Our Ever growing corrupt courts and government

[FR7 Baptist]

The simple and logical solution is a national ID card for all citizens. It could take the place of most of the plastic we carry around.

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

 

[freeatlast]

You don't get it, requiring citizens to produce evidence is illegal. Thus, if you require one person to prove they are a citizen and they are a citizen, you violated their Constitutional rights. Thus, we cannot force you, an American citizen, to prove your citizenship. It is the law that we have to have probable cause in order to ask you for evidence.

I get it, they are illegal. You don't get it, no citizen should be required to prove their citizenship and there must be probable cause first. How do we stop government in violating citizens' rights? The fourth amendment says we must have probable cause first. Why? Citizens should never be considered guilty until there is probable cause. They should not prove they are innocent, you need to have probable cause that they are guilty first.

Thus, unless you are going to guarantee that all people who are asked to prove they are citizens are actually illegals, then you are in violation of their Constitutional Rights.

You would rather sacrifice a citizen's rights to get some illegals. Our founders said that we would rather protect citizen's rights first.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[billwald]

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

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

 

[Ruiz]

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

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

 

[Ruiz]

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

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

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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.

Be honest here. You are not zealous over personal rights and the constitution. If you were you would not twist the constitution into this ridiculous belief you are claiming. The only ones not wanting this are the criminals and their family who are here illegally and they want our constitution done away with for their own purposes. This is about wanting to allow more illegals to enter this country without any method being used to stop or identify them and you know it.

There no provision in the Constitution that forbids the government from asking for proof of legal status for people to attend public schools. If there was then voting registration is also illegal and the courts have rule it is not. All illegals should be given 60 days to leave the country and after such time they are rounded up by the all law enforcement including the military and put in prison for 5 years no parole or good time working them in a manner that they pay for their keep and deportation as well as all costs involved in any round up. After the five years they should be deported at their expense to their home country.

 

[Ruiz]

Be honest here. You are not zealous over personal rights and the constitution. If you were you would not twist the constitution into this ridiculous belief you are claiming. The only ones not wanting this are the criminals and their family who are here illegally and they want our constitution done away with for their own purposes. This is about wanting to allow more illegals to enter this country without any method being used to stop or identify them and you know it.

There no provision in the Constitution that forbids the government from asking for proof of legal status for people to attend public schools. If there was then voting registration is also illegal and the courts have rule it is not. All illegals should be given 60 days to leave the country and after such time they are rounded up by the all law enforcement including the military and put in prison for 5 years no parole or good time working them in a manner that they pay for their keep and deportation as well as all costs involved in any round up. After the five years they should be deported at their expense to their home country.

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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.

I still say you are wrong, but if you feel that we cannot ask if someone is a citizen then all we have to do is make laws that make it illegal for anyone not here legally to hold any job, rent any house, own any property, hold any drivers license, and then ask everyone, which we already do, to show evidence that they live in the district they claim to live in with a drivers license, or electric bill receipt with their name and address on it or anything proving that they are in the right district for their children. Would that satisfy your belief on the constitution?

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[poncho]

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?

 

[freeatlast]

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.

Your view goes against the constitution. We do have the right to seek out criminals even by tricking them if need be. The law was no infraction against anyones rights.

 

[freeatlast]

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?

If that is the case then we should have no problem catching all the criminal illegals in our country and locking them up and then deporting them.

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Ruiz]

Your view goes against the constitution. We do have the right to seek out criminals even by tricking them if need be. The law was no infraction against anyones rights.

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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.

Our whole system has been corrupted. What is called conservative today is what was liberal yesterday. The constitution does not keep school districts from making laws for people to prove they are legally entitled to be part of the public school system. You are seeking to block the government from deporting illegals which are criminals.
Here is what is required in Ohio.

Birth Certificate
Social Security Card
Proof of Residency (living) in Warren City School District, with at least one of the following:
- utility bills with top and bottom portion intact
- current income tax form
- bill of sale
- rental agreement
- house insurance form
- notarized statement from landlordMost up-to-date Custody papers, if applicable

 

[HankD]

Our whole system has been corrupted. What is called conservative today is what was liberal yesterday. The constitution does not keep school districts from making laws for people to prove they are legally entitled to be part of the public school system. You are seeking to block the government from deporting illegals which are criminals.
Here is what is required in Ohio.

Birth Certificate
Social Security Card
Proof of Residency (living) in Warren City School District, with at least one of the following:
- utility bills with top and bottom portion intact
- current income tax form
- bill of sale
- rental agreement
- house insurance form
- notarized statement from landlordMost up-to-date Custody papers, if applicable

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

 

[freeatlast]

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

AMEN! :thumbs:
No freedom is being violated when there is an open society like ours and we know there are those among us illegally and our system asks for documentation to prove eligibility for the free services we offer our legal citizens. We are not asking to pat people down do body searches or even make them walk through e-ray machines. We are simply asking them to supply the standard documents that everyone has who is here legally to give evidence of them being legally qualified for a service. And yes the purpose includes keeping those who are illegal from getting services they are not qualified for as well as to identify them so as to run them through the legal system, put them in prison, and finally deporting them.

 

[billwald]

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