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."

Comments

Something is fishy

[suso]

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

Re:Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

And in any real Democratic process there's always occasions when everyone can agree too. Having a Democracy doesn't mean that people have to always take the opposite side just to be opposing.

Not that I'm saying this time was a good time for it (though I honestly can't see a big deal with the ID), I'm just seeing your logic as faulty.

Re:Something is fishy

[suso]

Its not about logic, its about the phenomenonal result of how democracy works. When the numbers are small, like just 100 people voting, then its a lot easier to have a 100% majority, but when the number of voters is 24 million (in the case of Iraq), then a real 100% majority is just plain impossible, unless you "exclude" people, etc. Which is what people speculate happened (ie, violent intimidation). But from all the congress vote results I remember, there is rarely a 100% majority, especially on something so controversial.

Re:Something is fishy

[Sassinak]

I think the person is inferring that because the issue was never really rasied in public.. (almost secret except for those who actually take/have the time to watch) its may constitute a lack of democracy. The arguement is that Democracy is about having a actual choice, not simply a "bullet or poison?" offer.

Re:Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what really ruffles my underwear? The fact that this was basically attached to legislation that would grant more money for the soldiers (for the war, let's be honest), and the fact that this just creates another layer of fucking bureaucracy bullshit, and will cost untold millons of dollars that could go to better places.

We're going the way of the fucking Romans.

Re:Something is fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

especially on something so controversial.

It isn't controversial. Not to the congresspeople. Last time a democrat tried to object to provisions of an Iraq spending bill, the republicans screamed "voted against the war before he voted against it" for eight months until he lost an election.

Congressional democrat opposition has been, since then, dead.

Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.

Re:Something is fishy

[YrWrstNtmr]

"voted against the war before he voted against it">To be fair, the republicans didn't coin that line.

Re:Something is fishy

[cHiphead]

To be fair, Democrats didn't coin the idea of blocking presidential judicial nominations.

Cheers. ;)

Re:Something is fishy

[iamlucky13]

In this case, you didn't even have to RTFA to get that. The original submission told you straight out that it was attached to a rather important spending bill. In my opinion, it was ridiculously sneaky and underhanded.

Re:Something is fishy

[$FFh]

What's fishy here is that a bill to increse funding for the Iraq war includes something like this.

Re:Something is fishy

[Elranzer]

Having a Democracy doesn't mean that people have to always take the opposite side just to be opposing.

I suppose you've never heard of the Green Party?

Re:Something is fishy

[StikyPad]

Anyway, how can Real-ID be "controversial"? Nobody but slashdot readers and "bloggers" even know it exists.

It's controversial for lots of reasons, and most of them don't have to do with tinfoil hats.

1) It creates MORE government, not less. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government, but this flies in the face of that policy.

2) It's unfunded. The states are supposed to work out for themselves how to comply with these regulations with NO federal funding.

3) Of course, states aren't required to comply, but then a state's citizens will be unable to make use of most interstate transportation (flying).

4) It provides few, if any, clear benefits. Maybe a bartender in Cali won't have to worry about knowing what Vermont's drivers licenses look like with a national ID card, but people with the money and determination will still be able to get fake IDs.

I won't even go into the privacy concerns -- you can read yesterday's article if you're interested.

Re:Something is fishy

[Elranzer]

3) Of course, states aren't required to comply, but then a state's citizens will be unable to make use of most interstate transportation (flying).

Wait... flying cars? Finally?!

Re:Something is fishy

[Doc Ruby]

The Senate represents the State, not the people (the latter is represented by the House of Representatives). No surprise that the State is 100% behind this grab at State power and omniscience.

Re:Something is fishy

[name773]

they'd never get around to making a cynical moderation, and if they did it would be abused.

Re:Something is fishy

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

That'd be relevant if the Majority leader, Bill Frist, didn't filibuster a Clinton nominee.

Re:Something is fishy

[the_womble]

Last time a democrat tried to object to provisions of an Iraq spending bill, the republicans screamed "voted against the war before he voted against it"

If that sort of argument can win an election, it sounds like the people got the quality of representation they deserve.

Re:Something is fishy

[flyingsquid]

What's fishy here is that a bill to increse funding for the Iraq war includes something like this.

Hell, the bill itself is a major issue in my mind. If you're going to fight a war, you should do it right, don't get me wrong. But the war itself is a major issue which needs to be questioned more. We're spending a billion a week and there's still no clear exit in sight. When will we have most of our troops out? A year from now? Two years? Five? Historically, insurgencies have lasted 5-10 years and nothing going on right now suggests we're close to the end of this fight. Nobody seems to have a clear plan on how the hell to end this.

This is as much an issue for civil liberties as the ID itself. Governments have historically used wars as pretexts for extraordinary measures to reduce government accountability and restrict civil liberties. So long as the Iraq War is ongoing, the government will continue to run over the Constitution and Geneva conventions with few consequences. I mean, would they be able to get away with this legislation without a war going on?

Re:Something is fishy

[roman_mir]

We're going the way of the fucking Romans. - keep yourself where I can see you at all times, you pervert.

Re:Something is fishy

[edb]

I've never understood how Congress can get away with attaching riders and amendments to a bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the base bill. The only purpose is to have a kind of inverse "poison pill", so that voting against the amendment allows the accusation of being against the base bill. Never mind that it's traditional. Lots of things that are illegal now were "traditional" in the past.

It works the other way as well, in the usual meaning of "poison pill" -- attach a rider that is so unacceptable that the base bill is defeated regardless of its own merit.

Nevermind fussing about rules changes for filibustering in the Senate. This is where the real mischief gets done, and has been so for many decades.

There should be a rule in both the House and the Senate that amendments and riders must in some way be related to the base bill to which they are attached. Otherwise, they should stand on their own (or die on their own).

Re:Something is fishy

[utlemming]

You know what I would like to see come out of this is a Constitutional Amendment making such attempts illegal -- make it so a spending bill can only be that, a spending bill. Something along the lines of: "All appropriation bills passed by Congress shall be void of new programs, laws, or regulations. New laws which require appropriation may be passed, provided that the scope of the bill is limited to the law, program or regulation therein." This would have a chilling effect on Congress and their attempts to pass laws which otherwise wouldn't be passed. The argument against this would be that Congress wouldn't be able to pass things as efficently as they do now and that immediate needs could not be met quite as fast. I think if there was even talk of such a move it would really chill people using riders. Of course Congress would have to really flub up in order to get people ticked off enough to want to do something like an amendment. It would send a strong message that federalism needs to stay federalism and the concentration of central power needs to stop.

Re:Something is fishy

[Doc Ruby]

How are campaign bribes^Wcontributions "notwithstanding"? In the Federal ID story we're discussing, do majorities of every state favor a Federal ID?

FWIW, elections are by universal sufferage not for the combined thinking power of all the people through such a crude means of a single question, once every few years. The system is to force people to participate in their government, so we can more easily accept its rule. Nobody knows what the fuck to do with hundreds of millions of people, nuclear weapons, satellite TV, and $14T of goods and services every year. Elections at least make it the people's own mistake, rather than some other arbitrary group. Which makes it easier to get the people to go along with it.

Re:Something is fishy

[Reziac]

Last time a democrat tried to object to provisions of an Iraq spending bill, the republicans screamed "voted against the war before he voted against it" for eight months until he lost an election. Congressional democrat opposition has been, since then, dead.

Goes to show that none of 'em have the balls to stand up for what they believe in, let alone for what's best for their constituents.

Re:Something is fishy

[jaseparlo]

but people with the money and determination will still be able to get fake IDs. In actual fact, it should become easier to get fake ID's. Standardisation across the entire country would mean a greater pool of people working to circumvent security on the cards - with 50 different security systems, you only have one state's worth of villains working on each system. If everyone is the same, you can have 50 states worth of villains all working on the same problem, and it'll be solved much more quickly. Also, you get better economies of scale on materials when you are creating fake ID's for the whole country at once, leading to an eventual commoditisation of fake ID

Re:Something is fishy

[magarity]

No, it's republican's who "coined this idea" you're just a brainwashed idiot, apparently

Name one judge the republicans fillibustered. And make sure it's a fillibuster and not killed in committee in accordance with established rules. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. The second is allowed by the Constitution, the first is not. But I guess you're too busy calling people "brainwashed idiots" to learn about the Constitution.

Re:Something is fishy

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

If there was ever a slashdot post that deserved to be preserved long after the rest had blown to ashes, that was it.

utlemming, if you're a U.S. citizen, I urge you to please put this on paper and take it to your representative. The rest of you should as well, regardless of your political views - this use of riders is systematically being used to stifle opposition on both sides of the political fence, it is a tacit statement of the unworthiness of the rider, and it is dishonest and cynical.

It is time the decisions of legislatures worldwide were left to stand or fall on their own merits, instead of who their drafters can buddy up with.

YLFI

Re:Something is fishy

[NoData]

How the commentary significantly different from the commentary here, other than in the politics it favors?

Well, I'll tell ya: The parent post you refer to made a reasonable and truthful point that Democrats did not originiate, nor do they have a monopoly on, blocking judicial nominees. This is true. The "troll" response post made the outlandish and ignorant claim that Democrats "sure as heck have coined the idea of fillibustering nominations to avoid a vote." That's just a falsehood. The Republicans fillibustered nominations under Clinton, and earlier Democrat presidents, the same as the Dems are doing now. This is just another weapon in the Senate arsenal, and it only peeves those who are on the receiving end. It's a trade off for having the most "deliberative body in the free world" whose mission, as Madison envisioned it, was to guard the interests of the minority from being overrun by pure popularity. A hedge against the more overtly popular House.

