Veer ar ur paperz

[Frohickey]

Court: No Right to Keep Name From Police (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040621/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_identification)

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that people who refuse to give their names to police can be arrested, even if they've done nothing wrong.

The court previously had said police may briefly detain people they suspect of wrongdoing, without any proof. But until now, the justices had never held that during those encounters a person must reveal their identity.

The court's 5-4 decision upholds laws in at least 21 states giving police the right to ask people their name and jail those who don't cooperate. Law enforcement officials say identification requests are a routine part of detective work.

Privacy advocates say the decision gives police too much power. Once officers have a name, they can use computer databases to learn all kinds of personal information about the person.

The loser in Monday's decision was Nevada cattle rancher Larry "Dudley" Hiibel, who was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor after he told a deputy that he didn't have to give out his name or show an ID.

The encounter happened after someone called police to report arguing between Hiibel and his daughter in a truck parked along a road. An officer asked him 11 times for his identification or his name.

Hiibel repeatedly refused, at one point saying, "If you've got something, take me to jail" and "I don't want to talk. I've done nothing. I've broken no laws."

In fighting the arrest, Hiibel became an unlikely constitutional privacy rights crusader. He wore a cowboy hat, boots and a bolo tie to the court this year when justices heard arguments in his appeal.

"A Nevada cowboy courageously fought for his right to be left alone, but lost," said his attorney, Harriet Cummings.

The court ruled that forcing someone to give police their name does not violate their Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches. The court also said name requests do not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, except in rare cases.

"One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The ruling stopped short of allowing police to demand identification, like driver's licenses, but Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) said requiring people to divulge their name still goes too far.

"A name can provide the key to a broad array of information about the person, particularly in the hands of a police officer with access to a range of law enforcement databases," he wrote in a dissent. Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) also disagreed with the ruling.

Crime-fighting and justice groups had argued that a ruling the other way would have protected terrorists and encouraged people to refuse to cooperate with police.

"The constant danger of renewed terrorist activity places enormous pressure on law enforcement to identify suspected terrorists before they strike," said Charles Hobson, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

But Tim Lynch, an attorney with the libertarian-oriented think tank Cato Institute, said the court "ruled that the government can turn a person's silence into a criminal offense."

"Ordinary Americans will be hopelessly confused about when they can assert their right to remain silent without being jailed like Mr. Hiibel," said Lynch, who expects the ruling will lead more cities and states, and possibly Congress, to consider laws like the one in Nevada.

Justices had been told that at least 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

The ruling was a follow up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.

Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said America is different 36 years after the Terry decision. "In a modern era, when the police get your identification, they are getting an extraordinary look at your private life."

The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada, 03-5554.

======

Here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554#opinion1) is the SCOTUS opinion[/url]

=====

Veer ar ur paperz?!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
I guess we should be glad that it took us close to 70 years before we are like Nazi Germany. :eek:

[zimv20]

we truly are a country governed by fear

[jsw]

Boy, I'm glad this ruling went down the way it did. I feel so much safer now. I mean, if those terrorists would think of giving a false name, then we'd be in trouble. But they wouldn't ever think of that, would they?

What's one more loss of freedom when the benefit is ridding the country of terrorists?

I mean, all it says is that, if any police officer happens to think that maybe you might be doing something wrong, they can get your name and therefore learn anything public about you. Sounds fair to me.

Of course, I'd hate to be a woman that an officer took a fancy to (or a man). You could go to jail for not answering his/her request for your name. And thus your phone number, address, criminal record, etc. Even if you weren't doing anything illegal. 'Cause just not answering would be illegal. I mean, all the cop has to do is mention that they thought you might be doing something wrong, right?

Well, at least we can round up all those refusing-to-give-their-name terrorists. God Bless America.

[Stelliform]

....

[IJ Reilly]

Hey, Frohickey, whatcha griping about? Don't you know, there's no right to privacy in the Constitution?

[Frohickey]

we truly are a country governed by fear

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Ben Franklin

[Frohickey]

Hey, Frohickey, whatcha griping about? Don't you know, there's no right to privacy in the Constitution?

Please explain to me...

If there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution, does that mean the government can intrude on it?

