I get really tired of hearing people say that they don't mind giving up a few of their rights in order to have a better U.S. of A. They seemingly feel that losing a couple of those pesky rights that they don't happen to be using right now is just fine regardless of how much they may need them in the future.
Make no mistake, I'm not talking about those rights that people pretend they were granted via the Constitution and its respective amendments but rights like protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and the right to habeas corpus. I could go on and on about how the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individuals the right to own guns, how the citizens of this country have no right to any kind of educational guaranty, and how, at least at this point, we have no right to affordable health care. But... That's not what this post is about.
So.... What IS it about?
{Update #1.... Sorry, I have to interrupt this regularly scheduled blog post for a clarification for Larry... [sigh]... The point of the above paragraph is that I hate when people make claims about supposed rights vs. their real rights. The rest of this post is in no way supposed to make claims that we have the RIGHT to drive or to posses a license to drive. I may have left the impression that I see this as a right which I do not... Now back to your regularly scheduled blog post.}
It's about my wife.
More specifically, it's about her quest to renew her driver's license. How does that fit into the above arguments about Constitutional rights and the willingness of some to freely give them? Simply, it's all about the requirements to prove that I am who I am even though I haven't broken any laws, faked any names, and have lots of government documents that someone somewhere have locked away with seals and signatures that make them legal.
Here's the issue.
My wife, God bless her soul, has been married to me, amazingly, for 15 years, 1 month, 3 days (as of this writing) and somewhere in Jefferson City, Missouri, the document that proves this fact is stored in a filing cabinet. There's also a copy somewhere in some Catholic Church office that I suppose will be used someday to prove to God that we were married in his name. There's also a copy locked in a safe either somewhere in my house or in the Educational Community Credit Union (I haven't had time to check which).
In some other office in Jeff City there's a copy of a Birth Certificate that proves that my wife was borne into this world some 8 months after I was. There's a copy somewhere in the county offices in St. Louis that proves she was born in whatever county St. Louis is in. There's also a copy, probably in some different Catholic Church office, that proves that she was born and later baptized as a member of the Catholic Church. There's also a copy of the certificate in the same safe as that marriage license I just mentioned.
The problems is that in order to get a new driver's license, my wife not only has to prove that she is who she is, she also has to prove that she isn't who she was anymore. She has to prove that she was born one person, but since she is no longer that person, since she got a wild hair one day and said yes to my marriage proposal, she is now someone completely different. At least on paper.
All this for someone who has been recognized by not only the state of Missouri, but also the good ole' U.S. of A., for the past 30+ (++) years without the rise of any question. Now, however, the state's own past isn't good enough. They will require not only her current driver's license as proof of her identity, they also want her birth certificate to prove she really was born and they want our marriage license to prove that her current name is legally her new name. And the proof all falls upon her shoulders.
Its too bad that all those licenses and certificates, the marriage one, the birth certificate, the current driver's license are REQUIRED by the state in the first place. Not to mention the Social Security card that can't be laminated but is required by the feds in order to get paid. Its too bad that all this information is stored electronically and could be pulled in seconds if someone just put a little effort into linking them together. Its also too bad that none of the paper versions of these files have picture ID's that would prove that the person listed on them actually refer to the person presenting them to the DOT employee.
Nope, none of that matters. All that matters is that we have the appearance of SECURITY in this country when we make people do lots of things that mean nothing but take lots of time. And when I say lots of time, I really could mean lots of time.
Consider this... If a woman get married and sadly is widowed (divorced, marriage annulled, etc.). She then married again and then her license is up for renewal. This woman not only needs her birth certificate and current marriage license, she will also need her first marriage certificate to prove her first name change and the death certificate of her late husband (or divorce or annulment decree) to prove that she could legally get married again (or to explain why she changed back to her maiden name).
WTF?
What has happened to outrage in this country?
What kind of country are we becoming when we must present "papers" to officials in order to prove we are who we claim we are? (And yes, read into that whatever you wish). "Papers" are now required to prove you are who you are, even though the presence of said papers don't prove anything. No picture on that SSN card or on that Birth Certificate or on that Marriage license that they could match to. No finger prints from Birth Certificates from the 1960s that could possibly be used to match to my current prints. No "proof" except that "papers" make some people feel better. And if they feel better, they must be safer...
So, last night I got out the fire safe and, lo and behold, there was our Marriage License and Sandra's Birth Certificate along with the ones for the kids. Mine, however, was missing and I'll probably need it next year when I have to renew my license. We will dutifully take the papers down to the DOT to get her license renewed since the license is a legal requirement to drive in this state and we can't get by without it.
But I won't like it! And I'll remember it when I have to vote in 2008. I'll find someone who can get this country back to being "free" (whatever that means) and intends to figure out a way to make the government stop requiring me to jump through hoops to give others a sense of security.
After all, we do live in a FREE country... don't we?
Technorati Tags: Papers Please, driver's license, rant
Make no mistake, I'm not talking about those rights that people pretend they were granted via the Constitution and its respective amendments but rights like protection from illegal search and seizure, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances and the right to habeas corpus. I could go on and on about how the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant individuals the right to own guns, how the citizens of this country have no right to any kind of educational guaranty, and how, at least at this point, we have no right to affordable health care. But... That's not what this post is about.
So.... What IS it about?
{Update #1.... Sorry, I have to interrupt this regularly scheduled blog post for a clarification for Larry... [sigh]... The point of the above paragraph is that I hate when people make claims about supposed rights vs. their real rights. The rest of this post is in no way supposed to make claims that we have the RIGHT to drive or to posses a license to drive. I may have left the impression that I see this as a right which I do not... Now back to your regularly scheduled blog post.}
It's about my wife.
More specifically, it's about her quest to renew her driver's license. How does that fit into the above arguments about Constitutional rights and the willingness of some to freely give them? Simply, it's all about the requirements to prove that I am who I am even though I haven't broken any laws, faked any names, and have lots of government documents that someone somewhere have locked away with seals and signatures that make them legal.
Here's the issue.
My wife, God bless her soul, has been married to me, amazingly, for 15 years, 1 month, 3 days (as of this writing) and somewhere in Jefferson City, Missouri, the document that proves this fact is stored in a filing cabinet. There's also a copy somewhere in some Catholic Church office that I suppose will be used someday to prove to God that we were married in his name. There's also a copy locked in a safe either somewhere in my house or in the Educational Community Credit Union (I haven't had time to check which).
In some other office in Jeff City there's a copy of a Birth Certificate that proves that my wife was borne into this world some 8 months after I was. There's a copy somewhere in the county offices in St. Louis that proves she was born in whatever county St. Louis is in. There's also a copy, probably in some different Catholic Church office, that proves that she was born and later baptized as a member of the Catholic Church. There's also a copy of the certificate in the same safe as that marriage license I just mentioned.
The problems is that in order to get a new driver's license, my wife not only has to prove that she is who she is, she also has to prove that she isn't who she was anymore. She has to prove that she was born one person, but since she is no longer that person, since she got a wild hair one day and said yes to my marriage proposal, she is now someone completely different. At least on paper.
All this for someone who has been recognized by not only the state of Missouri, but also the good ole' U.S. of A., for the past 30+ (++) years without the rise of any question. Now, however, the state's own past isn't good enough. They will require not only her current driver's license as proof of her identity, they also want her birth certificate to prove she really was born and they want our marriage license to prove that her current name is legally her new name. And the proof all falls upon her shoulders.
Its too bad that all those licenses and certificates, the marriage one, the birth certificate, the current driver's license are REQUIRED by the state in the first place. Not to mention the Social Security card that can't be laminated but is required by the feds in order to get paid. Its too bad that all this information is stored electronically and could be pulled in seconds if someone just put a little effort into linking them together. Its also too bad that none of the paper versions of these files have picture ID's that would prove that the person listed on them actually refer to the person presenting them to the DOT employee.
Nope, none of that matters. All that matters is that we have the appearance of SECURITY in this country when we make people do lots of things that mean nothing but take lots of time. And when I say lots of time, I really could mean lots of time.
Consider this... If a woman get married and sadly is widowed (divorced, marriage annulled, etc.). She then married again and then her license is up for renewal. This woman not only needs her birth certificate and current marriage license, she will also need her first marriage certificate to prove her first name change and the death certificate of her late husband (or divorce or annulment decree) to prove that she could legally get married again (or to explain why she changed back to her maiden name).
WTF?
