Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards

WebHostingGuy writes "The State of Maine rejected the federally mandated ID cards passed by Congress. In a non-partisan vote the legislature flatly stated that they would not force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It also asked Congress to repeal the law."

Comments

Doctrine of Nullification?

[jleq]

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Samuel Dravis]

I think this is similar to how SD created the anti-abortion law. They are deliberately saying no to get the law tested in court.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[AlHunt]

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?

Frankly? Tough. Real ID is just more federal nanny-state stuff hiding behind the skirts of "national security". That Maine has stood up to the feds and refused to be bullied into further eroding the privacy of it's citizens is a very positive development.

Let's see the other 49 states stand up for themselves, too.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Raul654]

They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law. And, to (roughly) quote Larry Lessig, "In America, the way to ask a legal question is to sue somebody". Passing a state law rejecting the Federal one is just the first stepping stone to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is really where this question will be authoritatively answered.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in SD; what is this law you speak of?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[joeljkp]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[takeya]

This is not an issue of interstate commerce. The federal government does not have the authority to pass this law, the law clearly states that if states don't participate, they lose certain amounts of federal revenue, most likely highway funding. That will be Maine's penalty. There will probably not be a federal lawsuit, and this is not nullification.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[uncreativ]

Just like the federal government doesn't require the drinking age to be 21--they just won't release highway funds if a state doesn't have a 21 or older drinking age.

Guess what happens. All the states set the same driking age....curious.

It's a way to force states to behave a certain way when the federal government has no authority to make such a rule itself. If the federal government actually had the authority, it would have just passed the law requiring the ID standards without tying it to highway funding.

If Maine wins, it could potentially undo all kinds of federal encroachment into areas it has no business to be in.

A few years ago in Wisconsin--a bit of a beer state--the governor was considering lowering the drinking age for lower alocohol content drinks like beer and challenge the federal highway funding policies. Of course, then one of the UW campuses had a drunken riot in favor of lowering the drinking age--that killed that! Hmmm....maybe 21 is a better drinking age.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, then one of the UW campuses had a drunken riot in favor of lowering the drinking age--that killed that!

Saturday comes every week.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[sheepweevil]

I'm at University here in SD, and indeed the law was specifically written to challenge Roe v. Wade. It was designed to provide almost no exceptions, the only significant one being an abortion is legal if it will save the mother's life. The law did pass the SD legislature, but it went to a popular vote last election day and lost, by about 55%-45%.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Maxo-Texas]

The question is- once a state realizes how many restrictions and forced/costly behaviors are tied to federal highway money do they say screw it.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[shmlco]

"They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law."

They need to question the constitutionality behind the way the law was passed in the first place. From the article, "A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill."

In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[thebdj]

Honestly, I do not think Maine cares about their highway funds. There are not a lot of US routes through Maine, the only Interstate is I-95, which is tolled for portion where it is the Maine Turnpike. I think there could actually be a potential here for Maine, if they truly do not care about the highway funds. Lower the drinking age back to 18. I am sure a lot of kids in the parts closer to Canada already make trips across the border for alcohol, so why not just keep them in state and keep the money at home. It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.

Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[MikeTheMan]

Nice highways you have there. It would be a shame if something were to...happen to 'em.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Guppy06]

"This is not an issue of interstate commerce."

The same could be said of Gonzales v. Raich. That didn't prevent a majority of the Supreme Court from nullifying a California law dealing solely with intrastate commerce.

Welcome to the post-FDR world.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[genrader]

Doctrine of Nullification should have always existed. The national government should not be able to force a state to bow to its every whim.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weekends start Thursday on college campuses

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[spikedvodka]

Honestly, Maine has some of the better congress-critters out there... Both Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe have more balls than the rest of congress put together

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, do we really want our soldiers boozing it up after we give them guns? I kid, I kid. I wish the US was more responsible in teaching kids how to drink. At the university I work at, we have at least one case of alcohol poisoning a week. Towards the beginning of the fall semester, it'll usually be 3-4 with all the freshman away from their parents for the first time. And this is on a dry campus that doesn't allow alcohol and for which the closest bar is about a 10 minute walk (though the liquor store is 5).

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[hackstraw]

At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home.

The problem is with the parents/parenting to begin with.

Americans are pretty psychotic with respect to things like mistakes, moderation, and honest communication.

Instead of these things, we like harder rules and harder punishments. Things like zero tolerance, mandatory minimums, 3 strike rules, police roadblocks.

There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.