I dunno if you have figured out by now that I treat the US Constitution, not as what is allowed for the people, but as what is allowed for government. If its not written in as allowed for government, then it belongs to the states or the people.

[IJ Reilly]

Please explain to me...

If there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution, does that mean the government can intrude on it?

I dunno if you have figured out by now that I treat the US Constitution, not as what is allowed for the people, but as what is allowed for government. If its not written in as allowed for government, then it belongs to the states or the people.

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position, but I had the impression that you admired the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.

[mactastic]

Did you hear that Limbaugh? The Supremes say there is no right to privacy. You're in trouble now...

[Frohickey]

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position, but I had the impression that you admired the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.

I do. But in this case, they are not acting like strict constructionists.

[Neserk]

I don't see much of a problem here. If you have nothing to hide, give them your real name. If you do have something to hide, give them your favorite alias. If you have to have an alias, you probably have some false ID with the alias on it....

But I think that there is some Louisiana laws that you have proper ID on your person at all times. But I could be wrong on that one...


Cool... can I come in and tear up your house??? I mean afterall, you have nothing to hide...

[IJ Reilly]

I do. But in this case, they are not acting like strict constructionists.

So, you're saying they pick and choose the cases where they interpret the Constitution literally? How "strict" is that?

[LethalWolfe]

Yay.

Maybe as technology advances we'll get to the point where we all have RFID tags implanted in us and cops don't even have to stop and ask for a name. They can just drive by and pick up your signal. Or better yet, we can be tracked by satellite.

Miranda<sp?> can be changed to, "Ocasionally you have the right to remain silent."


Lethal

[MrMacMan]

This is pitiful.

This is one of the worst court cases judgements ever.

next it will be 'if you don't have anything to hide let us see your wallet'
or 'if you don't have anything to hide, let us check out your house'



I don't get how anyone can see it a problem.


there was no reason for him to be arrested for just saying no for papers, arrested for violent acts -- yes, not for this.

horrible.

[Desertrat]

Welllll...You can always move to a state that HAS NOT had such law on the books for many decades. It's not a uniform condition across the country.

A guy on another board checked the Texas Code of Jurisprudence. Unless you're involved in a state-licensed activity--driving a vehicle; hunting, e.g.--you need not carry ID. There are other such states...

'Rat

[mactastic]

'Rat, doesn't a decision by the Supremes override the Texas Code of Jurispridence? Even if you aren't required to carry ID during certain activities as you state, that still doesn't mean you aren't required to correctly identify yourself if asked by law enforcement. As I read it, the decision means you must identify yourself when asked, not that you must carry ID at all times.

[Sayhey]

My question is, given the title of this thread, do people throughout the world now use a phony and offensive American accent to reference the denial of civil liberties?

[IJ Reilly]

My question is, given the title of this thread, do people throughout the world now use a phony and offensive American accent to reference the denial of civil liberties?

Ouch. :o

[skunk]

My question is, given the title of this thread, do people throughout the world now use a phony and offensive American accent to reference the denial of civil liberties?
VE ask ze kvestions!

A phoney and offensive German accent still comes over much better on paper...

[Neserk]

Can you do an American Accent "on paper" ?? A Southern one, maybe even New England, but I have problems hearing a mid-western/standard accent.

[Frohickey]

My question is, given the title of this thread, do people throughout the world now use a phony and offensive American accent to reference the denial of civil liberties?

Dunno, but the title of this thread communicates the outrage and issues much clearer than anything else. Besides, through the mass medium of movies, the 'German' stereotype fits, if only because it was the first that was captured in cellulose.

Gestapo, Nazi, Fascist, Stormtrooper, etc. These are all words in the world consciousness that denotes authoritarianism, which is what this SCOTUS decision starts us on the road to. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[takao]

Gestapo, Nazi, Fascist, Stormtrooper, etc. These are all words in the world consciousness that denotes authoritarianism, which is what this SCOTUS decision starts us on the road to. :eek: :eek: :eek:

the sad thing is that those words are often(not always) torn out completly out of their meaning.....not the words should be in the world consciousness ...the things/concepts the words stand/stood for should be at that place...

you know ..in english there are still no words for "Volksverhetzung","Volksverführung", etc.

