Slashdot Mirror
Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0
jeffkjo1 writes "The U.S. Senate has passed the $82 billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill (approved by the House last week), which includes the Real ID act driver's license reform (previously reported here.) The National Governors Association has indicated at the possibility of a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Real ID provisions, which would create national driver's license standards, and a federal database of information from all 50 states."
There is a provision in the bill that sets the gruesome precedence that it is in the power of Congress to prohibit juridical review. Since the latter is a cornerstone of the American republic this is a very big deal. You can learn more about it here.
You should join DownsizeDC.org in their attempt to pass the "Read the Bills Act of 2005". The Act would make it law for all bills to actually be read by each legislator, which could cut down considerably on unrelated riders. In any event, it has to be a good thing for lawmakers to have read the laws they're voting on!
It was Senator Jim Jeffords, in 2001. He didn't switch specifically to keep the Republicans from having a majority (although that was one effect); he just decided that he personally could no longer agree with the direction of the Republican party. He's still in office, and quite popular in Vermont, although he's decided not to run again in 2006.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
States frequently have these kind of provisions in their constitutions, barring provisions that have nothing to do with one another. In California, we recently had an initiative on the ballot that was split into two parts (A and B) because it had already been numbered when it was decided that it could not go forth as one item.
Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
How the commentary significantly different from the commentary here, other than in the politics it favors?
Well, I'll tell ya: The parent post you refer to made a reasonable and truthful point that Democrats did not originiate, nor do they have a monopoly on, blocking judicial nominees. This is true. The "troll" response post made the outlandish and ignorant claim that Democrats "sure as heck have coined the idea of fillibustering nominations to avoid a vote." That's just a falsehood. The Republicans fillibustered nominations under Clinton, and earlier Democrat presidents, the same as the Dems are doing now. This is just another weapon in the Senate arsenal, and it only peeves those who are on the receiving end. It's a trade off for having the most "deliberative body in the free world" whose mission, as Madison envisioned it, was to guard the interests of the minority from being overrun by pure popularity. A hedge against the more overtly popular House.
This is typical of a lot of Bush administration policy. Take a look at No Child Left Behind:
1. creates more government - imposes irrational nationwide standards on all states
2. unfunded - schools can go bankrupt if they can't afford to make the improvements they apparently need
3. states aren't required to comply - or at least, that's what Mr. Bush says, since he thinks states should be able to "determine their own destiny" in regards to schools
4. provides few, if any, clear benefits - schools are entirely blamed for poor performance? students can't possibly be responsible? students are forcibly registered on military recruiters' contact lists unless their parents explicitly ask for them not to be?
The Republican desire for increased regulation (think USA PATRIOT Act, REALID Act) without funding (e.g. not including the war in the 2004-2005 budget? WTF?) is just further proof that the two mainstream parties are slowly, but surely, fusing into one.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
That lasted just over a year until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 as a violation of the presentment clause (Article I, Section 7).
I think there have been some bills in Congress to change the way the rules are so that the 'riders' are related to the bill's topic, but asking Congresscritters to uphold integrity and honesty in passing bills is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. These riders are a major source of their power and they use them all the time for their little-publicized amendments which further their own agenda.