Constitutionally correct?

[bwalker42]

This thread is to discuss the Constitutional correctness of our leaders, and laws.

To start...

The paperless warrant, Constitutionally correct? or No.

[chrisncate]

I want to know where in the constitution it states that I am to be enrolled in, and part of, a credit system by virtue of simply being born. I'd also like to know where in the constitution it states I have to have ID, a SS card, etc in order to be "legal".

Ever notice how you aren't ever taught in school about credit rating agencies? Why are they allowed to have every bit of info on you, and even withhold your own info from you? If you can't opt out of a credit system, then you are mandated to participate - which brings us back to the constitutional question about credit participation in the first place.

There are a million more questions like these that no one ever seems to ask.

[BentSailor]

The whole ID card thing is an interesting one I've been reading into. We have compulsory voting over here, so they make the process as easy as possible. It looks, from an outsiders point of view, that the "land of democracy" is trying pretty hard to prevent people from voting.

If you want to an an interesting one, how about the practice of Presidents adding their impressions of the law when signing them into existence, stating how they can/will be enforced - regardless of whether or not that interpretation is at odds with the legislation in question. Again, from an outsiders point of view, Bush's added touches (and explicit non-enforcement) of the torture bill was flat out crazy. If you don't agree with it, use the veto as is allowed by the President. If you're signing it into law though, you don't get to override the explicit wording & spirit of the legislation.

[pdqaltair]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

The whole ID card thing is an interesting one I've been reading into. We have compulsory voting over here, so they make the process as easy as possible. It looks, from an outsiders point of view, that the "land of democracy" is trying pretty hard to prevent people from voting.

If you want to an an interesting one, how about the practice of Presidents adding their impressions of the law when signing them into existence, stating how they can/will be enforced - regardless of whether or not that interpretation is at odds with the legislation in question. Again, from an outsiders point of view, Bush's added touches (and explicit non-enforcement) of the torture bill was flat out crazy. If you don't agree with it, use the veto as is allowed by the President. If you're signing it into law though, you don't get to override the explicit wording & spirit of the legislation.

... has legal meaning in the Commonwealth? The first time I saw a letter state that a certain bit of Canadian legislations was "an offense to the crown" I nearly coughed up a lung. And then I realized that the system worked and made sense.

Everyone who touches a law makes notes (the Constitutional Convention notes, Presidencial notes, agency preamble upon Federal Register publication, court decisions) and these notes are accorded differing wieght, according to the nature of the challenge. It's understandably confusing, particularly to a Washington outsider. Maintaining checks and balances in a very large country full of naturally confrontatioal people is a wearysome process.

Yes, everyone in the Executive branch (President and agencies) has the right to make comments and interpretations. In general, laws are very short on specifics and it is the task of the Executive Branch to fill in the details and exicute the plan. Whether the courts up hold those interpretations and actions is another matter. Very frequently, the court does not agree.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by chrisncate

I want to know where in the constitution it states that I am to be enrolled in, and part of, a credit system by virtue of simply being born.

I'd also like to know where in the constitution it states I have to have ID, a SS card, etc in order to be "legal".

You have been misinformed. Your right to privacy does not include a right to appear not to exist. If you never apply for or get a loan, you won't have to participate. Banks have rights to. the right to verify if you have or have not had a loan in the past and weather you paid it.

You are misinformed again. Your citizenship exists or it does not. The paperwork is simply a means to quickly verify your status. Unfortunately, your rights as a citizen matter less and less anyway.

So, how to you feel about being compelled to buy health insurance??

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by chrisncate

Why are they allowed to have every bit of info on you, and even withhold your own info from you? If you can't opt out of a credit system, then you are mandated to participate - which brings us back to the constitutional question about credit participation in the first place.

We consent to that when we open an account with a financial institution. There's nothing wrong with private corporations setting terms for the trade they enter into, nothing wrong with all participants of a field setting the same terms (you could even argue that if all banks require credit report participation, that there's an excellent reason for it. And there is, right?)