[Frohickey]

the sad thing is that those words are often(not always) torn out completly out of their meaning.....not the words should be in the world consciousness ...the things/concepts the words stand/stood for should be at that place...

you know ..in english there are still no words for "Volksverhetzung","Volksverführung", etc.

Farfignuggen?

Far Fig Newton? ;)

I don't think in german, they have words for chunky-monkey either. :p

Seriously though, I think that this issue of requiring identification is starting us down a path we do not want to go on.

[skunk]

you know ..in english there are still no words for "Volksverhetzung","Volksverführung", etc.
Perhaps you could attempt a translation nevertheless? Otherwise, I for one am none the wiser. "Volks" I understand. :)

[takao]

i have my problem with "verhetzung" no translater/dictonary found a word for that arghhhh
Aufhetzen = Instigate (sp?) might mean something completly different...
you know when
political leader A claims that group of people C is the reason for all the problems the economy has
politcial leader A claims that minority D is resposbile for event XY
etc...

....the verführung part means (roughly translated) .. misleading through propaganda/lies/false facts the believes of the ordinary people and make them do things which they would perhaps not do without those lies/facts etc....you know: the bigger the lie the more people will believe it

[skunk]

i have my problem with "verhetzung" no translater/dictonary found a word for that arghhhh
Aufhetzen = Instigate (sp?) might mean something completly different...
you know when
political leader A claims that group of people C is the reason for all the problems the economy has
politcial leader A claims that minority D is resposbile for event XY
etc...

....the verführung part means (roughly translated) .. misleading through propaganda/lies/false facts the believes of the ordinary people and make them do things which they would perhaps not do without those lies/facts etc....you know: the bigger the lie the more people will believe it
In a word, "scapegoating". ;)

[takao]

In a word, "scapegoating". ;)

well i have problems translating that too perhaps this fits ...

[skunk]

well i have problems translating that too perhaps this fits ...
Based on the old biblical tradition of a community investing all their troubles in a goat, and then killing or driving away the goat. Nice with curry, I hear. :)

[takao]

Based on the old biblical tradition of a community investing all their troubles in a goat, and then killing the goat. Nice with curry, I hear. :)

oh actually there is a seperate word for the scapegoat itself
the goat would be the "Sündenbock" ("Sünden" means "sins","Bock" is the german word for "male goat")

[Neserk]

Sounds like we can (in the future) translate it as: Pulling a Dubya! :D

[skunk]

Sounds like we can (in the future) translate it as: Pulling a Dubya! :D
I hesitate to say it, but :rolleyes:

:D

[Frohickey]

i have my problem with "verhetzung" no translater/dictonary found a word for that arghhhh
Aufhetzen = Instigate (sp?) might mean something completly different...
you know when
political leader A claims that group of people C is the reason for all the problems the economy has
politcial leader A claims that minority D is resposbile for event XY
etc...

....the verführung part means (roughly translated) .. misleading through propaganda/lies/false facts the believes of the ordinary people and make them do things which they would perhaps not do without those lies/facts etc....you know: the bigger the lie the more people will believe it

Ah, you mean what Hitler said about the Jews regarding the economy/catastrophy of the day

Or what Hitler's minister of propaganda did?

[Neserk]

I hesitate to say it, but :rolleyes:

:D

LOL. I don't know if I ever want any reminders of his 4 years of terror.

[Sayhey]

Dunno, but the title of this thread communicates the outrage and issues much clearer than anything else. Besides, through the mass medium of movies, the 'German' stereotype fits, if only because it was the first that was captured in cellulose.

Gestapo, Nazi, Fascist, Stormtrooper, etc. These are all words in the world consciousness that denotes authoritarianism, which is what this SCOTUS decision starts us on the road to. :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm not in anyway advocating ignoring the history of the Second World War or the role of Nazism. Sometimes it is easy for us, especially a generation or so removed, to forget the first victims of the Nazis were German and German-speaking peoples. As a result, it is too easy, and incorrect, to identify the language and culture with the crimes of Hitler. I was only pointing out how our use of phony "german-sounding" words to continue this idea maybe reduplicating itself in the world's perception of our own government's bellicose role. If so, it is a very sad day for our nation.

