Your papers, please

The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

[xsysmgr]

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.

[icu2]

Once upon a time in old testament days like in the fifties or early sixties the ussc decided a case titled in the Readers Digest The case of shuffling Sam. He had been asked to identify himself and didn't. The court ruled that citizens of the USA did not have to identify them selves just for curiosity.
When my kids were teens the cops in our town had a thing about making the youth produce id just walking down the street.

[cinFLA]

Wow! So FDR gave us the XIVth, too? Or maybe all those dead white guys in tall black hats look the same to you?

I think you lost it on that post. Do you see little green men, also?

[pending]

"It was a terrible article and those who got the wrong idea from it have mainly you to thank for correcting it."

I second mrsmith on that one,cinFLA.

[pending]

The real test of a jackboot licker is this:
Oh joy, more name calling.

THANKS for letting all of us know who you really are: DUh material.

"Unable to make substantive response you impugn those you are at odds with."

Great show eno_!

What more do you have for us?
___________________________________________________

No more is necessary.
Whats eating at you, eno?
You due for some hard time?
Busted for something?
seriously. Your anger is way out of context here.

[tpaine]

Sandy, thanks for the link..
Lots of interesting stuff there, but I finally gave up on it cause it so sloooww for my machine.. At one point I thought I had a postable article on the Ninth. Then I lost that link and couldn't get back to it.. Frustrating..

I may have to bite the bullet & visit Fry's for some new equipment.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Now show me where your 'investigation' took place!"

You are a bleeping idiot. Note: "...as soon as the sheriff heard of this incident." assumes that said sheriff would be doing an internal investigation. If he didn't, then the SHERIFF should be fired, too. Neither you nor I have any authority (or responsibility) to investigate anything.

[eno_]

You are the one who provided us with the astounding response to my "I would be perfectly happy with the set of laws we had pre-New Deal and pre-Prohibition:"

You mean back when the BOR's did not apply to the states. Then this thug, Mr. H. would not have the 9th to bail him out of his mess.

If you can get back on your meds you might remember WHEN the IXth, the XIVth and the New Deal happened. Holy crap! Didn't they post a U.S. history time line in your junior high classroom?

[eno_]

Sorry, but I stand by my assertion that _Jim has a serious jackboot fetish, and that he is a conssumate lickspittle.

He could not identify a single law enforcement function that might need a single penny of budget cuts. Not one. Zero. Nada.

What species of conservative is that?

[cinFLA]

You are a bleeping idiot.

You are a bleeping idiot.

[cinFLA]

Perhaps you don't know history, but then you should keep your hands off the keyboard and not prove it.

[cinFLA]

eno cannot identify a single cop that is not a jack-booted thug. Not only that, anyone that dares disagree with his is also a jackbooted thug. Sign of an anarchist.

[eno_]

Sign of an anarchist.

Really. I just told you what kind of government I'd be happy with: One that has the laws and cabinet departments and law enforcement headcount (in proportion to population) of the pre-New Deal federal government.

That makes me an anarchist? As I also told you, at the time, the people who wanted to keep it that way were generally referred to as Republicans. They would be amused at being called anarchists, and they would be puzzled at what you and _Jim think passes for conservatism.

[cinFLA]

What happened to your previous pre-prohibition requirement? Seems like you have been hitting the books?

[cinFLA]

Note: "...as soon as the sheriff heard of this incident." assumes that said sheriff would be doing an internal investigation.

No. "As soon as" means "As soon as". No Clintonians allowed around here.

[Cacique]

btt

[cinFLA]

Now for you slow of comprehension, I will post the post:

Said deputy should have been fired as soon as the sheriff heard of this incident. Said deputy should STILL be fired.

I will then compare each word with the key word, "investigation" to see if any words match the key word or have similar meanings

SAID = investigation (no)
deputy = investigation (no)
should = investigation (no)
have = investigation (no)
been = investigation (no)
fired = investigation (no)
as = investigation (no)
soon = investigation (no)
as = investigation (no)
the = investigation (no)
sheriff = investigation (no)
heard = investigation (no)
of = investigation (no)
this = investigation (no)
event = investigation (no)

Sorry. No matches. I will leave the second sentence for your homework. Please bring in the your answers tomorrow.

[eno_]

Nope, I'd take pre-Prohibition, too. What makes you think I like Prohibition now?

[KeepAndBearArms]

How many armed federal agents is enough?

One for each of us, of course.

How much of the federal government is coloring outside constitutional lines? Any of it?

Somewhere between 85 and 95%.

Are you happy with the ATF and its record?

Sure. I love writing letters to a friend in prison after being entrapped by them in a case that makes me sick every time I think of it. And that happily married family-man gun dealer in California really did commit suicide in his gun shop just because BATF agents walked into his shop, too. So did the kiddies in Waco, of course -- little bastards set the place on fire to make BATF look bad. And these reports of institutionalized perjury to get convictions are all really just a silly prank. None of this stuff is true, either.

How many FLEOs should be fired tomorrow in the process of returning us to a constitutional republic?

All of them. They need to be put through new training, taught quite a bit about the Constitution and their role as servants, have their oaths revisited with the Bill of Rights in mind -- and forced to re-apply from scratch. You could do it in stages -- 1,000 at a time, give or take. Of course several agencies have no authority to exist in the first place, so there'll be some good ole competition to see who passes the citizen-created litmus tests to get re-hired.

[headsonpikes]

...taught quite a bit about the Constitution and their role as servants...

I'd pay good money to audit that class - just to see the looks of stunned surprise!