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.
So much for the loyal opposition.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Or do these post-it notes tacked on to unrelated bills need to be stopped?
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.
A lot of western european democracies (Belgium, Finland) have national ID cards. But their government isn't as powerful as the US Federal government.
cat
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.
I'd say "come to Australia" , but we are heading in the same direction ... sorry guys and gal's
I cannot believe with so many people raising awareness and complaints to this issue our elected officals voted so strongly in favor of this bill. That's it... I quit voting
...how this will affect the millions of tourists who fly into and within the US every year, bringing billions of dollars of revenue to the US. Will these people be refused permission to fly? Will they be issued federally approved ID on entry? Or will they just go somewhere else?
I'm so thankful this is going to come to pass. Finally, I don't have to hunt through multiple databases to swipe all of the pertinent information about someone. It's all collected in one place for easy access. Thanks, DC!
I know many States have Constitutions of their own http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/Legresou/Constitu/list1 .htm , ad We are a United Nation of Sovereign States, so Doesn't this fly in the face of each States Rights to rule themselves? I do not pretend to be a Constitutional Scholar, but this just seems to be (SO WRONG) on so many levels it isn't funny.
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
that maybe this is actually a good bill? I know its a big shock and horror to slashbots here, but not everybody thinks like you. There are many other people who don't think this Real ID is some horrible invasion of privacy or unconstitutional.
I know, you'll mod me troll, but slashbots need to get over themselves sometimes. While you can scream about "chilling effects", or "slippery slopes" all you want, the US hasn't turned into a facist state in spite of all these predictions on this site for the last 7+ years.
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
State's rights are as dead as a balanced budget.
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
Principle. A long-forgotten word in politics.
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.
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
(Sec. 1114) Renames the death gratuity, payable to survivors of members of the Armed Forces killed while serving on active duty or inactive duty training, as fallen hero compensation.
It goes without saying that I have issues when I read legal documents for other countries but it's always good for a laugh.
Stuff like this typically happens under the guise of federal funding. As in, "If you want federal money for your road infrastructure, you're going to do this."
Take the national speed limit, for example.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Well, there goes the semblance of the liberty to be free of tracking by the government.
Will we have to have our license scanned at every transaction and state border crossing, so the government can know whether we McDonalds or Burger King? How about whether we wear boxers or briefs? How much information do we have to give on these new driver's licenses? Do we have to take another driver's test? Do we have to tell them what religion we are, whether we support the current administration, what political party we are a part of, or whether or not we donated to the presidental re-election fund? Maybe if I haven't donated, I'm just a terrorist and shouldn't be allowed to cross state lines, huh?
When will it end? When will the American people get so sick of being fucked over that we actually stand up and DO something about it?
This bill was put forth by the party against "big government" and delivered to those who consider themselves the freest in the world.
Americans have official separation of church and state, and the president tries to intervene in a medical case on a religious basis.
I could go on, but I really don't get it.
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.
I really do not see what the problem is with this. Does it make a big difference if other states know details about you? I just don't see what the problem is here.
From my understanding if this applies to you, you are an American citizen.. hence an ID that applies to all of America.
Nonsense. No state is forced to do anything. Just as no state is forced to set the drinking age to 21.
Seriously, your state is free to ignore this bit of Big Brother government. Of course you will be unable to procure any federal services or benefits if your state chooses to ignore it. The tyrrany grows. While the sheeple watch American Idol the coporatists laugh all the way to the bank with the politicians in their pockets.
Welcome to Amerika. I will examine your papers now.
That's the message this bill is sending. What's the point of protecting liberties by force of arms when they can apparently be legislated away? Inalienable, my ass.
As much as I hate to say it, I wish this was april first.
I know most of you here in slashdot fear big brother government, but I say it's about time. Look at what we have been using to identify ourselves: driver licenses and social security numbers. These are both inadequate systems for checking one's identity. Only those who drive have one, and it is left up to individual states to determine the rules regarding them. Social security id's are meant for just that: social security. If we must have something to show, prove our identity with, it might as well be a national ID card. I do not, however, agree with forcing the states, especially the dmv's, to enforce and handle this without proper funding.
"An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes."
When election season comes around and you see those ads of "He voted against helping the victims of the tragic Tsunami" you see why bills that combine "good" laws and "controversial" laws will get passed just so they don't receive flak later on.
Now I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this bill. All I am saying is that I think if it were split up, the vote probably would not have been 100-0.
What makes these 'smart' ID cards so effective is their being computerized. All the info is stored in the black strip.. or chip., I'm not sure what the standard will be. In places like Lebonan, where you can identify a person's political allegience just by looking at their ID.. Or Israel, where ID cards show whether or not you've served in the military (there's a variation of colours..) People owning these new computerized cards won't see those flagrant violations of their privacy, but they'll be there :) Maybe next time you try getting on a plane, or the next time you're pulled over by a cop, or looking for entrance to a government press conference.. You'll can never be sure _why_ you were violated, denied your rights, or singled out .. Very cool.
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.
"State Sovereignty died at Appomattox." -Salmon P. Chase, US Supreme Court Justice, 1864-73
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.
No one was forced to do anything. If they are forced to, then what are they doing there? If they don't have the freedom to make decisions, then why bother? The fact is they ARE free to make decisions and they could have voted no if they wanted to. Next time either of my senators are up for re-election, I'm voting no on them, because I have just as much choice as they do.
I'll sign delinquent lab sperm pap
buy mccdonalds and throw it around the store,
/. front page , instant flaming server.
take your ID's and swipe them all over the place at every single possible location. overload the database.
hire some leet haxxorrs to steal the database, and watch it all burn to the ground.
or as a last resort, post the ip adress to the server as a link(im assuming its going to be connected to the internet) on the
and finally, im canadian, and i already will need a PASSPORT to cross over into the 'friendly' southern neighbor i have. (currently i can take a 10 min walk, and throw a stone across the boarder)
i got nothing else.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Check out this post at Ars Technica.
Basically, there's a clause in there that states allows a certain part of the bill to be exempt from judicial review.
He said, "You'll be able to tell your grandchildren that you helped assemble the first NT supercomputer," and I cringed.
Sophomoric and shrill.
Y'know, you're making my brain hurt. Let's do this in order.
1: *ALL* States have a constitution of their own, that defines the powers that the persons of the state endowed their government with. I do believe that all 50 states (or, 48 states and 2 commonwealths) currently have constitutions that were based on the federal constitution, and whose current form was adopted after Washington took office. (Some many times; NY's current Constitution, for example, is, IIRC, less than 100 years old.)
2: The states, while seperate, are *NOT* sovereign. Each state is subject to the law of the US Constitution, which explicity notes certian things that can be done only by the states or that cannot be done by any state.
3: The current "Real ID" law is, to my understanding, based in the twin areas of interstate trade and national security, both firmly vested in the federal government. If you don't mind never getting a passport and never taking the plane, you can probably avoid entering into this database--although there will be a fair bit of hardship on your part.
4: You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane, when you get a passport, and when you do any of the other things that you would use RealID for. The federal government *already* can track and aggregate all of the information that it or any government in the United States collects on you. And, ALL of this information is protected by the same kind of legal protection that your yearly tax forms are protected by--and trust me, the government knows FAR more about you from your taxes than they can get from your driver's license.
5: It's worth noting that, if there's only one place where all of your information is stored by the government, then realistically you will be able to use this to much more effectively defeat identity theft. Prove to one federal judge (or even a state judge...) that you are the real CygnusXII and that other guy in Pittsfield is a fraud, and it's a done deal.
Why is it that some of you are perfectly ok with carrying around a driver's license...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
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.
Funny, that.
Several sovereign States got together and delegated some powers to a central government. There's a big difference between "delegated" and "surrendered".
This means that a State can object to a federal mandate or pull out altogether.
Lincoln's revolution may have changed this in practice, but that's how it's supposed to work.
Doesn't this fly in the face of each States Rights to rule themselves?
Technically, no. The REAL ID act only requires that ID meet certain criteria for federal acceptance. If a state wished to issue a license that did not meet any of the criteria in some way they could still do so.
Interestingly, I don't know if the states are somehow require to indicate that a license does not meet the criteria on the license itself, or if the federal government has to figure that out on their own.
I guess I will be keeping my National ID card wrapped in tinfoil all the time.... :)
[ brakken ]
Yeah, as long as Hitler is only killing off Jews, it doesn't sound too bad to me.
If you give an inch...
It's only a matter of time before these things become embedded in our bodies with RFID signals, and someone like you will say "As long as it doesn't read my thoughts directly..."
Uhh...No.
While I don't agree with the act's passage;
The Constitution,Article VI states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance there of; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
States sold their souls awhile back...You Didn't know this ? You didn't read the fine print then, eh ?!
Don't look at me. I have a humor deficiency or impairment. My relationship to jokes is parallel to my relationship to hard work. "I love hard work. I could watch it all day." I can sort of appreciate a good joke, but the probability of my coming up with one is negligible. (Coming to you from the 14th WWW Conference in Chiba, Japan.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
5-10-05: Following Congressional passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Congressman Dreier of California leads the fight for H.R. 98, the "REAL Social Security Card Act of 2005" (American Politics Today #17) http://www.etopiamedia.net/empnn/pages/apt/apt17-5 551212.html
I am glad that Real ID has passed. Although our government does not in general heed the will of the people, this Real ID could be used to help Americans, if we can gain some control back regarding the issue of illegal immigration.
Currently, illegal immigrants are being used much like scab labor was used to break labor strikes, back in the day when America had labor unions (and real pay was higher than it is now).
In order to stop the use of cheap immigrant l;abor to flood the labor supply, we need national ID and a computer system. The system has already been tested on SSNs and it worked, but business lobbies got it dismantled.
So this Real ID could be useful, if we can raise political consciousness.
Don't bother demonizing me as a racist. That just bounces off of me. You racist-demonizers are just responding to years of programming by the elites.
BTW, why is that illegal aliens who work here and pay sales taxes, etc., cannot vote? Ever heard of taxation without representation?
And why is it that legal immigrants have to pay thousands of dollars and wait several years, all while paying taxes, before they are able to vote? Sounds like the neo-poll tax is here, along with taxation without representation and neoslavery.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
from ars
...
H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA 102...
Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.
Opponents of the concept of judicial review appeal to an obscure and cryptic article of the Constitution, the (in)famous Article 3, Section 2 (A3S2 for short), which states:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That last sentence is the kicker, because it looks for all the world like language that would enable Congress to wave a magic A3S2 wand over any piece of legislation no matter how outrageous and have it be completely exempt from review by the courts. The implications for the system of checks and balances if Congress actually invokes this provision are about as profound as it gets, which is why no Congress in American history has ever opted to open that particular can of worms... until now.
You can read more on the tinfoil hat implications of this here if you're interested, but I'll sum it up for you: Congress has crafted a completely unprecedented provision that guts the principle of judicial review by granting the DHS secretary complete and total immunity from the courts when it comes to the construction of "barriers and roads" in this one specific geographical region, and they've buried this provision inside a national ID card act which is itself attached to a large military appropriations bill that no Congressperson in their right mind would vote against (money for the troops and all that).
Obviously, if this passes, it'll set a precedent. First, some obscure border region outside of San Diego, and then on to bigger and better things? As the present bill stands, if DHS built a road through an endangered wetland and committed four murders in the process, nobody could take the government to court over it. Is this the kind of unchecked power that we want Congress to have? The sky's the limit, once the A3S2 can of worms is opened tomorrow.
