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."
I was watching this debated on CSPAN, and a lot of senators in the minority were not happy about voting for this, but of course they cannot have a vote against emergency military funding on their record, so they were forced to.
If you want to see the real masterminds of this bill, it is the majority party, who according to a few of the minority democrats are abusing their power by passing a bill without having the chance to debate it on the floor of the senate.
Problem is, no one can oppose this bill. It'd be like the trouble Kerry got into x100. The only thing they can do is offer amendments. The senate version of the bill didn't even have the Real ID language, but the joint meeting added most of it back.
We did that in Minnesota recently, and just recently a conceal and carry handgun bill was thrown out by the courts because it was attatched to unrelated legislation.
I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.
AccountKiller
The speed in which this "legislation" has warped through the democratic process is very telling.
The likelihood that the end product, the "RFID licenses" will be ill-thought, ill-conceived and ill-executed has been assured. Hacking and manipulation have just discovered a new end-game. Have fun. This is going to be such a mess.
Watch one of the world's largest bureaucracies fall on its face.
In the state legislature in Indiana it's against the rules to attach riders to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
In this last legislative session, this got to be a real problem because political maneuvers blocked 100s of bills from being introduced, allowing only several dozen bills through.
Following the rules, the bills should've died. Instead they were attached to the existing bills through "creative interpretation".
Some bills couldn't get handled this way no matter how much bending of the wording they could do. In those cases, they stripped the entire language of the bill out and replaced it with the language of the more important bill. (For instance, Bill xxx "Raise the speed limit from 65 to 70" was gutted and became a bill to enact Daylight Savings Time... but was still titled the "speed limit bill".
So as you see, it doesn't matter what restrictions are put on the process. Politicians will get their way.
Some weren't so bad:
"121. S.AMDT.430 to H.R.1268 To prohibit the use of funds by any Federal agency to produce a prepackaged news story without including in such story a clear notification for the audience that the story was prepared or funded by a Federal agency."
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
We need to form a front on the feds that are encroaching our rights. Fortunately for us Americans (for those that are still worthy of being called that) we have a legal way and the tried and true illegal way. Both fronts are approachable, though the last should be exactly that, a last resort. Seriously, we need to act. I'd be willing to pay with my life to make this country a better place and I'll be damned if I slowly rot and watch this sheer misery without at least taking a stand. The Federal RFID-enabled trackable ID encroaches on state rights on so many fronts. Want to know why the MATRIX (think they picked that name on purpose) failed? Only a handful of states decided to cooperate, the rest preferred to keep their constituents information private.We might as well start signing waivers of rights at age 18 to gain an ID and other "priveledges" at this rate.
I hereby declare that we as citizens need to get involved and also get other citizens involved because this is affecting us all in so many pervasive ways that the slippery slope is starting to look like a cliff we have all just potentially jumped off. You may say to yourself, well, that doesn't affect me, everything I do is legal, but wait until you are sued because you are caught with some illegal mp3s or worse thrown in jail. Wait until you find out that you should have no rights to medical privacy according to the federal government and John Ashcroft. Where does it begin and more importantly, where does it end?
Our rights are gone and in many places we cannot even arm or defend ourselves even in spite of the threat of deadly force. What freedoms do we have left with potentially now the ability for the local, state, and federal governments to all easily monitor our whereabouts and travels?
Please read my last post on the last story about the Real ID. We need to respond with at least *something*. We need to take the stand. I'm sure that if half of the americans really knew what was going on in their congress (or even cared to know) those that are holding power would certainly not keep getting reelected. I know that there are not really many easy solutions in the sheer complexity that is modern society, however this has become a reflection of what should not be implemented in a national government and we still have the power to effect change.
Come on Slashdot! Create a Slashdot effect on the feds for chrissakes! You all echo in a chorus that what we are doing is dangerous and potentially has drastically negative consequences. You all seem to hate patent law, industry regulation, war, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, the FCC, the broadcast flag, and this truly sad piece of legislation.
Seriously, can't we just play nice for a day and decide to do something about this trite? Is it that hard? We could have Liberty Day and get together in our cities and towns and meet, geek to geek. Surely the geeks are at least smarter than anyone else, right? Can't we brainstorm some better ideas while where at it and figure out how to wrestle control away from two political parties? Revolution Day?
