Posted on 02/23/2004 6:28:51 AM PST by xsysmgr
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:41:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to decide whether or not all Americans must have identification on them at all times. The case has been brought by a cowboy in Nevada who was asked to show ID while he was leaning against his pickup truck on the side of the road near his ranch. The police officer did not offer any specific reason why he demanded proof of identity. Having committed no crime, Dudley Hiibel, the cowboy, refused -- and was arrested. He was later convicted for "Delaying a Peace Officer." In America, still a free country, citizens should not be required to provide identification papers at any whim of the authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You think you won the argument but in reality, AZ does not require the SSN. If the did, you would still be walking ...
Social Security numbers were introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935. They were originally intended to be used only by the social security program. In 1943 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9397 which required federal agencies to use the number when creating new record-keeping systems. In 1961 the IRS began to use it as a taxpayer ID number. The Privacy Act of 1974 required authorization for government agencies to use SSNs in their data bases and required disclosures (detailed below) when government agencies request the number. Agencies which were already using SSN as an identifier before January 1, 1975 were allowed to continue using it. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 gave authority to state or local tax, welfare, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration authorities to use the number in order to establish identities. The Privacy Protection Study Commission of 1977 recommended that EO9397 be revoked after some agencies referred to it as their authorization to use SSNs. It hasn't been revoked, but no one seems to have made new uses of the SSN recently and cited EO9397 as their sole authority, either.
The cop talked to the witness. Never mind, we all know the cop lied.
Of course you like it. He ignored the dispatch all and the eyewitness interview.
I told him federal law at the passage of the SSN said it was illegal to require the SSN for ID.
The 2nd amendment was given to make revolution LEGAL.. GAME FOR THAT ?... I thought not.. If you got guns and won't use them then for what ?. Target practice ?..
Americans seems to have pretty much devolved into game(food) for politicians.. and bleat about the wolves guarding the flock..
FR: Cynical contrary RAM... pawing the ground. (Have a nice day OR NOT)
"There's a good case to made that this cop is lying about more than one aspect of this case."
Yeah, right. Cops don't lie. When they hire on with the government, they rise above all human fallibility.
You probably think those women and children who died under attack by helicopters, tanks and CS gas deserved to live, too. :-)
The above is an example of the kind of policing we don't need here in the US.
"Lying about your name and place of residence is a crime."
But remaining silent isn't.
Like the H case, you take too much faith in your anti-government allies and not too much faith on research into the facts.
Provide a reputable source.
"I marvel at how people will set up a drunken, child beater as their hero."
Hilarious. You said on the other thread about this incident (post #524) that you didn't accuse him of being drunk. I showed that you implied it and that I never said you'd actually said it.
Now you're out and out calling him a drunk and a child beater with no evidence of either. No charges of being drunk, or even mildly intoxicated. No charges of beating her, with only a call that she punched him in the arm like most daughters do from time to time.
Zero honor, zero integrity, in your world. Make it up as you go along. No wonder you support making everyone provide their papers to cops under these circumstances. Makes perfect sense now.
That is a defining characteristic of tyranny.
If you can be physically detained and forced to show papers by an armed agent of the state, completely absent even the slightest bit of suspicion, you aren't a free man.
It was the 'free' country that many anarchists around here want to go back to.
"First, AZ does NOT require the SSN."
I never said AZ "requires" the SSN. I said, and I quote the post to which you responded, which is post #193:
"In Arizona, they ask for it"
Asking is not requiring.
Then again, in your world, if a cop asks for it, that means it is required. So your statement makes perfect sense once again.
"Second, you are incorrect on your statement of SSN law. It may be used by the states for ID."
Nobody has ever gotten mine for ID in the last several years, and they never will again. So "may" is a relative term, Dishonest One. It may rain today, too. But that doesn't mean I'll get wet. I'd go into legal theory for keeping your SSN private, but you probably want us all to be required to hand over our SSN when a cop asks for it, too -- so I'll save my breath. It's the "pearl" thing.
Speaking of which, AZ police officers routinely ask for SSNs, too. Several have asked for mine, while investigating investigations. The number who've gotten it from me after asking: zero.
Yet we are supposed to learn from history. A universally present characteristic of oppressive governments throughout human history has been to stop and detain people absent probable cause.
Russia, East Germany, Nazi Germnany, Cuba, China, Hussein's Iraq, North Korea, you name it.. The "Who's Who" list of oppression, and every single last one of them behaves in this manner.
We are free people and we are better than that. THAT is why we're supposed to be proud to be Americans.
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.