Posted on 11/29/2005 12:32:57 PM PST by CedarDave
Excellent point -- illegals get a pass (even at the voting booth!!) while law-abiding Americans pay the price (financially and otherwise).
It's interesting, but I don't think she has much of a case. The bus was on Federal property at the time. Most Federal facilities have implied consent, meaning that by entering that facility, you consent to be searched if requested. I work on a military installation, and there is a sign to that effect clearly posted as you drive onto post, just before the security checkpoint.
According to the article, checking ID was a regular part of the bus trip as the bus passed through the federal property. After her very first trip, she would have known this. If she really had heartburn over it, she should've found an alternate means of transportation. Personally, I think she's just grandstanding.
Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag.
First, I notice that you dodged the questions.
Now, Several of the 9 11 hijackers had overstayed their visas. If they refuse to give up their ID they can hide that fact. When they can be detained until such time they are ID'd then the visa issue would come out. (you see this is 'more' being done after 9 11 that very well could have avoided the events of that day.
A major key to security is accurate identification.
You claim individual rights that folks died for...show me where, in the constitution, it says that you have a right to withhold your identity from a law enforcment official when they directly ask you for it.
Remember now your 4th and 5th arguments have already been struck down..... How about answering to me what you WILL allow law enforment officials to do????
It occurs to me that you have opposition without alternative solution. You strike me as the type that complained that MORE should have been done, and like the ACLU, has opposed EVERY MEASURE tabled or taken since 911 to accomplish that more for the future....all the while NEVER offering up what YOU think the more should be.
A cop asking you who you are is HARDLY unreasonable! In fact, it is part of their JOB!
Put your money ( alternative) where your mouth(opposition) is.
I think you're right.
It is time that all people present ID when asked to do so.
The act of requesting ID shouldn't be the debate (imho). What should be is the context in which it is asked.
That is to say I think it is reasonable to stop you out in public and request ID where I would find it unreasonable to just knock on doors and request it. I find a clear line there.
A troublemaker huh? Let me see your papers!
I have a right to be secure in my person, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. Aside from that, rights don't come from the Constitution, they exist in a state of nature according to the philosophy of the Founders, and just governments are constituted to secure those natural rights.
America was founded on the belief that people have the right to be left alone by government, and that governments powers would be sharply limited and confined to certain specific areas of authority.
We have gone way too far afield from that, the way I see it.
What freedom is she fighting for exactly?
Apples & oranges. It's the difference between searching someone's personal belongings & demanding an ID. There's already (terrible) Supreme Court precedent that basically says people on public transportation & busses have less Fourth Amendment protection for searches.
I said it before and ill say it again, if you are asked for ID and you refuse it, you can be lawfully detained until such time as your ID can be established.
Well, you may ultimately be proven right in this case. However, you said Hiibel gave them the authority to do it. It does not.
Hiibel was if a) there's a suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and b) there's a state law authorizing such. I don't know about "b" in Colorado but "a" does not apply here.
Yes, but showing ID to vote is considered racist and improper.
is a city bus your person? Your posession? your papers? Your effects?
"Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "Asking questions is an essential part of police investigation. In the ordinary sense a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."
You cite your rights using the consititution and then you say they do not come from the constitution.....which is it?
You have it in your head that the government is your number one ENEMY, it is you that is way out in left field.
In no way did our founders lay the groundwork for a country that outlaw any form of identification. Signing the declaration of Independence sure wasn't an attemp to conceal identity now was it?
Present your alternatives please. Or accept that you take a position of opposition without alternative solution. All i am asking here is for you to be honest with me and yourself about what your position is.
ID is issued by local state and federal authorities right?
Is it your ID or theirs? How is it that the body issuing it cannot request to see it and check its validity? What is unreasonable about that?
No, she refused to be two-legged sheep.
No, I didn't. This BLACK MAN has seen too many control freaks in his time.
People on busses make the choice to be there. Noone took rights away from them.
The ruling sure backs they are right to do so. 'Suspicion' is political speak for an officers hunch. That is why this ruling shows a clear line between probable cause and suspicion.
If you think A doesn't apply there by all means as a law abiding citizen delay police officers every chance you get. Waste their time every day if they ask you for ID. Make good and well sure that they are wasting their time on you when you could show your ID and be on your way in a couple minutes....instead make a scene.......tie them up for hours on end and hey you might actually be able to sue them for a buttload of money. Go for it.
Ask yourself this, do you want to help police do their job or do you want to hinder them at every turn? Do you want to see them CATCH bad actors or do you want to see them so hamstrung that they cannot catch them at all?
It really is that simple.
So now, you're saying that we have no right to refuse to answer those questions? That we are compelled to engage in conversations with police officers whether we want to or not, regardless of whether there's reasonable suspicion, or any suspicion at all for that matter?
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.