I live in one of the most policed conservative states in the US, and it sucks. Trust me, once your "in the system" its next to impossible to get out of it.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[walt-sjc]

Olympia Snowe is also considered to be the most powerful woman in congress in terms of influence. I had a nice chat with her one day waiting for a flight to DC in Portland. Her moderate stance is why, in a far-left "nanny and welfare" state, she keeps blowing away her democratic opponents with a 3 to 1 margin.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[eric_brissette]

We shouldn't need the federal highway money anyway, our state taxes are ridiculous.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[mkiwi]

If the original bill was passed by the US House and Senate and signed into law, a state has no right to nullify that law. This is because of the federal supremacy clause in the US Constitution. Here's a link with the details.

I am not totally sure how this legislation got passed in the first place, but if it was legally made by Congress Maine stands no chance in court.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[TheNinjaroach]

Just like the federal government doesn't require the drinking age to be 21--they just won't release highway funds if a state doesn't have a 21 or older drinking age.
Thank you Ronald Reagan =\

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[plopez]

It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.
*ack*
They's have a bunch of students showing ip from Yale and Harvard. Would they really want that? A bunch of empty headed prepsters?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[dhasenan]

Right...Congress can regulate anything that "substantially affects interstate commerce", and they get to define the extent to which something must affect interstate commerce in order to regulate it. Since someone from another state may have moved to California because of their laws on marijuana, that's interstate and commerce.

Though Raich et al. were not selling anything, so it wasn't about commerce at all.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[ziggyone]

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. I believe this is pretty straight forward. They only way a law is constitutional is if it is allowed for by the constitution, otherwise it is the business of the state or citizens to decide upon. This law is the not the business of the Federal Government from my perspective and should be considered unconstitutional as the constitution does not specifically grant this power. I wish someone would come down hard on the federal government to put them back into their place and also have it deemed illegal to withhold funding for states not adopting unconstitutional laws mandated by them. I applaud for Maine wanting to keep it the rights that a state has and hopefully more states will take a stance.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[thebdj]

You sure we live in the same America? This is a country where a child can scream abuse for a spanking, and it is typically on the parents' shoulders to prove their innocence. Legislation was offered up in California to make it illegal to spank children under the age of 4. My mom was raised in a household where you were punished for misbehaving, and my grandfather was known for sending the boys out to pick the switches with which they would be punished. Could you imagine if a parent did that today? You leave a mark on your child and you will probably get a call from social services.

The real problem is parenting has become some sort of balance between punishment and political correctness. You'd better be careful how you raise your children or the government might come and take them away. What I love is that we now have the same people complaining that the youth do not show their elders respect, are often the same ones who are making it illegal to punish your children. Actually, we might not have needed these tougher laws if people were raised right in the first place.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[spun]

"The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers".

Eeeeewww. TMI!

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[jdgeorge]

There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.

Ick, that's a little too much information, thanks. The way I remember it is this:

Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Admittedly, it's not Shakespeare, but the version I recall has a far better soundtrack than what you appear to be thinking of.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[smellsofbikes]

I think the problem is that the actual cause/effect is the opposite of the perceived cause/effect. In many of the cases you mentioned, harder enforcement and heavier penalties make people more likely to do worse things for a whole variety of reasons (once you've done prison time you learn lots more about being a nogoodnik, fear returning less; drastic punishments for drug-related crimes make people more likely to use murder to try and cover up what they've done because the punishment isn't worse than what's already going to happen) but the general perception is that stronger punishment reduces crime. As a result there's pressure towards stronger punishment: society is seeking a setpoint by pushing in the wrong direction and getting further and further from what would actually minimize the problem. I say minimize because the problem isn't going to go away, and that's a problem in itself: if your goal is zero crime, you're going to fail, and that is, in fact, the goal. If society were to seek a minimal amount of crime, maybe we'd be able to accept that a softer justice system would get us closer to that point.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Xaositecte]

Spanking is a punishment. Breaking your child's bones, or making them bleed, is abuse.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's discipline.

Speaking as one who was spanked as a kid, I'm quite certain it wasn't abuse and was intended only as a deterrent against bad behavior. It worked quite well.

Only a whiney, irresponsible asshat would say that all spanking is abuse. Yes, there are overbearing dickhead parents that abuse their children by beating them, but that doesn't mean that a good whuppin' isn't in order occasionally from an even-handed parent that teaches a child with words first and a swat as a last resort.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Politburo]

If Maine wins, it could potentially undo all kinds of federal encroachment into areas it has no business to be in.

