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.

 

Real Id deadline looms 36 states not ready

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by December_Rain
 

It's no one's business who I am unless I am violating a law. I have no constitutional obligation to identify myself to anyone including Law Enforcement Authorities who can only hold me for 72 hours trying to figure out who I am if I choose not to tell them. At the end of 72 hours if they can't prove I am some one wanted or make a case for criminal wrong doing a Judge considers strong enough on it's face to continue detaining me and charging me officially with it, I go free.

I have no obligation or burden to prove to anyone I am not doing anything wrong or who I am.


Please quote me where in the constitution it states it's noones business who you are or one should not be asked for their identification if you are not violating a law?

Again if you are violating a law, how would anyone know if you don't have ID?


That's the way it should be too. People so worried about their security and who everybody else is should either A. Stay home all the time, lock their windows and doors and carry around a shotgun in their home...or B. Invite everyone in the nation over for Thanksgiving and Christmas so they can personally get to meet everyone in a proper and sociable way not a POLICE STATE WAY.

I am not afraid of anyone or anything. America isn't about fear, it's about the land of the free and the brave and one of the things you are free to do at all times is protect your annonymity.


It should be as per your projection of an ideal country but practically it isn't so.




posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 





Please quote me where in the constitution it states it's noones business who you are or one should not be asked for their identification if you are not violating a law?


Do yourself a favor and call the local police station and ask them to cite you the law that requires you to identify yourself under a penalty for not doing so.

The Constitution is what it is friend, and if you want to advocate for abusing it and living in a police state that's your business, but you might want to learn the laws first, and why they exist, and who made them before you go around advocating everyone live in fear and have a serial number tatood on their forehead.

All searches and seizures are considered unreasonable until they can be proven reasonable in a court of law.

All people are innocent until proven guilty and that's the logical conclusion of that.

You have the right to privacy, privacy means you do not have to identify who you are or where you live or allow anyone into your home and have access to your property.

It's why police will ask you is it alright if I search your car, is it alright if I enter your abode, they don't have that right without a warrant or without your consent. They have to have evidence to get a warrant.

Finally you have the right to not incriminate yourself, if identifying yourself or granting access to your property or home would incriminate you by extension you have the right not to do it.

This is all part of the law and the law is meant to protect all people and all people are innocent until proven guilty and the BURDEN of proof of guilt is on the STATE there is no burden to prove yourself innocent until the State attempts to prove you guilty of something.

The illegal corporate military dictatorship in Washington is trying to get around the Constitution yet again for the sake of its own wealth, power and authority and real Americans always protest that friend.

Are rights are inallienable because we don't surrunder them to tyrants or fools.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by December_Rain
 





Please quote me where in the constitution it states it's noones business who you are or one should not be asked for their identification if you are not violating a law?


Do yourself a favor and call the local police station and ask them to cite you the law that requires you to identify yourself under a penalty for not doing so.

The Constitution is what it is friend, and if you want to advocate for abusing it and living in a police state that's your business, but you might want to learn the laws first, and why they exist, and who made them before you go around advocating everyone live in fear and have a serial number tatood on their forehead.



I am confused, so it does not state in US Constitution that it's noones business who you are or one should not be asked for their identification if you are not violating a law? If it does, please tell me where in the constitution since you brought up constitutional rights?

Secondly, I believe providing ID is not equivalent to a police state. One has to provide ID everywhere, while getting admission, applying for job, applying for visa/passport etc. It does not mean you are providing an ID because US Govt. thinks you are a criminal, you are providing an ID to show you are an American citizen and has a citizen rights provided "under a constitution". Different ID's are required at different places, with changing times the things have to change and so does documents and the need to enforce them.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Yes you are confused.

You have a right to privacy (in the Constitution)
You have a right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures (in the Constitution)
You have the right to not incriminate yourself (in the Constitution)

And you have the right to READ the CONSTITUTION and LEARN THE LAWS...

