This movie shows what the Demoncrats want.

Now you're making absolutely no sense, dark.

Allow me to expand then:

Most Americans have a driver license or state ID card. After 19 Middle Eastern males attacked us on 9/11/01, we had to do something! One of those somethings was HR 1268 (2005), the REAL ID act. It gave (per the 9/11 Commission) the FEDERAL government the power to dictate STATE driver license rules since some of the 19 had obtained a driver license with a fake address (not a fake name). Laws like this are only a problem if you can read and understand things like this:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the 10th Amendment. Federal powers are derived from Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Nothing therein allows the federal government to do what they did, however like many unconstitutional laws, no one has challenged it in court and Americans for the most part gave in and had their personal papers scanned into a state database. The cost to renew licenses went up, as did the cost to the states. HR 1268 was sponsored by career politician and liberty-killer James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin). He also gave us the USA PATRIOT Act. It was passed by a Republican controlled Congress, and signed by a Republican president. It was not a standalone bill, as the sponsor knew that would not fly. It had to be hidden in a defense bill to pass (a common tactic for both D & R). When Mr. GW Bush signed it, he made no mention of it in his signing statement.

Like many laws, this one cannot cure the problem. In 2016, you can still use a passport to get on an airplane, just as 1 of the 19 did. The problem, as reported by the same 9/11 Commission were the incompetent federal border and consular officials that failed to follow their own rules and allowed the 19 into the country. This is all documented in the Commission's report in the terrorist travel section.

Red light cameras operate upon the principle of guilty until proved innocent. That's contrary to US law, however since the violations are non-criminal, that's legal. To be fair, the force behind them has been both D & R since a lot of money is involved, however Republicans have given us their share of these things when you look at blue vs red states.

Like many laws, this one cannot cure the problem. It's an ineffective system for red light runners. All you need to do is look at any camera company YouTube account and you'll see plenty of distracted or drunk drivers running lights after he cameras were in place.

Metadata is personal information collected by the NSA. It's described in Wikipedia as "data that provides information about other data", such as call detail records- where it went, but not the content. Edward Snowden exposed how the NSA has been collecting this data on all Americans regardless of any suspected criminal involvement. This collection came about under expanded powers given under the USA PATRIOT act. It came about in 2002 from the same bunch as above, all Republicans.

Laws like this are only a problem if you can read and understand things like this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

That's the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Then there is indefinite detention of US citizens also in the USA PATRIOT act...

These laws can be summed up in a quote attributed to Ben Franklin:
Those willing to trade liberty for security are deserving of neither.

Democrats have their fair share as well, such as HR 347 that damaged the 1st Amendment as far as the right to protest. Then of course there was mandatory health insurance, the tax that was not a tax (per Mr. Obama) but is only legal since it is a tax (per the Supreme Court).

Bonus questions: Who wrote this law, and do you see any parallel between it and the USA PATRIOT Act (R) and HR 347 (D)?

On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence:
1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Answer: Neither Democrat nor Republican. It is the partial text of the Reichstag Decree that came from Nazi Germany in 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

Does any of this make sense? I'll agree costly and ineffective laws make no sense to me, as does arguing over Democrat vs Republican when the time would be better spent holding BOTH accountable for violating the Constitution. Not going to happen, as we are all too eager to call each other names while the nation declines- to be fair, we're following the example set by the leading presidential candidates in yet another election with what appears to be no viable choice for a good candidate. This arguing is like being upset over having a flat tire while your car is on fire.


Ignoring politics doesn't mean politics will ignore you.
-Pericles paraphrased in <100 characters

reply share

add reply

formatting help