Maine won't win. I'll take any odds that SCOTUS won't even grant cert.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Schemat1c]

Spanking is a punishment. Breaking your child's bones, or making them bleed, is abuse. So only things that cause physical damage is abuse? Words can be used for abuse and even better they leave no visible marks!

Physically striking anyone is abuse in my book. If you have an employee and he misbehaves can you hit him for punishment? Of course not, you will be charged with assault. Why doesn't this same rule apply to children who are even less able to defend themselves?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Politburo]

In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.

A couple of problems with this.

1. All amendments are voted on. It's impossible for any one person to amend a bill. You need a quorum and then a majority of that quorum (or more, depending on if it's House or Senate).

1a. Note the wiki article appears inaccurate here. It was not an amendment, but was added in the Conference Report for HR 1268. I can't get into the details of how conference reports work here. To boil it down.. basically the GOP leadership amended the appropriations bill.

2. We the people don't necessarily get a chance to debate any Congressional action. That's the whole point of a representative democracy.

3. Many of us did debate it and determined it was not necessary. Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip out the REAL ID act. These were voted down or struck via procedural means. Unfortunately, the whole Senate voted to pass the bill, most likely because it was a military appropriations bill and voting against it would not be "supporting the troops".

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[b.burl]

Yeah, and it's ok to beat my wife with a stick thats 1" in diameter or smaller, anything larger is abuse.

Look, to a small child, getting yelled at and spanked is absolutely terrifying. Regular physical and emotional trauma creates enormous personal and social costs. Schools don't use physical punishment, workplaces don't use physical punishment, first world prison systems don't use physical punishment (except in Singapore and the U.S.), and hitting another adult is totally inexcuseable except in self-defense. So why engage in that treatment with the most vulnerable members of society? Does it make them better people? Better at relating to others? Does it foster their emotional and intellectual growth? Or is it just a means of terrifying children into behaving the way we think they should behave and for us to feel powerful and vent our frustrations?

I find its usually people who hit their kids or were hit as children that steadfastly defend physical assault as a valid parenting technique. Which means they have a fuckload of emotional baggage attached to the issue, and are not a good source of info.

A much better source is child development psychologists and, to a lesser degree, primate researchers. One interesting study showed the quite dramatic changes early physical punishment had not only on primate behavior latter in life, but on the actual anatomy of the brain (i.e. some structures were stunted, others greatly enlarged). Anyway, I defy anyone to produce evidence that human, or higher order primate offspring benefit in anyway to physical punishment and the resulting terror inflicted on them by those they depend on for survival.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[p3d0]

There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.

That's a Star Wars quote: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers. .

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[BalanceOfJudgement]

If Maine wins, it could potentially undo all kinds of federal encroachment into areas it has no business to be in.

Which is precisely why Maine (and all the other states opposing this) won't win: because even if every judge on the Appeals panels think the Real ID act is the essence of evil, they still will not rule against the Federal government - because it would lay the exact precedent you're talking about. No judge is going to give power back to the states once it has been taken by the Federal government. That's how power (and corruption) work.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[nasch]

Physically striking anyone is abuse in my book. If you have an employee and he misbehaves can you hit him for punishment? Of course not, you will be charged with assault. Why doesn't this same rule apply to children who are even less able to defend themselves?

Thank you, well said. This idea that not hitting your children means you're not disciplining them is nonsense. I have never and will never hit* my children, but I assure you they know when they have broken the rules. I was spanked growing up, and I remember the spankings but I sure don't remember the lessons they were intended to teach.
* spanking is just a subset of hitting

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[nasch]

Many of us did debate it and determined it was not necessary. Democratic Senators offered amendments to strip out the REAL ID act. These were voted down or struck via procedural means. Unfortunately, the whole Senate voted to pass the bill, most likely because it was a military appropriations bill and voting against it would not be "supporting the troops".

Yeah, there's the problem. The critters have the ability to stick anything they want onto a military spending bill, or an emergency budget bill, or whatever other bill is political suicide to vote against. The dream is that each bill would deal with one and only one topic, but the problems are 1) the people who would have to enact such a rule are the same people who would lose some of their power because of it and 2) who decides whether an amendment is on the same topic as the bill? The courts I guess, so then it's a matter of years later that anything can happen to fix a problem. So, this will remain a dream.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[hatshepsut]

But can't parents legally allow their children to drink alcohol at home anyway? Here in Canada, the drinking age legislation applies to the ability to legally purchase alcohol, or consume it in public (bars, restaurants, etc.). Anyone can serve their kids at home, any time. I have plenty of friends whose parents firmly believed that a drink or two with dinner was pretty much mandatory (and healthy). The kids started getting a half-glass of wine with dinner when they were 10 or 11. Strangely enough, none of them developed "issues" when they headed off to university, and none of them were even remotely tempted to drink and drive.

