“John” posted a comment on this blog that read as follows:
“A friend of mine a few weeks ago was taking a late night walk. He walked by a cop who had 6 people on the side of the road. The cop walked up to my friend and said, I need some ID. My friend said to the cop, “I am a flesh and blood living sentient man created in the image of God, do YOU rebut that”? The cop said, OK, have a nice evening, and he walked away.
“Same friend some years back was pulled over. They asked for a DL. He said I don’t have one. They asked who he was. He said I’m a man. They asked if he had any type of ID? He said at my house right up the block I can show you a birth certificate. They said never mind, we can’t use that. We have no authority over you. They let him go.”
John (and others) were discussing the subject of “identification”. Most people regard “identification” as the little plastic cards that we carry in our wallets to prove “who we are”. I have some doubt.
I suspect that the idea of “identification” may be less about identifying the particular individual by name, height, weight, etc., than it is about identifying the system of government that the individual “identifies with“.
I subscribe to the hypothesis that there are two “states” or venues. The first is The State of Texas (or The State of Oregon, etc.). That’s the de jure State that’s a member of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”. The State of Texas was created and constituted by The Constitution of The State of Texas.
The second “state”/venue is “Texas” and/or “TX” and/or “STATE OF TEXAS” which I regard as de facto and a territory of the United States rather than a State of the Union.
If you’re using a Drivers License or virtually any other form of government-issued “identification,” I suspect that that instrument does not identify you, but instead identifies which of the two “states” you “identify with“. If you use an identification instrument issued by “STATE OF TEXAS,” then you have voluntarily identified with “this state” (the de facto territory) rather than with the State of the Union (like “The State of Oregon”). Once you have voluntarily identified with “this state,” the “officer” is free to kick you around however he likes because you have voluntarily “identified with” the territory and thereby shown yourself to be a citizen/subject of the United States.
This country started with two premises seen in the Declaration of Independence: 1) All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; and 2) the principle object of government was to “secure” those God-given, unalienable Rights.
If those premises were still in effect, the only “identification” any of us would need might be our physical appearance. If you looked like a man or woman “made in God’s image,” then every officer, official and employee of government would instantly know that their first and foremost duty was to secure your God-given, unalienable Rights. They wouldn’t need to see some “ID” that certified that your name was “Bob” or if you lived at 44 S. Oak Street. All they’d need to see is that you are a man (or woman) made in God’s image. Your physical body would be sufficient “ID” to prove that you are a man made in God’s image and endowed by your Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
The only people who might need government-issued “identification” of the sort we see on a Drivers License would be government employees who had access to government facilities that were “sensitive,” “top secret” or some such. Similarly, if you worked at a factory or a large corporation, those private institutions might issue their “ID’s” to each of their employees or officers.
But, so long as you could be “identified” as a man made in God’s image, and you were out on the street acting in a private capacity and without injuring anyone else, you’d be good to go. The government would have little or no interest in you, unless you summoned them to come help “secure” your God-given, unalienable Rights or tried to enter a restricted government facility. You wouldn’t need to be personally identified unless you had injured someone else, broke the law, or perhaps voluntarily entered into transactions with an institution (like a bank) that needed to know where you lived etc., in case you bounced a check.
My point is that my “identification” may not be about identifying me so much as signaling whichever “state”/venue I “voluntarily” identify with.
John’s previous story about a friend taking a late night walk tends to support my suspicion. That story is not proof. It’s only an anecdote. It may be that the police officer had had a bad day, didn’t want to screw around with another crazy “patriot” and simply let him go rather than get into a “paperwork war” that could take hours and hours of the cop’s time. The fact that John’s friend “got away” with using a particular strategy on his “late night walk” doesn’t mean that anyone else will ever use that same strategy again without winding up taking a “late night walk” in the local slammer.
But it might also be that John’s friend provided sufficient “identification with” the State of the Union to demonstrate that he did not voluntarily “identify with” “this state” (the de facto territory of the U.S.), and therefore the cop knew he had no authority over him. (Supposing an average cop would have that much knowledge is hard to believe, but it’s possible.)
I suspect that the purpose for your government-issued “identification” has less to do with ascertaining who you are than it does to ascertain what you are. I suspect that your “identification” proves whichever “state” you have voluntarily and consensually identified with: 1) The State of Texas (member-State of the Union) wherein you may be a “sovereign”; or 2) “TX” (a territory of the U.S.) wherein (under Article 4.3.2 of the federal Constitution) you are a subject of the sovereign Congress.
I haven’t verified it, but I’m told that anyone who has/uses a SSN, is presumed to be an employee of the federal government. I’m also told that you may need to provide a SSN to get a Drivers License and perhaps other forms of government-issued ID. Again, I haven’t verified either of these statements, but insofar as they might be true, then it would follow that any ID that required a SSN as a condition of issuance might be deemed evidence that you were acting as an employee of the federal government. This possibility is not so far removed from my notion that “ID” doesn’t tell people who you are, but rather which “system” you identify with.
If my suspicions are roughly correct, then whenever you produce a government-issued ID to a cop, you have just recognized “this state” as your venue, voluntarily consented to be treated as a subject, and recognized the cop as your “massa”.
If my suspicions are roughly correct, then your “identification” is ultimately a devise that indicates whichever jurisdiction (The State or “this state”) you have voluntarily consented to be subject to. Your “ID” might therefore resolve any potential “conflict of law” between the jurisdictions of The State and “this state”.