Re:Something is fishy

[millennial]

This is typical of a lot of Bush administration policy. Take a look at No Child Left Behind:
1. creates more government - imposes irrational nationwide standards on all states
2. unfunded - schools can go bankrupt if they can't afford to make the improvements they apparently need
3. states aren't required to comply - or at least, that's what Mr. Bush says, since he thinks states should be able to "determine their own destiny" in regards to schools
4. provides few, if any, clear benefits - schools are entirely blamed for poor performance? students can't possibly be responsible? students are forcibly registered on military recruiters' contact lists unless their parents explicitly ask for them not to be?

The Republican desire for increased regulation (think USA PATRIOT Act, REALID Act) without funding (e.g. not including the war in the 2004-2005 budget? WTF?) is just further proof that the two mainstream parties are slowly, but surely, fusing into one.

Re:Something is fishy

[ffejie]

In actual fact, it should become easier to get fake ID's. Standardisation across the entire country would mean a greater pool of people working to circumvent security on the cards - with 50 different security systems, you only have one state's worth of villains working on each system.

Wrong. The people who make fake IDs don't make IDs just from their own state. In fact, most of them stay away from their homestate because they can't get it just perfect. If you card, and you're in Maine, you see 95% Maines all day. You see a few NHs and a few MAs. So when you see a fake Maine, you know it right away, it doesn't look like the others, or it feels wrong, etc. As a result, the villians in Maine concentrate on making a MA ID, similarly, so do the villians in NY, and a lot of other places. You'll notice that most fake IDs are not of the places that are actually high security. NY and NJ (recently issued) have two of the highest security IDs, and you generally don't see fakes created - you might see kids "chalking" their age on those, but you won't see a ID made from scratch in those states.

Because of this, you have all the villians from 50 states focusing on 4 or 5 other states that they make really well. If you get a National ID card, with a real hologram, and some decent material, and some security lines, it will not be easy to fake. You'll have all those villians trying to do it, but they won't come up with a dirt cheap way to do it with an inkjet.

Will there still be fake IDs? Most likely. I think they'll cut down on a lot of them with something like this though. The real problem is that the people they're trying to stop, terrorists, will probably still be able to get them. If a DMV can create a the cards, then a terrorist who invests 100K in various equipment can make them as well. But you're going to stop poor college kids from making them.

One final note: In terms of fake IDs, it really doesn't matter unless they actually create a high security ID with stuff like smart chips, true holograms and a true secure material (think: currency).

Re:Something is fishy

[Potor]

CNN, for instance, refers briefly to the ID provisions, and only makes reference to the controversy well below the fold, in paragraphs 10-12 of this typically pyramidal story.

Since their writers are well instructed in stating the most important details first, the first 9 paragraphs point out that for CNN, this is no real issue.

Re:Something is fishy

[quarkscat]

"Congressional democrat opposition has been, since then, dead."

Wrong^H^H^H^H^H!

The anthrax letters that were mailed out specifially to the NY liberal press and the US Senate's "loyal opposition" in October 2001 sent the intended message to the intended audience. And they did "get the message" at that time.

The DNA of the mailed anthrax was identical to the Ames variety stored at the US Army's biological warfare facility at Ft. Dettrick, MD. It has been very nearly four full years later, and George W. Bush's Justice Department is no closer to solving this case of domestic bioterrorism.

Since that time, other really nasty "bugs" have been shipped out across the world from USA facilities, as well as the announcement of successful Federal research into super-lethal mouse pox. Nothing quite like waving a "big
stick" to keep the attention of that "donkey".

Re:Something is fishy

[rainman_bc]

You should see what's going on in Canada right now.

We have a minority government situation here, and the governing party with the most seats in our house is attaching so much crap to the budget, they are trying to make it political suicide to defeat it.

Thing is, our oposition isn't going to stand for it, and has the courage to try to defeat the govt.

Re:Something is fishy

[quarkscat]

"If that sort of argument can win an election, it sounds like the people got the quality of representation they deserve."

Thanks a lot. You are, of course, presuming that the 2004 national election was any less "rigged" than the 2000 national election.

The 2000 national election was stolen by the GOP by disenfranchising voters in Florida based upon fraudulent lists of felons unqualified to vote, a quirky (and illegal) Florida election law that prohibited a state-wide ballot recount, and a Supreme Court packed by the Reagan/Bush_41 regimes.

The 2004 national election was stolen by the GOP by disenfranchising voters in Florida (again), as well as Ohio and other states, and the widespread use of fraudulent electronic voting machines that could be easily tampered with, and had no paper trail, voting machines built by GOP supporters for winning GOP "majorities".

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate long ago stopped paying much attention to the average "Joe Sixpack" constituent, in favor of the vested corporate interests that pay for their reelection campaigns. Every attempt to clean up campaign finances has been torpedoed by clauses and exemptions added in that corporations can drive a proverbial "tractor tailer full of cash" through. And, of course, funding for oversight, regulation, and enforcement of election laws have been simultaneously slashed.

National elections in the USA will not be kosher again until we switch back to the old fashioned, hand counted paper ballot. (Presuming, of course, that the USA actually ever holds national elections again -- I have my doubts.)

Re:Something is fishy

[nyekulturniy]

The folks on the Rapture Ready bulletin board [[http:\\www.rr-bb.com]] are also very aware of the issue, and have many of the same concerns. Many of the users don't want a central government ID registry, because it is a precursor for a universal system that could be used to enforce the Mark of the Beast. The other side of this is the introduction of subdermal RFID chips.

For those of you who do not know exactly what this means, in the Book of Revelations, during the Tribulation, the Antichrist's system will impose a compulsory registration and sign of loyalty to the Antichrist, signified by a distinguishing mark or tattoo. Those who do not have the mark cannot buy or sell. However, those who do choose the mark will be alienated from God forever; it is the ultimate act of defiance to God in a period when the choices are stark.

Now, the board members don't assume that the national ID system is the Mark; what they are concerned about is that they don't want the system in place, ready to run, ready to deceive millions into eternal damnation.

Don't assume RR members are dumb; I've seen many well-thought-out posts on Rapture Ready, as well as a few loonies. They are mostly Christian (with a few atheists/agnostics who engage in intelligent debate).

Re:Something is fishy

[smchris]

Nah. The Soviets, maybe.

No, no, no, no, no. Where does this talk come from? Where is it ingrained?

When did the government nationalize the airlines?
When did the government nationalize the farms?
When did the government nationalize the factories?
When did the government nationalize the hospitals?
When did the govenrment nationalize all media?

Come on, people. Show some education!

When a society is run by and for the corporations, it is FASCISM. That is the definition. Yes, totalitarian communism is, well, totalitarian. But so is fascism. Don't just throw out any term. If you do, you are just name-calling. You don't have a grasp of the situation yet and, therefore, don't have a clue about what to do about it.

It is time for people to get comfortable with the "F" word. Look, for example, at apartheid South Africa. Was it fascist? Hell, yes! Did it have death camps with crematoria? Hell, no! "Soft" fascism is a matter of style.

What the U.S. has is an incredible history of media and advertisng talent, media ownership concentration and media saturation. Everything this government does is scripted in a way no other country on the planet can accomplish. A person can't get into a Bush "meet the people" event if his car in the parking lot has a dissenting bumpersticker, right?

There is no reason to build concentration camps as long as they can keep almost everyone duped because there isn't significant unrest. And there is incredible "political capital" in maintaining the illusion of democracy. What I am afraid of is precisely that the ruling powers will get away with this scripting of the reality of U.S. consciousness for DECADES until things (as in "real" reality) get so bad we have a fourth-world anarchy in the streets and revolution. And in that long degeneration wake up to a world run by China where our country and future have been lost.

Re:Something is fishy

[bbtom]

Why in the name of fuck would the Rapture Ready lot be concerned? Surely, if subdermal RFID and central government ID registries are predicted in the Book of Revelations, it signals the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Isn't that what the Rapture Ready people are all waiting for with baited breath and saying will happen just next week despite the fact that it's been promised every single couple of years for the last thousand or so years?

(Obligatory Simpsons reference: when Flanders gets a note purpotedly from Jesus saying "Dude, I'm in Montana!" and rushes off on the train to meet him)

Re:Something is fishy

[Cro Magnon]

1) It creates MORE government, not less. Republicans are supposed to be for smaller government, but this flies in the face of that policy

The Republicans WERE for smaller government - when the Democrats were in charge. Now that the Repubs are in charge, they're just another bunch of Big Government hypocrites.

Re:Something is fishy

[Cro Magnon]

We're going the way of the fucking Romans

That's not true! The Romans fell because their people were so distracted by entertainment that they didn't keep an eye on their leaders. BTW, American Idol should be good tonight.

Re:Something is fishy

[TripMaster Monkey]

If we're supposed to be the Romans, where are the vomitoriums? I want a vomitorium!


Ever been to a frat party?

Re:Something is fishy

[FauxPasIII]

> Nevermind fussing about rules changes for filibustering in the Senate.

Actually, please don't nevermind it. Don't let them fundamentally undo the Constitutional purpose of the Senate
just because we're in shock over this horrible bill. This has been the Bush administration's methodology all
along; attack decency and liberty on so many fronts that anybody who's paying attention gets outrage fatigue
and there's not a coordinated effort to stop all the worst provisions. For instance, the butchery of Iraq has
drawn off so much attention from activist groups that Bush has been able to rape the environment and the economy
with much less fanfare.

Vigilance!

Re:Something is fishy

[Edgester]

Spending bills indirectly create policy, whether there are riders or not.

If there is no funding for a certain law, then it won't be enfored, or enforced very poorly.

Re:Something is fishy

[jwthompson2]

In regards to point one: republicans no longer stand for smaller government, and that is woefully become apparent. The rise of neoconservatism has destroyed this basic tenet of the GOP. Because of this I have begun urging my like minded paleoconservative and constitutionalist friends to jump ship for the Constitution Party, but that is a difficult jump due to all the 'waisting your vote' crap that people throw around about 3rd parties. Also, the Constitution Party's decidedly Christian stance on morality is troubling to many Secularists and non-Christians even though they do not advocate the dictation of morality at a national level but merely support states in deciding what is abhorrent behavior in the social context.

