See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: AP Exclusive: National ID, State Nightmare
Source:
Yahoo News
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112 ... oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Published: Jan 12, 2006
Author: Brian BergsteinAP
Post Date: 2006-01-12 15:24:10 by Zipporah
Keywords: Exclusive:, Nightmare, National
Views: 210
Comments: 23
An anti-terrorism law creating a national standard for all driver's licenses by 2008 isn't just upsetting civil libertarians and immigration rights activists. State motor vehicle officials nationwide who will have to carry out the Real ID Act say its authors grossly underestimated its logistical, technological and financial demands. In a comprehensive survey obtained by The Associated Press and in follow-up interviews, officials cast doubt on the states' ability to comply with the law on time and fretted that it will be a budget buster. "It is just flat out impossible and unrealistic to meet the prescriptive provisions of this law by 2008," Betty Serian, a deputy secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, said in an interview. Nebraska's motor vehicles director, responding to the survey by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said that to comply with Real ID her state "may have to consider extreme measures and possibly a complete reorganization." And a new record-sharing provision of Real ID was described by an Illinois official as "a nightmare for all states." "Can we go home now??" the official wrote. States use a hodgepodge of systems and standards in granting driver's licenses and identification cards. In some places, a high school yearbook may be enough to prove identity. A major goal of Real ID — which was motivated by the Sept. 11 attacks, whose perpetrators had legitimate driver's licenses — is to unify the disparate licensing rules and make it harder to fraudulently obtain a card. The law also demands that states link their record-keeping systems to national databases so duplicate applications can be detected, illegal immigrants caught and driving histories shared. State licenses that fail to meet Real ID's standards will not be able to be used to board an airplane or enter a federal building. The law, which was attached to a funding measure for the Iraq war last May, has been criticized by civil libertarians who contend it will create a de facto national ID card and new centralized databases, inhibiting privacy. State organizations such as the National Governors Association have blasted the law as well. Many states will have to amend laws in order to comply. Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Real ID's principal backer, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said there is no chance states might win a delay of the 2008 deadline. "We gave three years for this process," he said. "Every day that we continue to have security loopholes, we're at greater risk." The August survey by the motor vehicle administrators' group, which has not been made public, asked licensing officials nationwide for detailed reports on what it will take to meet Real ID's demands. It was not meant to produce an overall estimate of the cost of complying with Real ID. But detailed estimates produced by a few states indicate the price will blow past a February 2005 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated Congress would need to spend $100 million reimbursing states. Pennsylvania alone estimated a hit of up to $85 million. Washington state projected at least $46 million annually in the first several years. Separately, a December report to Virginia's governor pegged the potential price tag for that state as high as $169 million, with $63 million annually in successive years. Of the initial cost, $33 million would be just to redesign computing systems. It remains unclear how much funding will come from the federal government and how much the states will shoulder by raising fees on driver's licenses. "If you begin to look at the full ramifications of this, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Congress simply passed an unfunded mandate," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Every motorist in America is going to pay the price of this, of the Congress' failure to do a serious exploration of the cost, the complexity, of the difficulty." The survey respondents and officials interviewed by the AP noted that many concerns might be resolved as the Department of Homeland Security clarifies its expectations for the law — such as whether existing licenses can be grandfathered in — before it takes effect May 11, 2008. As of now, however, it appears little has changed since the survey described a multitude of hurdles. Some examples: • The law demands that states mine multiple databases to check the accuracy of documents submitted by license applicants. Several states questioned how that will work, especially with confirming birth certificates. Iowa said it didn't think the states would be able to make the required vital-records upgrades within three years. • Some states' ancient computing systems will have to be overhauled in order to link to other networks. Minnesota runs a 1980s-era mainframe system; Rhode Island says its "circa 1979" COBOL-based network will require a $20 million upgrade. • Many states don't make drivers prove they are legally in the country, but the law will now demand such documentation. It also calls for states to run license applications through a federal database known as SAVE that was launched by a 1986 law aimed at preventing illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits. One problem, though, is that the "SAVE database is notoriously unreliable ... months behind," said