On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:58:37 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:28?am, John H. wrote:


I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.


There would be some practical applications. We have a strident but
influential voice in our community who keeps demanding laws that would
"put landlords in jail who rent to illegal immigrants!" As a landlord,
I can say there a couple of problems with his plan.....first there is
no exiting law that makes it a crime to rent shelter to a person based
on their immigration status and secondly there is no workable way to
sort out who is a legal resident and who is not. The illegals don't
volunteer the fact that they swam across the Rio Grande last week, and
citizens don't routinely carry any document that identifies them as
such. I know for a fact that I will find myself in deep dog doo if I
just summarily begin denying apartments to people simply because they
"look Hispanic". (There are *plenty* of existing laws that address
that!) There are illegal immigrants from Canada, Europe, etc....and
lots of legal Hispanic Americans.


A national ID card would solve your landlord problem. I agree that
landlords should not rent to illegals.


Overall, I'm opposed to to asking people to carry general ID cards.
First you need to carry one, then you need to show it along with your
registration card to vote, then merchants begin demanding it for major
transactions, then pretty soon you need to show it to get on a bus,
cross a state border, buy an aspirin, etc.........

You could use that same rational with birth certificates.

And odd aspect of the discussion, IMO, centers on the fact that so
many people who seem willing to form a militia and rise up against the
FEDGOV before consenting to federal registry of their firearms
apparently have very little difficulty with registering their persons.
You may not be one of those people, JohnH- but I have met a fair
number.

I'm not in that number. The last time I bought a pistol I filled out the
appropriate paperwork. I didn't ask a lot of questions, and didn't mind
doing so. If I use the pistol to commit a crime and get ID'd because of it,
then so be it.

While a federal boater ID card doesn't seem that aggregious, it can be
a first step toward oppressive federal regulation.

So could a birth certificate.

"Going fishing this weekend, John?"

"Naw, dammit. Some government flunky lost my application for a 3-day
navigation permit. *******s cashed my check for the $50 processing
fee, however. Looks like I'll be back on the water for a weekend in
another 45 days, assuming they don't lose the paperwork again."

Wherever that is, I don't want to live there. :-)

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...


One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Gov.Lacks.htm


That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who they
are arresting.

Eisboch

On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:


Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that
is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who
they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?


Who cares? The way things stand now, the guvmint can claim you're a
terrorist and refuse to tell you or anyone else on earth IF you're in
custody, or why.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:39?am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...



One of the challenges is that under existing law, a USCG boarding
officer cannot ask anybody aboard the boat for identification, but
only for documents identifying the boat.

Some additional insight on this issue:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...mber/Gov.Lacks...

That doesn't make sense. The USCG is the only branch of the service that
is
empowered to arrest a civilian. Seems like they would need to know who
they
are arresting.

Eisboch

I'm far from entirely informed on the details of USCG arrest powers
(thank heavens!), but they may be allowed to ask for ID when making an
arrest but not when conducting a boarding.

A failure to identify the person being arrested would be contrary to
the Constitution on an extremely fundamental basis. How could anybody
rely on the right of habeus corpus if the government could factually
claim "We have no idea who we have in custody!"?


I never knew this before until a week or so ago. There was a show on "The
Military Channel" that was doing a feature on each of the armed forces
academies. The CG is the only one that can make an arrest. The Navy can
stop, board and search but if an arrest requirement results, they have to
hold the subjects and call for the CG.

Eisboch

On Oct 31, 12:00?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The closer the election, the more bitter the losers will be and the
greater the propensity to scream "fraud!". It's always regrettable
when the margin of victory for one candidate or another is obviously
less than the amount of normal human error and the couple of percent
skullduggery included in any count of hundreds of thousands of votes.

In my state, the last governor's race was decided by less than 200
votes. The losers are still screaming bloody murder, after turning the
largest "blue" county upside down trying to prove a rigged election.
Fact is, the folks representing the losing candidate are absolutely
right- there undoubtedly were errors made and even some fraudulent
ballots cast in that election- the impossible challenge is to sort out
how many of the errors and fraudulent votes favored which side in the
end? The errors and fraudulent votes go both ways. (one of the things
that came to light during our local protest was that a voter for the
losing candidate actually voted twice- using his recently deceased
wife's absentee ballot for the second vote. His excuse was "she
intended to vote for that candidate, and would have done so had she
lived until the election.")

I absolutely favor honest elections, as well as safe boating. But we
do disagree that a national ID card would do very much to eliminate
fraud and mistakes in the election process or keep criminal terrorists
off the water.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:


Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.


Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:20:13 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:28:00 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
explosives and used to
blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
in several areas).

Snipped

I'm a believer in a national ID card, whether it helps ID boaters or not.
Of course, many who are in favor of illegal immigration are opposed to
same.

Your rationale could easily be applied to boat or vehicle registration or
birth certificates.

Europeans don't leave home without their national ID. We should be doing
the same.

Wouldn't it be more prudent and cost effective to have chips implanted
at birth? No more lost children or adults, in case of emergency you
could be immediately located and identified, and the government would
know where you are at any given time. No more terrorism!

It would be even more prudent to completely do away with any form of ID? No
birth certificate, no diplomas, no paperwork of any kind which identifies a
person. You say you're Gene, I say I'm Gene, and no one can tell the
difference, except maybe your mom. But, that would assume she was given the
right child at the hospital, where no form of ID was used. Interesting.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:22:20 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Oct 31, 12:00?pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:39:08 -0700, Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:11?am, John H. wrote:

Or...nope, I didn't have my birth certificate. Your arguments lean toward
the absurd. They seem to support the 'no ID' philosophy which allows anyone
to vote, whether a citizen or not. I don't buy it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since there is no such thing as a "federal election," (citizens do not
directly elect any federal officials- except Senators and
Representatives from their individual states) there is no need for a
federal voter ID.

The smaller the government, the less of a threat it becomes to the
governed.Let the individual states take responsibiity for identifying
residents and issuing licenses for franchise and privileges. If State
X, for example, registeres everybody who can fog a mirror to vote the
solution is to tighten up procedures in that individual state- not
mandate a huge federal ID program. IMO.

Well, we differ in opinions. Wonder why there was so much vote recounting
in Florida? Just stupidity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The closer the election, the more bitter the losers will be and the
greater the propensity to scream "fraud!". It's always regrettable
when the margin of victory for one candidate or another is obviously
less than the amount of normal human error and the couple of percent
skullduggery included in any count of hundreds of thousands of votes.

In my state, the last governor's race was decided by less than 200
votes. The losers are still screaming bloody murder, after turning the
largest "blue" county upside down trying to prove a rigged election.
Fact is, the folks representing the losing candidate are absolutely
right- there undoubtedly were errors made and even some fraudulent
ballots cast in that election- the impossible challenge is to sort out
how many of the errors and fraudulent votes favored which side in the
end? The errors and fraudulent votes go both ways. (one of the things
that came to light during our local protest was that a voter for the
losing candidate actually voted twice- using his recently deceased
wife's absentee ballot for the second vote. His excuse was "she
intended to vote for that candidate, and would have done so had she
lived until the election.")

I absolutely favor honest elections, as well as safe boating. But we
do disagree that a national ID card would do very much to eliminate
fraud and mistakes in the election process or keep criminal terrorists
off the water.

But, you do agree that the number of individual votes has some bearing.
That's a start.

A national ID, if properly done, would be much more effective than *no* ID
at eliminating fraud and mistakes. If you disagree with that, then there's
no point in further discussion.