----
Fuckers. I tried. I faxed my senator. What's the national governors association gonna do when the DHS builds a road over their house?
I am just going to mark this day as the day I stand still. I was pretty sure that there was no chance this wouldn't pass since it was attached to the military/tsounami bill but enough is enough. Unless it get's overturned this country is finished. Time to find a decent place to live.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Um, no. These are standards, not federally-instituted formats. As long as the required information is there, the state can have whatever format or design it wants. So you deal with people not knowing your state's license design still. An acceptable federal repository for license information would be a three-part hash: one for your full name, one for your federal license number, and one a randomly assigned key. If you submit all three and are an authorized user, you get a link to the state database. On the other hand, a client-based interstate system for license information retrieval would be nearly as effective, not too difficult to implement, and a good bit safer, especially from the FBI, NSA, etc.
5-10-05: Following Congressional passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Congressman Dreier of California leads the fight for H.R. 98, the "REAL Social Security Card Act of 2005" (American Politics Today #17) http://www.etopiamedia.net/empnn/pages/apt/apt17-5 551212.html
A Senator J.J. Binks from the State of Louisianna has called for a "Vote of No Confidence" in the current Speaker of the House.
Among those up for the position include Congressman Sensenbrenner, who is in no way related to Darth Sensenbrenner, although you can never get those two guys in the same room at the same time.
In other news . . .
I have to wonder if our political system is anywhere near what the founding fathers imagined. I think this is a sad day for our freedom and liberty in this country, but only the tip of the iceberg. Our government hardly ever seems to make decisions which give us more freedom. Both sides continually take away freedom. Which is why I like this quote:
Jefferson quite blithely wrote that America's Constitution would not be adequate to defend what he called liberty, that there would have to be a new revolution every 15 or 20 years, and that the tree of liberty needed to be nourished regularly with a fresh supply of patriot blood. (John W. Chuckman)
...but because you're gonna get a driver's license with a federal stamp on it, you get your panties up in a bunch?
If that were all this were about, I wouldn't have much of an issue about it. We have already federalized hazardous waste/cargo drivers licenses.
What blows is the bullshit reasoning behind the legislation: protection against terrorists. If this is such a great protection measure against terrorists, perhaps the proponents can tell me how a federalized passenger car license would have stopped this.
Stopping terrorists? Right. Sure.
This is an anti-immigration bill disguised as a anti-terrorism bill. No significant debate was allowed and the Republican-controlled House and Senate tacked it on the military spending to keep it that way. Republicans are just too chicken-shit to take on immigration reform because they fear a California-style backlash.
Now they are going to drive up my state taxes to make themselves feel good about "stopping" terrorism.
Republicans=Democrats without the guilt
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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
Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic. Maybe if our elected leaders remembered that's how our founding fathers wanted it, we wouldn't have these ridiculous intrusions upon our freedoms.
...democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner...
Oh well, keep your powder dry.
Goodwin's Law?
Is there something wrong with attempting to create a more secure identification system? Or an integrated nationwide Drivers License database? What's wrong with taking basic steps to secure our identification?
Instead of employing the filibuster for judges, why didn't they filibuster THIS?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...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)
I do not pretend to be a Constitutional Scholar, but this just seems to be (SO WRONG) on so many levels it isn't funny.
Except that most state legislatures would get pretty tired of hearing how their citizens are finding that they can't rent a car or get credit, or drive in some other state because that other state has started caring more about whether or not the people presenting an ID actually are who they say they are. We (the other states) generally accept the drivers' licenses issued by other states as a valid form of ID. But if I know that a given state's standards are really lax, and my own state is getting serious about illegal immigration, or foreign nationals buying truckloads of fertalizer, etc., it becomes unworkable. States don't have to participate, but if they have their citizens' interests at heart, they'll provide them with ID that will continue to serve them throughout the country as IT and security worries evolve.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not to mention all that census data that they already collect.
I think that what the real problem is similar to what hapenned with social security numbers. Originally a justifiable government purpose it has become hijacked by commercial interests to the point that they want your ssn when you apply to rent videos.
I think the "slippery slope" argument is particularly pertinent here, as you corporate interests start demanding to see your federal id.
Very thoughtless of our senators (not that they have much consideration to begin with).
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And here is why: This will piss people off. Not just /.ers, but anyone with a mild taste for freedom.
Right. Wait, no. Wait four months, then talk to someone random. Not someone on the internet. An actual person. Ask them their thoughts on the Real ID bill. I assure you, they won't have the foggiest idea it even happened.
The battle here isn't in keeping the bill from being passed. The battle is in getting people to care. This battle, we lost.
Even if you seriously intimidate everyone, some people are bound to vote differently just by mistake. 100% out of 24 million is just plain making up the results.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
Well, if the states roll over and issue these things, just toss your new card in the microwave for a few seconds. My guess is the RFID tag won't hold up for long.
"What's that you say, Officer? My card doesn't scan? Well, you don't say. Isn't that funny?"
Doesn't help with the inevitable abuses that aggragation of data will cause, but at least nobody can scan your driver's license from 20 feet away without your consent.
Keeping the ID inside something like a anti-static bag may work as well, which is what they give you with the EZ-Pass/Fastlane toll tags if you want to inhibit scanning without permanently frying your card.
It was the Yanks who came down and invaded. That's what caused the violence.
You pay on both ends. Even if you buy your ticket locally. -- toasted
Probably, but the last time I put it up...it was reasonably well liked.
That DMCA also passed with a unanimous vote, at least in the Senate, and with only a single voice of opposition in the House.
...a tinfoil hat for your wallet!!
They will never stop until somebody makes the
I guess this is "Amerika" now. Too bad the movie was just about as lousy.
According Bill Scannell the streets will be littered with dead cops and illegal aliens running over everyone else. Legislation like this wouldn't get passed if its opponents weren't such hysterical, over-the-top, chicken littles. Something needed to be done about the licenses in this country. Because no one had a better alternative besides saying the sky is falling, this is what you got. Until you can start acting like an adult in your opposition, you are going to get this sort of legislation.
Thank you, Bill Scannell!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
for a Soviet Russia joke?
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
Here's your answer.
blarg.
When I read the public print of the bill on thomas it says the
Real-ID part has been struck out. I also see where the Real-ID amendment was ruled not germane, and where the proposed amendment was withdrawn in the Senate.
Was Real-ID in the final version of the bill? If so, can someone
point me to the language?
Real-ID doesn't require a federal standards for drivers licenses. It DOES require certain standards to allow the use of a State issued ID card for certain things such as air travel. States are free to issue whatever form of a drivers license or certificate for State purposes.
reminds me of the bourne identity and supremacy...where he had to get a new set of eyes and hands to be able to take any part in government...that actually sounds feasible
Dain Bramaged
If it's not broke, don't fix it.
This goes the other way on securing our identification, it gives out more information in one little card than anything else.
This won't even help us out on the terrorist front because we have restrictions in place already, they just were not followed.
It is about time to ask "What is wrong with taking basic steps to secure our rights?"
"A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
That's it... I quit voting
Don't do that. Instead, vote for someone better. Better yet, actively support someone outside the usual two-party system. For as long as people keep thinking in terms of choosing the lesser of two evils or not voting at all, you will continue to be ruled rather than represented.
I don't like the idea of a national database, but having a standard design for drivers licenses and state id cards is a good thing. Think about it. They're the most frequently used form of id in this country, but every state has a different design, and most have very minimal security features.
I know because I see at least a dozen out-of-state drivers licenses a month. Many of them, except for being printed on plastic, look like something I could whip up in half an hour with the GIMP and a decent inkjet printer. How do I know if it's the real deal? The truth is that I don't.
So even if the database is bad, having a standard appearance and set of security features for all state-issued id cards is a good thing. It just makes it easier to tell that you're looking at the real deal.
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
from episode 2F11 (Bart's Comet):
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
...back in the '70's we used to laugh and ridicule the Russians for having to carry around their "papers" for inspection at anytime...
Conversely, remember when the USA had a War on Drugs and now because of that you can't buy drugs anymore?
This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
I voted for Russ Feingold precisely because I thought he had a pair big enough to stand up against this sort of thing.
Guess I was wrong. Or maybe he's considering a Presidential run? Hmmm.....
dinner: it's what's for beer
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
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 may be a little out of the loop here on technical specifics, so I have to ask: what information, exactly, will these cards contain about us? Will they have readable, exploitable information "Ben Dover, 429 Elephant Butt Street, Rectum Alabama 90210", or will they contain irreversible hash values that you compare but which themselves cannot be used as actual human-readable data during transactions?
Even if the latter, knowing a little bit about the government's track record of producing crappy, break-prone cryptography systems (at least a lot of the ones that eventually leaked to the public) and general bureaucratic dipshittery going on that comes with anything-bureaucracy, and even considering that this is more meddling of the federal government in which it has no Constitutional authority whatsoever, I'm going to refuse using this, no matter how mandatory or punishable by jail it may be in the near or distant future.
Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
Especially one that no congressman would dare vote against.
That would fix the problem.
Seriously,
We did all this parliamentary procedures and Robert's Rules of Order stuff back in FFA in high school, and I definitely remember a motion called "division of question," which allows you to divide a main motion into two or more seperate motions, then, if division of question passes, debate and vote on each part individually. For you computer types, it's sort of like exploding an array.
I know the senate is not directly analogous to high school clubs, but I wonder why the senators who did disapprove wouldn't have tried this. Or did they? Or perhaps the text is so carefully intermixed as to make such a motion practically impossible?
In unrelated news, professional lobbyists are now experiencing an effect that makes Viagra look like expired Tic-tacs.
Wait until a senator looses their wallet.
To find their private residence (the one listed on their ID) is wiped clean.
Then there will be yet another bill.
This issue is very old, here is an article about the same thing from 1998:
o 14no17_id.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1998/vo14no17/v
Back then, on Limbaugh, Boortz, and other conservative shows, people were screaming about the Democrats doing this - taking away our freedom, yada, yada. Now the bill is here and it will get passed - by Republicans. And the conservative talk shows... ho hum, no big deal, gotta fight terror, ya know.
Never voting Republican or Democrat ever again. The only things both parties care about is increasing their own power (i.e. the next election), control over citizens, and their taxation leverage.
For those wondering why this matters, we already have a "universal" ID - a State Driver's License and a Social Security Number. We don't need another ID from the Feds. We already have to show ID for everything including getting on an airplane and being admitted to a hospital. Having a Federal ID is simply another way to tag us as U.S. Property. Name any tangible benefit of this program to an individual citizen. It's completely for Federal benefit at our expense.
The whole standardized national ID card is nasty, I agree. It's not the federal government's place to tell the individual states how to handle their drivers' licensing schemes, it's true. But as has been pointed out already, the if the authorities want the information in question, they're gonna get it one way or the other... If nothing else, this'll make it easier for them, which means less time spent on it, which could conceivably mean less taxpayer money spent on digging up the information. Anyway, that's not the point. The worst part about this bill is the fact that it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law he/she wishes with absolutely no judicial review possible. This was discussed in comments a while back here on
In a couple of the 5 versions of this bill (H.R.1268) that are up on Thomas, that section is struck out. I believe that the most recent version is one that has it struck out, but not seeing any dates on the 5 different versions, I can't be certain. Am I correct in assuming that "Public Print," the last one in the list, is the finalized version? If not, then welcome to the police state, folks. If so... well... I'm a tool who just spent entirely too much time typing all this up for nothin'
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
What's really needed, once these IDs are handed out, is to get 100 or so volunteers to follow the senators around with a nice big antenna and blog daily about who they are meeting with, where, and for how long. When they stop carrying their Personal Identification Device find creative ways to force them to. For example intimate that they must have something to hide, like meeting with foriegn officials / the mob. Hopefully it wouldn't require anything illegal (such as reporting them to DHS for "suspicion activity") in order to get them to do their patriotic duty by carrying their papers with them.