My parents were essentially teetotallers, and my first year of university was damn near enough to mean that I didn't get a second year. I got over it, but I really envy those friends who had some experience ahead of time, who knew what booze was and what it could do to you and how to take it in moderation.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Politburo]

who decides whether an amendment is on the same topic as the bill? The courts I guess

Not true. The courts have routinely deferred to the Congress' Art. I, Sec 5 powers to self-regulate. The House has a rule that prohibits non-germane amendments (and it carries through to the Senate when dealing with Conference Reports, which was the case with REAL ID). However, the Speaker of the House (or whoever is acting Chair) rules on which amendments are relevant. There is a process to object to the Chair's ruling, but it's rigged to almost always side with the majority party.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[dfghjk]

Parents can allow their 16 year olds to drink at home already.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[nasch]

However, the Speaker of the House (or whoever is acting Chair) rules on which amendments are relevant. There is a process to object to the Chair's ruling, but it's rigged to almost always side with the majority party.

Yeah, that sounds like par for the course.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[jaypifer]

Oh, they have the authority to pass it. They can pass any law they want...that's why it's a law. Whether it's enforceable or will stand the test of the courts is the only question.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

Started long before Reagan. Blame Nixon.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Hatta]

But can't parents legally allow their children to drink alcohol at home anyway?

No. In fact that's a crime.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Some_Llama]

"Spanking is abuse."

No it's not.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Some_Llama]

"Physically striking anyone is abuse in my book. If you have an employee and he misbehaves can you hit him for punishment? "

If a protestor acts out they are most certainly "hit", if a criminal resists arrest they are most definitely "hit", if you verbally assualt someone on the street most likely you will also be "hit".

Spanking is a form of punishment that is actually in line with real world cause and effects that children will see once they are in a real world situation, shielding them from this does not prepare them for real consequences of their actions.

Spanking is not the be all end all of the range of punishments (just as in real life), but it does have it's place, and it can be used as a tool in parenting, to restrict parents from a range of options when trying to teach their children consequences of their actions and then expecting the parents to be responsible for those same actions of their children is ludicrous.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Rohan427]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

Which is what our form of government and the Constitution is meant to protect against: The ability (or power) of the Federal Government to force its will upon the States and the People. Unfortunately the States (and the People) have allowed the feds. to gain too much power over the many years since the country was founded. Now the feds have way too much power and the States are beholden to them for nearly everything.

Just as the feds like it.

I will never carry a RF ID.

PGA

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Some_Llama]

"I remember the spankings but I sure don't remember the lessons they were intended to teach. "

But you did understand there were consequences for misbehaving, and you did heed your parents after those times, right?

It doesn't have to be about a specific lesson, it is more about understanding limits, punishments and respecting authority. It doesn't have to be the first response either and in most cases shouldn't be...

In my house, when my kids were younger, eventually if they kept misbehaving they would be spanked by me, my wife would never spank them because she felt like you did. Both of our methods worked for the most part but when it came down to it I was the one who would finally spank them and they would behave. I haven't spanked any of my kids (I have 3) for at least 5-6 years now (longer for the older ones), i pretty much never had to after the age of 5 or so because they would just listen to me.

Flash forward to now, they don't listen (or in my estimate) respect my wife as an "authority" figure, no matter what she does, but they do respect me and do seem to be able to see me both as an authority figure AND someone who they can come to with problems for help.

Go figure.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[nasch]

But you did understand there were consequences for misbehaving, and you did heed your parents after those times, right?

Probably. But for an argument for spanking to work, it has to have such effects when no other solution would. I don't believe that physical hitting was the only possible meaningful consequence for misbehaving, or the only one that would have led to better obedience (if it even had such an effect).

Flash forward to now, they don't listen (or in my estimate) respect my wife as an "authority" figure, no matter what she does, but they do respect me and do seem to be able to see me both as an authority figure AND someone who they can come to with problems for help.

