Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Your papers, please
The Washington Times ^ | February 23, 2004 | House Editorial

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: billofrights; nationalid; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500501-519 last
To: eno_
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.
501 posted on 02/24/2004 3:38:07 PM PST by icu2 (get it while the gettens good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: eno_
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?

502 posted on 02/24/2004 3:46:20 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"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.








503 posted on 02/24/2004 4:05:04 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
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.
504 posted on 02/24/2004 4:17:34 PM PST by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
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.
505 posted on 02/24/2004 5:02:22 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"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.

506 posted on 02/24/2004 5:47:48 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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?

507 posted on 02/24/2004 6:08:00 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 502 | View Replies]

To: pending
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?
508 posted on 02/24/2004 6:10:53 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
You are a bleeping idiot.

You are a bleeping idiot.

509 posted on 02/24/2004 7:09:24 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Perhaps you don't know history, but then you should keep your hands off the keyboard and not prove it.
510 posted on 02/24/2004 7:11:31 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: eno_
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.
511 posted on 02/24/2004 7:12:53 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
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.

512 posted on 02/24/2004 7:25:06 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: eno_
What happened to your previous pre-prohibition requirement? Seems like you have been hitting the books?
513 posted on 02/24/2004 7:26:54 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
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.

514 posted on 02/24/2004 7:34:46 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: xsysmgr
btt
515 posted on 02/24/2004 7:36:55 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
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.

516 posted on 02/24/2004 7:39:48 PM PST by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Nope, I'd take pre-Prohibition, too. What makes you think I like Prohibition now?
517 posted on 02/24/2004 8:12:13 PM PST by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 513 | View Replies]

To: eno_

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.

518 posted on 02/25/2004 1:58:33 AM PST by KeepAndBearArms (Is a license to SPEAK agreeable to you, too?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: KeepAndBearArms
...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!

519 posted on 02/25/2004 7:39:44 AM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500501-519 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson