Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 18:35 In article <x-607195.17384204032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > In article <2vadnSoqnvI_2nbYnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <x-6E37ED.14230504032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: >> >> > Someone does not need to exercise his privilege to drive. Yet the >> > person still has the right to travel, with or without a driver's >> > license. There is no due process involved, nor a waiver of due process >> > rights. >> >> Do you means specifically driver's license or government issued ID in >> general? Because the later isn't practically true anymore with court >> victories being few in the 'post-911-world'. > I mean both. Even in situations where you need government > identification, a driver's license and a non-driver's ID card are of > equal legal weight. And both need to be produced at the whim of the government's employees regardless of form of travel. And if and only if they cannot make up a reason will it not be upheld in the courts. >> > Someone doesn't have to obtain a non-driver's ID card any more than you >> > need a driver's license. >> Then he better have a passport. > Well, sure, if you don't have identification doing some things could be > difficult. But it depends on the situation. Before the papers please society one could get along fine without any form of ID. Sure, that meant not writing personal checks, but that was about it. >> > But its foolish to think that you will be >> > granted access to do what you want and go where you please without >> > identifying yourself to appropriate personnel (public AND private) from >> > time to time. >> Private when there is credit or trust (such as a check) is involved I can >> see. I cannot think of any other reason for it other than an illusion of >> security. > If you insist its only an illusion, then of course you won't see a > purpose for it. Illegal aliens get false IDs easily. The government even accepts that cheesy matricula(sp) card that has no checking or verification when issued. The funny thing is, the place I could accept ID being checked, with credit card usage, it's not! Practically everywhere else it has to do with the nanny state or the police state.
From: Alan Baker on 4 Mar 2007 18:38 In article <x-1E488D.17365704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry <x(a)y.com> wrote: > In article <zMCdneZz9dTL2nbYnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > "Chas" <chasclements(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > > > What city requires ID to ride the bus? > > > > Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. > > Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. If they > require 3 witnesses to attest to the purpose of your trip and a > certified copy of your birth certificate, it might be bad for business, > but its legal. > > Or should a bus company be required to let anyone on their property > without knowing who the person is? But since the government demands that such a company be licensed, the government can withdraw that "privilege" as well... -- "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
From: Chas on 4 Mar 2007 19:19 "Larry" <x(a)y.com> wrote > Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. The tyranny of the few is to 'authorize' the wolves to disarm the sheep, lest they resist the enforcement of the wolves' subjugation of the herd. Then they can be regulated by the flock- mmmm, tasty. > Only the wolves want that, but then again, the wolves would get by just > fine under any system of rule, no? Nah; think man-with-a-gun. Now think of our Constitution as that man- a man who loves sheep- nevermind, I think the analogy is failing...... >> Given a Contitutionally granted authority and no sovereign- ok. >> What's yer pernt? > That your apparently-inflamatory statement was so neutered and basic as > to be pointless. Not about arrogating authority at the expense of the governed and the social contract between us. >> Hey buddy- it's your 747, fly it any way you want to. If you can get 100 >> people to ride with you, you should be giving inspirational talks, not >> practicing law. > And if I'm unqualified, so it puts everyone at risk? If you're that crazy/driven, what you'll do with your 747 is the least of our worries- exemplar Idi Amin- who both had a large airplane and flew it- as I understand. He never did crash- and he never lost a passenger, crashed into my house, or killed much that he wasn't prepared to eat. I think GWB doesn't have a pilot's license- doesn't seem to have him crashing into things whilst piloting. And, JFKjr. did, and still managed to crash and burn. Chas
From: Brent P on 4 Mar 2007 19:30 In article <x-2C9D8B.18345104032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > In article <JeSdnf0y4-RuyHbYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > >> In article <x-1E488D.17365704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: >> >> >> Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. >> > >> > Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever >> > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. >> >> And they do it because government demands it. If they don't do what >> government demands, they are quickly denied the permits/licensing,etc >> they need to operate and if not that they are harrassed by government >> about every ticky-tacky detail. > > Do you have a cite to a government regulation that makes such a demand? > Or even news stories where such government demands are discussed? And > even if it is true, do you really think that Greyhound doesn't support > such rules? Quite obviously you are living in denial of the obvious. The TSA homeland security edicts are not debatable by the airlines. Have you not paid attention in the last 6 years? > If you owned a bus company, would you let anyone who buys a ticket > aboard, no questions asked? I highly doubt it. Its common sense. Checking ID doesn't solve the so called problem you're looking to solve. There is no telling who might go psycho. Many if not most people who just flip out or become jiadist terrorists have clean records before said event. It's an illusion. >> That's how it works with the airlines and everyone else by using the >> 'private' angle as an end run around the constitutional protections in >> the bill of rights. >> Let's say I had the money of Bill Gates and wanted to operate NO-ID >> airlines and buslines. Suddenly there would be no place to legally land >> the aircraft and no roads to legally operate the buses on. > Sure there are. You can operate the buses on any public roadway in the > country. Not without government permission.
From: Larry on 4 Mar 2007 19:33
In article <D5GdndyCyPEO-XbYnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d(a)comcast.com>, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <x-2C9D8B.18345104032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > > In article <JeSdnf0y4-RuyHbYnZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d(a)comcast.com>, > > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > > > >> In article <x-1E488D.17365704032007(a)news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote: > >> > >> >> Greyhound; intercity- 'Homeland Security' stuff. > >> > > >> > Greyhound is a private company, they're allowed to require whatever > >> > documentation they want as long as its not discriminatory. > >> > >> And they do it because government demands it. If they don't do what > >> government demands, they are quickly denied the permits/licensing,etc > >> they need to operate and if not that they are harrassed by government > >> about every ticky-tacky detail. > > > > Do you have a cite to a government regulation that makes such a demand? > > Or even news stories where such government demands are discussed? And > > even if it is true, do you really think that Greyhound doesn't support > > such rules? > > Quite obviously you are living in denial of the obvious. The TSA > homeland security edicts are not debatable by the airlines. Have you not > paid attention in the last 6 years? I didn't ask about airlines, I asked about private bus companies. > > If you owned a bus company, would you let anyone who buys a ticket > > aboard, no questions asked? I highly doubt it. Its common sense. > > Checking ID doesn't solve the so called problem you're looking to solve. > There is no telling who might go psycho. Many if not most people who just > flip out or become jiadist terrorists have clean records before said > event. It's an illusion. And many criminals are recidivists, so knowing who they are is clearly beneficial. > >> That's how it works with the airlines and everyone else by using the > >> 'private' angle as an end run around the constitutional protections in > >> the bill of rights. > > >> Let's say I had the money of Bill Gates and wanted to operate NO-ID > >> airlines and buslines. Suddenly there would be no place to legally land > >> the aircraft and no roads to legally operate the buses on. > > > Sure there are. You can operate the buses on any public roadway in the > > country. > > Not without government permission. Where is that stated? |