And, even if the state doesn't specifically require you to have ID, please see my other post to learn how police circumvent not only the ID requirement (or lack thereof), but the 4th Amendment as well.
In my case I did not stand mute. I gave the officer my name. He then requested my ID to verify what I had told him. My ID was inside of my apartment at the time (we were standing outside on the sidewalk--he was answering a call about fireworks). The officer would not allow me to enter my apartment to retrieve the ID. When I could not produce the ID as he requested he then entered my apartment, picked up my coat (I had asked,"Sir. Please allow me to go into my apartment to retrieve my ID. It's in my coat."), and came back out with it.
Entering my apartment to retrieve my ID was, according to the attorneys that I spoke with, completely justified as he was "in the process of an investigation" and the door was not locked. Apparently he did not even need a warrant to enter my apartment after I "refused" (could not) produce my ID to verify my name. Because I could not produce my ID as he requested in his purported investigation I was legally ticketed for "obstruction of justice".
Funny how all these armchair patriots don't have any clue how things really work on the street.
That's a very ambiguous technicality. Once you give the police officer a name, any name, it then becomes a justifiable investigation for him to verify the information you have given to him. If you refuse to present state issued identification you will be ticketed for obstruction of justice--obstructing the officer's investigation as to the legitimacy of the name you have given to them. I know this from personal experience. The ticket was on the order of $500.
So, yes, the judiciaries' decision to require that you provide your name implicitly opens the legal door to mandatory presentation of government issued ID.
Indeed. However, if you read the histories presented on this site it becomes quite clear that the SCOTUS has been systematically castrating the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments for at least 100 years.
It's a sad state of affairs when hand-picked Supreme Court justices reduce the Constitution to little more than historical triviality. We might as well live in a despotic empire with token popular elections for feel-good purposes.
When I'm on a prolonged vacation I find that my sleep pattern changes from the typical "on/off" (16/8) to a "on/off/on/off" type schedule where waking periods range from 4-8 hours and sleeping periods range from 3-9 hours. That seems to be natural for me.
The difference is semantics generated in legalese meant to subvert the spirit of the law by adhering pedantically to the letter of the law.
Much the same way a virus or trojan makes its way to your OS from a web page. The OS wasn't designed to allow this but, due to a semantic technicality, someone figured out how to do it anyway.
Except that, for all the sensationalism, nobody has ever demonstrated that such a device can actually be successfully fabricated. There are millions of conceptual ideas in pre-development stages ranging from nanoscale nuclear weapons to personalized medical cures for every imaginable disease. That doesn't mean that any of them actually truly exist.
Theoretically I can change reality just by thinking hard enough. I still haven't gotten a promotion.
Indeed. Maybe we should ask the Irish just how good the British government was at policing itself. Sure, the British had hundreds of laws on the books to guarantee fair treatment and protect the disempowered (eg. nullification of a contract when one party is at an obvious economic advantage)... Read Leon Uris "Trinity" to see just how well all of that worked out.
That's complete crap. Had they really wanted to prevent the 9/11 attacks they would've dropped their passive-aggressive stance against governments across the world decades ago.
If you repeatedly pinch someone in the arm, for decades, after they've repeatedly asked you politely to stop... Why are you so surprised when they turn around and break your jaw? That's blatantly passive-aggressive. "Oh, we're just pinching you in the arm for your own good. It's to make sure you're still alive and cooperating with us. We're just checking on you." You know what? The people who died on 9/11 didn't ask for it--but the Federal Government of the US sure as hell did.
My word you're dense. You have no concept of what your government is doing outside of what you can read in the newspaper or watch on television.
Nice name-calling rant. I hope you feel better about yourself.
This isn't about due process. This is about scope of authority which he obviously doesn't have. Congress doesn't even have this scope of authority. These are simply things which the Government cannot engage in without a court approved warrant.
The Constitution, like any operating system, has exploitable flaws. The bottom line is, though, that this OS is mine. It is not yours. You do not have permission to access this system unless I expressly give it to you. That's the point of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Like any OS you may discover flaws which you can exploit via a trojan. The bottom line does not change though: the trojan is illegal. This OS is mine, these rights are mine. They are not yours and no amount of justification (finding little holes in the code) will ever make this OS legally yours.
No laws broken here? Are the 9th and 10th Amendments, the stop-bits on the Bill of Rights, really that meaningless to you? Do you not realize the importance they have on limiting the scope and power of authority?
Congress cannot make any law which supersedes the Constitution. They have, and SCOTUS has upheld them, but in reality every single one of them is illegal.
Except that formatting rarely touches the MBR. It's also possible to hide code between the lines of the typical format. The only real solution is a zero-fill and, if you have BIOS rootkit infrastructure, then the code could very easily be restored through any number of available network exploits.
