Real ID: You Can Still Fight It

toupsz writes "Bill Scannell has created a website where anyone and everyone can fax their senators regarding the Real ID Act. Note that the act is up for vote on Tuesday, May 10th! All those against the Act might want to go to Bill's site: UnrealID.com. Thanks, Cory from BoingBoing!"

Comments

Re:What's so bad?

[uqbar]

Bruce Schneier (as usual) has good insights on this.

Re:Line Item Veto?

[jumbledInTheHead]

The line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so I don't see how this would be any good to Bush, who by the way supports the bill.

Re:What's so bad?

[discordja]

REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security.

Wrong, it means they can't issue a drivers licence that has any value as an ID card. For example, in TN, there are two forms of licenses available. One that can be issued to undocs that states clearly 'For Driving Only' and is not a valid ID for airports etc. This does not limit whom the states may give a drivers license to but it does limit the value of that license if it does not meet certain minimum standards.

Re:Why Bother.

[Concerned Onlooker]

What a load of Republican crap that is. The Republicans stopped more Clinton appointments than the Democrats ever will for Bush.

In reality, Bush has had more judicial nominees approved than in the first terms of Presidents Clinton and Reagan, and the administration of his father. Of the 214 nominees sent to the Senate for a vote during his first term, Democrats blocked only ten, using the filibuster. As such, 95 percent of Bush's nominees have been approved. By contrast, from 1995 to 2000, while Republican Senator Orrin Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate blocked 35% of Clinton's circuit court nominees.

From http://www.counterbias.com/236.html">this article.

here is why this is bad with Excerpts:

[geekoid]

I noticed several people not understanding why this is bad. Here are some excerpts from the bill:

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

Secretary of Homeland Security can do what he wants, and nobody has any recourse at ALL. He wanst to put in land mines, nothing we can do about it. Wants to spend 80 Billion dollars a year patrolling our borders, nothing he can do about it.

It errods Attorney General position by giving the Secertary of Homeland security the same power. Bear in mind the attorny general has checks and balances that the Secretary of Homeland Security does not.