Our Ever growing corrupt courts and government

Bill, the Constitution doesn't authorize a national ID card.

 

>Bill, the Constitution doesn't authorize a national ID card.

So? Constitution doesn't authorize wedding licenses, drivers licenses, credit cards, library cards . . . .

 

You laugh, but you have not argument. Thanks for conceding.

 

Bill,

The Constitution states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (10th amendment).

In other words, private companies and the states have authority to do things that the Federal Government cannot do. Thus, all the issues you mentioned are either by the state or private people and thus a proper role within their realm. However, if the Federal Government would do the same, it would be prohibited.

 

No, I am zealous for personal liberties. Attacking my motives is simply a way of changing the subject. I stood against Bush's Patriot Act because I saw it a violation of personal Liberties. I oppose the overeaching FDA in trying to limit raw milk and cheese products, even though I never have tried either. As a homeschooler, I believe the best security for our future is a government who obeys the 4th Amendment, thus I have fought for consistency in this issue for homeschooling. I disagreed with the killing of an American born cleric because I believe in the Constitution. In most cases, you can deem me a libertarian; neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I opposed Obama's attacks on Libya and Health Care mandate all because of my view of the Constitution.

I am wanting this because it is law, it is in our constitution. If we deem any group less than deserving basic Constitutional Rights, no group is safe from the overreach of the law.

Your 2nd paragraph is wrong. Our laws in the 4th Amendment says we just cannot ask anyone to "prove" their citizenship. No citizen should have to prove they are a citizen but our law has traditionally said we are innocent until proven guilty. As well, you said "no law prohibits" the government from doing such. I disagree. The 10th Amendment says that the powers not expressly put forth in the Constitution are given to the states or the individual. This is the law that states are using to challenge the Health Care law. Thus, the federal government does not have the right to require something without just cause, the states by the 4th must have reasonable suspicion. Courts have maintained that a requirement of all people (education) cannot then put requirements that would violate the 4th Amendment. I suspect the 11 Circuit, when the opinion is published, will have said as much.

Our founders felt these were important to put in the Constitution, but the only difference I see between the Dem's and Rep's, is that they both want to subvert the Constitution against their own political enemies. I believe it was not a tool to use when I felt like it should be used, but used universally.

 

Again, you are distorting my view. The purpose of this law was to find criminals whereby you require someone must prove they are a citizen. That is a violation of their Constitutional Rights..

I said early in this debate that providing a Birth Certificate may not be a violation as this is determining age eligibility not because you are accusing or assuming someone broke the law. At this point, the intent is not citizenship but age verification.

However, what you are intending with this law is to prove someone is a citizen is not Constitutional.

 

Still beating the same ole dead horse? The constitution is just a piece of paper and the republic is dead. We now live in a corporate fascist dictatorship where POTUS and Big Sis can do anything they want up to and including killing American citizens with no due process.

Any questions?

 

The legal burden of proof is on the government; i.e., "innocent until proven guilty."

Although I am not fundamentally opposed to it, requiring citizens to carry a national ID card is a basic mental shift that requires citizens to be "guilty until proven innocent"; i.e., you're not a citizen until you show your national ID card.

We must be very, very careful about how we approach these things. Something as innocuous as simply having a national ID card changes our view of the ways things are in ways we often don't foresee.

It's like that old adage about boiling a frog: You put the frog in boiling water, and he'll jump out. You put him in cold water, turn on the heat, and he'll be boiled before he realizes what happened.

 

We will disagree. The 11th Circuit is a more conservative court who ruled that the Health Care Law was unconstitutional. Thus, this is not a liberal court. They and I disagree with you as do many other courts that I can cite. You can't accuse them of leaning liberal, but the title of this "corrupt courts" is not the issue, it really is a legal issue they decided.

 

FAL is right, virtually no school in America lets someone in with no documentation whatsoever. Primary, Middle, High School or college transcript, military records, SSN, Student VISA, etc. What is the problem with proof of citizenship?

Try going to a State University here in WA (or any state) without documented proof of residency. Which, if you falsify, you will be charged with fraud.

When and if we have another 9-11 or a worse act of terrorism (oops, I mean man-made disaster) caused by an illegal alien (oops, I mean undocumented immigrant) where hundreds of thousands are killed or even perhaps millions, then Proof of Citizenship will become the law of the land in more than just schools for the protection of the citizenry against all enemies foreign and domestic.

In fact you will demand it.

HankD

 

"Corrupted" means "your side lost an election?"