your Rights...Not even the government is allowed to touch them in any other way (even though they still do) & the Constitution is written so that the People themselves can't "vote away" any Rights either (even though "special interests groups" try very hard, with some successes).


Originally posted by Rasputin13
I certainly don't want someone with no valid license or insurance getting into an accident with me. And I certainly don't want someone with a suspended license who is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs getting into an accident with me.

I agree with your concern...But is it any more right to force other people into waiving their Rights just to make you feel a little more comfortable? How about if a "special interest" lobbying group made the legislature form parties of agents to check door-to-door to make sure your kid is wearing a diaper? They don't want you to take your kid out in public & "have embarrassing accidents" in public, do they? What if somebody steps in the kid's "droppings" & breaks their neck?


I know this is not really a fair comparison, but once any group or individual starts clammering to the government to "make this law" or "make that law" even if it's not Constitutional, so that those few people can feel better then where does it stop? After everybody's Rights are completely gone? This is a major part of why the government has gotten so invasive in the first place...Our Rights have been getting slowly chipped away, little by little, step by step.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Well, I detest all the years I had to breathe the dirty smoke if I chose to be in a pubic restaurant or bar.

Then how about getting all of those smoke-belching industries that expel virtually tons of potent toxins each year? Wouldn't it make more sense to get those cleaned up before coming down to the street-level to pick on someone who's only got a cigarette?

Yes, I agree that the choice should be up to the owner of the establishment...Not the government to make it any kind of actual law. This is just another example of how the People have also been guilty of lobbying the government to help remove our own Rights...Not that the government itself doesn't (Unconstitutionally) help out with that anyway. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, so that means he'd rather have more restrictions on the individual while letting the corporations get by with doing much worse.


Originally posted by Rasputin13
I fail to see how someones rights are violated by having to show their drivers license, or even insurance and registration cards.

Actually, by the time such people have registered their cars, gotten license plates, gotten a driver's license...You've missed the point that by the time all that is done, they've already waived their Right to Travel Freely and are legally required to present them to any cop that asks for them.


Originally posted by blahdiblah
Although are you saying everyone who has their name printed in capitals on a birth certificate, drivers license, etc is therefore deemed a cooporate entity not a citizen and only has privileges instead of rights?

No, just the Birth Certificate...That's when the child becomes a corporate entity & they don't have much use in forcing people to "re-register" every time their name appears on an official document.
But it should also be pointed out that you are automatically a Citizen in the State you were born (or move into, after a year of residence I think) but when you get your Social Security card, you also become a federal citizen (yes, the precise use of capital letters does make a difference on the word "citizen"). Yep, there's two different classes of citizens...And then again, there's also a "corporate citizen"...Which is simply saying that the corporation itself is considered to be a federal citizen with all due Rights, that quite often wind up being held up higher than citizen Rights (of either level).


Originally posted by Res Ipsa
The way you explain it we own nothing. But that isn't practically the truth is it?
I don't own land or "real property" because I'm always being taxed on it and in some fracked up circumstances the gov. can take it away (albeit pay for it)

The reason for that has to do with how they've handled different "classes" of land...It's a real trick to truly own your property. You have to be able to lay the strongest claim to "allodial" land. I have a link about how to do that, but I also encourage you to verify the source & do some of your own research too...The law is a tricky thing to avoid where Rights are concerned.


reply to post by AgentScmidt
 

With pretty nearly every single response you wrote was nothing but illogical refutation of what other posters had already proven with source links & references...Of which you provided none. Have you even read the thread at all or did any research on what has already been posted?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by caballero
 



If the police stop me whilst I`m driving and ask to see my driving licence and insurance, I`ve got no problem with that - they are simply doing a job that many of us would not do. If the lady in question had simply handed over her licence she would have been merrily on her way in minutes.
The police do this job to protect drivers from dui-drivers. The more dui`s they take off the road the better, and how many people did the police stop that had `no` licence or insurance? - those people are criminals no excuse.
For the sake of a few minutes, I think this lady was a little bit upity.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
We all need monitoring, we need somone in our home watching us, if not someone a camera to make sure we follow the rules that some @%#& head makes up. But they should not have to follow these rules because they are in control, or connected. How dare you quesrion what was created by someone that is dumber, lazyer, and is doing for no more than to make extra money for there town. Think I lie I know people within town government well.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Maybe I'm missing the argument here.
Are you saying that these things are unconstitutional according to your understanding or the understanding of the Supreme Court.
These issues have been answered by the Court.
I stand by my first post because it is the stance of the Supreme Court.
What more do you want?




Acutally courts often misfire justice. They are servants to the people and are as treasonous as the governments who think they hired to be more than ears. People should get together and redesign their system and carefully look over all documents to see what would be crimes in and of themselves, designed to circumvent democracies. Then arrest signatures.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join