It's too bad the republicans no longer stand for smaller government, truly the gap between the two parties is shrinking and will soon be gone.

Re:Something is fishy

[MoebiusStreet]

I agree with the broad strokes of your posting. However, I think it needs some clarification.

First, can you describe the difference between fascism, marxism, Communism (note the "big C", and socialism? As far as I can tell, the first three are all extreme instances of socialism, and more specifically, fascism and Communism are for practical purposes the same, differing only in the point of view from which you describe it.

Second, despite the fantasies of slashdotters, corporations do *not* run America. It's certainly true that corporations have a strong influence, but only because our corrupt legislators (and regulators) are in their pockets. In no way do the corporations have DIRECT control.

Rather, much of the legislative authority has been ceded to "agencies" under the Executive Branch (EPA, FDA, etc.). Since these agencies have such a large influence, and do exert direct control largely unchecked by the legislature, it would be more accurate to refer to our de facto system as "Statist" because we are governed by a non-elected State bureaucracy.

Finally, not only is it not true that corporations exert direct control, but in your short list, it's easy to point out ways in which that Statist bureacracy exert extreme degrees of control over the corporations as well as corporate welfare that coerces bureaucratically-mandated standards.

Consider:
* airlines - DHS, FAA
* farms - USDA, FSA, various welfare programs, protectionism
* factories - OSHA, EPA
* hospitals - medicare/medicaid (I have some intimate knowledge of this, and can attest to its oppression and absurdity)
* media - FCC, various "indecency" stuff

Large parts of these businesses are entirely dictated by the regulatory bureaucracy.

I submit that we are well down the path to socialism. I think you agree, but I don't think you can claim that the corporations are running the country.

Re:Something is fishy

[NoData]

Bzzzt! Sorry, no points. I asked for a judge that the REPUBLICANS had fillibustered. Abe Fortras, Johnson's buddy who helped him rig the 1948 Texas Senate election, was fillibustered by BOTH parties

He was filibustered by Republicans and Dixiecrats for his progressive rulings on race and due process. I'm sorry, is there a modern distinction between Republicans and the now-defunct Dixiecrats? No. And given the social agenda that underlies current Republican judicial aspirations, this is especially poignant.

There are a number of other judicial nominees filibustered by Republicans, it's just that cloture was voted. Here's a very nice column on the matter. But I'll reproduce the heart of it here. Note especially the closing quote.

--------
Traditionally, the filibuster has not been the only weapon in an opposition party's arsenal. There are other, less visible ways whereby the Senate's rules and traditions empower individual senators to block judicial and other nominations. Between 1996 and 2000, Republicans in control of the Senate developed these techniques to a high art.

Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.

All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.

When his tactics on the Paez and Marsha Berzon nominations (Berzon was filibustered along with Paez, more than two years after her nomination) were challenged, Smith responded with an impassioned floor speech in defense of the judicial filibuster: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... . That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it."

Re:Something is fishy

[cr@ckwhore]

When did the government nationalize the airlines?

Shortly after 9/11 when they gave billions to "save" the airlines.

When did the government nationalize the farms?

Throughout the past few decades in the form of farm subsidies.

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.

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.

When did the govenrment nationalize all media?

Are you kidding me?

Re:Something is fishy

[fearofcarpet]

"If that sort of argument can win an election, it sounds like the people got the quality of representation they deserve." Thanks a lot. You are, of course, presuming that the 2004 national election was any less "rigged" than the 2000 national election.

While it does seem to be true that any challenger to an RNC funded candidate needs a super majority to win, you have to admit that to get eough votes to cheat their way over the top, a whole lot of real dumb and/or uninformed and/or misinformed people had to vote for GW... The "he voted before the war before he voted against it" line was just one in a long list of insulting sound bites. I think my favorite was "well there hasn't been another terrorist attack since 9/11". It reminds me of the Bear Patrol episode of the The Simpsons in which Lisa claims a rock can keep tigers away. When Homer asks her how it works, she says "it doesn't, but I don't see any tigers around" and Homer replies "Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock". It seems that the paper tiger that is "terrorism" has lobotomized nearly 1/2 of the US electorate to near Homer Simpson level cognitive ability. I mean most of Bush's re-election stump speeches (that is, when he wasn't mangling the English language in soon-to-air-on-Jon-Stewart semi-sentances) involved just repeating "Iraq... 9/11, 9/11, 9/11... Terrorists... JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!... Saddam..." until the audience was actually blinking in unison while chanting "party of god, party of god..." and burning effigies of "bible-banning" (another favorite GOP phrase) democrats.

What I find really alarming is how we're letting the administration put out propaganda (like those fake news broadcasts or the back-room press conferences in which officials cannot be quoted) and deny citizens access to the president's public addresses because of bumper stickers or tee-shirts, then sitting on our hands while the senate votes 100-0 to force a national ID system on us... Uhm, hasn't anyone read 1984? Or a freaking history book? The German government accused the Bush administration of using "Nazi-like tactics" for crying out loud... This, after we watched them pass a bakruptsy bill that reads "screw you American public", and a "Family Entertainment and Copyright Act" that ammends title 17 (that's the copyright one, right?) to protect the strangle hold the 5 corporations that make up the RIAA have on media distribution. Then they turn around and say "we have to drill in ANWR or the terrorists win"... And people swallow this crap and keep voting for upstanding repulicans like Rick Santorum who brought a dead fetus home and made his children kiss it!

Re:Something is fishy

[Reziac]

Yep, that is indeed a problem. For every corrupt or spineless politician we evict, there is another waiting to be elected.

See my other post in this thread about a method of at least limiting their power, and making them experience more of the Real World, by forcibly making politics NOT a "career".

I'm reminded of what Senator McGovern said after he retired from politics and tried to get into the hotel business, and found that thanks to all the legislation that HE HIMSELF had helped pass, it was now impossible for a startup to ever succeed in the hotel business. In a subsequent interview he said flat out that if he'd known what a negative impact his own legislation was having on the citizenry's ability to make a living, he'd never have proposed most of it.

Goes to demonstrate how far from reality the political world has gone.

Re:Something is fishy

[lgw]

But don't forget that Robert Byrd sponsered the bill to lower the number of votes for cloture on judicial nomination filibusters from 67 to 60, back when the Dems had the majority and could work with 60. No one is clean in this whole mess.

Re:Something is fishy

[gg3po]

The real problem is that the people they're trying to stop, terrorists, will probably still be able to get them [fake ID's].

Sorry, not one of the 9/11 terrorists would have been stopped by this. They all had real ID's. Clearly, this is not intended to stop terrorists, unless the working definition of "terrorists" is "We the people".

Fix the Game

[mbrod]

They really need to make it so they cannot attach measures like this to bills that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

Re:Fix the Game

[Short Circuit]

It's called a "rider" ... and it's been part of American politics for as long as America's been around.

I just wish the filibuster had held out longer.

Re:Fix the Game

[Vellmont]

We did that in Minnesota recently, and just recently a conceal and carry handgun bill was thrown out by the courts because it was attatched to unrelated legislation.

I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.

Re:Fix the Game

[wft_rtfa]

Maybe the bills should have some sort of word limit, to limit the measures like this and pork from being added to bills that get passed.

If a bill is longer than the US constitution, than it is too long, and congress really shouldn't be voting on legislation that is so long that none of the senators even have time to read it all.

Re:Fix the Game

[Cainam]

You should join DownsizeDC.org in their attempt to pass the "Read the Bills Act of 2005". The Act would make it law for all bills to actually be read by each legislator, which could cut down considerably on unrelated riders. In any event, it has to be a good thing for lawmakers to have read the laws they're voting on!

Re:Fix the Game

[jericho4.0]

My company uses a special technique to form aluminium into a foil. It ships with instructions on how to build a farady cage from our foil. Send $10 for details.

Re:Fix the Game

[tomhudson]

so I guess its time to invest in some sort of a RFID sheilding technology.

No, time to invest in some RFID sniffing/spoofing technology. This will make it easier for you to live off other people' money, just like politicians do.

Me, I'm going to boycott RealID, just like RealAudio and RealMedia (sorry - couldn't resist)...

Re:Fix the Game

[Blind Joe Death]

Nope, the line item veto has been declared unconstitutional in the United States. In 1996, Congress passed a law legalizing the line-item veto, and it came into effect on January 1, 1997. But in June of 1998, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated separation of powers. It would take a constitutional ammendment to legalize the line-item veto.

Re:Fix the Game

[FleaPlus]

My understanding is that the President has the power to line item veto

Nope. That said, I'd be very much in favor of an amendment to allow for one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto

The President of the United States was briefly granted this power in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan declared it unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

Re:Fix the Game

[modecx]

I couldn't agree more.

Bills are supposed to be DAMN hard to pass. If you can attach some random stuff to a bill that's expected to pass, then the system isn't working. The fact that this got 100-0 is the sickeningly sweet icing on the cake-of-evidence towards this.

Honestly, the one thing at the moment that I wish for in our government is accountability. Legislation that would only allow one fundamental idea per bill would do exactly that... It would make things like this bill pretty hard to pass, and that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

It'll never happen though, because of the accountability aspect, and because the bureaucrats like it the way it is--easy to pass bullshit when people are desperate.

Re:Fix the Game

[nacturation]

Need to learn french so I can move to Canada.

Isn't that sort of like saying "Need to learn Spanish so I can move to the US"?

Re:Fix the Game

[Martin Blank]

States frequently have these kind of provisions in their constitutions, barring provisions that have nothing to do with one another. In California, we recently had an initiative on the ballot that was split into two parts (A and B) because it had already been numbered when it was decided that it could not go forth as one item.

Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)

Re:Fix the Game

[DavidTC]

I think they should have to write every bill they voted for that passes. (Aka, you don't ahve to write it if you didn't vote for it, and you don't if it failed.)

By hand. Their own hand, not an aide's.

Re:Fix the Game

[yaphadam097]

Only if you infer that each and every American citizen and resident, legal or otherwise, is by definition a threat to the "common defense and general welfare" And if that is the case exactly whose welfare are we defending?

Is it just me...

[Joe Jordan]

Or do these post-it notes tacked on to unrelated bills need to be stopped?

Re:Is it just me...

[ImaLamer]

Now, we can't go attacking the way branches of governement work everytime we don't get our way. That seems to be the easy thing to do. Attack the electoral college because the election doesn't go our way and attack the judiciary because a few cases are decided on the "wrong" side. Republicans attacked Clinton when he was the most powerful because they had no other recourse.

What we need to do is engage those who either disagree or those who are falling in line with this terrorism/illegal alien scare. We don't need a Nation ID system, we don't need these anti-terrorism reforms, we don't need to be so scared all of the time. We need to tell our idiot in-laws or neighbors that they are wrong sometimes.

I disagree with this approach on my privacy and overall rights to freedom, but I don't blame the way it was passed. I blame them for passing it. I don't care what it was attached to, if enough people loudly objected Senators from everywhere could remove this "post-it note". I'm telling my favorite Senator/President's-to-be that I won't forget this treachery.

If we spoke up more often we could get our way. Let's stop being afraid to do it.

Notes about the minority

[odano]

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.

Re:Notes about the minority

[paulthomas]

They could have something like this on their record if they weren't collectively a bunch of politically motivated fucks*. If they really cared they would have openly voted against it on the principal that the two issues don't belong in a bill together.


* and how did they get into power? People who are either too forgiving or too stupid -- OR BOTH -- gave it to them. Government by the people, against the people.

Re:Notes about the minority

[antiMStroll]

You no longer have a representative government. The Experiment's over.

Re:Notes about the minority

[kitzilla]

but of course they cannot have a vote against emergency military funding on their record, so they were forced to.

Ah ... just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time? Fine leadership style.

I've come to expect dracononian legislation from the Republikans, but the Democrats should be ashamed. Not so much as a whimper. Spineless, gutless wonders.

Another Green vote in 2008 ...

Re:Notes about the minority

[ScentCone]

You no longer have a representative government

Ah, you mean, like, where the people that get elected by the voters are actually shipped to North Korea, and replaced by cyborgs or something?

Or by "you" you actually mean yourself, and mean that you're not feeling represented because you couldn't persuade enough other people to support your preferred representative(s). Perhaps you didn't invest enough time? Maybe your position or message don't resonate with typical people? Certainly you put a lot of your own time and effort into educating people, right?

Re:Notes about the minority

[Uruk]

The politicians get stuck on the horns of a dilemma, possibly due to uninformed voters.

Scenario: Congress creates a bill called the "fluffy bunny petting act of 2005, providing (amongst other things) for free cold fusion generated power and eternal global peace"

Sen Dick Shaftus, (R-TX) decides that this is his opportunity, and attaches a rider - "Infant Mulching Federal Subsidies for the Rich".

Principled politician, Molly Naivitus (D-MA) votes against the bill, desparate to prevent the mulching of infants in her state.

Republicans campaign against Naivitus in Massachussets, outraged that she would vote against petting fluffy bunnies and eternal global peace!

Voters, spun by soundbites and browbeaten by O'Reilly, vote Naivitus out of office.

Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.

Re:Notes about the minority

[Doctor_Jest]

The Democrats could've stopped the DMCA. But those "Democrats" including the one in the executive branch at the time, didn't. Orrin Hatch's baby got tacit approval with NO debate from the Democrats either. They're not spineless, in the sense that they didn't hold to their party's ideals... they're spineless for the same reason Republicans are spineless. MONEY talks.. and it's the only thing they listen to anymore.

I like neither party, and quite frankly, it's a ONE party system these days in national elections. There ARE no "Republikans" or "Demokrats".

Just slimy on-the-take politicians who nurse at the teat of special interests. No one should be surprised by this... we've been voting them into office for decades.

that's what happens when you send lawyers to do your work for you... they end up screwing YOU in the end anyway.

Another Libertarian Vote in 2008. :)

Re:Notes about the minority

[Martin Blank]

A version without the rider was voted on. The entire bill as passed by the House was struck out and replaced with basically the entire bill minus RealID. RealID was then added back on in committee as compromise, as amendments sometimes have been for the last couple hundred years to avoid having to vote and get a deadlock everytime one side of Congress or the other wanted a wording change.

Re:Notes about the minority

[antiMStroll]

This isn't about funding rapists, serving babies in restaraunts or nuking Los Angeles (though the last might not be a good example.) You're obviously strongly in favour of this legislation. Without arguing its merits a simple scan of this forum's submissions should be enough to show it doesn't have unanimous support. 100% of the American population doens't stands strongly behind, hence 100% legislative support is unrepresentative. If so why do politicians hide it in a bill for Iraq spending and tsunami relief? Rep's and Dem's should be proclaiming ownership from the rooftops, beating each other down at Media's door trying to be seen associated with this legislation. Unanimous support is the stuff of a politician's wet dreams.

At the end it doesn't matter, it's a done deal as far as the legislator's are concerned. If this gets past the Courts I'll be very curious to see what the reaction is when it moves from the conceptual to the concrete, when people have to carry permanent identity cards.

Re:Notes about the minority

[kevin lyda]

they tried that. and they lost the election.

dems stood up against power hunger redistricting in texas. for that they lost five seats.

currently in polls dems are seen as weak on national security. when election time comes, any of them who voted against the spending bill for iraq would be hung with it. and then a republican would come in and then the gop could pass even more noxious legislation.

numerous democratic senators spoke out against this bill. did you see them speak out against it? it was on cspan-2.

i suspect you didn't - like 99% of america.

what are their other options to speak out against the bill? cable news was too busy covering the runaway bride. right-wing talk radio wouldn't let a liberal get more than two sentences in a row out without screaming them down. sure, they could get into newspapers but then you're back to the cspan2 audience.

Re:Notes about the minority

[PenguiN42]

just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time?

You deride the republicans, yet listen to their rhetoric wholeheartedly.

The bill authorizing force in Iraq authorized it as a last resort for the purpose of making sure Iraq complied with inspections under the assumption that iraq had WMDs.

Sen. Kerry had a speech around the time of that bill where he explained very clearly why he was voting for it -- and, moreover, what the president had promised to do with the power of the bill.

The president then broke his promise and rushed to war without any chance for diplomacy, and definitely without any hard evidence that Iraq was hoarding WMDs.

Those who voted for the bill certainly had something to complain about when we actually went to war.

But of course, the masses of people don't see the details of the bill -- or any bill -- and just think "he voted for the iraq war." That's the same problem with these "rider" bills -- people don't care about the details. They generalize to some abstract version of the bill based on its title and not what it actually says. Even Pres. Bush did this in the debates regarding the "partial-birth" abortion bill. And now you're guilty of it as well.

Re:Notes about the minority

[bluGill]

No, a vote for democrats or republicans would be throwing my vote away. They do not represent my beliefs, nor are they close enough to be worth compromising on them. So it is a wasted vote to give it to them. Maybe my candidate doesn't win, but it sends a message: I care enough to vote for someone who won't win.

The major parties always watch the third parties. When they become too powerful they start moving in that direction to pick up those votes. So the only way I can achieve long term change is to vote for someone who believes what I want to happen long therm.

Voting republican or democrat just says that you think they are doing just fine.

Your Papers Please

[Shashvat]

A lot of western european democracies (Belgium, Finland) have national ID cards. But their government isn't as powerful as the US Federal government.

Re:Your Papers Please

[ravenspear]

While I wouldn't disagree with that, I think the argument against it here is that given the past actions and power grabs by the US federal govt, measures like this could likely be used to extend that power further.

It's not the measure itself, but the method behind it. Since 9/11 there has been an enormous extension of authority on the part federal police and intelligence officials. There seems to be an attitude in Washington that they need to assume control over all critical information pertaining to anyone in the country to combat terrorism.

This is not only demonstrably unnecessary, but may serve to create a menace even worse than the terrorists of today in the long run if we are not careful.

Re:Your Papers Please

[Janitha]

I guess what has been voted has been done, while they are at it, it would be nice if they included some sort of flash memory onboard the ID card, and have slots. Would be nice if this can replace all my other credit cards, and stuff plus have blank slots where more data can be written for custom purposes such as Work place access, local business's premium stuff, and even the passcodes and so on for your computer. One ID to rule them all (privacy wise this will suck, tech-wise this will rude)

Re:Your Papers Please

[Bigby]

But in the US, we have states. In fact, one of the amendments to the constitution states that any rights/laws not stated here-in are up to the individual states.

This is why Vegas has legalized gambling and prostitution. This is why Nebraska has a speed limit of 75, Pennsylvania 65, WV 70, and a few years ago Montana had no speed limit (during the daylight).

Many people don't realize that the federal law makes the legal drinking age 18. "But why is it 21 in every state?" They deny funding to states that don't make it 21. It works the same way with many rules so the federal government can extert control over the states (including the speed limit).

Now they are going to extert control over state IDs and make them federal. Now you will have a US drivers license...basically. That means most of the traffic rules will need to be merged.

The US was founded on state rights, hence "The United States of America". If you don't like a state's rules, move to another state. The federal government is heading toward "monoculturing" the US. Pretty soon we'll be "Former United States of America".

Re:Your Papers Please

[ScrewMaster]

Yes and when we've finished harmonizing the copyright and patent systems of the rest of the civilized nations with ours it will be the United World of America. At that point I think World War III will break out making the whole thing moot. Besides, the EMP from a few hundred aerial nuclear bursts will wipe out all the Real ID cards anyway, so in the post-apocalyptic world privacy will be assured.

