Posted on 08/14/2023 12:23:44 PM PDT by Lockbox
Treating everybody as a criminal isn’t a reasonable measure. Giving police unlimited power to harass without any probably cause isn’t a reasonable measure.
I thought then and think now voter ID laws are reasonable.
Passenger ID laws on the other hand, not good at all.
Increasing police power largely at random is always a bad idea.
And you're exercising your right to hold an opinion.
What measures to get rid of illegal aliens DO you approve of?
So? Every driver in Florida now has to ID and do a background check on everyone they let in their car? Or face fines and imprisonment even if someone lies to them about it? Every driver has to feel good about being pulled over and having everyone in the car detained and checked for citizenship probable cause or not?
You have some foolish idea this will NOT BE ABUSED and you are absolutely wrong. The repercussions of the abuse are going to be horrendous for law abiding citizens who are having their Constitutional right to travel violated.
That's kind of funny ...
Exactly what sort of enforcement do you approve of?
There is a reason the federal government is spreading the illegal aliens across the nation and settling so many of them in red states. They will be voting in the 2024 elections. A few will be reported and caught (very few) and the media will admit it but insist it was not “widespread” or in “a sufficient amount” to change the results of the election.
It will be explained as just a misunderstanding as to their voting rights for the handful caught voting. Meanwhile, it will actually be thousands of illegals who will vote in swing state precincts where the vote is normally 51/49 GOP. All without being caught. Swing states will swing indeed.....straight to the left
I’ve seen this play before. I know how it ends.
Do you let total strangers in your car?
You have some foolish idea
Insults and "mind reading" are a good way to convince others that your arguments are bogus.
having their Constitutional right to travel violated.
Interesting. That's exactly the argument that the "Sovreign Citizen" folks use to claim that driver licenses and vehicle registration are unconstitutional. Do you agree with them?
Not treating the entire population like criminals.
Because again, just like RICO, just like OMNI, just like the Patriot Act, this is NOT about what they’re using as the excuse. This is about drastically increasing police power. That’s it. They don’t give a damn if that means they get illegals. Because in the process of running the IDs of every single person in every single car for every single traffic stop they’re going to find all kinds of “violations”. Violations that result in fines.
The answer to all your questions is money. This is a revenue grab. Pure and simple.
That is not an answer to my question.
If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. Have a nice day.
That is the ONLY correct answer to ALL questions about police power. If the law comes from the assumption that everybody is a potential criminal it’s a BAD LAW.
I gave you an answer. You just don’t like it. Because you find it inconvenient. Because I’m right.
“A certain type of passenger”
Hey - if you aren’t all up on your Covid vaccinations and have the papers to prove it, you aren’t welcome in our state!
“Exactly what sort of enforcement do you approve of?”
Don’t try to spin this. This is a question of what enforcement I DO NOT approve of.
And I do not approve of opening the door to violate or hinder a lawful Citizen’s Constitutional right to travel in ANY form...
Are we really willing to give up all our own Constitutional rights for the illegal alien issue? There are going to be 1000 lawful Citizens violated/inconvenienced for every 1 illegal alien it discourages.
Can’t you see that in the end it will end up in the Supreme Court and when they are done the illegal aliens will end up with even MORE protections than the have now? It is going to backfire badly and you will be sorry it ever happened.
“Hey - if you aren’t all up on your Covid vaccinations and have the papers to prove it, you aren’t welcome in our state!”
Absolutely! If this is allowed to fly states like California, NY, Illinoise, Colorado, and others will use the precedent for exactly that!!!
It is not rocket science that the precedent WILL ABSOLUTELY BE ABUSE and used against lawful Citizens at will.
That isn’t a severe sentence for human trafficking and smuggling, and abetting such.
Apparently reading and comprehension is a challege for you, I will share THE LAW with you again.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The Supreme Court has long recognized the right to travel from one state to another under the Privileges and Immunities Clause,1 as well as other constitutional provisions.2 For example, the Court held that a state could not constitutionally limit access to medical care to its own residents, and deny access to nonresidents, without interfering with the right to travel.3
In Saenz v. Roe, the Court characterized the constitutional “right to travel” as having “at least three different components”:
It protects [1] the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another State, [2] the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State, and, [3] for those travelers who elect to become permanent residents, the right to be treated like other citizens of that State.4
While the Court did not expressly identify the constitutional basis of the first component, it noted that the Articles of Confederation’s privileges and immunities clause explicitly protected the “free ingress and regress to and from any other State.”5 As for the second component of the right to travel, the Court found it to be “expressly protected by the text of the Constitution” through the Privileges and Immunities Clause.6 Saenz connected the third component of the right to travel to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.7
Are you a Cop? You have an underlying premise that the Constitution is a flexible document and can be ignored when convenient.
“Enforcing the law” ironically means respecting the Constitution as written and meant to be “enforced as the law of the land”. Not “selectively as needed”. We either stand by the Constitution in whole or we do not. It was not designed to be selective. We have to take some bad to retain the good of it.
Agree. When I was called for jury duty, tried everything as an excuse to get off because I was very busy at work
``````````````````````````````````````````
County sent my wife a summons for jury duty a couple of weeks ago, it had warnings in it of possible consequences if she didn’t show up including arrest and prosecution. I pitched it in the trash.
My wife passed away almost 5 years ago. I’m just waiting now for them to come and arrest her.
Florida going to the mat again to protect its citizens and America.
I wonder who organized that.
The kind of leadership the country needs.
Are bus drivers with a load of undesirables headed to NYC exempt?
I haven't offered a ride to a stranger in almost a whole week.
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.