Americans All too Eager to Surrender Liberty

Published on May 11, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 2)

Gideon MacLeish

on May 11, 2005

Island,

Below is the 10th amendment.

Article [X.]

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

Gideon MacLeish

on May 11, 2005

Actually, even my apology was ill timed. I should have reread my own article.

Baker, you're NOT the "resident fascist" I was referring to. You don't advocate for banning everything (I actually disagree with you on a relative minority issues). If you reread it as well, you will see that the statement was meant to differentiate between hardcore republicans (such as yourself and drmiler) from the people who press an agenda of banning everything.

So, no, the "resident fascist" comment wasn't meant for you, actually.

bakerstreet

on May 11, 2005

"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"

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?

Island Dog

on May 11, 2005

Below is the 10th amendment.

That still doesn't tell me what the violation is.

bakerstreet

on May 11, 2005

"That still doesn't tell me what the violation is.

Gid is saying that this is a "state's rights" issue, in that since the Constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government the right to regulate driver's licenses, they can't express that right.

Like gay marriage, though, this is another "full faith and credit" situation that the federal government IS going to have to deal with, since states aren't going to agree, but the constitution says they have to accept one another's licenses.

I think it is BS that illegals can get drivers licenses in a handful of states, and that they are valid everywhere. Granted, once pulled over they can be shipped home if the policeman realizes that they are illegal. Giving them an official driver's license hampers that effort.

I think what this addresses is why in the hell weren't they shipped home when they applied to get a driver's license to begin with. Why should states turn a blind eye to illegals?

drmiler

on May 11, 2005

I think what this addresses is why in the hell weren't they shipped home when they applied to get a driver's license to begin with. Why should states turn a blind eye to illegals?

THIS is the point of the whole proposal! They SHOULD HAVE been stopped upon applying but were not. America is screaming for the government to "tighten" security. The feds are just trying to make the states help out.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 12, 2005

Baker,

You still have yet to tell me HOW this will defend against illegal aliens obtaining driver's licenses. It won't, plain and simple.

Yes, eliminating areas where the fed should have no jurisdiction WOULD offend a lot of the people, as it is much of the government, however, that doesn't change the fact that the constitution is being ignored here...we might as well rip it up if we're not going to honor it.

bakerstreet

on May 12, 2005

No offense Gid, but illegals are ALLOWED to have drivers licenses in some states... I mean they walk in illegal, apply as illegal, and get their license as an illegal. They don't need forged documents to do this, the laws were specifically designed to allow them to.

Additionally, you are assuming that all illegal immigrants in the US hop the border and need forged documentation. On the contrary a substantial percentage, 30-40% last I read, and most of the ones we really worry about, just stay after their temporary visa expires. In the weeks or months they are legal they get a driver's license, which is good for YEARS after their temporary visa expires.

I dunno where you get his idea of mountains of forged documents. That isn't necessary, and the vast majority of illegals never bother with, or have access to, them. All you need is a temporary visa to get a long-term drivers license in the US. That is one of the things this addresses.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 12, 2005

I dunno where you get his idea of mountains of forged documents. That isn't necessary, and the vast majority of illegals never bother with, or have access to, them.

Experience, Baker. I WORKED with illegals, I discovered a lot about how they got here.

I have no problem with a law that would forbid illegals from OBTAINING a license. Zero. That is one area where I will gladly part ways with the "party platform", and I will happily concede to you this point. But this is more than that, and it adds regulations without addressing any national security concerns whatsoever.

bakerstreet

on May 12, 2005

"Experience, Baker. I WORKED with illegals, I discovered a lot about how they got here."

You worked with Middle Eastern illegals? You worked with people who came into the country legally and bolted after their visas expired?

Granted, maybe this won't help much with the illegals you have in mind, i.e. the people who hop the fence. Just because a law doesn't effectively address EVERY illegal doesn't mean it won't effectively address SOME, especially those we are most worried about.

When migrants stop picking fruit and start blowing things up, maybe then I would see how we need to focus on them primarily.

" have no problem with a law that would forbid illegals from OBTAINING a license. Zero. "

Woah, woah, woah. Issueing driver's licenses is a STATE authority. That would be much, much more heinous. This legislation is much more akin to ensuring full faith and credit.

"But this is more than that, and it adds regulations without addressing any national security concerns whatsoever."

*boggle* Whatever. You just ignore the facts presented and say the same things you did before.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 12, 2005

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.

ParaTed2k

on May 12, 2005

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?

bakerstreet

on May 12, 2005

"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?

Gideon MacLeish

on May 12, 2005

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.

ParaTed2k

on May 12, 2005

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.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!