No kidding. Everyone gets all up in arms about the separation of Church and State, willing to take it to the Supreme Court, but when it comes to Constitutional (9th and 10th Amendments) checks and balances on authority then, well, we'll have none of that. According to the authoritarians the 9th and 10th Amendments were obviously written only to assuage those whom they can ridicule as "conspiracy theorists".
I'm reading through the Constitution and, you know, I just can't find anyplace where it delegates to the President the authority to authorize any sort of secret (or public) informal investigation of the personal activities of a US citizen. As per the 9th and 10th Amendments, he's currently breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Not that it matters. SCOTUS has castrated the 9th and 10th Amendments for decades. In all reality we should just rewrite this nation as an elected (ha!) monarchy with a token parliament to lend legitimacy to what is obviously illegal action.
I bet that 68% of Germans were comfortable with relocation camps because it simply didn't affect them. That didn't stop the rest of the world from deciding that the relocation camps weren't an acceptable excuse for segregating and deporting millions of people.
but the rest seem to be blind followers that will cover their ears and go "LALALALALA" anytime they hear anything that contradicts the current administration
Sounds like #linux on Undernet or Neko-Net. Maybe GW Bush is a closet IRC addict?
As agents of the government the NSA derives its authority from Congress. Congress and the President derive their authority from the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments seal the Constitution for a very good reason. There are some things which the Government simply cannot legally engage in--no matter what Congress or the President says.
Never mind those restrictions on authority, though. They only get in the way of protecting us from the screaming barbarian hordes which are always waiting just outside the gates.
Following the "king can do no wrong" philosophy. Some Congressmen have said that Congress should decide whether or not the President has the authority to do what Bush is doing, and Congress should be the body that decides whether or not to give him that authority.
Has anyone ever thought that maybe even Congress doesn't have the authority to give Bush the authority to do what he wants to do? For crying out loud. The 9th and 10th Amendments were the stop-bits on the Constitution for a good reason. There are some things that Government simply cannot legally engage in.
Slashdot Mirror
And, even if the state doesn't specifically require you to have ID, please see my other post to learn how police circumvent not only the ID requirement (or lack thereof), but the 4th Amendment as well.
In my case I did not stand mute. I gave the officer my name. He then requested my ID to verify what I had told him. My ID was inside of my apartment at the time (we were standing outside on the sidewalk--he was answering a call about fireworks). The officer would not allow me to enter my apartment to retrieve the ID. When I could not produce the ID as he requested he then entered my apartment, picked up my coat (I had asked,"Sir. Please allow me to go into my apartment to retrieve my ID. It's in my coat."), and came back out with it.
Entering my apartment to retrieve my ID was, according to the attorneys that I spoke with, completely justified as he was "in the process of an investigation" and the door was not locked. Apparently he did not even need a warrant to enter my apartment after I "refused" (could not) produce my ID to verify my name. Because I could not produce my ID as he requested in his purported investigation I was legally ticketed for "obstruction of justice".
Funny how all these armchair patriots don't have any clue how things really work on the street.
Tell that to officers handing out $500 tickets for obstruction of justice.
That's a very ambiguous technicality. Once you give the police officer a name, any name, it then becomes a justifiable investigation for him to verify the information you have given to him. If you refuse to present state issued identification you will be ticketed for obstruction of justice--obstructing the officer's investigation as to the legitimacy of the name you have given to them. I know this from personal experience. The ticket was on the order of $500.
So, yes, the judiciaries' decision to require that you provide your name implicitly opens the legal door to mandatory presentation of government issued ID.
Indeed. However, if you read the histories presented on this site it becomes quite clear that the SCOTUS has been systematically castrating the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments for at least 100 years.
It's a sad state of affairs when hand-picked Supreme Court justices reduce the Constitution to little more than historical triviality. We might as well live in a despotic empire with token popular elections for feel-good purposes.
When I'm on a prolonged vacation I find that my sleep pattern changes from the typical "on/off" (16/8) to a "on/off/on/off" type schedule where waking periods range from 4-8 hours and sleeping periods range from 3-9 hours. That seems to be natural for me.
The difference is semantics generated in legalese meant to subvert the spirit of the law by adhering pedantically to the letter of the law.
Much the same way a virus or trojan makes its way to your OS from a web page. The OS wasn't designed to allow this but, due to a semantic technicality, someone figured out how to do it anyway.
Most of those are MBR recognition algorithms. The anti-virus protection on my mobo screams bloody murder about LILO so I had to turn it off.