BTW, if you contact the three credit corporations you can shut down access to your credit reports. You have to renew every couple of years, but as long as you're current no one will be allowed to look at that info without your OK -- except for law enforcement. (ID protecting agencies use this law to take your info off access sites.)

There are a million more questions like these that no one ever seems to ask.

So you're OK with taking people's property from them for whatever purposes the majority wishes, less OK with that same majority setting such standards. Why the dichotomy?

You have to understand that the same fuzzy reality think that makes it OK to redistribute by force is the same fuzzy reality think that empowers all violations of your sanctity. If you look at the history of ideas and how they play out in cultures, you see that all forms of totalitarianism rely on the idea that there's no way individuals can be [contextually] certain of anything.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

The whole ID card thing is an interesting one I've been reading into. We have compulsory voting over here, so they make the process as easy as possible. It looks, from an outsiders point of view, that the "land of democracy" is trying pretty hard to prevent people from voting.

Have you looked into Voter Registration here? There's nothing to it. And when anyone has dared to try to introduce some accountability to the system, he's been torn to shreds.

[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

You are misinformed again. Your citizenship exists or it does not. The paperwork is simply a means to quickly verify your status. Unfortunately, your rights as a citizen matter less and less anyway.

So, how to you feel about being compelled to buy health insurance??

Yep. It makes sense for government to mandate the modicum of paperwork needed for officials who need to know, to be able to know who you are and what your status is (should we do away with passports, too?)

The SS thing gets out of control because (i) , government has become more and more intrusive, (ii), the private sector hasn't come up with an ID system of its own (I bet there are laws against it, or challenges just waiting to be made should industry decide to enact one.)

NYC restaurants now share info on customers who misbehave. Dealing with the public is getting harder and harder. This misconduct affects their business, so these entrepreneurs got together and organized a system that allows them to modify reservations and seating policies, person by person. They'll even turn customers away, if the customer's file crosses a certain line. There's nothing illegal about it. It's a sad commentary on our rank-obsessed, any conduct is acceptable culture, but there's nothing immoral about it.

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

You have been misinformed. Your right to privacy does not include a right to appear not to exist. If you never apply for or get a loan, you won't have to participate. Banks have rights to. the right to verify if you have or have not had a loan in the past and weather you paid it.

You are misinformed again. Your citizenship exists or it does not. The paperwork is simply a means to quickly verify your status. Unfortunately, your rights as a citizen matter less and less anyway.

So, how to you feel about being compelled to buy health insurance??

I read a story years ago wherein a very smart man said our society was now so complex that it was impossible to "hide" or remain anonymous. His solution was to swamp the system with paper and complexity about yourself. Open hundreds of bank accounts, dozens of cards, go to a different doctor each time etc. His theory was that if you made your paper trail so convoluted that YOU couldn't keep track of it, no-one else could figure it out.

Wonder if it could work?

[chrisncate]

Originally Posted by WouldaShoulda

You have been misinformed. Your right to privacy does not include a right to appear not to exist. If you never apply for or get a loan, you won't have to participate. Banks have rights to. the right to verify if you have or have not had a loan in the past and weather you paid it.

You are misinformed again. Your citizenship exists or it does not. The paperwork is simply a means to quickly verify your status. Unfortunately, your rights as a citizen matter less and less anyway.

So, how to you feel about being compelled to buy health insurance??

You are the misinformed one it appears.

You cannot legally "exist" in America without -

1- a SS number.
2- ID (to be carried on you at all times)
3- Being mandated to participate by virtue of birth, in a credit scoring system that you have no option to opt out of. You have a credit score whether you ever take a loan or not.

NONE of the above are in the constitution anywhere, yet you are mandated to participate and/or be issued a number. This cannot be disputed.

And yes, I completely disagree with any health care mandate that dictates that I buy insurance.