You also have the right to UNCONFUSE yourself by calling the local police station like I suggested...

Or you have the right to be confused or pretend to confuse and continue to troll.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Alright mate, if you can't provide me where in Constitution it states it's noone business to know who you are or ask an identification, then perhaps you are right..I am confused. Oh well, it's cool.

And how am I trolling? Since I am confused over it too, I would like to know if I said something which was not related to the topic? Or something inflammatory?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I thought of bringing to your attention this ruling by the US Supreme Court


The Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what 'a person knowingly exposes to the public'. Like a man's facial characteristics, or handwriting, his voice is repeatedly produced for others to hear. No person can have a reasonable expectation that others will not know the sound of his voice, any more than he can reasonably expect that his face will be a mystery to the world.

The required disclosure of a person's voice is thus immeasurably further removed from the Fourth Amendment protection than was the intrusion into the body effected by the blood extraction in Schmerber . . . . Rather, this is like the fingerprinting in Davis, . . . [which] 'involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search.' U.S. v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 14-15 ('73) (quoting Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347, 51 ('67), and Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 27 ('69)) (emphases added).

'Fingerprinting' - like the compelled production of other aspects of an individual's identification that are routinely exposed to and superficially observable by the public at large, such as voice prints, handwriting exemplars, and photographs - simply belongs to a different category of search that 'represents a much less serious intrusion upon personal security than other types of searches and detentions.' Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 14 ('85).*fn10 The majority's analysis obliterates this critical constitutional distinction between coerced fingerprinting and blood extraction for DNA genetic pattern analysis.

Source: www.lectlaw.com...
It might help explain why Identification requirement is not "invading of privacy". There are other cases there requiring Identifications, searches etc.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 





"Let me see your papers sir, Let me see your papers" Nazi Gestapo Officer 1943...




OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Alright mate, if you can't provide me where in Constitution it states it's noone business to know who you are or ask an identification, then perhaps you are right..I am confused. Oh well, it's cool.

And how am I trolling? Since I am confused over it too, I would like to know if I said something which was not related to the topic? Or something inflammatory?

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]


Rights are not granted by Constitution and they sure as hell aren't granted by government. Rights are a natural and inherent quality in all people. That there exists a Bill of Rights does not imply and most certainly should not be inferred that only those rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights are the rights that people have. To make this perfectly clear the Ninth Amendment was specifically drafted and legislated to clarify this.

It is either willful ignorance on your part, or worse, insidious disinformation to keep insisting you need some reference of the Constitution to show where people have the right to privacy. Your insistence that free people should submit to the will of the federal government, state or local governments or even the will of the people is the cry of tyranny. Your insistence that people should be required to show ID just to assuage your own cowardice and unjustified fears of "criminals" "parole offenders" and "terrorists", is the height of intrusive behavior.

Long before there were DMV's and identification cards, there were criminals who were apprehended and tried and incarcerated in spite of any lack of so called REAL ID act or even drivers licenses. Famous outlaws such as Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Wesley Hardin and others didn't have any form of identification but all were brought to justice.

Your appeal to authority reveals a lack of confidence in your own arguments and your continued insistence that you are confused is about the only truthful statement you have made. People have the right to travel freely, they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that insistence wouldn't be any less true if it weren't stated in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Your arguments advocating tyranny do not deserve any other consideration outside of responding to those praises of tyranny for what they are, arguments against freedom.

Even so, you have an absolute right to assert your opinions and that right does not exist because a First Amendment granted you such a right, that right exists because you own that right. You have every right to state your opinions even if they be in praise of tyranny and no one needs to see in any Constitution that such a right exists they only need to know what freedom means and the true value it holds.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
What a slap in the face this is to the feds.Are they going to penalize 49 states and their citizens?I'd love to see em try!



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
For anybody interested this are the list of states that have passed legislation against real ID.


