Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Americans All too Eager to Surrender Liberty

▼

Americans All too Eager to Surrender Liberty

from JoeUser Forums

As I have watched the debate unfold on JoeUser over the "RealID" the government is pushing through the backdoor, I am fearful in my concern that the opinions on JoeUser may reflect the opinions of the nation at large. The recent poll in which high school seniors viewed the first amendment as going too far would indicate to me that it is.

And that is sad.

Am I the only one who finds irony in the fact that the Republican party, which has long supported the NRA's position against registering firearms, is now the champion for registering PEOPLE? Am I the only one who fears the potential misuse of a smalltown cop who, through the convenience of a national ID, can now gain information to harass innocent civilians without the benefit of a warrant? Sure, a warrant will supposedly be needed, but warrants USED to be needed for wiretaps, too :)

What disturbs me is that I see a number of conservatives I greatly respect championing this proposal. Sure, our resident fascist who champions the ban of everything he deems objectionable supports the national ID, but these are hardcore REPUBLICANS following this trail. And what they have so far been unable to explain is how this will make our country in any way more secure. All someone has to do is ask for FOUR forged documents instead of just a couple.

I have yet to decide if I will comply with the law. Frankly, I don't even HAVE four forms of ID (my driver's license obviously doesn't count), let alone a second form of picture ID. Yes, a passport could be used, but this would obviously make it extremely difficult for convicted felons to get an ID; guess they can forget about cashing a paycheck, huh?

If I wanted to break down the number of ways that this national ID card could infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans, I could. A lot of them could be considered to be paranoid ravings, but I'm pretty sure that if you described a future such as the Third Reich in Germany in the early 1900's, those fears would be similarly dismissed.

How have we gone so far in 216 years that we have considered the Constitution to be a failed document? How have we become so eager to surrender our rights to the first government official to demand them? These are questions we need to seriously ask ourselves.

The question I'm asking myself, however, is whether I intend to live my life as a criminal due to noncompliance. I have to discuss this thoroughly with my family first.

politics
8,441 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

You just ignore the facts presented and say the same things you did before

I am not ignoring the facts. For someone who allegedly doesn't advocate for it, you're arguing pretty hard for it.

And, FYI, NOT all Mexican illegals are migrants. I didn't work with migrants, I worked with miners. Big difference. They were living permanently in the US on forged documents (the INS, for the record, didn't give a shit as it was repeatedly reported). These illegals, for the record, also had access to high explosives...do you really think an al Qaeda operative with a fat check couldn't entice them to theft?

And talk about flip flops...you oppose the idea of refusing driver's license to illegals because issuing driver's license is a state authority, and yet you support the realID act which also infringes on state authority? Note that I didn't say such law should be a federal law, just that I have no problem with it.

Baker, this isn't like you. You're attacking the idea, not the argument. Yeah, I may be a little pissy lately, but you're kinda being that way, too.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then toss out about 3/4ths of the Federal government, most of which people would boil you in oil for trying to get rid of. Why fix social security, heck, apparently it's unconstitutional anyway. Why is the Federal government mussing around in education. Let's stop federal education spending forthwith. The National Endowment for the Arts? Pfft. You could make a list a mile long and not even get started. The argument is akin to saying that unless the Bible told you something was okay, it is a sin. Jesus never said I could wear a fez, but I have a feeling He's cool with it. The idea that a 18th century document could literally specifiy ever federal need we'd end up having 200 years later is a little far-fetched isn't it?Why, Gid, do you think the elected officials on both side of the aisle lined up to vote for this, well aware of all the concerns you state? That's a pretty big conspiracy, wouldn't you say?


First of all, what would be the problem if we DID get rid of most these programs. The Dept of Eduation has never once proven itself worth a dime; The National Endowment for the Arts has such a relatively miniscule budget that if the people who claim to love the arts would put their money where their rhetoric is, it could easily be privatized.

I can't speak for all defenders of the Constitution, but to me, the Contitution was meant to be the framework of what authorities We the People are willing to give the Federal Government "In order to form a more perfect union". That doesn't say that whatever was written by the founding fathers is the perfection in itself, but it should always be the framework by which a function of the federal government is based.

