Lawfully Speaking" Vol. III, Issue No. 5
A Periodic Internet Political Column
Written by William H. Huff
supreme* Court Justice Antonin Scalia must think he is living in a Democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic with a written Constitution. He apparently thinks we need a Constitutional Amendment to stop a National ID Card when it would in fact require an Amendment to create one, since the jurisdiction for a truly universal National ID card would overleap the bounds of federal jurisdiction.
Jefferson and Madison stand to say: "Dear Mr. Scalia, The argument that 'if the Constitution doesn't say we can't do it, we can' is a violation of your Oath on its face. You know better!" Any child who reads the Ratification Documents of the States can discount such nonsense out-of-hand. And yes, children can read those documents if they are not already dumbed down by government-controlled Outcome-Based Education.
Citizens think they are required to apply for, have, and use Social Security cards. Yet even the Social Security Administration, that Hallowed Hall of Socialism in the United States, will freely and consistently admit there is no such requirement under the written laws of the United States. Citizens within the 50 States of the Union are not lawfully required to apply for, have, or use Social Security Numbers. If you don't believe it, call the Social Security Administration and they will tell you. But beware, if you want to hear the best lies about certain tax liabilities you can get a more convoluted line from someone who can't read the tax Code over at the IRS.
To be even more of a purist I should inform the learned justice that he himself has taken an Oath to the Constitution and he is being less than faithful to it when he fails to point out the folly of something so Draconian as a National ID Card.
Truly we have worse problems than Anthrax when justices of the supreme Court do not take a solid stand in favor of our rights and original liberties.
In the Associate Press [Thursday Nov. 15 - speaking at the University of Michigan] Justice Antonin Scalia was quoted as having said that the Fourth Amendment doesn't mention a national ID card. He also said "If you think it's a bad idea to have an identity card, persuade your fellow citizens' through the amendment process, rather than asking courts to make policy."
Let's read the Amendment together, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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."
I would ask every American citizen who has the ability to read and think: What part of that Amendment does justice Scalia fail to understand? It is a prohibition against the Federal Government. It contains absolutely no permission to do anything other than lawfully investigate actual crimes wherein there is "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be siezed."
Dear Mr. Scalia, Forgive me but I cannot find the part that says "Notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment a Universal National ID card overleaping all previous federal jurisdiction should be no problem at all." Perhaps you were referring to the old Soviet Constitution?
A few short years ago we scoffed at the Soviets and East Germans for allowing the same kind of surveillance our people are now being deluded into thinking is 'for their own good.'
Jefferson said the "Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance." He was speaking about 'us' watching 'them' not the other way around. Interestingly, when we stop watching 'them' we inevitably get a 'them' that watches us.
* The term 'supreme Court' consistently appears in the Constitution with a lower case 's'. For more on the supreme Court