Except that, for all the sensationalism, nobody has ever demonstrated that such a device can actually be successfully fabricated. There are millions of conceptual ideas in pre-development stages ranging from nanoscale nuclear weapons to personalized medical cures for every imaginable disease. That doesn't mean that any of them actually truly exist.
Theoretically I can change reality just by thinking hard enough. I still haven't gotten a promotion.
Indeed. Maybe we should ask the Irish just how good the British government was at policing itself. Sure, the British had hundreds of laws on the books to guarantee fair treatment and protect the disempowered (eg. nullification of a contract when one party is at an obvious economic advantage)... Read Leon Uris "Trinity" to see just how well all of that worked out.
Same situation here.
Maybe you should ask the Irish just how well infinitely justifiable government authority has worked out for them.
There's a reason why the 9th and 10th Amendments capped the Bill of Rights.
That's complete crap. Had they really wanted to prevent the 9/11 attacks they would've dropped their passive-aggressive stance against governments across the world decades ago.
If you repeatedly pinch someone in the arm, for decades, after they've repeatedly asked you politely to stop... Why are you so surprised when they turn around and break your jaw? That's blatantly passive-aggressive. "Oh, we're just pinching you in the arm for your own good. It's to make sure you're still alive and cooperating with us. We're just checking on you." You know what? The people who died on 9/11 didn't ask for it--but the Federal Government of the US sure as hell did.
My word you're dense. You have no concept of what your government is doing outside of what you can read in the newspaper or watch on television.
If you're caught robbing a bank, can you just give everything back and say,"No harm, no foul... s'all good"?
Nice name-calling rant. I hope you feel better about yourself.
This isn't about due process. This is about scope of authority which he obviously doesn't have. Congress doesn't even have this scope of authority. These are simply things which the Government cannot engage in without a court approved warrant.
The Constitution, like any operating system, has exploitable flaws. The bottom line is, though, that this OS is mine. It is not yours. You do not have permission to access this system unless I expressly give it to you. That's the point of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Like any OS you may discover flaws which you can exploit via a trojan. The bottom line does not change though: the trojan is illegal. This OS is mine, these rights are mine. They are not yours and no amount of justification (finding little holes in the code) will ever make this OS legally yours.
Kind of like how SCOTUS (for decades) and Bush (recently) have ignored the 9th and 10th Amendment limitations on their scope of authority?
No laws broken here? Are the 9th and 10th Amendments, the stop-bits on the Bill of Rights, really that meaningless to you? Do you not realize the importance they have on limiting the scope and power of authority?
Congress cannot make any law which supersedes the Constitution. They have, and SCOTUS has upheld them, but in reality every single one of them is illegal.
Except that formatting rarely touches the MBR. It's also possible to hide code between the lines of the typical format. The only real solution is a zero-fill and, if you have BIOS rootkit infrastructure, then the code could very easily be restored through any number of available network exploits.
No kidding. Everyone gets all up in arms about the separation of Church and State, willing to take it to the Supreme Court, but when it comes to Constitutional (9th and 10th Amendments) checks and balances on authority then, well, we'll have none of that. According to the authoritarians the 9th and 10th Amendments were obviously written only to assuage those whom they can ridicule as "conspiracy theorists".
I'm reading through the Constitution and, you know, I just can't find anyplace where it delegates to the President the authority to authorize any sort of secret (or public) informal investigation of the personal activities of a US citizen. As per the 9th and 10th Amendments, he's currently breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Not that it matters. SCOTUS has castrated the 9th and 10th Amendments for decades. In all reality we should just rewrite this nation as an elected (ha!) monarchy with a token parliament to lend legitimacy to what is obviously illegal action.
I bet that 68% of Germans were comfortable with relocation camps because it simply didn't affect them. That didn't stop the rest of the world from deciding that the relocation camps weren't an acceptable excuse for segregating and deporting millions of people.
Shush. If you keep on like that you'll let the cat out of the bag and then the "terrorists" will take over the world and we'll all live in Guatanamo.
The agents will be by your house shortly.
As agents of the government the NSA derives its authority from Congress. Congress and the President derive their authority from the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments seal the Constitution for a very good reason. There are some things which the Government simply cannot legally engage in--no matter what Congress or the President says.
Never mind those restrictions on authority, though. They only get in the way of protecting us from the screaming barbarian hordes which are always waiting just outside the gates.
Following the "king can do no wrong" philosophy. Some Congressmen have said that Congress should decide whether or not the President has the authority to do what Bush is doing, and Congress should be the body that decides whether or not to give him that authority.
Has anyone ever thought that maybe even Congress doesn't have the authority to give Bush the authority to do what he wants to do? For crying out loud. The 9th and 10th Amendments were the stop-bits on the Constitution for a good reason. There are some things that Government simply cannot legally engage in.