Seeing as I'm sitting here reading Supreme Court decisions I figured I ought to read this Hiibel decision. IMHO, the majority opinion is non-sentical. Basically they say that its constitutional for a state to have a law which requires you to provide your name, unless providing your name could incriminate you, in which case they'd be happy to hear you argument.

I think we ought to have a standard which says that laws are either constitutional or they are not. I don't think its reasonable to say that the law is constitutional unless circumstances prove otherwise, in which case I guess the government isn't supposed to apply it. How would this work in practice?

If I'm being interrogated by a police officer and my name is incriminating information, and I refuse it, and they charge me with failure to provide my name, how am I to challenge the constitutionality of their requirement unless I demonstrate that my name is, in fact, incriminating (and therefore incriminate myself)?