I am skeptical of your conclusions. It sounds quite possible that you were generally more consistent or strict than your wife and this could be the cause of the effect that you're seeing, rather than the spanking in particular. Also, the fact that you say you spanked until they were around five makes me wonder if the spanking had no effect at all, and the kids were simply in that rebellious, selfish, disobedient toddler phase, and now they've come out of it. My younger son is in it now, and I cannot imagine that spanking him would make him more obedient. It's hard enough to explain the rules to him now, how could I explain to him why I'm hitting him? And if he doesn't understand why I'm doing it, how can it help? My older son started coming out of it when he was around 3 or so and has been very obedient since then. You see, he started shaping up earlier than your kids (that's the problem with anecdotal evidence)!

Bottom (hah!) line is, I don't want to spank them, so the only way I would do it is if I couldn't find any other method of discipline that worked, and I could find some reason to think that spanking would. So far neither has been the case.

If your kids had continued with whatever was causing the spanking, would you keep up the spanking? How long? Do you spank a 12-year-old? A 16-year-old? I'd rather use techniques that the kids will get used to and will continue to work for a long time.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[cayenne8]

"A few years ago in Wisconsin--a bit of a beer state--the governor was considering lowering the drinking age for lower alocohol content drinks like beer and challenge the federal highway funding policies."

Similar thing happened WAY back, in the 80's when the Fed's pulled this raise the drinking age to 21 crap. Louisiana was the last state to pass this, and even then, done with some loopholes. Originally, LA calculated that they would lose more in alcohol tax revenues than they would highway funds, so they kept is 18 for awhile.

Then, the oil crunch hit, and LA was hurting for cash...and they eventually succumbed. However, there are still interesting loopholes. I saw one last year in a bar in Baton Rouge. A boy that was a teen, underage obviously, was allowed to buy, be served, and drink beer in the bar with his father. The bartender carded them both to look at the last names...addresses I guess...and served them. I asked her about it (and mind you this bar carded everybody since they were close to an ABC office down the road), and she said yes, the law allowed for children to be served if they were with their parent.

But, more to the point, I hope this goes through for a number of reasons. The states really need to figure out how to STOP giving the Feds. monies that the Feds turn back around and blackmail the states with like this ID and other laws.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[cayenne8]

"Lower the age to 16."

Well, most kids in the US start drinking at this age or a bit younger anyway....

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[cayenne8]

"Yeah, and it's ok to beat my wife with a stick thats 1" in diameter or smaller, anything larger is abuse."

I think that is actually still on the law book somewhere....I think it was Arkansas.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Some_Llama]

"I am skeptical of your conclusions. It sounds quite possible that you were generally more consistent or strict than your wife and this could be the cause of the effect that you're seeing, rather than the spanking in particular."

As well you should be, not actually seeing it first hand, I always made sure to explain why they got spanked and the noticeable effect of the same behavior not being repeated spoke volumes. I was spanking them left and right willy nilly either, it was more of a last resort, as time progressed, there were "fewer and farther between" spanking episodes as i could just explain the eventual outcome of persistent disobedience would be a spanking. What I meant to say (or didn't clarify possibly) is that by 5 I didn't really need to spank them any more. all in all we are talking maybe 10-15 spankings over their lifetimes per child (if that). no bruising, no broken bones, just some well deserved humility.

"If your kids had continued with whatever was causing the spanking, would you keep up the spanking? How long? Do you spank a 12-year-old? A 16-year-old? I'd rather use techniques that the kids will get used to and will continue to work for a long time."

Well if a child is stubborn enough, eventually nothing is going to work, even spanking. Every child is different, so it would depend. I know some 12 year olds that i would love to spank (because they are consistently self centered little shits) and coincidentally enough they never were (spanked) by their parents. Once again, this is pretty much a last resort, they are still grounded for misbehaving as they have priviledges that mean something to them when they are taken away.

I recently got a dog from a breeder, surprisingly, training the dog reminded me a lot of raising kids, i had to establish my dominance in the household as alpha male and he quickly fell in line with the pecking order, i think it is the same way with kids in some respect, spanking them early on established this pecking order between myself and them, but it was never developed with my wife who they constantly ignore and walk all over... so now I don't have to establish who is the parent, they still respect this bond that was established early on.

My main point overall is the disgust of "outlawing" spanking and calling me an abusive parent, i find it offensive, probably as much as you find the thought of spanking your own child, but I would never try and force you to do so.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[budgenator]

In most places in the US it's definitely illegal to provide alcohol to a minor, not sure what happens in the gray-zone of 18-21 as they are technically an adult, but I would expect that I wouldn't want to find out.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[hondo77]

Legislation was offered up in California to make it illegal to spank children under the age of 4.