Doing this might actually cause some positive change. In the meantime, tin foil works fairly well... I find two layers is usually sufficient =P
It's incredible, but i realized noneone even mentioned a thing about the extra 87 BILLIONS about Iraq Supplemental Spending.
...
I know the Real ID license reform is a big issue, but
Are you so used to this crazy spendings by your goverment ? Or don't you care anymore ?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.
- Create a fake realID (incredibly difficult, but nothing's impossible)
- Use easier to forge documents to gain a realID, then use that as a basis.
Usage of the realID to prevent identity theft is spotty at best, and really, putting all of our trust into a single ID sounds to me like inviting identity thieves.Or more likely...
I am not bothered by anything in this bill, of course I am a bit impartial. I am military, and I already have a federal ID card. I am extremely happy that the spending to help us out has been passed. The budget is too tight for the military right now, and I am tired of being told to wait for things that we need to do our job to protect our country, and anywhere else that we are ordered to.
Insightful? Murdering politicians that you disagree with? I guess when you are unable to come up with an intelligent rebuttal to a political argument, violence is a natural alternative. Sad. Makes you wish abortion could be performed retroactively. (j/k)
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The bill does not mandate states change their licensing system and contribute to the database, what it does is prohibit federal agencies from accepting as valid ID the driver's licenses from states that do not. This raises two interesting points:
1. How hard will it be for my state to enact "check the box" options for whether or not my license will be federally accepted. If I want to keep my information from the database, I can choose to do so.
2. Even now, other states still accept my driver's license. How often do I give my drivers license to a federal agency? I'm having a hard time remembering.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
A lot of people don't seem to understand why people object to such a harmless concept as a national ID. Here's a good explanation from http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1
***
As a security technologist, I regularly encounter people who say the United States should adopt a national ID card. How could such a program not make us more secure, they ask?
The suggestion, when it's made by a thoughtful civic-minded person like Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, often takes on a tone that is regretful and ambivalent: Yes, indeed, the card would be a minor invasion of our privacy, and undoubtedly it would add to the growing list of interruptions and delays we encounter every day; but we live in dangerous times, we live in a new world....
It all sounds so reasonable, but there's a lot to disagree with in such an attitude.
The potential privacy encroachments of an ID card system are far from minor. And the interruptions and delays caused by incessant ID checks could easily proliferate into a persistent traffic jam in office lobbies and airports and hospital waiting rooms and shopping malls.
But my primary objection isn't the totalitarian potential of national IDs, nor the likelihood that they'll create a whole immense new class of social and economic dislocations. Nor is it the opportunities they will create for colossal boondoggles by government contractors. My objection to the national ID card, at least for the purposes of this essay, is much simpler.
It won't work. It won't make us more secure.
In fact, everything I've learned about security over the last 20 years tells me that once it is put in place, a national ID card program will actually make us less secure.
My argument may not be obvious, but it's not hard to follow, either. It centers around the notion that security must be evaluated not based on how it works, but on how it fails.
It doesn't really matter how well an ID card works when used by the hundreds of millions of honest people that would carry it. What matters is how the system might fail when used by someone intent on subverting that system: how it fails naturally, how it can be made to fail, and how failures might be exploited.
The first problem is the card itself. No matter how unforgeable we make it, it will be forged. And even worse, people will get legitimate cards in fraudulent names.
Two of the 9/11 terrorists had valid Virginia driver's licenses in fake names. And even if we could guarantee that everyone who issued national ID cards couldn't be bribed, initial cardholder identity would be determined by other identity documents... all of which would be easier to forge.
Not that there would ever be such thing as a single ID card. Currently about 20 percent of all identity documents are lost per year. An entirely separate security system would have to be developed for people who lost their card, a system that itself is capable of abuse.
Additionally, any ID system involves people... people who regularly make mistakes. We all have stories of bartenders falling for obviously fake IDs, or sloppy ID checks at airports and government buildings. It's not simply a matter of training; checking IDs is a mind-numbingly boring task, one that is guaranteed to have failures. Biometrics such as thumbprints show some promise here, but bring with them their own set of exploitable failure modes.
But the main problem with any ID system is that it requires the existence of a database. In this case it would have to be an immense database of private and sensitive information on every American -- one widely and instantaneously accessible from airline check-in stations, police cars, schools, and so on.
The security risks are enormous. Such a database would be a kludge of existing databases; databases that are incompatible, full of erroneous data, and unreliable. As computer scientists, we do not know how to keep a database of
You could argue for any of those 14, and I'd guess that 7 of some of them apply in just about everyone's mind.
Saying the U.S. is not becoming a facist state is like saying that franklin d rosevelt wasnt a communist. Neither argument works.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
God help us all
I believe, under US law, that is an absolute..
is there any circumstance, where an american, living abroad, is not required to file taxes?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I pledge $50 as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rep. Sensenbrenner.
What for? I have no idea. I'm not accusing him of any crime. But with nearly everything being illegal these days, there might be something if enough people look hard enough.
$50 isn't much, but then I don't have much. Perhaps others would like to chip in. Perhaps someone would step forward to coordinate things.
Awhile ago my RealID was lost or stolen. I was told I couldn't get a replacement without a birth certificate, and couldn't get a birth certificate without a RealID. This went on for a year. Eventually I hired a lawyer, and got it straightened out.
I tried looking and got confused with all the versions that had things removed but evidently didn't pass.
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
I would have thought that the passage of the Patriot Act (and the abuses of it) would have caused a ruckus but it hasn't.
Enter the Gulf War 2.0. Should have got people up in arms over the fact that Osama was still walking about alive and well (and with his dialysis machine no less) but again, nothing doing.
Sad to say but the bulk of the American voting public doesn't really give a shit about voting and would much rather whine instead of making a difference.
they have regular passports but also a national ID that serves as a double of their passport which they can show when they enter the country. It would be useful for the States to have a standard for IDs so that layout and holograms are easy for security to deal with. Passports should be updated for the 21st century as should IDs, but the federal government should only be involved in setting the standard with plenty of research done by several independent research firms, States should retain control of most data
Abandon all hope ye who enter here...
why is it legal to tack absolutely anything onto an unrelated bill? Why do lawmakers not vote on each individual section?
My bill gives people named Vinnie $10,000,000 and states that in general, having a gorilla shit on your mother's chest would be a bad thing. You dont think having a gorilla shit on your mother's chest would be a good thing, do you??
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION (a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-
(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this division, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.
If a state chooses not to follow H.R.1268 they don't have to. Their ID won't be accepted by federal agencies - but there are other forms of ID besides State drivers licenses / State ID cards that the federal agencies will accept.
Hang your flags at half mast, upside down.
Hide your guns where you can get them.
...you'll pay for it. States will raise the cost of 'DMV' IDs and you'll pay. Hackers will crack the encryption, and with all your personal data on the card, you'll be a victim of identity theft in a new form and supposedly 'impossible' according to the government, and you'll pay. You'll have to buy a metal case or use tinfoil to prevent the RFID signal from being read from up to 20ft away, and you'll pay for that, too. The police will pull you over, and when they can't read your ID from 20 ft away, they'll treat you like a criminal (until, after being cuffed faced down in the mud they locate and read your ID), and you'll pay. The ID will soon be required for all transactions because its the only 'secure' way to know who you are and companies will harvest your information to use and sell, and you'll pay. The government will sell access to the database, your privacy will be non-existent, and you'll pay.
Don't worry, you'll pay.
I am not against a National ID program, but this implementation is doomed because it is extremely poorly thought out and includes information and technology that is clearly detrimental to the populace.
If U.S. citizens will have to walk around with these abominations, EVERYONE entering the country should be required to carry one of these with the same if not MORE information on it.
BTW, what ID do illegal aliens get? They don't qualify for the 'RealID' so they will have none? I guess they will walk around more freely than we will!
As far as illegal aliens, I recommend that they be processed to receive an 'UnRealID' that includes photos, fingerprints, and DNA so we can positively identify them if they are ever brought in again. After all, they are her illegally, and should be positively identifiable. No more criminals avoiding prosecution by using a new alias. And if a guy who's given name is 'Carlos Rodriguez' identifies himself to the police as 'Humberto Delgado', sorry Charlie, but you'll always be Humberto in the U.S. on your "legal" ID!!!
P.S. This can be used to allow 'illegals' to work and live without fear of prosecution unless the INS decides to bring deportation proceedings against them.
--
toasted
Am I the only one here that has an instictive fear of anything called "Real_____(whatever)"?
This space available.
Don't accept a national ID card.Destroy it.Hack it do something with it outside of it's intended use.I'm sick to death of rules,regulations,unjust laws.The constant errosion of American freedoms.I won't hear another word about we need to do this for greater Security.Yep security.Better stock up on Food precious metals and guns n ammo.
,Democrat that.none of it matters.It's all a game. Good cop,bad cop.All a bunch of murderous thugs working for thier wealthy international handlers.
Read ID is just another example of how fast we are moving towards a police state.Republican this
We are trading Democracy for Fasicm and most people don't even know it and wouldn't believe if you tried to tell em.Re-Educate the populous and turn against Real ID and anything else like it.
As such, I feel more safety if none of those in charge of securing an airline flight, a public event, a public building, etc assumes that since all identification checks out, we somehow have some level of trust in the people that are in posession of verfied "ID".
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Why is it "reasonable" to have the criteria for IDs in southern California be the same as the criteria for Wisconsin?
More importantly, why should a corrupt state worker in New York be able to issue IDs for California?
Before you gush over how great the system is, look at how it can be abused.
Having a national ID that can be purchased from organized crime is worse than having 50 states with their own systems.
Maybe what some of these so-called legislators could do is introduce a bill to nullify all the provisions of the RealID act before it even consumes state government time and money. Like this week. That would rock. Though I doubt it would happen, with the pussies on the left and the fearmongering right, this shitty idea will start to waste tax dollars in a state near you very soon.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
How about anyone being able to read all the info from your license from up to 20 ft away?
Sounds great, no?
See some of my other comments here.
-- toasted
Can we now get someone to attach legislation removing all this Real-ID cruft to some other "must-pass" bill?
-- $SIGNATURE
The Federal government has the right to regulate "interstate commerce". Since people drive on federally funded interstate highway systems, and cross state lines while driving, then they have the right to step in.
Welcome to federalism.
IF you want highway money from the fed gov.
you must do what the fed requires re; ID
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Since this thing will be accepted NATIONWIDE, the value of it to criminals will go through the roof.
And remember what Capitalism has taught us, where there's a market, there's a supply.
So, the bad guys can search the entire nation, looking for the weakest link to exploit because the return will be HUGE.
Right now, people pay thousands of dollars (per person) to be smuggled into the US. With RealID, they arrive with a nationally accepted identity.
This system is "brittle". Once any ONE point (out of thousands) is cracked, the entire system is open.
And the incentive to find that weakest point is huge.
There is no constitutional requirement that the people of the US be subjected to international human traffic. There _is_ a constitutional requirement that the people of the US be free from the sort of subjugation implied by a national security state that views residents of the US with so much suspicion that they must prove their citizenship.
Seastead this.
You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane
g 22780.html
Umm.. hmmm.. really?
http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000686.html
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/ms
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION (a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-
(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this division, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.
