If there was ever a person that makes me shake my head more than Texas State Sen. Dan Patrick does, I sure don't recall them. My goodness Dannie can frustratie me! Here he goes again:
SECTION 1. Section 38.02(a), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person [
he] intentionally refuses to give the person's [his] name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:(1) lawfully arrested or lawfully detained the person; and
(2) requested the information.
I know, you're probably thinking to yourself, big whoop. At first glance, it doesn't look like much of a change in law. It just adds a little phrase, "lawfully detained", to make sure that you identify yourself to any cop that wants to know. No big deal, right?
Wrong. Absolutely,completly, toally WRONG. Scott Henson over at Grits for Breakfast breaks it down (emphasis added):
Arresting people for no other reason than refusing to give their name? So much for the right to remain silent. How can you tell the cop your name if you're silent, and if by law you must break silence any time a cop detains you, how can one be reasonably said to have a "right" to it? Where are the "limited government" conservatives when you need them?
This is creeping totalitarianism, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that it's being promoted by one of the most ardent small-government advocates in all of Texas politics. Heaping more power on government agents in routine encounters with citizens is not my idea of "limited government."
And therein lies the duplicitous nature of Dannie. And of many Texas conservatives – they pick and choose issues to be for and against as if they were walking down the line at a Luby's Cafeteria.
This isn't how conservatism is supposed to work. You either support freedom and liberty via limited government or you don't. As for me and my house, we will always support freedom and liberty over these "creeping" types of laws. And I hope you will too. A hearing on this bill is being held tomorrow by the Senate Criminal Justice committee. Here is a list of the committeee members and here is the agenda for the hearing. Also, be sure and let your senator know that you are against this attempt to further restrict your freedom.
As for Dannie, I think that Kevin Whited of blogHOUSTON said it best on his Diigo feed:
For every good proposal Sen. Patrick has, it seems as if he has a half dozen bad…
Ain't that the truth.
Nice post, and I agree. The use of the word "creeping" was right. A "conservative" member of the Church of D_n gives is this small law, and next session, a left-winger piggy-backs that law for some even more invasive. Let's put a stop to this crap now, not later.
Big,
I am not a fan of Dannie Boy and I think he as erred on this one simply from a 5th Amendment point of view, but I do take issue with you on your statement that a Conservative (An Independent or a Liberal for that matter too) can't walk down the aisle and pick and choose which cause to support.
Frankly, I would have sooner believed those words would have come from the mouth of the north as from you.
The problem with positions staked out on the basis of rigid dogma is rigid dogma. We do not live in an altogether black and white world sometimes the shades get a little grey. Our viewpoints are based upon life experiences and not some Mr Spock logic.
As an American…I cherish my right to pick and choose. If this gets me kicked out of the "Big C" club; oh well I have been kicked out of worse bars than this one.
Simple
Simple, you gotta believe in something. Look back at what I wrote – there is no way that a "limited, small gov't conservative" files a bill like that. It'd be the same as a vegan going through the line a Luby's and picking chicken 'n dumplings to eat – that just doesn't fly.
You can cherish your right to choose, same as me and most other Americans. But your choices do matter.
Every interaction with John Law will be construed as 'lawful detention'…in street lingo, 'under arrest'.
Dan Patrick is no small government conservative. He is definitely a social conservative, tries to pass himself off as a fiscal conservative (still waiting for his tax reform, something his arch enemy Corbin got done), but he believes in using government power where he think is appropriate. His views on supporting DUI checks got a lot of commentors trying to point out court rulings and unreasonable searches; his response was to silence his critics.
David;
I never liked Luby's. I think you're the first person to articulate why, David.
Dan is…at heart…a theocrat, a socialist using religion to wield power over his constituents.