I am not ready to either make a comparison of Bush to Hitler or endorse the much used "slippery slope" argument. What I am prepared to do, and this may shock you, Frohickey, is to agree with you that this court decision is a mistake. I realize the right to not incriminate oneself makes the work of the police much harder, but it is also a right that is central to the workings of impartial justice. While we may not have much of that impartiality in the day-to-day workings of the criminal justice system, we should always strive to maintain whatever vestiges are left. The ability to not aid the police in your prosecution through the coerced reveling of your identity is not a outrageous barrier to have. Hopefully, this will be revisited under a new court in not too long of time.

[takao]

Ah, you mean what Hitler said about the Jews regarding the economy/catastrophy of the day

Or what Hitler's minister of propaganda did?

exactly that's on that large scale it is "volksverhetzung" if you are blaming always the same group etc...many people easily fall into those things ...
than somebody comes up and says : what whe are doing is not right... and than suddenly words like "traitor","you are helping the enemy" ("vaterlandsverräter" = "homeland traitor") etc. come up to shut critics up
then voluntary armed militas with beating up people who are not voting for the 'right' party ... marching in the streets "protecting from those enemies" ... blaming [insert country here] for a conspiracy with the enemies inside of the country against the own country..... renaming "war" with "police action"... etc etc. i could name hundred of things

edit: what is completly unknown is that before hitler austria already was a facistic regime_ not national-facistic but catholic-facistic from 1934 to 1938....in februar 1934 there was an open civil war in vienna with members of the social-democratic,left parties taking arms against the conservative-arch catholic regime (which put god into constiution)...within a few days more than 1000 people died within a few blocks..artillery firing against cilivians etc.... 12th of february is the day which should be remembered but it is completly unknown because this civil war was so unimportant compared to WW2 that it was forgotten (and the conservatives don't like to be reminded of that time where they were the dictators...)
the country moved through monarchy ,getting torn apart first time,democracy, conservative orientated fascism ,fascistic national-socialism, and again democracy , 10 years of war, civil war...all within 31 years.....(you can add another 10 years of occupation if you want)

[IJ Reilly]

Seriously though, I think that this issue of requiring identification is starting us down a path we do not want to go on.

Yes, towards sentences in prepositions we end with. :p

[skunk]

Yes, towards sentences in prepositions we end with. :p
That is the kind of English up with which I will not put. :rolleyes:

[Sayhey]

You two are showing your age. ;)

We young folks - under the age of 50 - always end our sentences that way.
:D

[blackfox]

Not sure what to think of this development. In itself, it does not mean that much to me, as I have pretty much had to deal with this most of my (youthful) life...as someone who used to travel all over the US by car(a volkswagon, oh the irony), with long hair, I cannot count the amount of times I was pulled over or approached while getting gas by police who asked for my ID w/o a clear explanantion of any offense...whether it was strictly legal or not, I do not know, but in a small town in the middle of nowhere, usually it was not worth the hassle to take a stand, when I knew I had done nothing wrong. It is analgous to being pulled over for a speeding violation (or some such excuse) and being asked to allow my vehicle to be searched...while not explicitly stated, if I refused I would guarantee myself a ticket, while a consent, however unwarranted, would usually get me on my way after an inconvenient wait...is this correct? No. But I am a cynical man, and bend where I have to, even if that means occasionally bending over and taking it in the a**.

So this means nothing to me, other than what it might be a precursor to...as far as allusions to ze Germans, at least they had fashionable uniforms...

[IJ Reilly]

You two are showing your age. ;)

We young folks - under the age of 50 - always end our sentences that way.
:D

Speak for yourself. I'm under 50. Not much, but please, don't hurry me.

[Desertrat]

mac, I haven't read the SCOTUS decision. Folks over at The High Road who have say that it's fairly narrow. It affirms that Nevada law is constitutional when it requires that you give your name to police when requested to do so.

SCOTUS did NOT say that one must carry photo ID. That's a state matter.

21 states mandate carrying ID; 29 do not.

Affirming that which as been law for numerous decades does not strike me as cause for "Oh, woe!" as to new police-state efforts. There's plenty enough of that outside this particular case.

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, I haven't read the SCOTUS decision. Folks over at The High Road who have say that it's fairly narrow. It affirms that Nevada law is constitutional when it requires that you give your name to police when requested to do so.