If a state chooses not to follow H.R.1268 they don't have to. Their ID won't be accepted by federal agencies - but there are other forms of ID besides State drivers licenses / State ID cards that the federal agencies will accept.
It depends on how they are doing it. It's true that Congress is generally not allowed to directly command a state's executive or legislative branch. But Congress has found a lot of loopholes over the years. For example, it can condition funding based on a state legislatures passage of a statute.
Here they are simply making life difficult for a state's citizens if that state does not provide an ID in the format that the federal government prefers. This will put political pressure on those states' legislature to act.
Whether it is constitutional depends on how the Supreme Court feels about it.
In Australia in the 90's a similar idea of a national identity card was overwhelmingly voted 'no', and has not raised its ugly head again. Amazing what a can be justified under the umbrella of paranoia. Don't get me wrong, I think the US is in many ways the greatest nation in the world, not just in military might but in the humaitarian ideals of democracy and freedom, and deserves its place as the leader of the free world. But as anyone from another country who has visited the US knows, there is a strong xenophobic undercurrent and quite a high intolerance/ignorance of other cultures. Thus, a national identity card will only serve to increase the 'fortress USA' feeling.
You're just covering the aspects that apply to the LAW-ABIDING citizens.
So, the good people now have an increased risk of having their identity stolen.
But this is a worthwhile trade-off because this system will stop the bad guys, right?
No. This system will HELP the bad guys by giving them an ID that will be accept NATIONWIDE but can be picked up at any corrupt worker in any state.
So, I commit some crimes in NYC and I'm having some problems.
I pick up a faked Wisconsin ID and move to California. Now I have a clean slate. It isn't like the CA cops will have any reason to suspect my RealID.
So is there any way the American people can appeal what the old fogies have doomed us to?
Ecotopia ERNEST CALLENBACH
California secedeing is what it's all about.
sequel is ok.. original is great
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Let's play Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'll be Pestilence.
Remmeber how Kerrey got attacked because he voted against all those military spending bills, and that he voted against a bill that "would have given food and provisions to our soldiers in iraq". Well that's the reason why everybody voted for this bill.
Viewing this link indicates that debate regarding this part of the bill was brought up before the Senate, but it was voted that the debate be stopped.
Text from site:
To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States Senate.
Finally, someone who knows about the hypocracy that was Lincoln. We (the USA) said we didn't want to live under England's rule anymore. We draft the Declaration of Independence then fight a war when they refuse to leave.
But, when the Confederate states do not feel that they are being represented and wish to lay out a form of government that will serve their needs, then they are suddenly "rebels" and should not be allowed to have that choice.
To sum it up in one quote, from one of the most important founding documents:
" Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Now, doesn't it seem like Lincoln disagreed completely with this sentence??
The bad people will have an EASIER time getting ID's to use in any state.
Which means the good people will be LESS safe with RealID than they are right now.
Wait until the first news story breaks about some punk drug dealer with 3 different RealID's.
from http://pintday.org/archive/20050510 A man stands tall and proud. He stands on a podium, addressing the people. Meanwhile, at home, the man's country is building walls. To keep his people inside. His people are afraid.
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.
...and Nazi Germany...
It's against the Constitution and if ANY of these Senators knew about this, whether voting would have made them look bad or not, they should be removed from office as they have failed to uphold their Oath of Office at this point.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Now just a couple of stories down, you'll see the number of comments for "VoIP Services to be Regulated in Canada" sits as of this writing at 90.
Here we have over 450.
To get to the point, one thing I so admire in America, is the fact that people are more actively debating important policies.
Albiet this is a US site with greater population, it sure contrasts the passiveness in the North.
Since my son is an American, these decisions do affect me so I'll chuck in my wooden nickle.
Combining Driver ID and Iraq Spending sounds like something a Canadian politician would do.
The driver ID might turn out to be similar to Canada's gun registry.
A complete waste of tax payers money.
More spending in Iraq to the tune of $86 Billion???
What is the US National Debt at now anyway?
Where are you getting all this money?
You seem to miss the point, without a RealID, you can't even drive a car, have a job, have a bank account or anything. The only way for the the national ID to work is to require it as the only acceptable ID. I'd say that goes beyond just a fair bit of hardship.
4: You are *already* required to identify yourself when you board a plane, when you get a passport, and when you do any of the other things that you would use RealID for. The federal government *already* can track and aggregate all of the information that it or any government in the United States collects on you. And, ALL of this information is protected by the same kind of legal protection that your yearly tax forms are protected by--and trust me, the government knows FAR more about you from your taxes than they can get from your driver's license.
Actually, I don't need a passport or identification to board a plane for interstate travel. Show me the law that says otherwise, then contact John Gilmore, because he can't even get the TSA to show him or his attorney the law. I agree that you do need an ID for a passport, but that is because it establishes citizenship. Just like my SS# is only to establish eligibility in the Social Security program and my eligibility to work. Besides, if the Gov't already has all this data, why do they need additional legislation to guarantee that they have it?
5: It's worth noting that, if there's only one place where all of your information is stored by the government, then realistically you will be able to use this to much more effectively defeat identity theft. Prove to one federal judge (or even a state judge...) that you are the real CygnusXII and that other guy in Pittsfield is a fraud, and it's a done deal.
So what's to guarantee that they guy in Pittsfield isn't going to have the same or better documentation. How about someone else steals my RealID via RFID and uses it locally for purchases or for a terrorist act (link talks about the new passports, but is just as relevent showing gov't cluelessness). How can I prove it wasn't me? Often Identity Theft occurs close to home. That's what makes it so hard to battle. The legislation does nothing to ensure that mass duplication of my ID is prevented.
Ha-Ha! /points
You loser Democrats and your "oh Russ he's so hunky; he would never sell us out". That's what you get for believing in goodness.
(I've got a friend like you. I'm just practicing for giving him a hard time over this.)
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
All the South wanted was to break off and form their own national government, as is their right.
This right of self determination not extending to the slaves, of course. Funny how when we personify something like a nation or region we tend to forget certain groups.
It was the Yanks who came down and invaded. That's what caused the violence.
This is true. I am not crediting the Union with moral superiority. Lincoln didn't start the war to free slaves; they were used as strategic leverage in the war, and in the process Lincoln used extra-constitutional powers.
This has no bearing at all on the fact that anyone, including the would-be Confederate government, who claims that secession represented the will of the people of the South is a liar.
The enemies of Democracy are
The bill is very much related. It's all about national security (or so the bill says). It is also alleged that the occupation in Iraq is in the interest of national security. The bill has come up once before, but didn't pass muster.
I do agree with your sentiment though...the practice of "ridiing" bills that otherwise wouldn't get passed is a complete end run around the democratic process.
FANTASTIC idea. Who do we have to bribe to get it passed into law??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
On the bright side the national ID standards will require that illegal aliens not be given normal licenses. This is GOOD news for those who want to reduce government. Being from Washington State (the site of a rather grizly Gubernatorial election as of late) I will most certianly appreciate any new measure to prevent illegals from reaping *any* unearned benefits of citizenship... especially services that cost me tax dollars but most importantly "the vote".
This may sound like bass-ackward logic, but maybe the correct approach to encourage more of rather than oppose legislation like this. The incremental erosion of our freedoms doesn't seem to register with the general population. The changes are small and innocent looking enough that they will eventually be accepted as the status quo. However, accelerating the change the to status quo would likely result in a backlash from the populous. Imagine what would have happened if the provisions of the Real-ID had been included in the original Patriot Act. Would they have both survived if packaged together?
...or maybe my tin foil hat is on way too tight.
This bill passes 100-0, which I'm assuming (although I could be wrong) means every Senator, Republican, Democratic, and Independent, voted for it.
Yet just about everyone here wants to blame only the Republicans for the bill.
Yet just about everyone here wants to blame only the Republicans for attaching unrelated bills.
Both sides do it, yet just about everyone wants to pretend that only "the other party" does it.
100-0. That's a huge loss for alarmist liberals and illegal immigrants, and a big win for real Americans.
$80+ billion more wasted on Iraq.
Less civil rights for the US citizen.
Just about sums it up.
Anybody who can't see what's wrong with this picture is just a moron.
'Course, no shortage of those on
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm going to make it a yearly trip to piss on his grave.
And when the officer pulls me over at the not-really-random checkpoints along the Interstate to ask me for my "papers please", I'll tell him I'm going to piss on the grave of the man who made it easy for him to look me up.
I cannot believe that even Russ Feingold (D-WI) didn't stand up to this (he was the sole voice voting against the PATRIOT Act)... But the Republicans are to blame here, as they control the majority, and it is a Republican who will sign it into law.
Principles? Fuck 'em. Republicans have never adhered to principle any longer than politically-convenient. Concern for Big Brother government and Soviet-style national ID systems? Whatever happened to worrying that we would become like the very communist and socialist states we were fighting against in the Cold War?
Free country, huh? Bullshit, not anymore.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Why, then, is a uniform driver license considered bad?
For a long time one could not fly without a driver license, passport, or other "government issued" photo id -- something I personally resented greatly even during the "happy" Clinton era.
Invasive of privacy? Hardly any more than the current license. What's the big deal? Can't even blame it on a particular "special interest"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
BTW, their search engine has this thing where it caches results for your session only. If you check the URL and see a 'temp' in it after 'query' linking to that particular page of results won't work.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The funding has to be related to the command. So they couldn't say "you must make national IDs or lose education funding." So, I'm at a loss trying to figure out what part of funding they could withhold to try to lure the states into participating.
I don't think there's been a national speed limit since 1995. Perhaps you're thinking of drinking age and drunk driving mandates?
What?
Isn't it interesting that out of all the clever minds here on /. not a single person seems to be able to post a single coherent argument on why a national ID is a bad idea.
Was there an actual argument about this in the first place?
I guessed I missed that part about this not being attached as a rider to a bill that would be political suicide to vote against.
here is the a link to the appropriate part of the Real-ID part of the bill that was passed that basically enforces a national ID.
And I plan on doing that VERY THING.
I propose to go one step further...
If your Representative happened to vote yes on this abomination, you should do the same as you ought to with the Senators. They shouldn't be holding office any longer if they can't honor their Oath; they swore to uphold the Constitution when they took office- voting for this travesty isn't doing that.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I would like to remind everyone that it was the SOUTH that fired on Fort Sumner first in the American Civil War.
But that's okay, the south is half the reason why we are in this mess in the first place. They've voted solidly Republican in the last two elections. Now I want New England, the midwest and the west coast to cede and throw off the stupid states!
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Click me, obviously. Guess we're just too damn lazy to persuade one hundred measly politicians, eh?
Somehow this sounds exactly like how Trusted Computing will insinuate itself.
What is wrong with this era we live in??? haven't we learned anything from our vast access to history??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Back in the 70s when the national speed limit went into effect they withheld highway funding.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Two words: Bork nomination. This was by far the worst. And in case you don't know, it wasn't the Republicans. Though, I have to say that Frist is sure asking for a filibuster from the Democrats on whomever Bush appoints, and if Bush's puppeteers are smart the first person he appoints will be someone to draw the fire/filibuster and then they can get someone (maybe less Right-wing) through.
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.
themusicgod1@jabberwocky.hn.org
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Oops - correction: it refers to 'any laws' that might prevent roads or barriers necessary for Homeland Security. More obnoxious, still not as extensive as implied, and the law itself is still subject to judicial review. And the clause was misquoted, as I suspected.
...but doesn't this say the amendment was withdrawn? (If the link fails to work, look up HR 1268, then Senate Amendment 429, on http://thomas.loc.gov.)
