Microchip prohibited persons

[berettaprofessor]

It would be a gross violation of a persons inalienable rights. It's what NAZI Germany would have done if the technology was available at the time; instead, they used tattoos. Felons are humans and as such, they will continue to have some rights until they are no longer alive. With government over-reach, anyone could be legislated into a defacto felon. Just being born Jewish made a person a defacto felon in NAZI Germany. We have the Constitution that is supposed to help prevent government over-reach. But things that are legal today, could become felonious tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The law is supposed to be a servant of the good and a punisher of the evil. And yet, at times, it has been just the opposite, even in America. Let's not be so naive as to confuse legal versus illegal, with right versus wrong.

I thought reposting what Pathfinder said was worthwhile. Because he's completely ethically and legally correct. Criminals are not the same as cattle. They have rights to their bodies. I'm about as pro-law enforcement as anyone, but microchipping anyone against their will is not law enforcement...it's subjugation.

[44 AMP]

Mark of the Beast, Scarlet Letter, a Yellow Star, or a pink triangle or a Konzentrationslager Nummer when a government forces people to wear, be tattooed or chipped, its just WRONG!

Conspiracy "theorists" have been saying that our babies have been "chipped" at the hospital (without our knowledge) when born, for decades now, pretty much since the chip was invented. they say the chips aren't being used YET, but they WILL be...

Most people think they are wackjobs...and they probably are, but what if....???

Some people fight like hell against immunizations....don't see them lining up to be chipped, either...

Convicted felons lose the lawful ability to exercise CERTAIN SPECIFIC rights, as defined in law. ONLY those rights defined in law. I'm fairly sure chipping them against their will would be a violation of some laws.

How is this different from an ankle bracelet monitor? for one thing, after the required legal restrictions end, the bracelet comes off. Would removing the chip be a (minor?) surgical procedure? would it be left in place and just "turned off" somehow? and if they did that, how would you know they actually did? things like that, and medical privacy laws make it seem like a really bad idea, at this point in our society's history.

This might change in the future, might be everyone wants and gets "implants" and the laws are changed to reflect this. Until then, I would say its a non-starter for a LOT of reasons.

[Dfariswheel]

There would be a number of Constitutional challenges even if it ever got to that point.

The 4th Amendment would prevent what amounts to an un-Constitutional search or seizure, the 5th Amendment on self-incrimination, (the Supreme Court long ago ruled that a criminal can't be prosecuted for failing to register an illegal gun) the 8th amendment on cruel and unusual punishment, and no doubt others can be strongly argued.

It may be Constitutional to REMOVE something like blood from a drunk driving suspect, but putting something IN ain't gonna fly.
At least not until the Progressive Left do a lot more preparation of the citizens.

[jag2]

I think everyone pretty well nailed it, that no invasive system would ever fly for numerous reasons. Probably many more that haven't even been mentioned. That being said, facial rec sounds interesting. Between driver licenses and other various ids they've got most everyone somewhere, as someone else mentioned you just need to create the data base. Since most everyone has a smart phone you know what they say, "there's an app for that" and sure it may not be perfect but neither is the current system, or any government program for that matter.

[NoSecondBest]

The OP would make Hitler proud. Why tattoo when you can chip? The fact that this has even been suggested I find disturbing.

[shurshot]

Remember, once they start microchipping Felons in the name of "Public safety", then the next step is those who have committed misdemeanors and traffic violations. And those who enforce the law may end up microchipped as well, under the guise of "Officer safety". Welfare recipients, retirees, Alzheimer's patients, school children, gun owners, fisherman, employees, ALL will eventually be chipped, in the name of "Public" or "Personal" safety... get my point? It's a slippery slope I have ZERO interest in watching happen in the USA. Look what's happening in China with AI and facial recognition technology, social scoring, etc. Not good. Microchips for felons? No thanks. It's just wrong.

As it stands, Parolees and Probationer's report to their Probation Officers, who have their photos, tattoos, personal information on file and verify their employment, attendance at counseling, search their cell phones and apartments, monitor social media / contacts and screen them for drugs. Social security numbers, contacts, medical history, etc are ALL on file. The State even begins gathering and compiling all this data on children who are charged with minor offenses, often as young as 11 or 12. Cradle to grave, the Government is ALREADY tracking people with criminal offenses, often minor crimes from decades ago and others who are only suspected... microchips are not required. One would be shocked just how much information the State databases already hold on people. Ever buy a hunting or fishing license? Have a drivers license? File a tax return? Buy a car? Cross reference with a credit Buero report, social media profile, your online history, IP address etc. and there is ZERO need to microchip the population. They already have you figured out. Going truly "Off Grid" is just an illusion. Those days are long gone, for Felons or anyone.