Re:Your Papers Please

[tomhudson]

Time to start creating your multiple fake personas, before this gets fully into place:

1. Visit graveyards looking for people born around the same year you were born, who died young, and get a copy of their birth certificate (or fake one - its easy enough), and use that to get the rest of your "alternate persona" documentation
2. Invest in a laminator and colour laser printer so you can make realistic id badges
3. have various forms of bills (magazine subscriptions are a quick and easy start) in othr names. A phone bill in your "alternate persona" for a few years will work wonders
4. take a second job for a few months as your "alternate persona". file the tax - governments never refuse money

Now you have a few hidey-holes, just in case things get totally wonky.

Re:Your Papers Please

[Wes Janson]

And the sad thing is thus:

There were some pretty good reasons for State's rights. And as we might recall, the single most devastating event in this nation's history (no, not 9/11) was the Civil War, and was caused as a direct result of federal meddling in state laws. Was abolishing slavery wrong? No, of course not. But regardless, the idea of forcing it upon states that desperately didn't want it, was the casus belli the South used.

Sadly, the number of people in this country who give a flying fuck about aforementioned history could be counted on the fingers of Tim Taylor. And that, ultimately, is why we're screwed.

Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

This is why there should be a constitutional ammendment that killing congressman should be a crime not punishable by more than $50 fine and/or 80 hours community service.

Don't want someone to be able to legally murder you? Don't run for public office.

Re:Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[Martin Blank]

If there was a fine and/or community service for it, then it wouldn't be legal now, would it? :)

Re:Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No, but it would still be less than a misdemeanor. A civil infraction, that wouldn't show up on a criminal background check when you apply for a job, is what I had in mind.

Re:Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[stox]

Sounds like a good idea, until they pass the "Preserve Government Officials Act" which provides $100B of funding for security of members of government.

Re:Next Stop: The Courts the GOP wants to Neuter

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I'm not certain that it could be abused. Show me one of them within the past century that shouldn't be executed for treason, and it's the exception rather than the rule.

I was joking, but still.

Voting up trash like this because "it'd hurt my re-election chances when the other guy airs campaign commercials saying I voted against paying our troops" means you've betrayed the american people in the most fundamental way possible. For fuck's sake... if that's what it takes to fight this, is to be voted out, well, that's why you are there in the first place.

If making them fair game makes the job less desirable, that's a good thing. They shouldn't be rock stars or pro athletes or hollywood stars, and yet they end up being all three. Rich, famous, and can do what they want. They fight so hard to keep something that a sane person shouldn't want... there's something wrong there. The only explanation is that they abuse it for personal gain.

Oh my

[HecticEclectik]

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

Re:Oh my

[pmazer]

I can, after I recieved the EXACT SAME prefabricated email after I sent an email against the Real ID act and again after I sent a response to that email reputing my senators claims. Shows that they don't ever even attempt to read the emails. Here's a copy:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 418, the "REAL ID Act of 2005." I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

The 9-11 Commission's terrorist travel report states that abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior enforcement worked together to support terrorist activities. The commission recommended reducing terrorist travel options so that terrorists will be forced to rely on means of interaction which can be more easily monitored, as well as travel documents more easily detectable for fraud.

The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting terrorist. The first deals with monitoring driver's licenses as a form of identification to a Federal official. It is not trying to regulate states' policies for those who may or may not drive a car, but rather to ensure that people are who they say they are. Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum laws. The primary method the 9-11 terrorists used to remain in our country was immigration fraud. This legislation will reduce immigration fraud while still protecting legitimate asylum seekers. Third, the REAL ID Act will waive federal laws to the extent necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence. Finally, this legislation makes aliens deportable from the U.S. for terrorism- related offenses to the same extent that they would be inadmissible to the United States to begin with.

As you know, H.R. 418 was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 26, 2005. On February 10, 2005, H.R. 418 passed the House of Representatives. On February 14, 2005, the bill was received by the Senate.

Since September 11, 2001, President Bush and Congress have made numerous efforts to help make our country safe from terrorism. As your United States Senator, rest assured that I will make every effort possible to ensure that the atrocities that occurred on that day never occur again. The REAL ID Act will make America a safer place, and is endorsed by the 9-11 Families for a Secure America, an association of family members of 9-11 victims.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this important matter. If I can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know. In the meantime, if you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Saxby Chambliss United States Senate

Re:Oh my

[ScentCone]

I cannot believe with so many people raising awareness and complaints to this issue our elected officals

Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts:

1) There's nothing in state motor vehicle licensing databases that a federal investigator can't get to anyway

2) A consistent set of standards by which people (notably, of course, immigrants - legal or not) need to prove who they are before they get an item as enabling (in terms of access, banking, and so on) as a driver's license is.... well, not crazy, or draconian, or anything other than reasonable.

That's it... I quit voting

That'll fix it! Or, really, it gives you even more room to whine, I guess. How about making a more persuasive case that we should let some states issue official IDs (which are then honored in other states) without worrying about who the person actually is? Tough sell? Yes, it is... and is why you don't see our representatives acting like it's an inherently bad idea to smooth out the discrepancies in the process. Streamlining and further validating the process will save money, lives, and time. The downside would be... let's see, a situation where it's harder for liars to get mainstream IDs?

Re:Oh my

[ScentCone]

but this is, as far as I have seen, impossible

Then how is that sitting senators and congressional representatives (and governors, and presidents, etc) who are up for relection are sometimes kicked out and replaced by someone with a significantly different message and appeal to the voters?

Clearly, however, when bills like this are passed after so much opposition has been raised by the people, we have a problem with what we claim to be the greatest method of government on the planet.

You've got to come to terms with the possibility that "the people" you're thinking of, in this case, aren't actually the majority of the people. For example: I think the legislation in question is perfectly reasonable, doesn't meaningfully introduce new risks, and substantially shapes identification and security issues around the current facts of life (relative to well-prepared foreign nationals looking for the legitimatizing magic bullet of a driver's license so that they can deal with finances, travel, and other pleasantries whether or not they are who they say they are). So, that means that I was represented, and that the Senate did just what I'd expect people looking out for my interests to do.

As for your being 16: the only thing you're missing at that age (as I was) is a significant enough number of run-ins with people trying to steal from your business, defraud your bank, turn out not to have legitimate insurance (because they're not who they said they were when they got their license) after they just totalled your car in a collision... you know, all that stuff that you'll get to experience, and which will shape your thoughts a bit in areas like this.

Are all politicians sensible or even rational? No, not hardly. Do some lose their power because someone else stands up and demonstrates that their take on the world is a better fit for more of the voters in their district/state/country? Yes. And they get a few years to show if we were right to believe them, and then we get to throw the bums out if they were lying just a little too much.

Re:Oh my

[gtkuhn]

he [President] doesn't actually play a role in how the senate frames legislation

I think he does. His VP chairs the Senate. That's a lot of agenda shaping control for the VP. The VP originally was supposed to be the President's opposition (second place in elections). This always made sense to me in a balance-of-power way. Dunno why it was changed, but it was. This puts Cheney in charge of Senate agendas and by extension, Bush's policies will be favored.

I'm ecstatic.

[fuchsiawonder]

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!

Doesn't this fly in the face of States Sovereignty

[CygnusXII]

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.

Re:100-0

[Yi Ding]

Problem is, no one can oppose this bill. It'd be like the trouble Kerry got into x100. The only thing they can do is offer amendments. The senate version of the bill didn't even have the Real ID language, but the joint meeting added most of it back.

What's the friggin point anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What's the friggin point anymore

[bar-agent]

What is the point of having a drivers license at all if anybody can get one?

To show that you know how to drive. You don't have to be a citizen, you don't have to speak English, to know how to drive, not if you understand the signs.

That is all a driver's license should be for.

Damn

[Schemat1c]

This is all Lincolns fault!

Re:Damn

[Max Threshold]

Word. Lincoln assraped states' rights like no other President before or since.

Fact: Lincoln's executive order declaring that the Confederate states didn't need readmitted to the Union, because they never seceded, because you can't secede, was completely un-Constitutional. Any individual or group is entitled to exercise their right of self-government and the Confederacy did so. Having never been formally readmitted, the statehood of the Confederate states remains illegitimate. The South is occupied Yankee territory!

Re:Damn

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You can go now. We won't stop you. Really.

10th Amendment

[Flounder]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

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?

Re:10th Amendment

[wowwser]

Ahh but have you ever used your license to conduct interstate commerce? Like get on a plane to go to a different state?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Re:10th Amendment

[Altanar]

Sure, the Federal government can't force States into adopting it, but just like the minimum drinking age, they can withold Federal money the States are addicted to if they don't want to go along for the ride.

Re:10th Amendment

[Sloppy]

Granted, this hasn't stopped the federal government from taking over education, hate speech legislation, search and seizure, etc.

This is why federal expansion needs to be opposed every time, even if you personally feel that some particular abuse happens to be a "good idea" or have some sort of positive value. (If it's a real positive value, then surely we'll all agree enough on it, that passing a Constitutional Amendment to empower Congress to do it, will be easy.) We have to establish a new precedent of intolerance for abuse. Any incumbent that has voted in favor of abuse, must be punished when they try to get re-elected. Today, that clearly means every single Senator. My two Senators are corrupt, unAmerican, and cowardly, and so are yours. It's sad, but true.

Folks, even if you're in favor of a National ID, you have to realize that if we allow them to do this, then the federal government is allowed to do anything. There simply is no Tenth Amendment, and the entire text of Article 1 Section 8 is "Congress shall have the power to .. oh, whatever."

Re:10th Amendment

[Software]

I haven't read the text of the bill, but that doesn't stop me from knowing how this is not unconstitutional. The bill doubtless contains provisions such as "The states shall do such and such, or else they'll get no money for road repairs / anti-terrorism funding, etc" The SCOTUS has ruled that it's OK for Congress to attach any strings they want to funding measures. That's always how Congress gets around these pesky things known as the Bill of (Fewer and Fewer) Rights. See, for example, the way Congress raised the drinking age to 21 years old. The problem is that state governments are so dependent on the federal teat that they will do anything the feds say in order to keep their funding. The states would rather have the funding than their sovereignty.

Re:10th Amendment

[mrbrown1602]

While I fully agree with you, and I don't support the Real ID issue, the issue could be argued as one of interstate commerce (transportation), which the federal government does have control over.

Re:10th Amendment

[jonny4001]

Wrong. The federal government almost certainly has the power to issue a national ID under the commerce clause. However, it looks like this bill is unconstitutional because Congress may not "commandeer" state legislatures and executives into implementing its regulatory schemes. See the case New York v. United States.

BUT Congress has two alternatives: it can either issue its own national ID card (but of course state agencies could completely ignore it), or it can give states money to implement the system (which the states can of course refuse).

Forced to, my ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

Principle. A long-forgotten word in politics.

Re:Forced to, my ass.

[damiam]

It was Senator Jim Jeffords, in 2001. He didn't switch specifically to keep the Republicans from having a majority (although that was one effect); he just decided that he personally could no longer agree with the direction of the Republican party. He's still in office, and quite popular in Vermont, although he's decided not to run again in 2006.

Constitution-buster?

[quax]

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.

Re:Constitution-buster?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bill allows the DHS to exempt themselves from the law in order to carry out the provisions in this bill. In other words, if the DHS feel they must commit murder, rape, theft, torture, pollute, sell dangerous drugs, kidnap, conspire, accept bribes, extort contractors for their own personal gain or otherwise violate a law, then the DHS can exempt themselves from the law. It will be just as if the murder, rape, etc law was never passed.

The courts can not uphold a law if it does not apply. In other words, this bill allows the people making the decisions to exempt themselves from responsibility and even place themselves above the law (granted, some state laws may apply in the case of murder, rape, and other violent crimes which the federal government might not be able to exempt themselves from).

Re:Constitution-buster?

[Peter La Casse]

Mod parent up.

This aspect of the bill is completely ridiculous. It allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship, if, in his sole opinion, doing so is necessary to put up better fences between the US and Mexico. There is no legal recourse: it is now the law that such actions can't be challenged in court. It's a blank check.

Re:Constitution-buster?

[Jim_Callahan]

I doubt the bill will be interpreted in this manner if it comes to court. My impression of the intent of the wording was that it was to prevent state laws from screwing up the construction of barriers to prevent illegal immigration (and pretty much only that). If a rape or murder took place and the dfendant claimed protection of this law, I'm pretty sure a judge would be more likely to take it as a guilty plea than accept it as a valid defense.

Re:Constitution-buster?

[DuckofDeath87]

That is scary. Although they are suppose to only use this for the one purpose, I would bet good money that they will go beyond just that purpose. It is like game wardens. In my state, they can search anything with out a warrent as long as they are only searching for poached game animals. However, they very often will help the police by claiming some suspected crack house has poached game and search the house. Then, they sieze the crack, and the police have them. This is very common practice.

Imagine if the police now could simply call up a HS guy in any state and get them to do anything.

What I am saying is that they will abuse this. I cannot belive anyone in their right mind would ever even consider amending this to a bill.

I'm glad

[Albinofrenchy]

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.

Re:I'm glad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to say, and I truthfully mean this in the most polite way possible, it does absolutely no use to complain here.

I suggest that people start writing the wonderful critters that made this bill possible. If you have, that's a great start. However, don't ease up. Write them all, make some pre-canned letters and send them off once a week--then hire some shoddy person to do your taxes next year and find some way to write this off. Joking aside, and I know it wasn't that funny, you'd be surprised how far writing can go--especially when done in masses.

Re:I'm glad

[jdreed1024]

But challenge our freedom? Time to stop this crap once and for all.

Voting Public: Hey, you can't establish national ID card! I don't want to have to show my papers everywhere I go. What happened to States Rights? What slimy politician tacked this on to a bill guaranteed to pass anyway? WTF does RealID have to do with troops in Iraq? What is this, Nazi Germany?
Bush & Co: *clears throat* Terrorism.
Voting Public: Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer! *sound of goosestepping and sheep falling into line*

Re:Doesn't this fly in the face of States Sovereig

[Short Circuit]

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.

Great, bend over and take it.........

[compmanio36]

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?

Re:100-0

[Vellmont]

No sentator wanted election-loser attack ads saying "Senator so-and-so voted AGAINST sending badly needed money for our troops!".

Make the dinosaur dance

[kafka47]

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.

/Kafka

Re:Doesn't this fly in the face of States Sovereig

[PingXao]

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.

Fuck the troops.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work...

[the_skywise]

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.

Re:They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work...

[Sassinak]

Of course it was related.. You know those pesky Tsunami's are a danger to democracy.. not to mention the fact that if we don't know where you are, and WHO you are.. how do I know WHAT you are capable of?..

*growning under the weight of the sarcastic retort*

Re:They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work...

[Trepalium]

Moreover, if the sky was green how would you ever get the refrigerator out of your ear? Therefore we must flatten the tires of our great tomato in order to prevent the miscarriage of granite. Only then can we labour safe in the knowledge that the world is flat. All in favor, say, "huh?"

Re:They have this in Indiana... it doesn't work...

[Zorilla]

Q: If you're skiing down a dirt hill and you hit a tree, how many pancakes does it take to cover a doghouse?

A: Purple, because ice cream has no bones.

Amendments to the Bill..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

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."

Re:100-0

[sgant]

This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.

Re:100-0

[Junior J. Junior III]

Well, now we know, anytime a Republican wants a bill to pass, they can just add it as a rider to a military budget bill.

This is mind boggling. It's like...

1. Bribe the military by writing up a law that gives them billions of $$$.
2. Tack on whatever you want.
3. Opposition to your bill's response: ?????
4. End of democracy!

I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them, which doesn't seem all that more bad than what can be currently done with the current hodgepodge of State ID systems. But this method of passing legislation sucks ass. Maybe next time Bush wants to get an up-or-down vote on a nominee he can send the nominee into the senate with a big cask full of freshly minted 1000 dollar bills earmarked for the Almighty Military.

Re:Doesn't this fly in the face of States Sovereig

[Planesdragon]

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.

Hilarious

[farbles]

Security is tightening for Americans, and for visitors coming from Canada and Mexico.

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.

Re:Hilarious

[phillymjs]

Yet oddly enough entry requirements have just been relaxed for visitors coming from Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from.

Welcome to America, where common sense is second fiddle to political correctness.

What's even funnier is that IIRC the hijackers all had legit IDs, which were legitimately obtained.

No matter what kind of fancy, high-tech shit they stuff into IDs, as long as there are greedy people in charge of doling out those IDs, people who want fraudulent ones will be able to get them.

What's worse, anyone with fraudulent Real-IDs will not get the scrutiny they deserve-- people will just swipe the thing, see it comes up as valid, and not question it.

It's just the illusion of security, just like all the horseshit they put into place at airports after 9/11. Window dressing, nothing more.

~Philly

Re:Hilarious

[meringuoid]

Yet oddly enough entry requirements have just been relaxed for visitors coming from Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from.

Welcome to America, where common sense is second fiddle to political correctness.

Heh. It's even better in the UK.

We're about to get compulsory biometric IDs; this, we are told, will Protect Us From Terrorism.

Everyone in the UK will have to have these IDs. All foreigners will of course have to be carrying passports anyway. Everyone in the country, then, will be identifiable...

With one exception.

The UK has one wide-open border: that with the Republic of Ireland. The British need no passport to go to Ireland, and the Irish need no passport to come to Britain.

Now, these ID cards are supposed to protect us from terrorists... can anyone in the class tell me whereabouts in the world all the ACTUAL terrorists who've carried out ACTUAL bombings in the UK have come from? Iran? No. Pakistan? No. Arabia? No. Ireland?

Yep.

So, any suspicious-looking bugger with an Irish accent has a valid excuse for not carrying an ID. He's just across from Dublin and does not have to have one.

I feel so safe now, don't you?

Rights delegated, not surrendered

[XanC]

I have to point out that the States are, or at least are supposed to be, sovereign.

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.

Re:Ever Consider??

[anubi]

It hasn't?

In the 50+ years of my existence, it sure seems like today we are more micromanaged and economically enslaved by debt than at any time I can remember.

Geez, today you even get your life savings seized for as little as sharing a song!

post-REAL ID: REAL Social Security Card Act

[steve_lake2005]

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

Why to fear Real ID

[shirai]

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).

FWIW

[zentec]

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.

Oh well, keep your powder dry. ...democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner...

Re:FWIW

[node 3]

Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic.

You've got it 2/3 correct: it's a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic."

democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner

That's a disgusting and backwards metaphor. "The People" aren't the aggressive wolves seeking to devour the poor innocent sheep, The People *are* the sheep. The wolves are the rich and powerful, and have been ever since the beginning of civilization. The US Government was founded on the idea that the government derives its power from, and should provide benefit to, The People.

If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.

Re:FWIW

[ThinWhiteDuke]

If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.

Nah. In the US, Constitutional, Democratic Republic is 98 sheep choosing which one of 2 wolves will get to decide what's for dinner.

I feel so sorry for you Americans

[distantbody]

...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)

Re:100-0 [OT]

[rzebram]

Hmm, I believe for situations just like this we should propose a

</democracy>

tag.

Subtle passage, subtle protest

[jkakari]

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.

Started the shooting??

[XanC]

All the South wanted was to break off and form their own national government, as is their right.

It was the Yanks who came down and invaded. That's what caused the violence.

Re:Started the shooting??

[Mr. Slippery]

All the South wanted was to break off and form their own national government, as is their right.

We can argue about whether they had the ethical right, but they had no legal right. The United States Constitution is "the law of the land"; a succession ordinace can't trump it.

It was the Yanks who came down and invaded.

Er, no. U.S. forts and troops already existed in the area when the Confederates claimed succession. Confederates traitors opened fire on Fort Sumter.

Re:Started the shooting??

[XanC]

Please read my post here for details on the right of secession.

If you've got a fort in a country which is friendly, but independent, and they ask you to leave, you do it. Not leaving their territory is an act of aggression. Certainly sending more armies down to destroy the countryside is aggression.

Re:Started the shooting??

[way2trivial]

I see, so by your logic, we should still be (largely) an english colony, as the founding fathers had no 'legal right' to rebel?

Re:Started the shooting??

[benjamindees]

The United States Constitution is "the law of the land";

Okay, and where in the Constitution does it outlaw secession? Keep looking, bucko...

a succession ordinace can't trump it.

Actually, it can. You see, the right to secede was reserved to the States by the tenth amendment. Here it is if you'd like to read it.

Regardless, the US government was founded on the principle of self-government, as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. For Lincoln to deny it a mere 70 years later was hypocritical and tyrannical.

Gate fees, just for starters

[BananaJr6000]

You pay on both ends. Even if you buy your ticket locally. -- toasted

Coming soon from ThinkGeek...

[bechthros]

...a tinfoil hat for your wallet!!

Re:This is a very cool development..

[Doctor_Jest]

If you live in Texas, there already IS a black strip on your driver's license... :)

And you have to submit a fingerprint to the DMV to get your license..

I'm just saying... Now others can know the fun of having all sorts of private info on the only card State Troopers will accept to identify you as you. :)

where's the perverted arts when we need them

[jeffehobbs]

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.

Remember when....

[juglugs]

...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?

Re:100-0

[Vellmont]

I don't even know what's so inherently bad about a nationalized ID card system or having standards for state driver's licenses -- it's more in how they're used and what can be done with them


The problem with the legislation is that no elected official decides what the requirements are for the license. The department of homeland security can basically make any requirement they want on the card. Examples might be DNA, fingerprints, "terrorist rating", etc. This is not democracy.

The time for action is now!

[ZosX]

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?

Re:The time for action is now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look how many Americans assembled together to protest our involvement in Iraq. Did it make a scintilla of difference? No.

Does it matter that millions of people don't think sharing songs online is that big of a deal? No. But a few people in a few corporations think it is a big deal, and they're the ones that are able to get laws passed.

Should we continue our failing war on drugs and continue to fill our prisons with non-violent drug-offenders? Despite the fact that it has had no effect on drug use or the drug trade in our country, we continue on this path, because it's a convenient way of controlling the population (felons can't vote, for one example).

The government is controlled by the rich and the powerful. You can assemble as many geeks together as you want... if you're lucky they might even write about you in the newspaper! It won't change anything.

I'm afraid the sheep-like americans won't wake up from their media-induced slumber until things get worse... much worse. When no one but the richest 5% of the country has health care. When no one can afford a good education. When a quarter of the country is considered a felon (with leg bracelets, no doubt!). When these terrible things come to pass, and much more... then we will see real change. With that in mind, George Bush for president in 2008!

Re:The time for action is now!

[Legion303]

"America is booming, the economy is on the up swing"

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

And I thought I was a good troll. I bow to your ingenuity, sir.

Re:The time for action is now!

[jmv]

but the majority of Americans support the Real-ID act

Oh, that must be why it got included in a completely unrelated bill. The republicans being so humble didn't want to take credit for such a great bill, so they tried to keep it quiet...

And now you all know the solution, right?

[interactive_civilian]

Do NOT vote for a single incumbent during the next Senate elections, (2006, right?). It doesn't matter if the incumbent is a Democrat or Republican, get them out.

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.

I may be a little out of the loop here...

[planetoid]

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.

Missing the real threat

[ostermei]

It seems to me that in everyone's rushing to bash the RealID portion of this, the real threat has been entirely overlooked. Before I go on, I'm going to point out that I could very possibly be ranting about nothing at all... Let me explain. When viewing the text for this particular bill, there are 5 different versions presented (see here), and no dates are attached to any of them. Now, I'm hoping the last in the list ("Public Print") is the finalized version, but I can't tell for sure. If that's the case, then someone please confirm it for me, and everyone disregard the following:

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 /. when it was brought up in H.R. 418, which was rolled into this current bill. I quote from the bill:

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

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

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

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

Or, to illustrate better, I'll quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon:

"If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."

This is the reason we should be up in arms. This is the dangerous part, and I've seen precious little mention of it.

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' ;)

Kent Brockman reporting...

[IonYz]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work.

Re:Ever Consider??

[HermanAB]

"...the US hasn't turned into a facist state..."

I take it that you are American and blissfully unaware of how your country behaves outside its borders. The US cannot turn into a Fascist state, since it already is one - has been for a long time. This is very obvious to people outside the US. The people on the inside are so indoctrinated that they don't know what they are missing.

Over their history, the US, Cuba, Spain and East Germany had one thing in common - lots of people tried to escape at one point or another in time...

I'm not just trying to be full of shit - you should wake up and read/listen/watch news from other countries too, not just CNN/ABC.

Security Tradeoffs

[skimmer]

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

Re:Fire the Moderators

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

No. You'd be allowed to kill those you agree with, too.

Besides, the premise behind the joke is serious... I only want people in office that want to do anything *but* play power games like this. And if they acted a bit more like they didn't want to be there, I think the corollary is that we wouldn't have shit legislation like this steaming heap.

Re:This Idea doesn't bother me.

[planetoid]

"I am not bothered by anything in this bill".

Not even:

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

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

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

Doesn't patriotism mean exactly that -- being bothered by un-American acts, not excluding those un-American acts of law by Congress? Since when does Congress -- or ANY branch of government, for that matter -- have authority to circumvent the system of checks and balances we have in place?

If our Supreme Court aren't pussies they'll strike this down faster than you can say the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_ under_the_United_States_Constitution

Consider please, the current president...

[way2trivial]

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.

Re:Consider please, the current president...

[TurboStar]

'real' republicans are for non-governmental interference in business small & Large, and non-influence over our daily lives..

You are referring to Libertarians. Republicans take my money and use it to build commerce (and get votes from those with money and power). Democrats take my money and use it to feed disadvantaged folks (and get votes from those who like handouts). Sorry, but you hit a sore spot. Both parties are severely corrupt right now. And I know my example is overly simplistic.

Re:Consider please, the current president...

[Professional Slacker]

You're exactly right, but ask yourself this: Who's more moral, those that steal to give to the rich, or those that steal to give to the poor? Yeah, they're both bad options, but there's clearly a better choice.

Re:Consider please, the current president...

[tonsofpcs]

Failed attempts to line up variable-width characters == YES.

Real ID

[David Webb]

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.

Read ID is just another example of how fast we are moving towards a police state.Republican this ,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.

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.

Re:Hate to say it - it's constitutional

[planetoid]

Sorry, but including two phrases in the bill which disallow judicial review of executive behavior is not Constitutional.

Your point #5

[khasim]

5 Only as long as the thief doesn't:

1. Create a fake realID (incredibly difficult, but nothing's impossible)
Or more likely...
2. 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.

You left off corrupt workers filing fake RealID paperwork.

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.

Disband the union.

[Baldrson]

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.

It discusses what Fed requires for Fed business

[ugmoe]

It discusses requirements for Federal recognition of State ID cards

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.

Remember Kerry?

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

Debate in Senate Stopped

[Bulldozer2003]

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.

Re:Has anyone actually read this besides me?

[Dot_Killer]

Technically that is correct but we all know banks and such that operate over multiple state lines will just move to the all in one federal card for identification for people without that particular state ID. Want to open an new account at BankofAmerica, "where is you Real ID card", want to get a cell phone, "where is you Real ID card".

It has also been said that you will not be allowed to ride Amtrak which is federal, without one, or fly in commercial aircrafts either. I'll be really f****** annoyed if I can't get on a plane unless I put all my data in some database for soem facists to peek at or some hacker to get at since it will be centralized.

Letter to my Senator

[Trillian_1138]

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.

Re:Letter to my Senator

[geminidomino]

The 2nd amendment is utterly worthless. The right to bear arms doesn't do fuckall to stop this sort of thing, when those who are the ones to bear them don't give an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating pastry.

I personally hope that all 300 million of these assholes suffer mightily because they were too busy watching American Idol to pay attention to what ws going on, and worse ,couldn't be fucked to care when they did find out.

Re:Standards are a good thing....

[Entropy]

... 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.

I work as a clerk in a college town. I therefore see out of state ids at the rate of sometimes twelve times per hour. (Actually, much higher some nights.)

I have to wonder which state ID's you think look this bad, since most states do have very nice designs now - by nice, I mean far more secure than they used to be. Off the top of my head, Rhode Island, Alaska, and New Jersey each have licenses which are unexpired of their old "laminated" types, which DO look pretty sad. But most states have all sorts of security features on them.

Most states now have holograms, dual photos, various means of authentication via what numbers go where. You should try your "half hour with GIMP and an inkjet printer" ids at some college town bars - and THEN see how well you do.

Re:MOD Parent UP

[The One and Only]

Makes perfect sense to me. You only have the right to secede if you win the war.

Damned good idea! (mod parent up!)

[Reziac]

FANTASTIC idea. Who do we have to bribe to get it passed into law??

Re:Damned good idea! (mod parent up!)

[eikonos]

No need for bribes, we'll just attach it to some popular bill.

Re:Damned good idea! (mod parent up!)

[wgaryhas]

Congress does decide, but the salary change doesn't take effect until an election has been held. So if a bill passed this year that doubled senator's salaries, only the 1/3 that are up for election in '06 would get the salary increase in '06, another 1/3 would get the increase in '08, and all would have it by '10. And for a member of a house, since they all get elected every 2 years, a salary change would take affect after the next election.

Shocking!

[foooo]

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".

Wow, really easy to tell the political leanings /.

[SensitiveMale]

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.

So, are standards good or bad?

[mi]

Following common protocols and standards is a good idea and gets plenty of noisy support on Slashdot.

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"...

Re:MOD PARENT UP--Real ID Struck Out

[Sheetrock]

Sadly, this is incorrect. The most recent version of the bill available on Thomas is H.R.1268.RFS (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House). You'll see the final thing on there in a day or so. I explained why in a buried comment yesterday.

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.

for those interested...

[yincrash]

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.

Driver's license should be a license, not an ID

[edb]

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...]

Correct Me if I'm Wrong...

[BarefootClown]

...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.)

Even Worse

[AoT]

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.

Re:Even Worse

[mwood]

Or it could be that they didn't want to hold up a big bill over some tiny rider that they could rescind later if it's important enough. That's why riders are created: to sneak through on the coattails of something more desirable.

Anyway, after years of handwringing over the creation of a national ID card, we effectively have one, so we're going to get experimental evidence to test all claims. This should be interesting.

Re:Even Worse

[nbowman]

You mean the DMCA right?
http://www.dcma.mil/

Re:Even Worse

[RM6f9]

Alternatively, give the President line-item veto.

The item soon to be known as Murker's Law: "There comes a point in every project, up to and including Government, where it becomes so huge, unwieldy, deviated from its original purposes and internally corrupted, that it becomes necessary to scrap the entire thing and start over."

Actually...

[kf6auf]

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.

Re:Actually...

[kf6auf]

So the Supreme Court could hear the case if a State challenges it?
Yeah, they could hear it but the first thing they would need to decide would be if they State had a right to challenge it. The state would need to demonstate harm or that it was entitled to represent the injured parties (and keep in mind that no one else being able to challenge it isn't a good enough reason). In addition you could probably sue the Secretary of Homeland Security (as a public Minister) and THAT is more likely to happen.

In a different vein, if there are no courts to appeal from (inferior courts), would the Supreme Court have original Jurisdiction?
You would think so because that would make sense, but that list there is seen to be complete with respect to original Jurisdiction so nothing can be added to it.

Re:Actually...

[globalar]

Certain parts of the Consitution are, generally, ignored by the government. Let's just admit that.

Judicial review - as we understand it - is simply tradition. Marbury vs. Madison (as you cite) established it, and Congress has never, to my knowledge, effectively fought it. Review has proven useful over the years, but not necessarily wise.

But can judicial review be legislated against - can it be made illegal? Can legislation be barred from review? The extreme conservative agenda in America would like to find out. This is not packing the court, rerouting the appellate process, or calling "States Rights!." This is plainly shielding legislation from court review.

So much has ridden on judicial review - so much that we call American and associate with liberty - no one really wants to butt heads with it directly. What's especially ironic is that there is no Court that can reasonably rule on judicial review, because it involves that branch's jurisdiction (which in this case is interpreted, not explicit). So this is something for which our system has no procedural remedy - unless we just sit back and let the Congress protect whatever laws it wants protected. This is an inevitable, and troubling path.

Where is Real ID?

[Phroon]

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.

Re:Where is Real ID?

[Peyna]

Scroll down to "TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS".

----
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

$592 Million for new US Embassy?

[ASH - ZX99]

The bill also includes an extra 592 Million Dollars for a new US embassy in Baghdad. Doesn't that kind of sound like overkill?

This ended a LONG time ago..

[camusflage]

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.

Re:Score one for the good guys

[Mmm coffee]

Seeing the notion that there are "real" Americans modded as insightful shows how much of a distopian joke American politics have become.

Signed,
A fake American whose opinions, hopes, dreams, and fears don't matter.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:BORK

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

No, I'm just saying that for people like Frist to scream bloody murder is blatantly hypocritical, particularly when he tried the tactic himself.

HE PARTICIPATED IN THE FILIBUSTER OF PAEZ.

He defended the filibustering of a Judge.

I don't care if it wasn't successful, itw as USED. He's just bitter it didn't work when HE did it.

Isaac Asimov

[Wizdumb]

...wrote in his Foundation's edge: "The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy"

Another Moore's law?

Re:Fire the Moderators

[geminidomino]

I guess when you are unable to come up with an intelligent rebuttal to a political argument, violence is a natural alternative.

More like, when intelligence and reason don't stop the corruption, violence is the ONLY alternative.

I disagree with GP, by the way... I think the time for planning and performing the extermination should be deducted from the community service requirement.

Time to kick ass.

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

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.

Brave New World and 1984

[gtkuhn]

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.

It was an amendement to some "must pass bill"

[jfern]

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.

On the bright side

[sl4shd0rk]

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.

Blame Article XVII

[clarinex73]

Our country is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. "Democracy" means "he who can scare the most people wins."

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.

Oblig Simpsons Quote

[jazzsupe]

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]

People: Read Shirer's books now !

[Onan The Librarian]

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

Re:People: Read Shirer's books now !

[fearofcarpet]

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

I don't agree that we're completely lost... yet. There are still some populist lobbiest groups that influence congress. But you're right, we're fighting a propaganda war that is turning the weak-minded into a zombie army for the fascist right.

What isn't sitting right with me is the question "where is the corporate benefit from national IDs". Pretty much every piece of legislation passed since 9/11 has been a thinly veiled corporate giveaway... Even bills that are suppost to be for us get mangled by lobbiest influences- in much the same way a movie script gets chewed to pieces by focus groups- and turn into a waste of tax payer money, like the "enhanced airport security" which is nothing more than an expensive false sense of security... Not that homeland security hasn't provided some sweet government contracts for "Bush friendly" businesses...

Anyway, where is corporate angle here? Is this just an excuse for the government to foot the bill for data collection so Choice Point can more effectively have that information stolen then not tell us about it until California passes law to make them do so..? I hope so because the only other reason they'd have such a stick up their butts about this (remember this provision was "promised to be attached to a must-pass bill" last year) is to control to public more-so. You take the PATRIOT act, PATRIOT act II, take away the filibuster, pack the appeals court with activist right-wing judges that won't allow cases to reach the Supremem Court... Suddenly we've nullified the whole freedom/liberty/right-to-privacy/equal-protection part of the constitution without ever having to pass an amendment... What is their (the GOP) angle here? Is that a tin foil hat I'm wearing?

White House stripped accountability for genocide

[jamie]

The Real ID amendment got left in. But other amendments, though unanimously agreed-on by Congress, were removed:

GENOCIDE -- DARFUR ACCOUNTABILITY ACT STRIPPED FROM BILL:

Last month, both the House and Senate unanimously passed amendments to the war-time supplemental bill that called on the Bush administration to ratchet up its diplomatic efforts to help end the crisis in Darfur. Yet today, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, the House is expected to pass the supplemental bill, and surprise, surprise, those Darfur provisions won't be included. What happened? After pressure from the White House (including a letter from administration officials to House Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis), the Darfur Accountability provisions were stripped from the bill.

Very true

[paranode]

The president actually had the power to get rid of the 'pork' for a short while. During Clinton's second term the Line Item Veto Act was passed giving him the power to cross out things he thought were wrong for the bill and send it back to the Congress, who would then have to approve or disapprove the changes. If they disapproved he could veto that and they they could override with 2/3rds.

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.

Incredible!

[mwa]

You used "Congress" and "efficiently" in a single, articulate sentence.

Congress and the laws they excrete

[autophile]

I've never understood how Congress can get away with attaching riders and amendments to a bill that have absolutely nothing to do with the base bill.

The 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

It's just about bloody time

[Anarke_Incarnate]

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.

Re:Ever Consider??

[ShieldW0lf]

For one thing, we honor treaties way too often.

Lets see... what's happened JUST under the current leadership...


Violated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missles Treaty
Killed the Biological Warfare Treaty
Killed the Small Arms Limitation Treaty
Killed the Anti-Personnel Land Mine Treaty
Is actively developing space weapons systems in violation of The Outer Space Treaty
Killed the International Criminal Court Treaty after previously signing on
Regularly violates NAFTA
Killed the Kyoto Treaty


For another, our actions tend to be genuinely defensive

Lets see... which countries has the US engaged in overt and covert aggression with in the last 50 years... I couldn't name them all, but they include

China Italy Greece Philippines South Korea Albania Germany Iran Indonesia British Guiana Vietnam Cambodia The Congo Brazil Dominican Republic Cuba Chile East Timor Nicaragua Grenada Libya Panama Iraq El Salvador Haiti Iran Afganistan Lebanon Venezuela Sudan North Korea

Our bonds of honor protect foregn civillians despite the fact that they aren't American

The US is currently holding over 500 people under the bullshit label "Enemy Combatants" in Guantanamo. They are neither given the rights of civilians nor the rights of POWs. They are, however, held indefinately with no legal basis and tortured by US troops with the blessing of the government.

Get with the program. All this rhetoric you Americans like to repeat to yourselves is NOT TRUE. Your country is an agressive fascist state. The world considers you a rogue nation and the #1 threat to world peace. Your leaders are War Criminals according to international law. Your nation is the number one aggressor on earth. Your nation is the number one arms dealer on earth. And your nation exploits everyone else on earth.

Unless something dramatic changes from within your country, the next World War will inevitably be when we all unite to lay low the US Military/Industrial complex. It will likely happen in your lifetime. And your people will be remembered with the same fondness as the Nazis.

Welcome to the real world.

The problem with the Rapture...

[emil]

...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.

Text of the bill

[ssafarik]

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