SCOTUS did NOT say that one must carry photo ID. That's a state matter.

21 states mandate carrying ID; 29 do not.

Affirming that which as been law for numerous decades does not strike me as cause for "Oh, woe!" as to new police-state efforts. There's plenty enough of that outside this particular case.

'Rat

Isn't that what I said? That the Supremes didn't say you must carry ID, only that you must identify yourself when asked? I'm not arguing that the Supremes mandated we all carry ID in case you are thinking I am. All I'm saying is that even in the great state of Texas, even while not carrying ID lawfully, you may now be asked to identify yourself and you must comply or you can be arrested, ID or no. In fact the whole ID thing is completely unrelated to this decision as I read it.

[Sayhey]

Speak for yourself. I'm under 50. Not much, but please, don't hurry me.

I know IJ, I could tell from our discussions about the draft and the Vietnam War that we are the same age. Just pulling your leg. It seems that it is people our age that find ending sentences with prepositions unacceptable. Of course, despite my age, I've committed this grammatical sin more than once myself.

btw, who is in first place? :p

[zimv20]

i went through a phase in high school where i insisted on ending every sentence w/ a preposition, notwithstanding.

[skunk]

But I am a cynical man, and bend where I have to, even if that means occasionally bending over and taking it in the a**.
TMI :rolleyes: :eek:

[skunk]

btw, who is in first place? :p
If you're talking about age, it must be 'Rat. He's well over 100. :D

[takao]

according to the german language this is perhaps an interesting link:
http://german.about.com
written quite amusing from time to time ....

[Chip NoVaMac]

Perhaps I've misunderstood your position, but I had the impression that you admired the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.

That was my impression as well. That is why I was taken back by his quoting of Ben Franklin. He almost sounded liberal. :)

[Chip NoVaMac]

This is pitiful.

This is one of the worst court cases judgements ever.

next it will be 'if you don't have anything to hide let us see your wallet'
or 'if you don't have anything to hide, let us check out your house'



I don't get how anyone can see it a problem.


there was no reason for him to be arrested for just saying no for papers, arrested for violent acts -- yes, not for this.

horrible.

The problem is it will a year or so for us to see the impact of this ruling. Providing a name seems innocent enough. Though if one were to give a false name, what would happen? Is the next step to show an id to prove who you are? Like terrorists and criminals don't have access to fake ID's.

What about the right from self incrimination? Right or wrong, if someone knows that there is a warrant out on them, should they be compelled to give their name in order to be arrested?

[Chip NoVaMac]

the sad thing is that those words are often(not always) torn out completly out of their meaning.....not the words should be in the world consciousness ...the things/concepts the words stand/stood for should be at that place...

you know ..in english there are still no words for "Volksverhetzung","Volksverführung", etc.

Agreed, but those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The US has had a long history of personal liberty. There have been hiccups along that road. The treatment of Native Americans, the internment of Japanese-Americans, and the treatment of Blacks after slavery was abolished.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i have my problem with "verhetzung" no translater/dictonary found a word for that arghhhh
Aufhetzen = Instigate (sp?) might mean something completly different...
you know when
political leader A claims that group of people C is the reason for all the problems the economy has
politcial leader A claims that minority D is resposbile for event XY
etc...

....the verführung part means (roughly translated) .. misleading through propaganda/lies/false facts the believes of the ordinary people and make them do things which they would perhaps not do without those lies/facts etc....you know: the bigger the lie the more people will believe it

That surely describes many aspects of the US society today. Throughout history we as a nation have looked for scapegoats. It continues today by saying that inner city people (read as Blacks) have no desire to change the cycle. Gay marriage will lead to the ruin of society as we know it. Some point to Islam and Muslim beliefs as a threat to the security of the US. Not recognizing that it is the fundamentalist beliefs that are most at odds with that security.Much easier to use a broad brush than the detail brush.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Based on the old biblical tradition of a community investing all their troubles in a goat, and then killing or driving away the goat. Nice with curry, I hear. :)

There was a portion of [iJesus Christ Superstar[/i] that mentioned how his Word would have been received in todays world of mass communication. even more poignant given that when the stage show was written, there was no cable TV or internet.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Ah, you mean what Hitler said about the Jews regarding the economy/catastrophy of the day

Or what Hitler's minister of propaganda did?