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
That's a blowout.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
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.
You expose yourself as an ideological fraud when you appeal to the idea of inherent rights to defend a society that enslaved half its population.
People delude themselves into thinking that they believe in abstract ideals like "states' rights." Sure you believe in states' rights when that's your retort against those damn Yanks to want to integrate your schools. But as soon as other states start granting gay marriage licenses? CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!
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.
I've looked at the text of H.R.1268, but I can't find Real ID in it, the only reference to Real ID is struck out, is this because I'm a moron or is it hiding very well?
I see no references to Licenses that aren't struck out either, besides a reverence to fishing and hunting Licenses.
Did Real ID disappear and is all of this mute or does struck out mean something besides what I think it does?
Here's the full text so you can help me understand where Real ID went.
The bill also includes an extra 592 Million Dollars for a new US embassy in Baghdad. Doesn't that kind of sound like overkill?
>The senate version of the bill didn't even have the Real ID language, but the joint meeting added most of it back.
In fact, back in April the Senate passed a resolution to exclude immigration-related material from the funding bill, and the Appropriations Committee chairman said the bill wouldn't go through with junk attached. This was less than a month ago. What changed, where, when, and BY WHOM?
It's basically the majority extorting the minority into voting for something they might not otherwise. In 18 months, 1/3rd of the Senate and all of Congress are up for election. In about half that time, campaigning is going to begin.
The majority of the bill regarding funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Tsunami relief. Remember all the mud thrown at Kerry for voting "against" funding for troops? You can try to defend such a vote all you want, but the thing is the argument will always end with "but you voted against properly equipping our fighting men and women!!"
While I'd like to think that at least one person in the Senate would have the cajones to stand up against something like this and vote against it, the democrats also know that if they voted against it, they stand a greater chance of losing their seat to a republican next election. Which is the greater loss?
I'd suspect we'll see a number of bills introduced in the near future to try to repeal parts of the bill not relating to military funding.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
prolly gets filtered through many people, then eventually "lost" Might be hard for him to read, though, cant really beat 'Hop on Pop'
Quite honestly, you have the 17th amendment to blame for putting us in this shithole. Previously, the senate was an indirect democracy, elected by the state legislatures. The days of the Senate representing the states ended about the same time the federal government began claiming powers not specifically excluded, rather than those specifically granted, which is right around the time the 17th amendment was ratified.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Anthem" Author: Ayn Rand
"A Brave New World" Author: Aldous Huxley
"Fahrenheit 451" Author: Ray Bradbury
-
"Gattaca" Director: Andrew Niccol
I don't know why parent was modded funny. That sounds like a very good law. Read the F***ing bill foolish congressmen and senators! In fact, they should dedicate a little money each year to a testing company to quiz each legislator on each bill. Don't pass, can't vote.
...wrote in his Foundation's edge: "The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy"
Another Moore's law?
I just wrote my two state Senators about how displeased I am about the RealID rider attached to the bill. I'm trying to get my dozen other close, close friends to do the same. I've sent them personal e-mails, had IM chat, talked on the phone, etc. It seems damn near impossible to get anyone to even write a fucking letter! You get the usual excuses... they laugh it off, they say they lack the energy, they question what difference it will make anyway, etc. The point is that if people slowly get their freedoms taken from them -- they won't notice it all. Many people whine, but few actually do anything. Yeah way to fuck America and yourself... I wonder what the Germans thought: Hey, I'm busy living life. Maybe this Hitler guy is onto something. Whatever, it should work out in the end.
Boycott Sony
oh: the story i alluded to above is here
And chew bubblegum.
And I don't mean with people grouped together with big signs. I do seem to remember that it's our duty as Americans to overthrow tyrants when they attempted to grab hold of our most sacred of sacred birth right - freedom.
If this isn't the biggest motherfuckin' hand attempting to swipe our cookies from the jar that I've ever seen, my name is Genghis Kahn. And it isn't.
Seriously, 600 million? How much did Disneyland cost? I better be able to ride the kick-ass rides when I go visit my tax-funded Baghdad extravaganza.
Hell, for that price you should be able to hunt people... or are we not to discuss that yet?
It may be taken for granted among some, but many have not only never read Brave New World or 1984 (different, but each has a message), many have no exposure to the ideas of those works. The ideas of 1984 have been often imitated in mainstream culture and are likely better known. It is a black and white work. Huxley's book is far more subtle and, I think, less appreciated. Both should be prerequisites to vote, I feel.
A gram is better than a damn.
...BLAUSCHEIM, BITTE!!!!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
It's basically the majority extorting the minority into voting for something they might not otherwise. In 18 months, 1/3rd of the Senate and all of Congress are up for election. In about half that time, campaigning is going to begin.
Yep. And I'll make damned sure to let my rep know that had he bothered to read the faxes myself and friends sent his office, he'd have seen that the people he represents were against this bill.
Time to vote every one of these fuckers out of office. All of them.
What a messsage that would send, eh? Too bad it'll never happen..
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
That's why sadly even Boxer and Feingold voted for it. In the House it had a fairly partisan vote, with only 8 Republicans voting no, and 42 Democrats voting yes. The roll call is here.
1) find a patriotic bill that no-one could disagree with eg the 'increased police money to find paedophiles bill.
2) attach something that has absolutely nothing to do with the bill what so ever.
3) claim you're all for 'smaller government' and an end to filibustering (which is the only thing stopping your even worse crap getting through).
4) be fucking retarded.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Was it via this site?
Just curious.
Gives a link to the putz responsible with email address. We should all send a friendly email and let him know our thoughts.
Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
I would hope that the U.S. could make a standard driver license that would mean something in Europe. Right now if you move to Europe from the U.S. you have to go through the painful process of getting a European driver license. It is not cheap or easy.
If we had a national standard, maybe we could come up with an agreement with the EU so that our licenses would be convalidated across the pond.
cp -R
In the Senate Version of the bill (Summary here), the entire section of Title VII is struck out and dropped. This Title VII is the title that contained the Read-ID act.
The House version of the bill on the other hand, included that section. (Summary here)
And to verify what I know about the process briefly here.
Then when the conference report came in, that section was put back, and approved by the Senate. And the actual text about driver licenses and the beginning of the whole part.
Because the Senate already passed the conference version.... it looks like doomsday for those whom are worried about this.
I'm reading this while listening to some of John William's Star Wars music - Ep1:PM, Dual of the Fates, Ep3:RotS, Battle of the Heroes, and Ep5:ESB, The Imperial March. How unfortunately appropriate.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
States fear the new rules may force applicants to make more than one trip to motor vehicle departments, once to provide documents such as birth certificates that states must verify and a second time to pick up the license, state officials said.
So you have a three-day cooling-off period before you get a license to drive to a gun shop and have another three-day cooling-off period to buy the gun...
Yes, CSPAN is available to millions of people to watch,but, come on, not many people watch it. If those who felt like they need to vote against something because of a rider truly wanted to speak out about it, they'd make much more plublicity out of it. Perhaps the whole Democratic party should set aside funds for this. Use THIS informaiton against the Republicans the next time around.
I hate to say they need to make a music video and 30 second sound-bite out of the rider problem, but I know that whining on CSPAN doesn't get you heard by the majority of the public.
This is what we call 'old hat' as far as procedure goes. It's been going on since before the republicans existed, and the Democrats are slightly more guilty of it than everyone else, mostly because they've been around to write more legislation.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I'm so glad that terrorists will now be able to buy beer in all 50 states. It's annoying to stand in line at the Kwikeemart waiting for Ala Bin Crawwdaddin to fish through all those forged green cards. This should make things sooooo much easier.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
is the Real ID a standardized national drivers licence or a national ID card (with biometrics) !?
/me for example. but I don't live t3h USA)
what about people without a drivers licence?
(yes, like
Pennsylvania can't comply, because among other things, they offer a 'religious exemption' to the Amish and others to not have a photo on their ID. Real ID requires a photo. If PA gives just one Amish person a non-photo ID, the feds are required to refuse ALL Pennsylvania IDs. And if they don't give these people IDs, then either they will face lawsuits or they will have to stop requiring IDs. Of course if they do that, then criminals not having ID will just claim the 'religious exemption'.
What a mess.
We didn't have seatbelts...
NOW we have seatbelt laws...
EVERYTHING is corrupted to deprive us of our birthright of Freedom.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
well...
"Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists."
exactly...
I mean, WOW. Where's the debate? How can you have a democracy when there's no debate of any sort? It looks like a two party state isn't all that much more democratic than a one party state.
Deleted
You're not reading the right version of the bill. It was put back in.
That's what really gets me. I hadn't heard of RealID until 3 days ago, and now it's been passed! Where was the debate on the establishment of a national ID card, which is what this is. You might as well not be living in a democracy.
Deleted
Term Limits.
Balanced Budget Amendment loophole.
Anti-Spam bill.
Daylight Savings Time proliferation.
Such popular works by our Congress.
JUST HOW MUCH FREAKIN' MONEY DO WE NEED, SO **WE** CAN BUY A CONGRESSMAN, TOO?!?!?!
When it's not an election year, do they _completely_ forget we're here?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
What happens if the DHS decides to exempt itself from this law? Will there be recursive exemption?
you are exempt from this law, therefore you no longer have the power to exempt yourself, therefore you are not able to exempt yourself from this law, therefore you are able to exempt yourself, therefore....
- tlf
that should stop the stupid spending bill and Real ID bill dead in it's tracks
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.
If democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner, the ten wolves will look to their right, and to their left, and say, "Let us take our sheep friends amoung us."
The 10 wolves will say to 9 sheep, "You are special, smart, and clever. Let us agree amoung ourselves how to vote, and then however our vote goes, we shall all vote that way, to provide a strong front." The sheep, flattered and eager to have power, nod.
The wolves look to their right, and to their left, and say, "Let us take the sheep fools amoung us."
The 10 wolves and their 9 sheep friends will find 18 other sheep, and say to them, "You are special, smart, and clever. The rest of the flock is quite foolish, and prone to making mistakes. Let our learned council decide how to vote beforehand, and then we all vote together before the flock." The sheep, flattered and eager to have power, nod.
The wolves look to their right, and to their left, and say, "Let us take the sheep idealists amoung us."
The 10 wolves, their 9 sheep friends, and their 18 sheep synchopants find 36 other sheep, and say to them, "We sympathize with your ideals. The other sheep will not see clear to helping your cause, but together we can make it happen. Let our idealistic council decide how to vote beforehand, and then we all vote together before the flock." The sheep, flattered and eager to have power, nod.
The wolves look to their right, and to their left. It is time to sup, and dinner is from the disenfranchised, alone flock of sheep who were truly practicing democracy. Soon their numbers will be gone, and the wolves will see they no longer need the idealists votes, so they start becoming the main course.
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." -- John Lennon
Real-ID is a BAD thing. No two ways about it. It will cost the states untold amounts of money. If the National Governors Association brings forth a suit, then I bet that if this goes to the Supreme's that they will shoot it down as it stomps on the rights of the states.
Gorkman
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
The second requirement to be in the US Congress is Cowardice. The first is a tie with Ambition, Arrogance, and greed.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
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.
They still voted for it. If each senator had problems with the bill they should have voted against it. They would have appropriated the funds again, just without the REAL ID act. Standing up and saying it scares you and it should be in the bill then voting for it is nothing but a circle jerk
In no way will this improve national security the only side effects from this that are remotely good in the governments point of view is that the security of the country is improved through illegal immigrants getting drivers license. Although that means that everyone else who drives will have to suffer from an increase in uninsured drivers. You can't do anything without a license as it is now forget it in 3 years. The other benefit is that we will now easily be tracked with of new national id cards. Looks like it's time to buy stock in aluminum foil. Assuming that they go with the RFID fad will it be illegal to make your own reader and collect the info on your own system. But then again who really cares the country has gone to hell anyway. You can find me in my sumterrainian bomb shelter.