What has happened to outrage in this country?
What kind of country are we becoming when we must present "papers" to officials in order to prove we are who we claim we are? (And yes, read into that whatever you wish). "Papers" are now required to prove you are who you are, even though the presence of said papers don't prove anything. No picture on that SSN card or on that Birth Certificate or on that Marriage license that they could match to. No finger prints from Birth Certificates from the 1960s that could possibly be used to match to my current prints. No "proof" except that "papers" make some people feel better. And if they feel better, they must be safer...
So, last night I got out the fire safe and, lo and behold, there was our Marriage License and Sandra's Birth Certificate along with the ones for the kids. Mine, however, was missing and I'll probably need it next year when I have to renew my license. We will dutifully take the papers down to the DOT to get her license renewed since the license is a legal requirement to drive in this state and we can't get by without it.
But I won't like it! And I'll remember it when I have to vote in 2008. I'll find someone who can get this country back to being "free" (whatever that means) and intends to figure out a way to make the government stop requiring me to jump through hoops to give others a sense of security.
After all, we do live in a FREE country... don't we?
Technorati Tags: Papers Please, driver's license, rant
powered by performancing firefox
Comments
This is a legal document to prove who you are and to allow you to drive. The state is issuing you an official document and you expect them to take your word for who you say you are? I have to prove who I am when I write a check at the grocery store or when I want to buy a gun (yes owning a gun is a right you wacko).
Yes it would be nice if it was all electronic and if it was easy. It would be great if the SSN cards had your picture but they do not currently have it. Yes this system is a hassle and a pain. It is the current system that is geared to stop people from getting official state ID's when they do not qualify.
You started off talking about rights but there is also no right to a driver's license. It is a privilege that many people have taken away. Why not turn your anger that the state makes you get a license to drive and does not just let everyone drive no matter what?
I don't know where you got the idea that I was talking about a right to drive... never said there was one. That was actually my point at the beginning that I hate when people discuss "fake" rights.
The driver's license that I originally got when I was 16 required me to bring in proof of my identity. A SSN card signed by me was enough then and the fact that the state only needed my previous license as proof of my identity since it does have my picture WAS ALWAYS ENOUGH.
And that right to own a gun... you know as well as I do that the Constitution only guarantees the right to bear arms to the states for a well armed militia not to the individual citizen. You should read that 2nd Amendment in full sometime, nutcase!
And I didn't once say that everyone should be given the right to drive. People who can't handle the vehicle, can't handle keeping alcohol out of their systems, and unfortunately a lot of older Americans shouldn't be driving. That's what the license is about. Can you drive appropriately and have you been trained to do so?
My problem is the false sense of security the current state and federal governments give people by making them jump through hoops when it is completely unnecessary.
Oh and by the way... to get a gun, they currently do an electronic records search for past criminal records. Gee, they got that one a bit closer to correct.
"The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ('Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble'); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of 'the people,' he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth)."
What was the title of this post????
We do live in a FREE country... don't we?
This implies that some sort of freedom or right is being violated. You then rant about other rights and so called faux rights. If you are not intending for us to connect your rant about rights with the hassle that your wife is receiving in proving her identity to re-new her license, then what is your real point and why lead with a rant about rights. I don't think there is a right not to be hassled when going to get your licensed renew or they would have shut down the DMV a long time ago.
Has this law kept some people from getting a MO Driver's License that should not have one? Has it prevented terrorists from entering this country and getting convenient MO Driver’s License? We may never know.
Who determines what hoops are necessary for us to jump through? This time it was the State Legislator that determined it was necessary. These legislators were elected by us the people. I am not stating that this is a wonderful law that is completely protecting us but I would not compare it with eroding rights that we have seen with the Warrant-less wiretapping.
First, just because a Chief Justice says they believe something is true doesn't make it so. The entire Supreme Court would have to make that decision. Renquist was also very conservative in his interpretation of laws, a view that tends to side with groups like the NRA that seem to forget what the 2nd Amendment fully says. I also believe that the end of your quote says quite a bit about Mr. Renquist. The belief that just because you aren't a citizen of the US, we don't have to provide to you the same protections if WE (whomever that is) decide that you don't have a sufficient connection to the community smacks of ????.
