Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:50:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Absent of being suspected of a specific crime there is no constitutional
> requirement to say who in particular you are if you are in a public place.
> Certainly private property owners can impose whatever restrictions on their
> property use they wish, including the presentment of satisfactory ID, but
> public property is not private, and the government can impose no such and
> still remain constitutional.
Is it, therefore, unconstitutional that the government require ID checks
prior to allowing admission into CDC labs, for instance? These are
government property, ie: public property, are they not?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) To answer this question you first have to answer two related and subordinate questions: Is the function that this facility carries out itself constitutional? If not, then requiring ID or not is a moot question since the facility SHOULD be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Right to privacy. Right against unreasonable search and seizure.... Absent of being suspected of a specific crime there is no constitutional requirement to say who in particular you are if you are in a public place. Certainly private property (...) (25 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