Maybe it will get some of these goddamn illegals off the highways, since they can't get drivers licenses legally now.
C:\>
the American experiment has failed.
Seriously. When one party can ram anything down the throat of the legislature you have defacto one party rule.
And I can see the train wreck as a national database of IDS is built where the beltway bandits sell security database solutions to the governments which are buggy and lose data integrity. Criminals and terrorists will be missed, while some poor bastards will be caught up in sweeps on false positives and held with legal representation.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I like having the ability to get tickets in Minnesota, pay the stupid fine, and not have them tickets transfered to Michigan :)
:) Half the system works.
These fuckers in Minnesota ticketed me and told me to get an MN ID and plates for my truck. Went to court and said "fuck you, I can work in one state and live in another, federal law says I can". And they dropped the charges.
fuck this ID system
-- Jason...
OPPOSITION, n.
In politics the party that prevents the Government from running amuck by hamstringing it.
The King of Ghargaroo, who had been abroad to study the science of government, appointed one hundred of his fattest subjects as members of a parliament to make laws for the collection of revenue. Forty of these he named the Party of Opposition and had his Prime Minister carefully instruct them in their duty of opposing every royal measure. Nevertheless, the first one that was submitted passed unanimously. Greatly displeased, the King vetoed it, informing the Opposition that if they did that again they would pay for their obstinacy with their heads. The entire forty promptly disemboweled themselves.
"What shall we do now?" the King asked. "Liberal institutions cannot be maintained without a party of Opposition."
"Splendor of the universe," replied the Prime Minister, "it is true these dogs of darkness have no longer their credentials, but all is not lost. Leave the matter to this worm of the dust."
So the Minister had the bodies of his Majesty's Opposition embalmed and stuffed with straw, put back into the seats of power and nailed there. Forty votes were recorded against every bill and the nation prospered. But one day a bill imposing a tax on warts was defeated -- the members of the Government party had not been nailed to their seats! This so enraged the King that the Prime Minister was put to death, the parliament was dissolved with a battery of artillery, and government of the people, by the people, for the people perished from Ghargaroo.
You used "Congress" and "efficiently" in a single, articulate sentence.
Commerce, as used in the constitution, doesn't mean "trade". It simply means relations. Any interaction between States or citizens of States is commerce.
Except they were re-admitted. In fact they were required to ratify the 14th amendment as a condition for their re-admittance. Nice try though.
This is more of a personal political pet peeve, but liberal-minded folks should really open themselves up to the true spirit of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the one the mainstream Democratic party wishes to erase. I know this idea is often associated with the 'redneck constituency', and of course the Dems love that point of view because nothing sells politics like bigotry, but this is a basic fundamental human and American right. Things are on that slippery slope, my friends. The very last stronghold the people have against a tyrannical government, whether it comes this year or a hundred years from now, is the right to overthrow that government. It's not just a right but a duty. Any forward-thinker who has a concept of history can see that American politicians are selling us out and that things are eventually going to get ugly. Once they disarm you, you haven't even got a chance. Now I'm not telling you to go join some racist radical extremist militia and dig yourself in the dirt, but I believe that a true civil rights advocate should not forsake the Second Amendment for the cause of social control issues. We're going to need it one day, maybe not soon, but the day is going to come. A violent overthrow should be a last resort, but as with all things, once you let a government take your rights away you will almost certainly not get them back.
In Soviet Russia ...
...
um, wait a minute
This is exactly the reason we ALL NEED TO GET OUR ASSES UP TO VOTE THIS UPCOMING ELECTION!!! The time to stop complaining and start taking action is now. Exercise your most important right and make YOUR difference.
who would like to read the actual bill instead of all this ultra liberal rhetoric posted here on Slashdot, look here:
m p/~c109oh1u9C::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./te
I'd post the relevant content however I keep running into the "Lameness filter"... funny how a Bill that just passed the Senate is lame by Slashdot's standards... whatever.
If you took time to look up HR1268 on thomas.loc.gov, you'll note that the bill, as passed, has the Real ID text struck out.
But how is this bill going to help track me, when I don't have a driver's license? I don't own a car and never will. I ride a bike everywhere. I have a touring bike which I am planing on taking cross country. This bill isn't going to help track me! We need more legislation to close up these loopholes. And if we need bicycle licenses, well maybe I'll just walk! And then we should probably have walking licenses too, to close that loophole. (yes I have a passport, so they can track me that way, but Canada is a short swim away :)
Since the European Union may be giving up the acronym soon maybe it is time for a North American Treaty Organization.
Seastead this.
Okay, NOW that I've got your attention....
The Constitution only states that Congress makes laws. It doesn't say that Congress determines whether laws are good, or even Constitutional. That's the domain of the Judicial Branch. It's part of the system of "checks and balances" written in to the Constitution.
So even Amendment I, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." doesn't prevent Congress from actually going ahead and doing it. It's up to the Judicial Branch to knock the law down.
And even then, in cases like this gem from Article I Section 8, the Judicial Branch can fall down: "[The Congress shall have the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The sad thing is that unconstitutional laws are full laws until they are ruled to be unconstitutional.
Without a major rewrite of the Constitution, we're stuck with it. I would like to see this:
Amendment XXVIII:
Any Member of Congress who shall have voted in favor of a Bill subsequently determined to violate the Constitution shall be removed from Office with no Right to be re-elected to that or any other Office.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Right on! I sacrificed my last mod point to be able to say the same thing. Democratic populism isn't necessarily a good thing - this is why House members have a mere 2-year term. Senators were supposed to be level-headed senior members of their respective State legislatures, thus granted a 6-year term. Changing the Senate to a popular vote has caused them to be virtually unaccountable (a small body like a State legislature can hold a Senator accountable, but do you think they care what any individual voter things?) petty tyrants. Additionally, popular Senate elections are some of the most expensive campaigns there are. If you want to get big money (and big-monied special interests) out of politics, repeal the 17th! To solve the problem of Senate vacancies, allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement until such time that the State legislature can get its act together to select a permanent one. The governor can already appoint replacements when the legislature isn't in session, so I can't see that this would be a problem.
Constitutionally Correct
t's an appropriation bill, with a law attached.
It might help to brush up on your English. A bill is a draft of a law presented to a legislature for enactment; also: the law itself. (dictionary.com). Correctly stated: the bill to continue funding for the Iraq occupation had a rider attached (also a bill) which purportedly addresses a secondary issue related to "national security".
"So the bill says"?
See above.
"alleged"?
Have you already forgotten the reason that Iraq was invaded in the first place? Since there was absolutely no evidence that the initial reason was proven ligitimate, it is therefore alleged.
but you don't really believe either of the two statements you use to show the relation?
Of course I do...it's just a matter of knowing what certain words mean, and using them appropriately.
that we abolished parties in general. Their days of being helpful are over and in fact they stagnate politics. No 3d party candiate doesn't have a real chance in most American's eyes because he does not have the blessing of the 2 that are like 1 (Dems and Pubs are both the same minus the funny hats).
If we got rid of parties, people would have to vote for someone based on their merits, not based on which club they belong to and are beholden to. We could actually have people who are running who are the best for the job. No more voting down a line either. Create a thinking government.>
Get rid of parties for parity.
The current government structure worked pretty good in the past, but as we can all clearly see is not working in the present and cannot be fixed to work in the future. A change is needed.
Why not have everyone vote on every subject. And allow them to change that vote at any time. With the internet it would be very easy(assuming security/id theft ect. aren't a problem). There would still be a need for a president of sorts, and maybe a few other "true" public servants, but not the mess we have in DC right now. No need for senators to decide how people should live, people can decide how they should live.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
IMHO, any political office should not be allowed consecutive terms, and no more than 2 terms for president and three terms for any level below that.
As an addendum(sp?) to my original post (the GP to this one), I just wanted to add: if you do go for the idea of informing any potential runners for the next senate (against the incumbent) make sure you inform them and press the point of exactly why you are willing to support them. Make it abso-fucking-lutely clear that if they follow in the footsteps of those they may potentially replace, then they will be looking for new jobs when the time comes as well.
Come on, people! You live in a representative republic. Perhaps it is not the ideal situation, but you CAN make it work for you if enough of you care. Get to it. Let those whom YOU give power to know that you will will not stand for this kind of crap! You have the power. There are enough of you over on that side of the pond to make a difference in your own communities. Perhaps not alone, but like I said before, you know how to communicate. Get the word out. Get it out to those who can get it out to more. Get it out to those who can possibly step up to the plate next. You can do it.
I can't reiterate it enough. It is YOUR DUTY as US citizens! It isn't an easy job, but it is something you are completely capable of. Best of luck! I like the idea of the United States of America, and I think the US Constitution is one of the finest documents ever written in the history of mankind. Not too many things make me sadder than seeing the American people allowing (probably through ignorance) it to be used as toilet paper by those in power.
Godspeed!
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
... even now, many antichrists have arisen ...
And, it would surprise me if good ol' Bush is one of them. Not in the sense of The Antichrist at The End, but in the sense of Yet Another Faker. Bah.
I'm so tired of the stinky rotten "fruit" that is falling off the "tree" of these people in DC. Say one set of things, do another...
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
I am stuck between the Libertarians and the Constitution Party. I like alot of the Lib ideas,
but I think they are too extreme in some ways.
I.E. abolish everything on day 1 in office.
However I also have a problem with the Consitution party's Christian stance. IMO political endorsement of religion is not what this country is about.
Since both parties are small government and strict constitutionalists, I wish they would work together.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
The Senators are no longer selected by state politicians. But that's about all that has changed. Structurally, they still represent the State more than the people. Popular election has really served to mask that role, rather than change it. With campaign bribes^Wcontributions, the system has been modified some to insert corporations more into their agenda, but that also complements the same role, as a fascist "merger of corporate and state power".
--
make install -not war
It's more like 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what to have for dinner, after the wolves have done one of the following:
1) Convinced the stupider and more easily distracted sheep (51%) that getting eaten will help fight the war on terror.
2) Said "what's that sheep? You want us to eat you? OK...." while the sheep are screaming that they everyone should have a salad.
Those 10 wolves have much, much more power thatn the 90 sheep, and not because of numbers. They have the ability to dictate what most of the sheep think, by careful manipulation they learned in advertising/marketing school.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Please visit my new franchise restaurant,
The Splurge and Purge!
The only all you can eat and eat buffet!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I think the courts would read this narrowly as providing the same civil immunity from suits in negligence when they screw stuff up as most other executive agencies have, and that the administrative decisions of the Department aren't subject to any more judicial review than other executive decisions. That's to say you can't go to court asking they change some internal procedure, say interrogations, on less-than-Constitutional grounds and get to have the public policy debate in open court and settled by the district judge.
One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
The Senators are trying to be patriotic so they passed it becuase they dont want to let the troops down. But wait... John Kerry voted against one of them before... but now he votes for it. It's not right to tack something not even related at all to the war onto a bill, but hey thats demockracy? Either that or didn't read... thats the same reason we have a little thing called the PATRIOT Act. All I know is I've lost my faith in Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, they've let me down on this.
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
They forgot to mention that he said, "Now it's one more step to a "united, Imperial, Orwellian America!" and that it "bringing me one more step to being American Emperor! Yeeehaww!!"