Second, living in a FREE country doesn't have anything to do with the Freedoms granted to us, and summarily taken away by our current administration. It has everything to do with a person's ability to enjoy the Pursuit of Happiness. From the way I read your comments, we should soon be prepared to have to carry identification papers to prove we are who we are at any moment to any "official" that asks for them. Sounds scarily like Nazi Germany if you ask me. People lived in fear that if they didn't have the correct papers, or were caught without them, they would be jailed, or worse.
When does it become too much? When do we stand up and say, "No More!"? What has to happen for you to finally say that I've given up enough of both my freedom and my Freedoms? There is a difference between the two. Why is it that when they take away the right to personal privacy as granted by the blocking of illegal search and seizure we all say, "Its for the safety of the country" but when someone suggests that we take away the right to bear arms we say, "When they pry it from my cold, dead hands"?
And finally, I'm not comparing the hoops Sandra jumped through to get a license to Wire-tapping or Financial scans. But I will say that I didn't elect the local representatives. I voted for the other guys and probably will continue to do so as long as the current ones make dumb-ass laws like this one.
I now have a completely new understanding of freedom. It has nothing to do with my rights but only has to do with the pursuit of happiness. Thanks for bringing a new definition to us. So the people that have no issue with giving up their rights as long as they are still pursuing happiness are not having their freedoms taken away at all. Interesting!
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" Apparently, it is not only the opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist but the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue over and over again. Darn Supreme Court. They have ruled that the type of guns can be limited but over and over again that we have the rights as individuals to bear arms.
So you decided to go nuclear and bring out the Nazi reference. You are comparing getting a driver license hassle to the being force to show ID to prove that you are not a Jew in Nazi Germany. Wow. It takes balls to make that reference. Does the DMV haul you off to death camps if you forgot your paperwork? If so then I will be outraged also.
Finally, it does not matter if you voted for them or not. This is the law that was passed. You do not get to pick and chose laws based on if you voted for the legislators or not. That is not how it works. If you do not like the law they passed, then work at getting it repealed. I am sure that if you will just call them Nazis to their face, they will be glad to listen to you and then change the law.
(LOL- This has been a fun discussion)
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/stephens/stephens.html
Here are some exerts:
“Enough has been said, without dwelling longer upon this point, to show, without the possibility of a doubt, that the act does affect others, and large classes of others than spies, traitors, bridge burners and disloyal persons--that the very gist of the act, whatever may have been the intent or the motive, will operate most wrongfully and oppressive on as loyal, as patriotic, and as true men as ever inherited a freeman's birthright under a Southern sky. You have also seen that there is and can be no necessity for the passage of such an act, even if it were constitutional, in the case of spies, traitors or conspirators. For, if there be a traitor in the Confederacy--if such a monster exists--if any well grounded suspicion is entertained that any such exists, why not have him legally arrested by judicial warrant upon oath or affirmation, setting forth probable cause, and then he can be held under a constitutional suspension of the privileges of the writ--he can be tried, and, if found guilty, punished. What more can the public safety by possibility require?”
“I warn you against that most insidious enemy which approaches with her syren song--"Independence first and liberty afterwards." It is a false delusion. Liberty is the animating spirit, the soul of our system of government, and like the soul of man, when once lost, it is lost forever. There is for it no redemption except through blood. Never for a moment permit yourselves to look upon liberty, that constitutional liberty which you inherited as a birthright, as subordinate to independence. The one was resorted to save the other . . . Let them stand together "through weal and through woe," and, if such be our fate, let them and us all go down together in a common ruin. Without liberty I would not turn upon my heel for independence. I scorn all independence which does not secure liberty. I warn you also against another fatal delusion, commonly dressed up in the fascinating language of "If we are to have a master, who would not perfer to have a Southern one to a Northern one?" . . . I would not turn upon my heel to choose between masters. I was not born to have a master from either the North or South. I shall never choose between candidates for that office. Shall never degrade the right of suffrage in such an election. I have no wish or desire to live after the degradation of my country, and have no intention to survive its liberties, if life be the necessary sacrifice of their maintenance to the utmost of my ability, to the bitter end.”
Note: Despite his vow to go down with his country, this fellow got to live 20 years past the demise of the Confederacy. Still, he got his wish he didn't have to choose his master, Sherman and Grant made the choice for him.