Posted on 12/04/2001 11:19:37 AM PST by expose
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:36:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
ANNAPOLIS
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
RAND can be found by clicking on this link.
I don't know why the link on #7 is bad, I may have messed it up, although I thought I checked it when posting it.
This is such a lame arguement, who did you steal this line from Hillary Clinton ?
Nor does the Bill of Rights guarantee my right to own a toilet, notebook computer, or camera.
Not all of my rights are s-p-e-l-l-e-d out specifically in the BOR.
It is pretty lame, though I've heard similar sentiments from Statists. It's kind of like saying "The Bill of Rights does not guarantee that you won't be severely beaten by a police officer named Steve on Tuesdays and Sundays".
Well, the problem is, it won't be long before the states start performing searches against the photometric database that is supposed to be used only for ID verification. I have no problem with this technology being used solely to confirm that I am who I am when I board a plane or other ID functions. However, Governor Bill Owens of Colorado has already said he could see the driver's license database being used to search for criminals - if the cops have a photo of a perp, they can search the database for that perp. I have VERY mixed feelings about such a use - and if the history of government is any indicator, the odds are good that such a database will be used and abused...
This is the same Sen. Nelson who led the charge to outlaw that Texas institution (the National Drink of Texas?), the 'Road Beer'!
She's just not to be trusted, I tell you!
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 5
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!
Then, using that logic, it would be perfectly lawful, just, moral, and within the authority of the government to require a license for walking on the sidewalk, or riding a bike on the road, or using 'public property' in any way whatsoever, parks etc. This would include buying water or any commodity from a public utility, or requiring virtually anything they desired in order to attend public school.
Agreed. There is some inconsistency. But I do still feel that people have the right to drive. Some people dont. Someone made a statement along the lines of "you dont have the right to drive" which I dont feel is correct. All states have different rules for it. But nowhere does it say that you dont have the right to drive. The issue apparently boils down to licensing to some people, and in the end thats probably the crux of the matter.
Here is what I consider the key: The state (public) DOES have a valid interest in making the roads safe, however, they do not have legitimacy in doing whatever is neccessary to accomplish that goal.
Driver licensing is 'guilt of being unsafe' without the required proof.
To 'show that' -- what do you think would be the states attitude if I said "OK, license me, but for ID I will only submit the print of my big toe".
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.