If only that grenade was real
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
That way, only bills that have enough merit to stand alone under scrutiny will become law. We have too damn many laws as it is, and coat-tailing bullshit like this ID law is exactly how our rights have been - and will continue to be - eroded.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
> Have you ever read the Constitution?
Yes. Have you ever read anything else written by the founders?
The Senate is not just a smaller House of Representatives. It's intended to be a more deliberative,
slower moving body. As an apparent conservative, this should be an important point to you... the point of the
Senate being set up the way it is is to keep things from happening too quickly or easily, to raise the bar
for a law to be passed or a lifetime appointment to go through. The Senate is there to prevent the tyrrany of
the majority, and to prevent runaway government. Frist's Nuclear Option would derail that.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
You know, I personally don't mind at all.
I'm GLAD there are going to be federal standards, so that places where political correctness has run amok can't wreck the system for others.
IIRC Kalifornia now allows (or is considering allowing) people to refuse to have their pictures on their d/ls for some goofy religious fear. Likewise pictures wearing a facial veil.
Personally, I don't really want to share the public roads (or an airplane) with someone who fears being identified.
We trade freedom for security ALL THE TIME - it's pretty much the foundation of the concept of civilization. Tell you what, in fact. You start an airline where you are at your libertarian best - NO ID required, NO freedom-limiting searches - and let's see how you do? Note, I'll be riding the plane with all the other ignorant, freedom-hating cattle that don't mind Federal ID standards.
-Styopa
WTF is a drivers license law doing in an Iraq spending bill anyway? There needs to be a law against combining unrelated laws to drag one through on the heels of another that is sure to pass.
No, you'll still need bribery, but you can just dump all of it on one senator.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I agree that States have a right to secede if the union no longer serves their purposes. However, I don't think we need to go quite that far. It would be helpful if the States actually had a voice in the federal government, like they were supposed to. Repeal the 17th Amendment. There are several other posts here related to this, with good links.
Constitutionally Correct
Of course it was rejected, as I expected, But I feel this is a better spot to put it! Sorry about the long windedness, but these are very straight forward, unbiased questions about general consensus in todays political landscape. (break out the Weed-Be-Gone) I don't consider myself to be an american ranting anti-americanism by any means. I actually consider myself quite the patriot, how else would I have the freedom to ask these questions. But for slashdot users, I ask the following questions in an attempt to stir up conversation, or changes perhaps? 1. We always hear about bills being piggy-backed or about the senate/house not even reading it out loud on the floor before it's voted on. Isn't this what the senate, and house were designed to do? REVIEW laws before they are passed to ensure they protect us? And we hear this, and no one ever stands up and screams at the top of thier lungs! We just go about our business, saying "it's politics, i don't wanna hear it.." Has our legal system become so bloated, people have lost interest???? 2. Whats next? I did have a long rant, but I calmed down. #2 is, What are we as americans supposed to do? Send more faxes, write more e-mails. We have no garuntee that these go through to the people who we intend. (We/I hope they do, but as we all know, electronic communication DOESN't have to go somewhere real) Then, last, but not least. Once we have (and I believe we will, and many already have) lost faith in our legal system to protect us as americans, do we continue to watch it tower over us and just ignore it, or do we rebuild it.... and my question to rebuild it, HOW? IF/When/How it collapses, or pisses us off so much, how does a country of 300+ million people from 100+ backgrounds from 30+ religious creeds and 50 individual states rebuild from a totalitarianism form of government once it has taken root? Or have we, as americans, accepted that in order for all these people from all these races/religions/sexes/etc... accepted that a government like ours must exist for us to exist? Or will our social/business network crash along with the governments hold on it's people? I am only 20 years old, and I fear for what our future holds in this country. Everyday I hear of politics this, crime that, So to restate my last question to all of the slashdotters out there.... WHATS NEXT?????? Another piggy back, another senators blatant dis-regard for god given (pick your god) rights as americans? Someone else chuckling and saying "Thats how it is, don't change the system, work in it!"? Where is the straw that is going to break the back, And how is the back going to break? Thanks, Dustin
Because if you argue that the Southern States could not voluntarily seceed and institute a new government, then likewise the American Revolution was just as illegal.
Thus according to your argument we should still be part of Great Britain, OR might makes right,
and everything else is just a bunch of feel good bullshit.
Our system is based upon the assumption that Government is by the CONSENT of the governed.
When they revoke that consent they revoke the government, and are thus free to establish a new one.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You can't abolish parties. People have a right to associate with whom they wish. As long as there is an advantage to having numbers on your side, parties will form. We just need people to develop a spine, and stand for their principles. If that means they have to buck the parties, then buck the parties, or find a new one.
Constitutionally Correct
You assume that senators actually read things...
Don't vote for any Democrat or Republican. They're all so party-line that they're almost interchangeable. If you want real change, you have to vote for something different. Vote third party. Americans deserve more than just two choices!
Constitutionally Correct
We have term limits. It's called the ballot box. If some official is doing a good job (hey, it could happen), the people should not be artificially and arbitrarily prevented from supporting him again.
The real problem is the voting system that enforces the Duopoly. Fix the system, preferably by implementing Condorcet voting, and open it up to real choice. There are other candidates, with other valid viewpoints. Why shouldn't they be heard?
We want everyone to be able to vote honestly, sincerely. Yet we have a voting system that prohibits that. Voting your conscience shouldn't mean "wasting" your vote. Unfortunately, so many have bought into the lie that they don't understand that not voting your conscience is what really wastes your vote!
Vote your conscience. Vote third party. And petition your legislators for voting reform!
Constitutionally Correct
And he is talking about a constitutional amendment, not a bill.
Congress controls the "purse strings", everybody is supposed to learn that in elementary school. There are a few exceptions: Article III essentially says Congress can't cut off the judiciary. Congress can even close down federal courts, viz. the current attempts to shut down the Ninth District and move it from San Francisco to a more backward, rednecky place that meets with Congress's approval.
Now, as for a constitutional amendment to have spending bills only be spending bills, cool. You approve the amendment in Congress, and remember it has to be approved by two thirds of the states and the Prez.
What's pissing off the governors about this bill is not the privacy concerns but that it's another "unfunded mandate". Congress is potentially telling the states to redo all their drivers licensing procedures, and is probably not providing any funds to do so. Just like health care, education, etc these days Congress is telling people what do to and mot giving them any means to do so.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
This positive feedback system has only one outcome.
Seastead this.
What do you believe about the consent of the governed?
If a state were to decide to seceed today,
do they have the right to do so?
The king made the argument that our ancestors gave up their rights (and thus ours) in perpituity.
Either government rests upon the citizens consent or it is tyranny IMO.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
In some countries, like mine, ammendments like this have to pass in the state's legislatures as well to become enforceable law.
Is this not the case in the US?
NO SIG
Shortly after 9/11 when they gave billions to "save" the airlines.
Oh for crying out loud, go lookup the meaning of the word "nationalize." Then go look up the meaning of the word "subsidize." They aren't anything close to the same. To help the intellectually lazy and mouse-click challenged:
In stark contrast to
When did the government nationalize the farms?
Throughout the past few decades in the form of farm subsidies.
See above.
When did the government nationalize the factories?
Not entirely yet, but it's in progress. For a good example, read up on government price fixing of television sets.
That's called regulation. It may not be good regulation, but it isn't even in the same conceptual universe as "nationalizing."
When did the government nationalize the hospitals?
Another one in progress... if you commies get your way, it'll be finished by 2007 or so.
You really are an ignorant fool, a troll, and probably both. Even countrys with civilized levels of national health care, such as England and Germany, don't have their entire health care system owned by the government
When did the govenrment nationalize all media?
Are you kidding me?
Again, intimidation and coercion aren't the same as "nationalizing." It is disingenous, and counterproductive, to lump the Republicans' and the Bush family's success in intimidating reporters and the media, and using the carrot-stick approach to access to the white house and public figures (as well as their brazen refusal to answer any questions they don't like relevant to their leadership, something that is a fundamental responsibility of any elected leader, of any party) with the government assuming ownership of the media (which it has not done).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Montana's speed limit for autos during the day was "Reasonable and Prudent"
Info and definition of reasonable and prudent
Of course no one wanted to drive there anymore, cause honestly, who wants to be a prude?
And that's why they had to change it, due to lack of drivers
-Mikey P
Can we all take a minute to think what the true implications will be?
For one thing, it creates an immediate "class" system - those WITH National IDs, and those WITHOUT them. Now, anyone who chooses not to get a Real-ID will be classed with terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens. Refusing a Real-ID will be like giving up your citizenship. You might as well just deport yourself.
Also, think about the RFID aspect. Every building and business will require a scan of your Real-ID. Covering it with tinfoil doesn't accomplish much if you have to uncover it every few minutes to gain access to some "public" place.
How long until the "black boxes" in modern cars are equipped to scan and report the Real-ID information on all passengers?
How long until all kinds of machines and appliances will require an ID scan and will keep a running log of your activities? (think DVD players, TVs, cars, computers)
The scanners will become so cheap and ubiquitous, there will be one installed on the pole outside every home. All movements of all citizens will be logged. Game over. The perfect police state. All political opposition can be instantly crushed.
I agree that slavery is evil. I am also glad it is gone. However it was not the primary cause for the war. The primary cause IMO was the tarriffs which the federal government enacted. These were the same tarriffs which almost caused some southern states to seceed a few years earlier when Jackson was president.
I think the South badly mishandled the whole thing. Knowing the outcome, I wish they had never tried to seceed since that act and their subsequent loss enabled a great increase in the centralization of power.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Someone should grab the next 'popular' bill and attach something that, once everybody approves the big bill, makes it illegal, or impossible, or something, to attach unrelated things to bigger bills. Ha! Take THAT, system!
Maybe they should sneak something in there about making the online 'searches' for bills last longer than two seconds, too....
Canada has a point system for imigration, and you get a lot of points if you get above a certain score on a government issued French profeciency test.
"Those attacking Lincoln are sadly uninformed and their notions are completely foolish to think he trampled the constitution."
Really? You don't think that a president who imprisoned upwards of 30,000 people in the NORTH,
journalists, war protesters etc violated the constitution?
What about putting out an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
What about placing a federal judge under military house arrest?
Well Lincoln did all those things. Don't tell me he didn't shred the constitution.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
With America losing so much freedom what country would you choose to live in?
You haven't been to California recently, have you? :-(
I'm disgusted that our democrat senators that are overly 'concerned' with civil liberties voted for this. I guess that they are just paying lip service to civil liberties
... the one issue the Democrats actually still have a modicum of backbone on (though even that bit of backbone, too, appears to be fleeting).
As am I. The Democrats are cowards, and have been ever since they caved and supported Bush's invasion of Iraq because they feared a backlash from the ignorant public, despite the knowledge they had that it was wrong.
The Democrats lost the midterm elections because of that -- why vote for weak republicans (ie. Democrats cowtowing to a Republican majority and/or an irrational populace) when you can vote for strong republicans (who at least believe and hold true to their ideals, no matter how toxic they are)?
The Democrats remain cowards, every time they pander for fear of offending the Right and their mindless minions, whether it's Bill Clinton complimenting and saying how much he likes the fool we currently have as president, their support of legislation like the PATRIOT-ACT, or simply their unwillingness to be a party of opposition on any substantive issue. Even Kerry was afraid to step up to the plate in defending a woman's right to chose (a truly emberrassing moment in the debates for him)
Until the Democrats do grow a backbone and show some courage of their convictions they will keep losing elections. They may anyway, now that the Republicans have perfected the stealing of federal elections irrespective of how the vote actually turns out, but be that as it may, without a backbone and willingness to stand up to the ruling party, they'll lose outright and the Bush supporters won't have any need to fix any elections.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
They'll bypass forgery altogether. In Arizona, a previous head of Dept of Motor Vehicles hired his son to work there. The son was later arrested for providing fake IDs to his cronies to let them drink in bars.