South Carolina's response to the survey. • After drivers submit documents to prove their identities, states will have to retain paper copies of those documents for at least seven years or digital images for 10 years. Some states fretted about the storage costs; others worried about how to capture images of all those files. Alabama's survey response called the project "massive," saying that while the state had the proper equipment at six licensing centers, "we do not have the resources to equip all of our 79 offices." Added Massachusetts: "This equipment is very expensive!" • Real ID requires that a license show someone's principal residence. But state officials object that a mailing address makes more sense for many people — for "snowbirds" who spend time in two states, for example or for public officials who want to protect their privacy. "What should the procedure be for a person who lives in a RV?" asks South Dakota's report. • The law calls for a person's "full legal name," no nickname or abbreviations, on licenses. Cards have to be redesigned and databases must be reprogrammed to make room for extremely long names, likely up to 125 characters. That's not an easy process. By itself it accounts for $4 million of North Dakota's $5.9 million estimated impact. • Motor-vehicle employees will be subject to background checks, but several officials said it was unclear what would disqualify someone from being able to process licenses. Maryland's response said waiting for security clearances "could cause staffing shortage." • Real ID demands that all driver's licenses or ID cards have pictures that can be read by facial-recognition technology. That would end many states' practice of letting people with certain religious beliefs request not to have a picture. Tennessee, meanwhile, allows anyone older than 60 to get a "valid without photo" license. "If you take any one of these things individually, you see a significant problem," Steinhardt said. "There are literally hundreds of these problems embedded in Real ID, and the statute doesn't give you a way out. It's black and white. No exceptions, no reality check. "In many respects it's a statute that ignores reality." On the Net: Summary of the law by National Conference of State Legislatures: On the Net: Summary of the law by National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org/standcomm/sctran/realidsummary05.htm Virginia's December report: http://www.dmvnow.com/webdoc/temp/pdf/realidreport.pdf (requires Adobe Reader)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zipporah (#0)
Let's see: Osama Bin Laden has not been captured in 4 years. The borders remain wide open. The government is tapping thousands of phones in America. The government is opening American domestic mail. The government has issued no fly lists. The government says it's okay to hold Americans with no habeas corpus and no trial in secret locations. The government now wants us to have national ID cards. So who is the enemy? The people of the United States or some foreign personages? I'm unclear as all the restrictions and regulations and spying that have come about seem to apply to US rather than to foreign parties. When did the US government declare war on its own people?
Hmm sometime in the year 2000? And it seems pretty clear to me.. now why dont the Bush apologists see it?
1861
You win today's can of Bush Beans :)
"Every motorist in America is going to pay the price of this, of the Congress' failure to do a serious exploration of the cost, the complexity, of the difficulty." I do not like what the ACLU often does or stands for, but even Bush cheerleader Shawn Hannity has said once and a while he agrees with the ACLU position and facts on some things. That being said, I personally believe we need a better, more unified national drivers license program , that it needs to be reformed. My beef is that the COngress needs to fund it beter, tweek it better, much faster because we have a real "identity crisis" with illegals and terrorists and with people on bad or expired visas in the US. Giving drivers licenses to illegals in the states is a very bad idea no matter what form the license takes. Allowing Mexicans to use the Matricual card is a very idea. THe Bush administration and Congress have screwed up fixing the problem so badly, it makes one wonder if they are doing so deliberately as an excuse to introduce more draconian but unnecesary police state measures and to falsely justify open borders. Even Bush recently strongly intimated that illegal immigration should be made legal**** which is a sick justification for blackmailing the US into a phony North American Union (see bill HR 2672),for ordering the US treasury to have US banks honor the Matricula card, for wrongly giving illegals drivers licenses and for not working harder to come up with a more viable national drivers license plan to really stop terrorists and illegal aliens. --------------------------- **** GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: "It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people a legal means on a temporary basis to come here, so they don't have to sneak across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of prohibition. I'm not. But remember, we illegalized whiskey, and guess what? People found all kind of ways to make it and to run it." Source: Lou Dobbs via http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=124551
He equates amnesty with being allowed to buy a whiskey? What's he been drinkin'?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. By the way things are going it indeed appears the real target is the American people, not some shadowy "terrorists".
bingo!
do you know how few Americans know that?