THE REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED
Let us hope there is some sanity left in this world, right?
zosxavius photography
Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.
It's controversial for lots of reasons, and most of them don't have to do with tinfoil hats.
1) It creates MORE government, not less. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government, but this flies in the face of that policy.
2) It's unfunded. The states are supposed to work out for themselves how to comply with these regulations with NO federal funding.
3) Of course, states aren't required to comply, but then a state's citizens will be unable to make use of most interstate transportation (flying).
4) It provides few, if any, clear benefits. Maybe a bartender in Cali won't have to worry about knowing what Vermont's drivers licenses look like with a national ID card, but people with the money and determination will still be able to get fake IDs.
I won't even go into the privacy concerns -- you can read yesterday's article if you're interested.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
So write your Senators and Reps. I just did:
Senator Obama,
Congratulations. The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill passed, 100-0. I hope you're satisfied with your hard day in the Senate.
But I heard that the RealID Act, included as a rider on the bill, creates a national drivers license standard and requires a database containing information on every single person in the United States with such a license.
But I heard that the bill 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."
You must be please as punch. The supplemental spending bill went through without a hitch, giving much-needed money to those poor soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfortunate victims of the tsunami in Asia.
I hope somebody is happy, because I sure as hell am not.
Wasn't one of the reasons the United States disliked the Soviet Union too much because the USSR placed horrible restrictions on free travel, and "Papers, please" was a phrase heard at every local border? Well, I imagine you must be thrilled that, under the legislation you just sent to the President's desk, the United States Government will have the power to do the same thing very shortly.
I can picture it now: I'm on my way to visit my brother in Colorado, but because my RealID drivers license has my political history on it, I'm deemed a "security risk" due to anti-war protests I attended leading up to the invasion of Iran in 2007.
"That can't happen here! It won't happen here!"
How naive. When has any government, in the history of the world, willingly given up power after the populace was foolish enough to hand that power over? I'm sure in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia requiring papers to travel within the country was first announced as a 'temporary security procedure,' and would only be in place 'until things quieted down.
You must be so excited that the same thing can be happening soon, at state border near you.
And this gem: "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."
Have you even read the Constitution? I am so angry right now, I can't begin to explain why the above passage is un-Constitutional, a horrible infringement on the liberties of individuals and states' rights, and a mind-numbingly dumb thing to have put your seal of approval on.
Senator Obama, I voted for you this past November. I was hoping to be excited about voting for you again in the future. We both know this bill was going to pass, with or without your support. But your campaigning speeches, your town-hall debates, your keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, all seemed to point toward a man who was smart, idealistic, and would stand his ground against those in this country who would see liberty and justice fade away.
Give the people of Illinois some credit. Sure, the Republicans would start with attack ads, portraying you as having voted against funding the military and tsunami victims. But people like myself, people who knew the whole story, would never let your image be tarnished in such a way. We would spread the truth and make sure that lies and falsehoods were not allowed to be passed around as "truth."
And you went and voted, along with everyone else, for horrible, horrible, un-Constitutional bill.
Thanks a lot. A little bit of my idealism - my belief that our elected officials will do what's right, even when it's hard - just died.
Again, I hope you're happy.
Congratulations.
I've never understood how Congress can get away with attaching riders and amendments to a bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the base bill. The only purpose is to have a kind of inverse "poison pill", so that voting against the amendment allows the accusation of being against the base bill. Never mind that it's traditional. Lots of things that are illegal now were "traditional" in the past.
It works the other way as well, in the usual meaning of "poison pill" -- attach a rider that is so unacceptable that the base bill is defeated regardless of its own merit.
Nevermind fussing about rules changes for filibustering in the Senate. This is where the real mischief gets done, and has been so for many decades.
There should be a rule in both the House and the Senate that amendments and riders must in some way be related to the base bill to which they are attached. Otherwise, they should stand on their own (or die on their own).
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they rarely are.
