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: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by December_Rain
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.


In considering the above quoted excerpt it should be noted that one does not really need to review U.S. v. Dionisio in order to understand that what has been quoted above is a.) not a quote directly from any Supreme Court ruling and b.) has nothing at all to do with the issue of the REAL ID act and whether or not such legislation constitutes an invasion of privacy. If we were to merely rely upon the 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon excerpt which is a discussion of 4th Amendment rights, it is clear by reading the above quote that what is being declared not an invasion of privacy is the right of the government to rely upon facial recognition, handwriting, fingerprinting, (under lawful means) and voice exemplars. What does any of that have to do with the REAL ID act and its intrusive nature?

We will not, however, just merely rely upon the woefully simplistic interpretation of the law site quoted above and will instead take a closer look at U.S. v. Dionisio to see exactly what that ruling is about and how it might apply to the issue at hand or if it does at all. The syllabus to U.S. v. Dionisio, which are quite simply, the FACTS of the case, provides:

"A grand jury subpoenaed about 20 persons, including respondent, to give voice exemplars for identification purposes. Respondent, on Fourth and Fifth Amendment grounds, refused to comply. The District Court rejected both claims and adjudged respondent in contempt. The Court of Appeals agreed in rejecting respondent's Fifth Amendment claim but reversed on the ground that the Fourth Amendment required a preliminary showing of reasonableness before a grand jury witness could be compelled to furnish a voice exemplar and that, here, the proposed "seizures" would be unreasonable because of the large number of witnesses subpoenaed to produce the exemplars."

The first and most important FACT of this case is that Dionisio was lawfully subpoenaed by a grand jury and for the purposes of identification was required to submit to a voice exemplar. The next FACT of this case is that Dionisio, incorrectly I might add, refused to submit relying upon his imagined 4th and 5th Amendment rights and for this was held in contempt by a lower court judge. Upon appeal the Court of Appeals, while agreeing with the lower court judges reasoning in regards to the 5th Amendment, overturned that judges ruling based on the assumption that a 4th Amendment right was violated in terms of unreasonable search and seizure based on the large number of witnesses subpoenaed to produce the voice exemplars.

That the Court of Appeals overturned a lower courts ruling before it was finally brought to the Supreme Court is a demonstration of just how little various judges can and do agree on what constitutes a violation of a right and how much authority the government has. That the Supreme Court wound up vindicating the lower court judge and reversing the Court of Appeals decision in no way supports your claim that the REAL ID ACT is not a violation of a right to privacy. Indeed, here is a specific quote from U.S. v. Dionisio in regards to protection of privacy:

"The grand jury cannot require a witness to testify against himself. It cannot require the production by a person of private books and records that would incriminate him. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 633-635. [Footnote 10] The Fourth Amendment provides protection against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its terms "to be regarded as reasonable." 201 U. S. 76; cf. Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling,@ 327 U. S. 186, 327 U. S. 208, 327 U. S. 217. And last Term, in the context of a First Amendment claim, we indicated that the Constitution could not tolerate the transformation of the grand jury into an instrument of oppression:"

The Dionisio ruling held that the grand jury requirement that he submit to a voice exemplar was not a violation of any 4th or 5th Amendment right was made on the basis that Dionisio had been lawfully subpoenaed by that grand jury and that grand juries have an obligation to fully investigate the facts and circumstances of any given case. This ruling has nothing to do with random requirements to produce ID cards in federal buildings or even to produce an ID card to any law enforcement based merely on a random stop that does not show any reasonable cause.

Continued in next post....




posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Your reliance upon a wacky and "electric" law site and pathetic attempt to present an excerpt from that law site as an actual Supreme Court ruling is telling on many levels. If you are to rely upon case law to make your own case you should actually take the time to read the actual case law you pretend to be quoting. Even if you had bothered to read U.S. v. Dionisio your own excerpt from 'Lectric Law Library's Legal Lexicon all ready makes clear that what they are interpreting are several legal rulings in regards to the 4th Amendment. I should make clear, in response, that at no time did I ever claim the REAL ID act was in violation of any 4th or 5th Amendment rights.