It is disgusting to me that Americans would argue a point of government function by saying that the Constitution shouldn't enter into it. Then, as a way to further argue the point, you use past Unconstitutional acts of the government to back your argument?

If the abolitionists took you attitude, they would have just said, "well, the government says it's ok... the people seem to want it, so screw individual rights.... let's buy some more slaves!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for your question Gid, I don't see a national ID card as a threat in itself, I mean I've had a "national ID card" since 1987 when I went active duty Army. However, any vet can tell you what that ID card does, both in benefits and in drawbacks. I enlisted myself, knowing what I was getting into. What the proponents of a National ID card are saying is, no one should have the right to decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

As a holder of my National ID card, my identity is a matter of public record. Anyone who really cares to find out can use the information gathered by virtue of my National ID card to know literally anything they want to know about me. Even if there was no internet, there is still a paper trail, detailing almost every detail of my life. What hotels I've stayed in, what states I've visited, what I've seen doctors for, etc......

The problem isn't that the ID card would be national, the problem is, it should never happen. The problem isn't that the Senate so cavalierly adds it as a rider to an important bill. the problem is, we don't seem to care that they are doing it. The problem isn't that an ID card is suggested, the problem is it will be required.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I was a Mormon Missionary, how would all of you reacted if I showed up at your door to inform you that the law now requires that you join my church, and I was there to ensure that you complied? If that doesn't sit right with you, why are you so complacent about the other Constitutional rights they are ripping out from under us?
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Then, as a way to further argue the point, you use past Unconstitutional acts of the government to back your argument?"


Because it is hypocritical to pick and choose. When you sit quietly and allow them to create lots of federal powers, and then evoke the Constitution to stop one particular thing you have personal bias against, it doesn't ring very true in terms of one's love for the Constitution.

No offense, but if you guys were devoted to overturning SOcial Security and NASA and everything else, I'd be more apt to give you a nod. You guys just tolerate people "walking on the Constitution" until it is with shoes you don't like.

"What the proponents of a National ID card are saying is, no one should have the right to decide for themselves if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks."


What national ID card? I wasn't aware that there was a national ID card. Does everyone drive? This "mark of the beast" junk ignores the reality of what is being done in favor of paranoid imagination.

"When I was a Mormon Missionary, how would all of you reacted if I showed up at your door to inform you that the law now requires that you join my church, and I was there to ensure that you complied? If that doesn't sit right with you, why are you so complacent about the other Constitutional rights they are ripping out from under us?"


... and there's a golden example. Somehow a national driver's license standard is akin to imposing Mormonism. How can you even discuss something with people that can't get an image of Stalin kicking down their door out of their heads?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Because it is hypocritical to pick and choose. When you sit quietly and allow them to create lots of federal powers, and then evoke the Constitution to stop one particular thing you have personal bias against, it doesn't ring very true in terms of one's love for the Constitution.

No offense, but if you guys were devoted to overturning SOcial Security and NASA and everything else, I'd be more apt to give you a nod. You guys just tolerate people "walking on the Constitution" until it is with shoes you don't like.

Baker,

Quite a general statement. While there may be some who pick and choose, I'm not among them. If you remember, I've made this clear in past articles, no need to rehash it here.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because it is hypocritical to pick and choose. When you sit quietly and allow them to create lots of federal powers, and then evoke the Constitution to stop one particular thing you have personal bias against, it doesn't ring very true in terms of one's love for the Constitution.No offense, but if you guys were devoted to overturning SOcial Security and NASA and everything else, I'd be more apt to give you a nod. You guys just tolerate people "walking on the Constitution" until it is with shoes you don't like.


It has something to do with the ability of abstract thought. If you can make a case for the Constitutionality of national standards for driver's licenses, be my guest. If you can make a case about how national standards for driver's licenses is Constitutional, I'm all ears.

Don't sit there and lecture me about "hypocrisy" when you're not even willing to try to establish a Constitutional basis for your side of the argument. I am not against the government doing things, but if you are going to allow it, you'd better come up with something better than trying to convince me of why the Constitution doesn't matter any more.
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
When I was a Mormon Missionary


--
Man: "You sir, are a moron."

Homer Simpson: "Morman!?" "But I'm from earth."

J/K