Anti-Real ID Legislation in the States

Following is a list of states where legislation against Real ID is currently active, with links to the relevant legislation and, where available, its status. The map below shows the introduction and passage of anti-Real ID bills, as well as states that have already opted out. This list will be constantly changing as more states act, and it will be updated as quickly as possible. View the video short, "Real ID: A Real Nightmare," here.

2009 Legislative Activity


www.realnightmare.org...



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It's tyranny in your view but not in mine. I am a dis-info agent is as much likely as anyone else on this website posting including yourself. Innocent unless proven guilty, right?

Apart from all personal mud slinging, perhaps you can talk on the basis of given "facts"? I posted a Supreme Court Ruling above which explains in great details for all the confused and unconfused that asking for id is not invading privacy. But if you know better you can perhaps show where in the constitution it says otherwise minus the rhetoric.

You are correct on another thing, indeed I am confused...but it's a curious confusion
...I will leave it at that!

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
I plan to become a snowbird in a couple years and travel where ever and whenever i want to.
I will not change state drivers licenses every time i change states i plan to register my vehicles and get a drivers license in what ever state that is the cheapest and requires no smog check for my vehicles..(Right now it looks like Nevada or Texas)

I consider myself a resident of the US not any one state.

After living in calif why would i want to call it my state of residents when it is one of the c***ist states in the US.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truzzyx
reply to post by December_Rain
 




"Let me see your papers sir, Let me see your papers" Nazi Gestapo Officer 1943...

OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this presumed scenario there are two options:
If I was an extremist in official post then I would probably say "so be it, over your dead body".
If I was a law abiding official then I would assist you get imprisoned while reading you your MIRANDA rights for not letting a govt. officer carry his duty.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I think it's a good sign that the states are standing together on something.

Maybe it will start a trend.



posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Note: When Janet Nazipolitano was Governor of Arizona,
she signed off the prohibition.

From RealNightmare.org

Arizona
HB 2677, Real ID Act prohibition. (Passed House of Representatives 51-8 on 3/19/08; Passed Senate 21-7 on 5/6/08; Signed by Governor Napolitano 6/17/08)

[edit on 26-11-2009 by AlternateEnding]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
as a person who has been targeted by small town police because of physical appearance and not engaging in any questionable political, or criminal activities, and certainly my driver/caregiver very careful and a good driver with clean record. my only accident was the one that put me in a wheelchair and was me getting run over. my entire "criminal record" is a 1996 or 97 ticket for 68 in a 55.

i don't even use drugs aside from properly prescribed meds and nicotine, caffeine and theobromide- the mood elevator in choccies- i DO show id and consent to searches routinely, as not doing so has been successfully used as partial grounds for complete dismissal; of charges unlawful use of grievous bodily harm and deadly force. ir becomes tyrannical when one must submit to an invasion of privacy routinely aeye nd repeatedly for no reason other than that i chose to dress as a modest person.

the question and/or point is NOT that "innocent ppl hav e nothing to worry about." because vif you are an innocent person and your name sounds remotely like someone on no fly list- you ain't going home. and if you look "like a terrorist" *hmmm i wonder what that means?) then it's guilt by association. and some politicos wanted nation of origin for nationalized and first gen immigrants. and/or religious/ethnic group added right along wiyj eye color designation.

so it is WHO gets to decide what is put on an Official ID, and what IS DONE with that information- that is the problem...

corrie l.
ps please pardon poor typos and spelling etc. painful to type as am disabled and is quite sifficult.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ExParrot
 


Sorry to hear about your disabilities, you are very right about what you see as nothing but control by a few in government that thinks we the populating are nothing but servants and slaves to their corrupted system.

In this nation of the great US is nothing that resemble freedom as our freedoms are only in the eye of the beholders that write the laws and bills that our corrupted whores in congress pass now a days without even reading



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ExParrot
 


don't worry about your typo's we all do that.
And as you say innocent people have nothing to worry about...
however it is we innocent people who get put out trying to comply with unreasonable rules when the real bad guys bypass the whole system.