The question of Constitutionality in regards to the REAL ID ACT are in regards to a.) that this ACT can not be premised on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. b.) it is a violation of states rights that are clearly protected and enumerated as a protected right by the Ninth Amendment. c.) that the requirement that a REAL ID card be used to board a federally regulated aircraft is a violation of a persons right to travel. d.) that requirements such as the digital photo of a REAL ID card violate the Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and finally e.) that such legislation violates a persons right to freely assemble, associate and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

These are the FACTS of the issue. Your attempt to offer non related legal interpretations of the 4th Amendment is pointless. It is, however, richly ironic that you being the one demanding another poster supply a Constitutional reference where a person has the right to privacy then turn around and supply a Supreme Court ruling claiming such a ruling explains how REAL ID is not a violation of that privacy. The irony lies in the fact that the Constitution does not, and this a FACT, provide people with their rights it instead provides government officials with certain rights and privileges in the guise of a transferal of power from the people to specific government officials, and that this power is a very limited amount of power for a limited amount of time.

The irony gets richer when one considers that the Supreme Courts assertion of authority for judicial review is not a power delegated to SCOTUS by the Constitution but was an authority claimed as implicit by Constitution in the seminal ruling; Marbury v. Madison, where Chief Justice Marshall along with a unanimous ruling by that Court held, among other things, that the Supreme Court had the authority to strike down legislation as being unconstitutional even though no such authority is made specifically clear under Article III of that Constitution which describes the powers delegated to the courts. So, the irony that you demand specific Constitutional language that makes clear a person has a right to privacy, is rich indeed, given your own reliance upon what you presumed to be a Supreme Court ruling.

There is certainly no authority granted by Constitution to the courts that would give them to absolute power to decide what is and what is not a right. Yet, even so, SCOTUS has a long history of doing so. What is a right and what is not a right is something that does not require legal rulings to clarify as rights are self evident. That the people have a right to privacy is a self evident right that can only be upheld by the courts and if it is ever denied by any court and subsequently rejected as a right by the final court of appeals then the people still have the right to demand that final court of appeals overturn such a ruling and failing that the people have the right to alter or abolish their government if they are acting in such ways that would disparage the rights of individuals.

These are the FACTS relating to the REAL ID ACT. The facts you provided by providing an excerpt from a wacky and colorful law site are irrelevant to this issue and only further demonstrate your admitted confusion. Since REAL ID is still facing clear logistical problems in terms of its implementation, there is no SCOTUS ruling on the actual Constitutionality of this ACT. Once this legislation becomes enforced by government officials then the people will have the opportunity to challenge this legislation through the courts but this has not yet happened.

For your own edification, it should be understood that the vast majority of Supreme Court rulings are very narrow in their scope and only deal with the particular facts of a specific case. While lawyers and judges will attempt to broaden these rulings by paralleling them to other cases is a natural proclivity and sometimes a court will accept these parallels and comparisons and at other times reject them as being irrelevant. It should also be noted that while SCOTUS is the final court of appeals they are not forbidden to overturn their own rulings and have in the past have done so. So, what the Supreme Court may say today on a certain right is not necessarily what the Supreme Court will say tomorrow. Even so, what the Supreme Court has said in regards to REAL ID is a mystery since they have not ruled on any such legislation yet.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I appreciate your efforts for going in great detail and actually looking over the material. However, it would have been better if you could have properly read my previous post instead of assuming that link has anything to do with REAL ID Act. I nowhere suggested that link with the court ruling is the legal basis for the entire issue of REAL ID Act. I said


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

and

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.


And that is what the ruling shows, nothing more or less. The link was only to show, showing ID to govt. officer or any official is not "invasion of privacy/ against constitutional right" as someone suggested earlier. But it's good you learned something by going over the material.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DaddyBare
 


I wonder how Verichip Corporations 'Positive ID' fits into all of this?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I appreciate your efforts for going in great detail and actually looking over the material. However, it would have been better if you could have properly read my previous post instead of assuming that link has anything to do with REAL ID Act. I nowhere suggested that link with the court ruling is the legal basis for the entire issue of REAL ID Act. I said


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

and

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.