[Onward Allusion]

Chip, eh? Oh hell, why don't we just brand a big "X" on their foreheads? A couple of you guys make me glad I have guns.

[Hal]

Deja vu all over again......

This topic tends to remind me of the fact that I was forced into having to pee in a jar to keep my job.....not once, but twice.

Folks - the .gov can and will do whatever the hell they want to do & if you go against them, be ready to pay a stiff price.

[dogtown tom]

Hal .....Folks - the .gov can and will do whatever the hell they want to do & if you go against them, be ready to pay a stiff price.

Nonsense.

[44 AMP]

the .gov can and will do whatever the hell they want to do & if you go against them, be ready to pay a stiff price.

I think its a bit extreme, but its not complete nonsense.

Anytime you oppose the acts of the powers that be, there is a cost. It should be only time, and usually is money, but there's always a cost.

In some pretty rare cases, the cost can be blood, but we usually call those "revolutions".

The "Soapbox" first, always (and this includes legal challenges in courts), and the Ballot Box to closely follow. The Cartridge Box should always be the last resort, used only in gravest extreme.

[Dennis]

The original question was "Would there be any Constitutional issues if felons, etc were microchipped?"
I immediately pondered... That's one short step from the current assignment of SSANs before "baby" leaves the hospital.

[Hal]

Nonsense

Really?
The old saying "You can't fight city hall" became an old saying for a very good reason.

You can keep trying to convince yourself that it's nonsense - right up to the point where they herd you into the showers and turn on the gas.

Dennis - nice to see you posting!

[dogtown tom]

Hal

Really?
The old saying "You can't fight city hall" became an old saying for a very good reason.

Yes, NONSENSE. And you can fight city hall. Happens.Every.Day.
If you are unaware of your civil rights, repeat Jr HS.
"Government" can't do "anything they want", they have to abide by the Constitution, Federal law and the judiciary. Ever heard of "due process"? You should have.

That doesn't mean every government action is okey dokey. A police officer might pull you over without cause and perform an illegal search of your car or person.....that's clearly illegal and protected under the Constitution. If you contest the illegal search the courts (also the government) may find in your favor and the officer may lose his job. Thats why police officers are darn careful before initiating a traffic stop and beginning a search of the car or persons inside.

You can keep trying to convince yourself that it's nonsense - right up to the point where they herd you into the showers and turn on the gas.

What a load of malarkey.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.

[dogtown tom]

Dennis The original question was "Would there be any Constitutional issues if felons, etc were microchipped?"
I immediately pondered... That's one short step from the current assignment of SSANs before "baby" leaves the hospital.

Unbelievable.

[44 AMP]

Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.

Small point of history, Germany WAS a democracy, and the Nazi were voted into power. After they were ELECTED, they used the power granted them in the democratic government to change the government so that they, and only they were in complete control.

A democracy CAN become totalitarian, without an armed revolution. Our system of checks and balances makes that difficult, but not, unfortunately, totally impossible.

What most people forget is that the first country the Nazi's conquered was their own.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I don't think there would be constitutional issues for doing something like that to felons as there are pretty solid precedents for restricting the rights and privacy of persons convicted of certain types of crimes.

I just wonder how effective the technique would be. I think it wouldn't be that hard to pull one out and put a new one in.

The Constitution would not support forced medical procedures. There is a bit of case law about dead beat dads and vasectomies.

[reynolds357]

Never sacrifice liberty for perceived safety.

[Pathfinder45]

What a load of malarkey.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.

The United States could never stoop so low. In order to make life better for you, the Federal Government wisely spent American taxpayers money on this valuable experiment over the course of 40 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskeg...lis_experiment

Here's the opening paragraph:

Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[a] was a clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service.[1][2] The purpose of this study was to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis; the African-American men in the study were only told they were receiving free health care from the United States government

An even better example might be the Agent Orange experiments conducted upon incarcerated Americans at Holmseburg Prison.

It's not hard to find other examples.

[Dfariswheel]

"Mission creep" in laws is very much a problem. What absolutely would not be tolerated can, over time become permissible.

As example are seat belt laws.
When first proposed, people objected that police would use it as an excuse to stop cars.
The authorities promised faithfully that NEVER, EVER under ANY circumstances would this happen. The law would only be used if someone was stopped for another reason.....
Today police in most areas routinely stop people for not wearing a seat belt.