So why go to the trouble of spending lots of money making forgeries when you can compromise someone working for DMV to produce real ID cards?
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
Old Mexican proverb:
El que por su gusto es buey, hasta la coyunda lame.
Translation: He who is an Ox by his own choice will even lick the yoke.
Sense: If you consciously choose to be a dipshit, you will even be grateful for getting fucked over.
Used to be that /. was filled with thoughtful intelligent, and intellectual folks.
What the fuck happened?
Was that meant as irony?
You are both absolutely wrong,
We're a Constitutional Republic.
Never have we been a "democracy" or "democratic".
We're a REPUBLIC
Sorry, but we're a Constitutional, Democratic Republic. We democratically elect our representatives, and the whole thing is based on a constitution.
You're right that we're not a Democracy, but you're wrong that the government isn't "democratic". You're also right that we're a Republic. That's why those words are in their specific order.
The tendency for those that omit "Democratic" in our government is that they don't like the idea of a government "of, by, and for the people". To hold the people's self-interests in such disdain is absolutely revolting.
...is that there is a line in the new testament that says that Jesus will come again "before those who are now living have died." The Rapture, being slightly short of 2000 years late, is then called into question.
However, perhaps this was only referring to the Beloved Disciple, who Jesus referred to at the end of the book of John by saying "what is it to you if he lives until I come again?"
In any case, the texts of the New Testament are obviously heavily edited. They are drawn from other sources (the Gospel of Thomas and the lost "Q" Gospel), in some areas they bear the mark of the council of Nicea, and IMHO the broad message is more important than any specific detail.
Is receiving the number of the best an unforgivable sin? Jesus said in Matthew that all sin could be forgiven except the sin of "blaspheming the Holy Ghost" - however, this text itself may be a Nicea edit in reaction to the Arian Heresy. Are those who died damned lost forever? If so, then why did Peter say that Jesus preached to the dead in the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection?
The book makes you think for yourself. It's amazing how many Christians have never bothered to acquaint themselves with the details and incongruities. I can hardly claim great knowledge, but I can make a lot of heads spin with the little that I know.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The standard of living is as good as the US, cost of living way cheaper. Beaches cleaner, girls better looking, racism less prevalent. I'll be on my way soon...
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
SEC. 202. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION.
(a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-
(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this division, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.
(2) STATE CERTIFICATIONS- The Secretary shall determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary of Transportation. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may prescribe by regulation.
(b) Minimum Document Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State:
(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principle residence.
(7) The person's signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.
(c) Minimum Issuance Standards-
(1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person:
(A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth.
(B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth.
(C) Proof of the person's social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.
(D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence.
(2) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.
(B) EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL STATUS- A State shall require, before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person--
(i) is a citizen of the United States;
(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.
(C) TEMPORARY DRIVERS' LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS-
(i) IN GENERAL- If a person presents evidence under any of clauses (v) through (ix) of subparagraph (B), the State may only issue a temporary driver's license or temporary identification card to the person.
(ii) EXPIRATION DATE- A temporary driver's license or temporary identification card issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall be valid only during the period of time of the applicant's authorized sta
This is very insightful. The corrupt politicians and the corpos that 0wn them want us to be at each others' throats singing "horray for our side", all while they work together to screw us over. It's not about who's Democrat or Republican, it's about corrput power-mad manipulators playing the game -- pulling our strings to keep us fighting among ourselves over issues they care less about, while consolidating their own power to the point where the farce may eventually become unnecessary.
---
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you like them a bit on the chubby side.
A fair and insightful assessment of the situation.
Open Source Sushi
There's an assumption in the post you replied to that went unstated. He is implicitly asserting that in some ways our "private industry" is in practice indistinguishable from nationalized industry.
Consider that in some ways, the control that the government exerts over the players in many industries has reached a degree such that the businesses are no longer able to experiment with new business models and new products.
Also, many industries are so insulated from competitive pressures that they need not behave like businesses. Price supports, protective tariffs, paying farmers not to farm, etc., prevent businesses from reacting to market demands. And those businesses become so dependent on the supports that their arms are twisted into doing business the way that the gov't demands. These subsidies always come with conditions, and that's just another way of saying that the government is assuming control.
The airline industry certainly meets both of these criteria. They're incredibly regulated, only allowed to offer the services that the FAA allows, and subject to the conditions of the DHS. The medical industry is in this boat as well, particularly given the reliance on Medicare/Medicaid that dictates its actions. I could go on...
But beyond this, it's not too hard to identify nationalized industries. Just take off your blinders -- there's no reason that *any* enterprise needs to be undertaken by government. Without debating whether or not these things SHOULD be in the government's hands, please just admit that they ARE:
- Education
- Police
- Highway building & maintenance
- Retirement planning
- Disability insurance
This is just off the top of my head. All of these enterprises have historically been in the hands of free enterprise at some point, but have been nationalized here in the USA.
That's something I've been wondering about: what if Frist let one of the nominations through to the floor, and let the actual filibuster (i.e, "extended debate") happen? Would today's politicians be able to pull it off?
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
The cop ticketing you for going too fast.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I think I found it.
Nathan's blog
President Bush has signed the Congressional legislation containing the REAL ID Act of 2005. Read more about it at: http://www.etopiamedia.net/empnn/pages/apt/apt18-5 551212.html
Orwell really was spot-on when he said in the late 1940s that "fascism" had ceased to have any specific meaning beyond "something undesirable."
Let's look at what fascism really is. It is neither Nazism, socialism or communism, nor is it hypercapitalism. In fact, there have only been two bona fide Fascist governments: that of Spain under Franco and Italy under Mussolini. That's it. Hitler, Stalin, Mao...none of them ever referred to their governments as fascist; Mussolini and Franco are the only self-described fascists.
I'm sure a lot of people are basing their definition of "fascism" on what Robert Kennedy, Jr. said: "Communism is the control of business by government; fascism is the control of government by business." However, do Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy fit that mold? Of course not! "Il Duce" wasn't a puppet of corporations and neither was Franco. If I remember correctly, Kennedy also included Nazi Germany as a fascist nation, too, but do you really think that Hitler was taking orders from BMW and Deutsche Bank (or whatever the major bank was in those days)?
People refer today to anything bad as "fascism". Hypercaptialism = fascism, communism = fascism, dictatorship = fascism, etc. In truth, fascism is very anti-capitalist and not communist, and although Franco was a dictator, that doesn't mean a dictator is automatically fascist.
Here's the big difference: Communism is indeed the control of business by government, but Fascism is a system in which the government used labor unions and trade federations used strikes and direct action to control business. THAT was Mussolini's vision, and that's about as far from "government controlled by business" as I can imagine one could get.
Be clear, people! If you're talking about a hypercapitalist attitude, then say "hypercapitalist".
George W. Bush is a hypercapitalist, because he wants to let corporations do pretty much whatever they want to make a profit while soaking the poor and middle classes. He's a miserable little bastard for making Northerners, Californians and gays the scapegoats for all our problems.
We're not turning into Hitler's Germany. We're not turning into Franco's Spain. We're not turning into Stalin's Russia. We're turning into a terrible combination of Herbert Hoover's laissez-faire America and Pope Paul III's Inquisitional Catholic Church.
I think the only way we're going to get word across is if we can get the media to reveal the implications of this on a much larger scale that what we might be able to do. Here's a general email I've been sending out to sites like the NYTimes and NBC's The Nightly News:
R .418:) This act was attached to the recently passed emergency spending bill approved by the President. However, there are some scary details about this act, besides the intended effect of creating a national ID system. For instance, check out Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "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." It also prevents any oversight or judicial review of those actions.
6 .html
o u/2100-1028_3-5697111.html
-To -insert media organization here-,
First off, thank you for taking the time to read this email. While I realize that it is not in good taste for any news organization to take any political stance on matters, I do feel that it is in the best interests of both the media and for the nation if the media would do more to cover the less known topics that happen in Washington.
Case in point is the recent passge of the Real ID act. (H.R. 418, it can be found here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.
There are several other topics on this bill that I think people would find rather enlightening. Here are a few links to other websites with articles over it:
ArsTechnica Article about a Potential part of the RealID act breaking the Constition:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-488
CNet Article Overview:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+y
At any rate, thank you again for taking the time to read this email. I hope that you will at least take the time to consider the impliciations of such an issue, and the rather underhanded means of having it been acheived.
Yours,
Brandon G.
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
No shit. If there are things that can be done to fuck things up even more, he has listed a bunch of them.
it is disturbing that i got modded insightful for that,
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand. Or so I have read.
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
You can't protect liberty by taking it away. What we're concerned with isn't protecting liberty, it's protecting infrastructure and industry. These are neither synonymous with nor necessary for liberty.
Part of the problem with fascists is that they have a small vocabulary. For instance, don't say, "Spreading freedom" when what you mean is, "Spreading capitalism." Another example, don't say, "Making the world safe for democracy," when what you mean is, "Making the world safe for republics that are friendly to and economically and culturally dependent on the US."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Get real, man. Yes, it's the Ames variety--but that particular variety has been found in other places. We know--we have the receipts from the bastards we sold them to. Oh, yes, the Republicans threaten to hit Dems who disagree with them with anthrax. Brilliant plan. You, sir, need to get in touch with reality.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sword, double edged it is, this ID Card. If everybody in the country is required to get the ID, wouldn't government officials (Congress, Senate, President) be reqired by law to get one. I can come up with a few zenarios: Zenarios 1.
Sword, double edged it is, this ID Card. If everybody in the country is required to get the ID, wouldn't government officials (Congress, Senate, President) be reqired by law to get one. I can come up with a few zenarios: Zenarios 1. Government employees neglect or refuse to acquire an ID Card. In such case they are in violation of a federal law and the people make sure that they are held accountable and dealt with in a manner congruent the comission of a felony. Zenario 2. Since it has been mentioned previously in this thread, their personal data will be housed in the same system that would be ripe for the picking by any script kiddy more preoccupied with his pacifyer than with actual cracking. Wouldn't it be neat if public data on key troglodites some how made its way to concerned parties? You see where this is leading.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Read rbullo's links. Get yourself informed. FairVote.org, the Green party, the Libertarian party...they're all well-meaning and well-intentioned, but they're also all misinformed. Instant Runoff Voting does nothing except disguise the very same problems we currently have with simple plurality voting.
Constitutionally Correct
Contact THE MEDIA. Let enormous outpourings of BLOG posts to MSNBC, FOX News, CNN and all the News Blogs read your frustrations.
It is only then that CONGRESS will tune into and be prepared to actually pretend to care about their constituents.
Come 2006 Vote Libertarian.
http://www.lp.org/
So according to you, a couple of moderators -- both of whom have now been overturned (the post is Score:2, Informative now) -- represent "the Slashdot majority"?
But you left out the federal stuff.
While the STATES tend to lose cash on the illiegal immigrants, the Federal Government, via taxes paid to social security, and the IRS, makes out like a bandit. They take in more money than the states lose.
On a per person basis, Illegal Immigrants are a positive effect on our economoy.
This is a real issue, but mainly because the Federal government keeps the money, while the states get screwed.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com