And that is what the ruling shows, nothing more or less. The link was only to show, showing ID to govt. officer or any official is not "invasion of privacy/ against constitutional right" as someone suggested earlier. But it's good you learned something by going over the material.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by December_Rain]


But the link you provided did not show this and given that this thread is in regards to the REAL ID ACT and given that all you effectively showed was that in certain cases providing a grand jury with a voice exemplar would not be construed as an invasion of privacy, you have shown nothing and most certainly your claim that "showing ID to govt. officer or any official is not "invasion of privacy/against constitutional right..." is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

The FACT of the matter is that if any law enforcement officer or government official demands proof of identification but has no reasonable cause to do so, and/or if that officer or government official has failed to show proof of jurisdiction when making such demands then that person is not acting under any DUE PROCESS OF LAW and as such has no jurisdiction to make any such demands. Without proper jurisdiction that officer or government official is not protected by the scope of their office and is instead acting as a private citizen and only impersonating a government official, only simulating legal process, and if that person goes as far as to detain someone and then arrest that person for failure to provide identification under these circumstances then that officer or official is also guilty of malicious prosecution, illegal detainment, and obstruction of justice.

The real question at hand is whether or not the legislation known as the REAL ID ACT, constitutes jurisdiction. If the legislation itself is unconstitutional then there will be no proper jurisdiction for any official who attempts to enforce this bad legislation and can not rely upon that legislation as a legal cover. We are all, each and every one of us, presumed to know the law and feigning confusion of the law can work in a court of law if one can effectively show the legislation in question is loaded with so much conflicting verbiage that it is undeniably confusing. Of course, by showing such confusion you only illustrate how people can not be held liable for this legislation or any sort of legislation that would insist that people are required to submit to demands of identification for no particular reason outside of arbitrary legislation. If the legislation can not be understood by people of average intelligence then people can not be held liable for and therefore subject to this legislation.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
/pg3#pid7616853]post by Jean Paul Zodeaux[/url]
 


But the link you provided did not show this and given that this thread is in regards to the REAL ID ACT and given that all you effectively showed was that in certain cases providing a grand jury with a voice exemplar would not be construed as an invasion of privacy, you have shown nothing and most certainly your claim that "showing ID to govt. officer or any official is not "invasion of privacy/against constitutional right..." is nothing more than empty rhetoric.


It does not only talks about voice, but other methods of identification as well.


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.



The FACT of the matter is that if any law enforcement officer or government official demands proof of identification but has no reasonable cause to do so, and/or if that officer or government official has failed to show proof of jurisdiction when making such demands then that person is not acting under any DUE PROCESS OF LAW and as such has no jurisdiction to make any such demands.

Federal govt. has jurisdiction over all states but not state govt. If you are boarding a plane or entering a federal building is enough reasonable cause to ask for an Identification in any state.


The real question at hand is whether or not the legislation known as the REAL ID ACT, constitutes jurisdiction. If the legislation itself is unconstitutional then there will be no proper jurisdiction for any official who attempts to enforce this bad legislation and can not rely upon that legislation as a legal cover. We are all, each and every one of us, presumed to know the law and feigning confusion of the law can work in a court of law if one can effectively show the legislation in question is loaded with so much conflicting verbiage that it is undeniably confusing. Of course, by showing such confusion you only illustrate how people can not be held liable for this legislation or any sort of legislation that would insist that people are required to submit to demands of identification for no particular reason outside of arbitrary legislation. If the legislation can not be understood by people of average intelligence then people can not be held liable for and therefore subject to this legislation.


Where does it say the act is unconstitutional in the constitution?

[edit on 28-11-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by December_Rain]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by December_Rain]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


I have all ready listed the contentions of unconstitutional behavior by the REAL ID ACT. Your insistence on using language like "where does it say it is unconstitutional in the constitution" only reveals your profound ignorance on the Constitution. If this REAL ID ACT behaves in ways contrary to or abhorrent to the Constitution then it is unconstitutional and your disingenuous assertion that there must be some sort of specific text listing all that is unconstitutional is pointless. How is it you can provide case law that clearly understands the Constitution and how certain legislation or government officials behavior can be construed as unconstitutional by their disregard for the undeniable restraints that Constitution places upon government but you yourself can't understand that?

Again, all you have done is offer certain elements of case law that do nothing but explain the rulings that are very narrow in their scope and have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. You can continue to scream at the top of lungs until your lungs turn blue; "Show me where in the Constitution..." but you may as well be screaming "Show me this gravity! Where is this supposed gravity? Show me air I don't see it! If you can't see gravity or air then it must exist!"