There's an old Science Fiction story about a man who's about to be executed and his organs harvested who attempts a daring escape from jail.
After science discovered ways for any organ to be transplanted in to nearly anyone, aging politicians and citizens began making more and more "crimes" punishable by death so the organs could be used to keep them alive.

Turns out the desperate escapee from death row was convicted of speeding a couple of times.

[HiBC]

[QUOTEWhat a load of malarkey.
Your example of gas chambers is from Nazi Germany.......not a democracy, not a country with separation of powers and basically shows you don't understand how the US government works. Shame on you.][/QUOTE]

What I learned in my limited study of how the US Government works is we are not a Democracy. Clear back to the Greeks Democracy was a failed experiment.

Tyranny of the majority. A lynch mob. A dozen coyotes and a sheep working out a menu. "Majority rules" is NOT what we have and not what we want,regardless of the millennials with their "Life Center" smart phones .

"We can do everything like "America's Got Talent" Just text...…

And dump the electoral college. NYC and LA can run the country to suit them. To heck with Wyo.

I don't think so.

We are a Constitutional Republic .The Constitution protects the Individual Liberty by limiting the power of Government.

Remember that the point is to protect the Individual Liberty of the minority of one . ONE! Not the majority.

It does not matter if 200 million people text whatever so long as the Constitution says the Citizen's Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.

We do have a Constitutional Process to Amend the Constitution.

By Consent.

A problem with today's Middle School Civics....IF its even taught,its taught with bias.

[JohnKSa]

The Constitution would not support forced medical procedures.

It would and it does. Lethal injection is, perhaps, the most extreme forced medical procedure that has been declared Constitutional, but there are other extremely invasive procedures can be forced upon people who have been convicted of sufficiently serious offenses.

We're not talking (at least I wasn't) about microchipping everyone, only people who have already forfeit their rights to purchase firearms by being convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.

There is a bit of case law about dead beat dads and vasectomies.

The key is the level of the crime which someone has committed and has been convicted for. I'm absolutely not suggesting that it would be reasonable to microchip everyone any more than I would suggest it would be reasonable to imprison everyone for 15 years or to give everyone a lethal injection.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It would and it does. Lethal injection is, perhaps, the most extreme forced medical procedure that has been declared Constitutional, but there are other extremely invasive procedures can be forced upon people who have been convicted of sufficiently serious offenses.

We're not talking (at least I wasn't) about microchipping everyone, only people who have already forfeit their rights to purchase firearms by being convicted of a sufficiently serious crime.The key is the level of the crime which someone has committed and has been convicted for. I'm absolutely not suggesting that it would be reasonable to microchip everyone any more than I would suggest it would be reasonable to imprison everyone for 15 years or to give everyone a lethal injection.

You are missing how the law is applied. Lethal injection is applied to an inmate under sentence. A person who has completed their sentence can not be subjected to a mandatory medical implant.

[JohnKSa]

Chemical castration has never been ruled unconstitutional (given an applicable and appropriately severe offense and conviction) and is certainly a forced medical procedure applied to certain felons who have already served their time.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons, just responding with my opinion on the question of whether it would be constitutional or not. As far as I know, it would be given an appropriately severe offense and conviction.

If you have some sort of information about a ruling to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it, just out of curiosity--not because I'm planning to start a campaign to have prohibited persons microchipped.

[Hal]

My personal opinion on this whole chip implant is - - our .gov isn't stupid.
They know you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Since implanting people, against their will, would raise many objections - I believe they would tie the implants to some sort of .gov "freebie". Probably health care related.

You want that new fangled cancer vaccine?
Fine, we have to implant this chip in you - sign right here and don't bother reading all that gobbledygook fine print (that says you allow us to program whatever we want into that chip & monitor whatever we want that you do or where you travel,,,,)

People would line up in droves for that......

Once the chips became common place - then the mandatory implanting at birth would be only a matter of time.

[Ben Dover]

Originally Posted by Hal

My personal opinion on this whole chip implant is - - our .gov isn't stupid.
They know you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.

Since implanting people, against their will, would raise many objections - I believe they would tie the implants to some sort of .gov "freebie". Probably health care related.

You want that new fangled cancer vaccine?
Fine, we have to implant this chip in you - sign right here and don't bother reading all that gobbledygook fine print (that says you allow us to program whatever we want into that chip & monitor whatever we want that you do or where you travel,,,,)

People would line up in droves for that......

Once the chips became common place - then the mandatory implanting at birth would be only a matter of time.

Didja hear that from Alex Jones??????