Is there a difference?

Does it matter whether we hear Bush say something directly, verses topics being discussed by his administration - only as a modern example of course.

[Chip NoVaMac]

You two are showing your age. ;)

We young folks - under the age of 50 - always end our sentences that way.
:D

You are right on that. My boss is suggesting that I take an English course or two since a few of the younger members of the family (it is a family owned business) are questioning some of my copy-writing for advertisements and the such.

Just look at what passes as "OK" on forums in general. The English language changes to the times.

A point of interest, do other languages see the same thing?

[Chip NoVaMac]

Speak for yourself. I'm under 50. Not much, but please, don't hurry me.

Maybe I should have added that I am fast approaching 50 (and can I say proudly?).

[Desertrat]

Chip, I draw a blank on his first name, but a guy named Newman writes on language usage. He's a recognized authority, and is quite entertaining.

Isn't scapegoating--whether deliberate or otherwise--just an erroneous way of attributing causal relationsips?

'Rat

[Chip NoVaMac]

mac, I haven't read the SCOTUS decision. Folks over at The High Road who have say that it's fairly narrow. It affirms that Nevada law is constitutional when it requires that you give your name to police when requested to do so.

SCOTUS did NOT say that one must carry photo ID. That's a state matter.

21 states mandate carrying ID; 29 do not.

Affirming that which as been law for numerous decades does not strike me as cause for "Oh, woe!" as to new police-state efforts. There's plenty enough of that outside this particular case.

'Rat

There are many laws that were written years ago that seemed innocent enough at the time. Given the Patriot Act, some may have gotten a new lease on life.

Some like spitting on the sidewalk are just a sign of when they were written. Others like MAss. law that allows for non-residents not to be married within their state are a hold over of racism and bigotry. So are the laws right or wrong? Given the neo-con movement in the US, it frightening at what may come to haunt us.

[takao]

A point of interest, do other languages see the same thing?

depends... officially german moves extremly slow on the one side (court language) on the other side the german language is assimilating other words with no mercy especially in business (called denglish: nearly mixture from english /german sometimes)

on the other private side some people are speaking a dialect which has more to do with the "alt-hoch-deutsch" of the 15th century (before the "lautverschiebung"="shifting of the vocals") instead the modern lutherian "neu-hochdeutsch" (the officially)....then mix in some english(adopted in the 20th century),french (adopted in the 18th,19th century) etc. the german language was never really homogenous ....
on the one side "police" is still called "gendarmerie" like in the 19th century, on the other side there is a "e-Commerce-Gesetz" (gesetz = law)

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe I should have added that I am fast approaching 50 (and can I say proudly?).

So am I, but as slowly as humanly possible. I'm hoping to creep up on fifty so carefully that it will never notice.

[Desertrat]

Sayhey, I note that in my younger years I was wont to end a sentence with a proposition. Grammatically correct, if not always socially correct...

Chip, while I follow your points about bad law, I'm still hard put to see why there's a problem with telling a cop what my name is.

Since the requirement for carrying ID is a state law in 21 states, it seems to me that one should lobby one's state legislature for removing this requirement. Nobody said it would be easy; it took a lot of work to get handgun carry licensing in 35 states. (Well, 35 plus Vermont's no-license-needed.)

What causes me concern is whatever requirements and penalties might be attached to a National ID Card law. It's hard enough to retrieve some measure of freedom from a state legislature; with Congress, there's no hope.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Since the requirement for carrying ID is a state law in 21 states, it seems to me that one should lobby one's state legislature for removing this requirement. Nobody said it would be easy; it took a lot of work to get handgun carry licensing in 35 states. (Well, 35 plus Vermont's no-license-needed.)

You forget that Alaska doesn't require a license either.

[Neserk]

So am I, but as slowly as humanly possible. I'm hoping to creep up on fifty so carefully that it will never notice.


SPeaking of which. I'm now closer to 35 than 34. I was introduced to a group of future teachers who are just starting out in their program. They couldn't belive I was 34 :eek: I'm wondering when age is going to catch up with me.