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Okay since now you are stating REAL ID act is unconstitutional, I would like to know how? What are the constitutional rights it is breaking?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


I have all ready listed them in a previous post. I took the time to read U.S. v. Dionisio and I took the time to read the entirety of your posts and it is not unreasonable of me to ask you to do the same in regards to the case law you offer and the posts I put up in reply. I could list them again right here but what would be the point? If you can't be bothered to read them the first time why should I believe you will read them now? I even pointed out in my last post that I listed these unconstitutional contentions and yet, here you are demanding to know what they are. If you are incapable of understanding what has all ready been posted then we are truly at an impasse here and any further response to your cries of protestation would just be silly.

Furthermore, your insistence in framing rights as Constitutional reveals your profound ignorance on what rights are. If you had any real understanding of the Constitution you would know what the Ninth Amendment says and what it means. It was drafted and written as such to ensure that individuals and their rights are protected from people like you. Rights are reserved to the people at all times and do not require any Constitutional enumeration in order to be rights.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Alright if you can't or won't say what constitutional rights the ac is breaking, then you are correct nothing could be talked about further.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Alright if you can't or won't say what constitutional rights the ac is breaking, then you are correct nothing could be talked about further.


For the last time, I have said what rights are being threatened and It is in this thread stated plainly. What I am correct about is that you refuse to acknowledge this either because you are incapable of reading what has all ready been posted or because you foolishly believe that others won't read what has all ready been posted by continuing this deception.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Alright if you can't or won't say what constitutional rights the ac is breaking, then you are correct nothing could be talked about further.


For the last time, I have said what rights are being threatened and It is in this thread stated plainly. What I am correct about is that you refuse to acknowledge this either because you are incapable of reading what has all ready been posted or because you foolishly believe that others won't read what has all ready been posted by continuing this deception.


Dude you said here,


I have all ready listed them in a previous post.


In your previous post all you do is carry on with the rhetoric but nowhere states how is the act against constitution.


If this REAL ID ACT behaves in ways contrary to or abhorrent to the Constitution then it is unconstitutional and your disingenuous assertion that there must be some sort of specific text listing all that is unconstitutional is pointless.


From here on you state nothing how it is against constitution, just your screaming and kicking against me.

How is it you can provide case law that clearly understands the Constitution and how certain legislation or government officials behavior can be construed as unconstitutional by their disregard for the undeniable restraints that Constitution places upon government but you yourself can't understand that?
Again, all you have done is offer certain elements of case law that do nothing but explain the rulings that are very narrow in their scope and have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. You can continue to scream at the top of lungs until your lungs turn blue; "Show me where in the Constitution..." but you may as well be screaming "Show me this gravity! Where is this supposed gravity? Show me air I don't see it! If you can't see gravity or air then it must exist!"


You are saying If this REAL ID ACT behaves in ways contrary to or abhorrent to the Constitution then it is unconstitutional and your disingenuous assertion that there must be some sort of specific text listing all that is unconstitutional is pointless.

I am asking how? What do you mean by "if"? Are you yourself not sure if it's against the constitution or not? If you are then state how? What constitutional right does it affect?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


In the second post of the third page posted on 28-112009 at 6:58 am I posted this:

"The question of Constitutionality in regards to the REAL ID ACT are in regards to a.) that this ACT can not be premised on Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. b.) it is a violation of states rights that are clearly protected and enumerated as a protected right by the Ninth Amendment. c.) that the requirement that a REAL ID card be used to board a federally regulated aircraft is a violation of a persons right to travel. d.) that requirements such as the digital photo of a REAL ID card violate the Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and finally e.) that such legislation violates a persons right to freely assemble, associate and petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Either you read that or you didn't, but that I clearly posted it is plain to see. Of course, now that I have re-posted it, does not mean you will understand it any better now. Why don't you come clean and admit you have no idea what the Constitution says or doesn't say because you have never really read it? Why don't you admit that you don't understand enough about law to have this conversation? Why don't you at some point actually take the time to read and then reread and then read again the Constitution for the United Sates of America and try to learn something?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join