Posted on 02/27/2005 7:13:06 AM PST by TheBlackFeather
Ben? Ben who?
The issue is not for one second weather or not it is prudent to know who is on the plane. If the plane crashed for a mechanical reason, it would be nice to know that the guy suing you really had his spouse on the plane. No one has an issue with this.
The bigger more troubling question is if we need a system of internal passports. If so the debate and the regulations should be public.
When did they change that? It doesn't really matter because if it is too far to drive in a day, I don't go. I won't put up with that useless crap.
I'm waiting for them to ban pencils because they are sharp and could be used to stab stewardesses and pilots.
When will they ban martial arts experts?
Yet, we still have open borders, give licences to illegals, and drag our feet arming pilots. Oh yeah, I will sleep better tonight.
D: Specious; lacks foundation.
Ticket agent: May I see your state ID, please?
Me-ocrat: No. May I see the law which requires it?
Ticket agent: Sure, go and look all you want to. In the meantime, please stand aside for a non-Me-ocrat. Next in line, please!
"What is the difference between government requiring an individual to show ID, and a government regulation ( secret, as well ) requiring private industry to require an individual to show ID?"
Many of the laws in the US are promulgated under the Interstate Commerce Laws and Defense. Accordingly it is much easier to regulate busnesses in commerce than it is individuals, in part, because the Feds do recognize and respect individual rights.
What is the difference? The law or regulation may be written differently but the end results might not except the individual has the right to choose to use or do business or not.
Rosa isn't a particularly good example. It wasn't about her right to ride, it was about where she sat which requires no legs? LOL
People have gone to prison for asking that very question.
A citizen of the United States going to jail for daring to ask a question of the government?
It's amazing that there are so few here that find that apalling, to say the least.
"There is no foolproof way to create an I.D. that is perfect, multiple forms of attestaion to the genuine nature of the person or object will always serve better."
Somewhat akin to locks. They don't necessarily keep bad people out, although they may discourage some, and they do keep the honest people honest.
"He's in the statist business. LOL youself mr inspector man"
Here's a quarter. Buy a clue.
Samuel Adams, (1722-1803)
Looks like Sam Adams had people like you in mind when he wrote this.
Now that is rational. And I agree.
I am surprised by some of the responses on this thread. I get the feeling that some people here would have been perfectly content labelling someone like Rosa Parks as a 'kook', 'terrorist sympathizer', anti-government troublemaker, all because she refused to sit where the law told her to.
As he turned to face her she handed over the paper on which she was so attentive for him to read the dreaded demerit -5 points.
"Why 5 points?"
"You placed your soapy hands in the clear rinse water."
"How else could I rinse it?"
Rinse your hands first."
He is still raving.
Right after 9/11, here in Pittsburgh we had a man in the DL bureau selling commercial licenses to people who wanted to drive the big rigs and most or all happened to be ME men as was the employee.
The state claimed that none of it was terror related. They just wanted to work.
Ok, sure. I beleive it.
Actually right field courtesy of my friend Foghorn Leghorn. :)
That shows how long it's been since I travelled anywhere using bus (thirty plus years), train (twenty plus years). I guess he's stuck with a chauffered limousine. Poor baby!
The principle of challenge is equivalent.
Actually, you don't recall right either.
The war started when the British marched on Concord and Lexington to confiscate the pesky guns that government tends to hate when in the hands of it's subjects, er, I mean citizens.
I can see from many responses that secret laws by our government are wholeheartedly supported. If you didn't get this from the article, perhaps you didn't bother to read it, or read it so quickly that the full measure didn't sink in.
In any case, I certainly sparked the debate; it's interesting to see who is coming down on which side.
"Provide for the "common defense".
D: Specious; lacks foundation.
Think interstate highways built under the guise that they were needed to move troops yet we coolectively benefit and use them.
Common by definition refers to the collective rights of citizens to have a defense. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.