Henan Man Impossible to Photograph On January 6, 2006, Henan Province's Dahe Daily newspaper reported that the local police department was unable to take an ID photo of Ye Xiangting from Yelou Village in the Yangzhuang Township of Wugang City, Henan Province. No image of Ye Xiangting showed up in the computer photos, and there is still no clear explanation for the result. Ye Xiangting told the reporter about his recent visit to the Yangzhuang police station to get a photo taken for a new ID card. He sat in front of the camera, but no image of him would show up in the photo. The staff checked the camera very carefully, but found no problems. He retook photos of Ye Xiangting, but no photos of Ye Xiangting was found on the computer images. more...
That being said, I personally believe we need a better, more unified national drivers license program , that it needs to be reformed. My beef is that the COngress needs to fund it beter, tweek it better, much faster because we have a real "identity crisis" with illegals and terrorists and with people on bad or expired visas in the US. Well I dont agree with anything Hannity says LOL! You watch Hannity? The ACLU has it's faults for sure.. but what they do is keep the government in check.. now why would Hannity be against that? Could it be he's in favor of taking away the rights of citizens. I disagree on the idea of having a more unified national drivers license.. Anything the feds stick their noses in will come back to something no good.. Knowing what you do about the feds for example re OKC bombing how can you advocate this? What needs to be done is enforce the laws on the books and fund what it takes to deport and track those who are in this country illegally and deport them.
duh! ;)
excellent comments. a driver license is unconstitutional to begin with. it's asking the state to give us permission to exercise the RIGHT that we already have to travel. Driving A Right, Not A Privilege SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE. For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are: Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.) Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another. Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen." This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful. THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS. The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so? For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue. The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." "the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".) We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people). The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.) In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST. We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers". Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution. In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers- of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc. There are basically two groups of people in this category: #1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references). #2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".) We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL." --snip--
Let the lawsuits begin :P
And you think Hamas is behind it? :) Do you think Pat Buchannan is a fascist? It's Israel that is fascist, imo, going back to Irgun and Stern Gang, Mier Lansky and all that.
"We have our own values; we build our own special, our JEWISH life - and we are proud, so very proud." - Meir Kahane
We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. [unwitting waiver of their rights,ie lied to] This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for PRIVATE GAIN. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. Unfortuately ,as long as a significant number citizens not engaged in travel for personal (private) gain wittingly or unwittingly waive their right of travel without a drivers license, there will be a drivers license program in the US, unless and until it is overturned on a very large scale. I am not supporting a national ID, national passport (KGB sytle recommended to US by Russian General PRimakov- I have written many articles opposing this) or a drivers license for personal travel or a national ID program per se. I am saying that as long as there is such a program subscribed to by citizens, then it needs to be reformed so that all are treated the same. And a drivers license program used to regulate personal or private gain (commerce) should definitely be reformed and unified. AS I said it still is a bad idea to give drivers licenses to illegals or to allow Mexicans to use the Matrcula card for ID purposes or open bank accounts,especially since they will use them for illicit purposes-terrorism, illegal business transactions and illegal personal(private) gain activities (drug trafficking and money laundering)
For some nefarious reason, "they" (whoever that entails) want everyone marked and tagged.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. For some nefarious reason, "they" (whoever that entails) want everyone marked and tagged. Yep. GPS and RFIDS tags in personal ID or even in drivers licenses is a violation of the constitutional guarantee from "unreasonable searches(Spying) since they give the governent unrestricted access to a person's location at all times without permission or waiver, when said citizens are not criminals and no probable cause evidence has been presented to a court for review..
I am not supporting a national ID, national passport (KGB sytle recommended to US by Russian General PRimakov- I have written many articles opposing this) or a drivers license for personal travel or a national ID program per se. I am saying that as long as there is such a program subscribed to by citizens, then it needs to be reformed so that all are treated the same. Ah, I understand your position better now. ;)
GPS and RFIDS tags in personal ID or even in drivers licenses is a violation of the constitutional guarantee from "unreasonable searches(Spying) since they give the governent unrestricted access to a person's location at all times without permission or waiver, when said citizens are not criminals and no probable cause evidence has been presented to a court for review.. Hmmmmm..... Sorry to say, it sounds a lot like registration plates on cars. They permit the state to identify us and our whereabouts at their whim, without due process or probable cause. How is that different?