You know what I would like to see come out of this is a Constitutional Amendment making such attempts illegal -- make it so a spending bill can only be that, a spending bill. Something along the lines of: "All appropriation bills passed by Congress shall be void of new programs, laws, or regulations. New laws which require appropriation may be passed, provided that the scope of the bill is limited to the law, program or regulation therein." This would have a chilling effect on Congress and their attempts to pass laws which otherwise wouldn't be passed. The argument against this would be that Congress wouldn't be able to pass things as efficently as they do now and that immediate needs could not be met quite as fast. I think if there was even talk of such a move it would really chill people using riders. Of course Congress would have to really flub up in order to get people ticked off enough to want to do something like an amendment. It would send a strong message that federalism needs to stay federalism and the concentration of central power needs to stop.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
And this gem: "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."
Have you even read the Constitution? I am so angry right now, I can't begin to explain why the above passage is un-Constitutional, a horrible infringement on the liberties of individuals and states' rights, and a mind-numbingly dumb thing to have put your seal of approval on.
According to Article III:"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." So if Congress doesn't want to let the inferior courts hear these cases then it doesn't have to. "In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Execeptions, and under such Regulation as the Congress shall make." So if Congress doesn't want the Supreme Court to hear these cases then they can't either because the only constitutional jurisdiction to explictly mentioned. Yes it sucks, but Congress can prevent the Courts from challenging the Executive. The idea was that two branches could "check" on the third, or as the case may be two branches can prevent the third from checking them. Heck, there have even been times (1803-1804) when Congress didn't let the Supreme Court even sit because they didn't want Marbury v. Madison (1803) heard. I agree that it is a flagrant violation of rights, but sadly it is not unconstitutional.
IANAL but I know a couple of things about Constitutional Law.
Wrong. The people who make fake IDs don't make IDs just from their own state. In fact, most of them stay away from their homestate because they can't get it just perfect. If you card, and you're in Maine, you see 95% Maines all day. You see a few NHs and a few MAs. So when you see a fake Maine, you know it right away, it doesn't look like the others, or it feels wrong, etc. As a result, the villians in Maine concentrate on making a MA ID, similarly, so do the villians in NY, and a lot of other places. You'll notice that most fake IDs are not of the places that are actually high security. NY and NJ (recently issued) have two of the highest security IDs, and you generally don't see fakes created - you might see kids "chalking" their age on those, but you won't see a ID made from scratch in those states.
Because of this, you have all the villians from 50 states focusing on 4 or 5 other states that they make really well. If you get a National ID card, with a real hologram, and some decent material, and some security lines, it will not be easy to fake. You'll have all those villians trying to do it, but they won't come up with a dirt cheap way to do it with an inkjet.
Will there still be fake IDs? Most likely. I think they'll cut down on a lot of them with something like this though. The real problem is that the people they're trying to stop, terrorists, will probably still be able to get them. If a DMV can create a the cards, then a terrorist who invests 100K in various equipment can make them as well. But you're going to stop poor college kids from making them.
One final note: In terms of fake IDs, it really doesn't matter unless they actually create a high security ID with stuff like smart chips, true holograms and a true secure material (think: currency).
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
Part of the checks and balances on runaway legislation was the /appointment/ of U.S. Senators by the legislature of their state. This helped ensure the U.S. Senate represented the /STATES/ and provided a potent check against the expansion of federalism.
We ruined that balance with the 17th Amendment.
Since then, we've reaped. The federal government has seen runaway expansion since 1913 when 17th Amendment and the amendment allowing /direct/ income tax were both passed.
"When senators represented states as states, rather than being super House members as they are now, they zealously protected states' rights. This term became discredited during the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s as a code word for racism -- allowing Southern states to resist national pressure to integrate. But clearly this is an aberration. States obviously have interests that may conflict with federal priorities on a wide variety of issues that defy easy ideological classification. Many states, for example, would probably enact more liberal laws relating to the environment, health, and business regulation if allowed by Washington."
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartle tt200405120748.asp
http://www.nhinet.org/hoebeke.htm
Try and read with an open mind. This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. Both parties are corrupt because we unbalanced the rules of the game. While we still have a horizontal division of power, we removed the vertical division between the states and federal government.
Want to see a more "fair and restrained" federal government? Take a step BACK from the populist edge and repeal Article XVII.