Why do I have to pay out of pocket for background checks, passports and the number of other little things just to comply with their rules? Why do this make rules like this knowing we in these 49 states will in violation of the new rules through no fault of our own.

Look I got nothing to hide and if I have to get a new ID I will... but this sham was handled poorly right from the get go. and I think it sucks once again I'm out of pocket for something thing that should have been a gimme.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


exactly my point!
the whole "real id" law is, along with the "patriot" act, among others- hmmm, 1000's of pages all put together so very shortly after an unforeseen tragedy- put to a vote in such a short time very few legislators could have possibly read thru the darn thing, but i digress- are tyrannical pieces of police-state law the proponents of which shout Treason! and Terrorist! and beat the fear drum to get them put through- fear of being seen as UnAmeriican and fear of "Them" creeping in and murdering us in our sleep if we DON'T support the loss of our rights. and we see some of that reasoning here- innocent ppl have nothing to fear by giving up a few freedoms for safety against Them.

um. i DO have something to fear..... the government? ppl caught up in the Us v Them propaganda used to slip in the police state acting out against me as a perceived "Them"? both in positions of authority- local law enforcement- and ordinary innocent civilians such as myself, with whom i probably have more in common than with the ppl goading them. and i'm sure the officers following/stoping me think they are in pursuit of a Real Threat and see themselves as a possible Hero,preventing the next 9-11 by insisting upon The Search that will uncover a 1-ton fertilzer bomb hidden in my van instead of a wheelchair and a few bags of empty pop cans waiting to be turned in for refund....

corrie l

[edit on 28-11-2009 by ExParrot]
O. and YAY! Oregon!!!- FOR A state psychopathically divided and unable to function d. ue to extreme divide between tiny overpopulated uber Liberal urban corridor and sparsely populated agricultural 92% rest of the State, which ranges from conservative to reactionary to... frightening. r Even WE finally came together! so... hope for the rest of the USA, maybe?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by ExParrot]-

[edit on 28-11-2009 by ExParrot]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


It's tyranny in your view but not in mine. I am a dis-info agent is as much likely as anyone else on this website posting including yourself. Innocent unless proven guilty, right?

Apart from all personal mud slinging, perhaps you can talk on the basis of given "facts"? I posted a Supreme Court Ruling above which explains in great details for all the confused and unconfused that asking for id is not invading privacy. But if you know better you can perhaps show where in the constitution it says otherwise minus the rhetoric.

You are correct on another thing, indeed I am confused...but it's a curious confusion
...I will leave it at that!

[edit on 26-11-2009 by December_Rain]


You want facts? Let us then take a look at the facts. First, let us consider this notion that tyranny is merely a matter of opinion. The fact of the matter is that suppressive actions are either tyrannical or not. Either it is tyranny or not and tyranny is not a matter of ones opinion any more than "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." Like terrorism, or a terrorist, which has a very specific meaning, so does the word tyranny.

What defines a tyrant is the consolidation of absolute power. Demanding people subject themselves to a fiat national ID system by way of state governmental agencies is just one form of consolidation of power and legislated as if there is absolute power or authority to do so. Does Congress have the right to claim such authority that could impose upon state agencies federal laws that make certain requirements of ID cards and then demand that people present these cards in order to gain access into public buildings?

You have suggested that you have cleared the issue up by supplying a Supreme Court ruling that supposedly declares the requirement of presenting an ID card in order to gain access into federal buildings not an invasion of privacy. However, you have done no such thing and all you have done is present a digested version of United States v Dionisio, which had nothing at all to do with demanding states to comply with federal regulation in terms of ID cards, nor did it have anything at all to do with law enforcement officers or any other government official requiring people produce identification cards on demand.

Before I get into the specific FACTS of U.S. v. Dionisio, let me end this post and quote fully the post where you supposedly supplied a SCOTUS ruling that would clear up the issue of invasion of privacy regarding ID cards.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join