If the states would ban together, and not accept this illegal national id, it would fall apart, and not be put into affect. The money and paper work involved is beyond belief. This reminds me of the ban on cold tablets. I had to sign a giant book for epidrine sales. The person behind the counter showed me all the books and papers laying around that they must keep and turn into the state. Its a mess. Who is going to read all this or where is it going to be kept? Mark
Don`t forget the raping of the economy. This will be truely the downfall of this country. Over 700 billion in trade deficits a year with a 10% increase for the future, 2.6 trillion budget shortfalls in 5 years, with another 2 trillion projected in the next 3, massive consumer debt with the loss of high paying base middle class jobs. Mark
Well.. what the question should be what federal funds will be tied to this to the states? That's how they get states and cities to go along with this nonsense.. if you dont do this.. you won't get .. highway funding like they did with seatbelt laws.
#2. To: mehitable (#1)
So who is the enemy? The people of the United States or some foreign personages? I'm unclear as all the restrictions and regulations and spying that have come about seem to apply to US rather than to foreign parties. When did the US government declare war on its own people?
#3. To: mehitable (#1)
When did the US government declare war on its own people?
Think globally, burn locally.
#4. To: Tauzero (#3)
#5. To: lodwick, Uncle Bill, Fred Mertz, Zipporah, swarthyguy, lodwick, itisalmosttoolate, Sparker, scooter, TommyTheMadArtist, honway, robin, christine, Neil McIver, Sparker, valis, aristeides, Kamala, buckeroo, A K A Stone, Dakmar, AllTheKingsHorsesWontDoIt (#0)
If you begin to look at the full ramifications of this, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Congress simply passed an unfunded mandate," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the technology and liberty project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
#6. To: OKCSubmariner, *The Border* (#5)
"It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people a legal means on a temporary basis to come here, so they don't have to sneak across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of prohibition. I'm not. But remember, we illegalized whiskey, and guess what? People found all kind of ways to make it and to run it."
~James Madison
#7. To: mehitable (#1)
So who is the enemy? The people of the United States or some foreign personages? I'm unclear as all the restrictions and regulations and spying that have come about seem to apply to US rather than to foreign parties.
#8. To: Diana (#7)
By the way things are going it indeed appears the real target is the American people, not some shadowy "terrorists".
#9. To: Tauzero, mehitable (#3)
When did the US government declare war on its own people? 1861
#10. To: robin (#6)
Here's a Chinaman who beat the system !
“Yes, but is this good for the Jews?"
#11. To: OKCSubmariner (#5)
I do not like what the ACLU often does or stands for, but even Bush cheerleader Shawn Hannity has said once and a while he agrees with the ACLU position and facts on some things.
#12. To: OKCSubmariner (#5)
THe Bush administration and Congress have screwed up fixing the problem so badly, it makes one wonder if they are doing so deliberately as an excuse to introduce more draconian but unnecesary police state measures and to falsely justify open borders.
#13. To: Zipporah, OKCSubmariner, Neil McIver (#11)
#14. To: christine (#13)
#15. To: OKCSubmariner (#5)
THe Bush administration and Congress have screwed up fixing the problem so badly, it makes one wonder if they are doing so deliberately as an excuse to introduce more draconian but unnecesary police state measures and to falsely justify open borders.
#16. To: christine, robin, Zipporah, Neil McIver, aristeides, Fred Mertz, honway, Uncle Bill (#5)
#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)
#17. To: OKCSubmariner (#16)
~James Madison
#18. To: robin, christine, Zipporah, aristeides, honway, Fred Mertz, scooter, Sparker, Neil McIver (#17)
Robin:
#19. To: OKCSubmariner (#16)
#20. To: OKCSubmariner, christine (#18)
#21. To: Zipporah (#0)
#22. To: mehitable (#1)
#23. To: Kamala (#21)
If the states would ban together, and not accept this illegal national id, it would fall apart, and not be put into affect. The money and paper work involved is beyond belief.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest