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."
You know, I remember when they had an Election in Iraq right before the U.S. invaded. I think the vote was 100% for Saddam Hussien. The problem with that is that in almost any real democratic process there are always two or more sides
They really need to make it so they cannot attach measures like this to bills that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
Once in our lives, it would be great if a bill was introduced without riders, without hidden proposed laws that are enacted once the main bill passes.
Oh that's right. Those clean bills already happens when Congress votes itself a big, fat payraise for screwing over the citizens of the country.
Nevermind.
You do the representative democracy thing, you protest legislation you FAX your senators and representatives like crazy and they don't even listen!! They didn't even attempt to remove the RealID rider!
Then the Democrats say they were against this "under-the-table" budget push.
Really? 100-0.
Where's Kerry's "I'm all for immigration" leadership now? 100-0.
Where's Kos? He's been spewing filibuster stories, but not one major post about the RealID
And the Democrats wonder why they're losing elections. Hint, if you're going to act like a Republican... people might as well just VOTE Republican.
This is all Lincolns fault!
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
A national ID is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, any authority to issue official IDs falls to the states. Granted, this hasn't stopped the federal government from taking over education, hate speech legislation, search and seizure, etc. And will the Supreme Court rule on the side of the Constitution? They haven't in recent years, why should they now?
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
And here is why: This will piss people off. Not just /.ers, but anyone with a mild taste for freedom. And if it pisses enough people off, this hole in democracy will be patched up forever. If a senator tacks on federally paid monuments for his hometown; that is corruption but no one will go up in arms.
But challenge our freedom? Time to stop this crap once and for all. Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped... God help us all.
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
While I wouldn't disagree with that, I think the argument against it here is that given the past actions and power grabs by the US federal govt, measures like this could likely be used to extend that power further.
It's not the measure itself, but the method behind it. Since 9/11 there has been an enormous extension of authority on the part federal police and intelligence officials. There seems to be an attitude in Washington that they need to assume control over all critical information pertaining to anyone in the country to combat terrorism.
This is not only demonstrably unnecessary, but may serve to create a menace even worse than the terrorists of today in the long run if we are not careful.
Ah ... just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time? Fine leadership style.
I've come to expect dracononian legislation from the Republikans, but the Democrats should be ashamed. Not so much as a whimper. Spineless, gutless wonders.
Another Green vote in 2008 ...
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I cannot believe with so many people raising awareness and complaints to this issue our elected officals
Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts:
1) There's nothing in state motor vehicle licensing databases that a federal investigator can't get to anyway
2) A consistent set of standards by which people (notably, of course, immigrants - legal or not) need to prove who they are before they get an item as enabling (in terms of access, banking, and so on) as a driver's license is.... well, not crazy, or draconian, or anything other than reasonable.
That's it... I quit voting
That'll fix it! Or, really, it gives you even more room to whine, I guess. How about making a more persuasive case that we should let some states issue official IDs (which are then honored in other states) without worrying about who the person actually is? Tough sell? Yes, it is... and is why you don't see our representatives acting like it's an inherently bad idea to smooth out the discrepancies in the process. Streamlining and further validating the process will save money, lives, and time. The downside would be... let's see, a situation where it's harder for liars to get mainstream IDs?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You no longer have a representative government
Ah, you mean, like, where the people that get elected by the voters are actually shipped to North Korea, and replaced by cyborgs or something?
Or by "you" you actually mean yourself, and mean that you're not feeling represented because you couldn't persuade enough other people to support your preferred representative(s). Perhaps you didn't invest enough time? Maybe your position or message don't resonate with typical people? Certainly you put a lot of your own time and effort into educating people, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The politicians get stuck on the horns of a dilemma, possibly due to uninformed voters.
Scenario: Congress creates a bill called the "fluffy bunny petting act of 2005, providing (amongst other things) for free cold fusion generated power and eternal global peace"
Sen Dick Shaftus, (R-TX) decides that this is his opportunity, and attaches a rider - "Infant Mulching Federal Subsidies for the Rich".
Principled politician, Molly Naivitus (D-MA) votes against the bill, desparate to prevent the mulching of infants in her state.
Republicans campaign against Naivitus in Massachussets, outraged that she would vote against petting fluffy bunnies and eternal global peace!
Voters, spun by soundbites and browbeaten by O'Reilly, vote Naivitus out of office.
Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
But in the US, we have states. In fact, one of the amendments to the constitution states that any rights/laws not stated here-in are up to the individual states.
This is why Vegas has legalized gambling and prostitution. This is why Nebraska has a speed limit of 75, Pennsylvania 65, WV 70, and a few years ago Montana had no speed limit (during the daylight).
Many people don't realize that the federal law makes the legal drinking age 18. "But why is it 21 in every state?" They deny funding to states that don't make it 21. It works the same way with many rules so the federal government can extert control over the states (including the speed limit).
Now they are going to extert control over state IDs and make them federal. Now you will have a US drivers license...basically. That means most of the traffic rules will need to be merged.
The US was founded on state rights, hence "The United States of America". If you don't like a state's rules, move to another state. The federal government is heading toward "monoculturing" the US. Pretty soon we'll be "Former United States of America".
There is near unanimous fear of "Real ID" (at least from slashDot posters).
I think it's important to point out why.
While I'm sure it appears obvious to many of us, I think others may be wondering why this is such a big deal. The fact that this bill passed seems to suggest some people (many people) don't know what the implications are.
I'm sure I'll miss some of the reasoning (feel free to add on) but here goes my take on it. As a disclaimer, I am Canadian, but I don't think that changes much:
A driver's license, like a social security number, is unique. This means we can uniquely identify a person through their driver's license.
The important differences are:
(1) A driver's license is often used as a saved form of ID while an SSN is not (except for employment purposes). This means your driver's license can be found in many places, potentially at places like your video rental shop.
(2) A driver's license is used as photo ID. This means it is on you and there are several places where the information can be grabbed. Possibly in places as innocent as a bar.
(3) A universal driver's license introduces the idea of a universal reader. Because of it being the only thing that can be reliably found on 99% of the adult population, it could become an easily scanned item to be used as a membership identifier (among other things). If this is done, a single ID can identify you in literally thousands of establishments with a paper trail that will trounce your credit card trail.
(4) When you tie in "saved everywhere", with "stealable anywhere" with "scannable anywhere/information everywhere" you've got a severe loss of privacy.
The reasoning from (1) to (4) is probably not obvious to a lot of people. That's ultimately what makes it dangerous. You get to give up your freedom but it sneaks up on you in a way that you actually agreed to it (which makes it a lot harder to complain about when it happens).
Sunny
Be my Friend
...that this got passed. The notion of having a national standard for ID is understandable, but the bill actually states that: "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision." This quite literaly places the Secretary of Homeland Security above the law. This MUST be unconstitutional. Once again i feel very sorry for you. If this got proposed in my country (Australia) i would fight it with a public information campaign, which would be in addition to my countries relatively effective checks and balances halting it in its tracks. (or so I would like to believe)
Yet oddly enough entry requirements have just been relaxed for visitors coming from Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from.
Welcome to America, where common sense is second fiddle to political correctness.
What's even funnier is that IIRC the hijackers all had legit IDs, which were legitimately obtained.
No matter what kind of fancy, high-tech shit they stuff into IDs, as long as there are greedy people in charge of doling out those IDs, people who want fraudulent ones will be able to get them.
What's worse, anyone with fraudulent Real-IDs will not get the scrutiny they deserve-- people will just swipe the thing, see it comes up as valid, and not question it.
It's just the illusion of security, just like all the horseshit they put into place at airports after 9/11. Window dressing, nothing more.
~Philly
The courts can not uphold a law if it does not apply. In other words, this bill allows the people making the decisions to exempt themselves from responsibility and even place themselves above the law (granted, some state laws may apply in the case of murder, rape, and other violent crimes which the federal government might not be able to exempt themselves from).
Seriously, the American Slashdot crowd is huge and you know how to communicate. Start communicating with the people who will be running against the incumbents for seats in the Senate in the next election NOW. Give them ammunition against their opponents. Start grass roots campaigning and get the message out. Get it on people's minds and keep it there. If you have that much of a problem with this bill as many of you say, then get to work kicking out the idiots who voted in favor of the bill.
It is your duty as US citizens.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
"I am not bothered by anything in this bill".
_ under_the_United_States_Constitution
Not even:
(Redundant, but necessary)
(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.'.
Doesn't patriotism mean exactly that -- being bothered by un-American acts, not excluding those un-American acts of law by Congress? Since when does Congress -- or ANY branch of government, for that matter -- have authority to circumvent the system of checks and balances we have in place?
If our Supreme Court aren't pussies they'll strike this down faster than you can say the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
I beileve he'd get a law in the works that promised milk and honey for the nation, repealed all income taxes, made every treehugger happy, and included the national ID law...
and then, line item veto all but the last.
'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives..
I can't believe old, rich, die-hard republicans don't really hate bush & his take on republican politics... it's not what their view used to be.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.
Sorry, but including two phrases in the bill which disallow judicial review of executive behavior is not Constitutional.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
The United States Constitution is "the law of the land";
Okay, and where in the Constitution does it outlaw secession? Keep looking, bucko...
a succession ordinace can't trump it.
Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here it is if you'd like to read it.
Regardless, the US government was founded on the principle of self-government, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. For Lincoln to deny it a mere 70 years later was hypocritical and tyrannical.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic.
You've got it 2/3 correct: it's a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic."
democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
That's a disgusting and backwards metaphor. "The People" aren't the aggressive wolves seeking to devour the poor innocent sheep, The People *are* the sheep. The wolves are the rich and powerful, and have been ever since the beginning of civilization. The US Government was founded on the idea that the government derives its power from, and should provide benefit to, The People.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
FANTASTIC idea. Who do we have to bribe to get it passed into law??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The driver's license should be exactly that -- a license to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads. It should not be identification. They were not designed to be, the systems which issue them were not designed with that purpose in mind, and misusing them as identification causes endless problems, as can now be seen. (same thing with SSN as a presumed unique ID for every purpose)
Driving without a license should be an extremely serious offense, not the casual slap-on-the-wrist thing it is now. Unless someone has proven their ability to control a big heavy mass with lots of kinetic energy, they should not be allowed to do so near other people, and doing so should be dealt with harshly. Never mind who they are, never mind if they are legally within this border or that. The only identification should be to ensure that the license really is issued to them (they're the ones with the proven skill), and that the license is valid (not forged).
I really would like to see it become more straightforward for anyone, legally or illegally present, to get a driver's license. And at the same time make it very straightforward that driving without one puts your ass in jail. Harsh consequences, but simple painless and threat-free compliance.
I'm a hell of a lot more afraid of some of the drivers I see hurtling toward me on the road than I am of a random bombing or plane hijacking. But as is usually the case, numbers and real risk get ignored in favor of emotional reaction. This lets lottery tickets get sold to the gullible [relatively benign], and lets despots take power, a little at a time [decidedly evil].
[side comment about misusing tools for purposes other than the intended ones, driving nails with a screwdriver and complaining that all screwdrivers need to be heavier and have a flatter surface...]
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
Or it could be that politicians are so eager to appear to be supporting our troops that they will pass anything as a military appropriations bil.
A blog about stuff.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
Nah. In the US, Constitutional, Democratic Republic is 98 sheep choosing which one of 2 wolves will get to decide what's for dinner.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
William Shirer is famous for his books about the rise and fall of the Nazi regime in Germany during the 1930s/1940s. He lived in Germany until 1941 or 1942, one of the last USians to remain until Hitler forced out all foreign journalists.
Reading "The Berlin Diaries" or "The Nightmare Years" I'm stunned to read statements from the common Germans of those days that literally echo the kind of talk I hear from so many of my countrymen. Authoritarianism and acquiescence is on the rise here in the States, with probably a majority of citizens absolutely believing that there are things they should't know about (and thus no-one else should know either, unless they're authorized to know).
I won't make the kind of statement like "The US is turning into Nazi Germany !" But I will point out that it is the worst sort of naivete to believe that because it's a black woman she couldn't possibly be a fascist, or because it's a Latino official he couldn't possibly be a supporter of torture and assassination.
The US is now ruled by a corporate plutocracy with no intention of ever letting go of the control of a machine that makes vast profits for them through the waging of war. When the war profiteers run the government, exactly what kind of society do you think will result ? And why in the world would those who profit so much from this war (and those already being planned) want to end this profitable state of affairs ? Most USians are now just fools with a level of ignorance equal to the German populace in the 1930s. Read Shirer, and fear for this nation and its people.
Btw, the US people are not represented by the Senate at all. Senators represent large corporate interests who pay them to vote for corporate interests. There isn't a single populist Senator in the Congress, and their despite for the common man is evident. They are the same kind of men and women who would have willingly followed Hitler to Hell if it meant the possibility of increasing their personal profits. Conscience is dead in Congress, and it's been buried for a long time now.
Welcome to the nightmare of the real. Prepare yourself.
"You are not free while you watch TV." - OtL