Yeah and legislation is often offered up to ban flag desecration. Lots of stupid legislation is proposed. Passage? That's another matter...

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[shmlco]

So how was the "Real ID" act, pertaining to state driver's licenses, germane to a military spending bill? The fact is that Real ID was tabled several times and couldn't gather enough votes to pass on its own, so it was stuck onto a "must pass" bill that would have suicide for any politician to veto. ("Dean voted AGAINST supporting our troops in Iraq...")

IIRC, the same happened with the latest Bankruptcy "Reform" act. Again, an act and issue that deserved to debated on its own merits, and not submarined through the system.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Politburo]

It was inserted in conference, where there is no prohibition non-germane additions (in fact, there are no rules at all really when you control both houses).

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[AJWM]

The states really need to figure out how to STOP giving the Feds. monies that the Feds turn back around and blackmail the states with like this ID and other laws.

If the Feds keep piling on the unfunded mandates (at e.g. the threat of withholding highway funds), sooner or later states are going to figure that it's cheaper for them to ignore the mandates and tell the Feds where to stick their highway dollars.

Or so we can hope, anyway.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[AJWM]

1. All amendments are voted on. It's impossible for any one person to amend a bill.

That's the theory, anyway. In fact whatever clerk typing up the revised bill can change a few words here and there. It's been known to happen, and it's not like the congresscritters actually read the bills they're voting on.

(Of course major changes aren't going to happen this way.)

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

"we like harder rules and harder punishments."

I don't think WE (Americans) do I think THEY (those who call the shots) do.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Lord Flipper]

Guess what happens. All the states set the same driking age....curious.

Guess what happens. All the states set the same driking age....extortion.

Fixed that for ya, except for the misspelling, no question mark after string one, 4 dot elipsis, etc.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Mycroft_VIII]

Where is this true? I'm pretty shure several religions of the popular sort use wine in some services/rituals that sub-21 year old persons participate in.
    Now providing a minor with booze when they are NOT your child is usually a crime however.

Mycroft

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[sasdrtx]

You're on the right track, but the minimum drinking age should be put right back where it started: At zero.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[Anonymous Coward]

they get to define the extent to which something must affect interstate commerce in order to regulate it

Congress can try to define interstate commerce, but remember the Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

[awacs]

"Yeah, and it's ok to beat my wife with a stick thats 1" in diameter or smaller, anything larger is abuse."

I think that is actually still on the law book somewhere....I think it was Arkansas.

The phrase "rule of thumb" comes from an old English law allowing a man to beat his wife with a stick no larger than his thumb.

1 state down, 49 left

[dj245]

I didn't vote any of them in, but they did the right thing. For once.

The exponentially increasing transportation budget for side roads that get repaved with increasing frequency is another matter entirely. Oh and that whole laptop for children thing. Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[injunear]

So Maine doesn't have to accept the fed's ID standards. Then the TSA doesn't have to accept Maine DLs at airports. Who will win?

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Do you really think the TSA would stop all of Maine from flying? The feds rely on the taxpayers for income. Pissing off a state's worth of them is not a good plan.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[AlHunt]

Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida

Demographically, Maine is already the oldest, whitest state in the nation.

Sorry to see you go, but we'll keep pulling for you, wherever you go.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[HardCase]

Also, for what it's worth, Maine hasn't been a commonwealth since they split from Massachusetts in 1820.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Anonymous Coward]

...elderly, crotchety, too poor to move to Florida

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[RealGrouchy]

Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Something tells me I might like Maine...

- RG>

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[rts008]

Good point!

Just the daily air commuter traffic that flows in and out of Maine would be significant.

Moral to this story: Look before you leap, USA; I'm glad Maine looked first, then decided not to leap.

Does Washington have no clue about the nature (and immense nature) of daily air commuting in the northeast USA?...I would think they *should*, but this leaves doubts.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[pthisis]

It may be worth noting that the TSA's mandate is not only to secure the airlines, but also to allow legal travellers to travel freely. That's one of the reasons that you can,in fact, fly without ID (if you submit to additional searches) in general--of course specific airlines may have their own policies.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[pthisis]

And legally, Virginia, Massachucetts, Pennsylvannia, and whoever else (is it Delaware?) are states by federal law. You can call yourself whatever you want internally, but it doesn't change your status with respect to the federal government and the Constitution.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[WindBourne]

And yet, those crotchety people have more sense than younger people. Why? Because they do not want to fall for the republican trap similar to Nazi Germany and even Venezuela today.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[mpe]

So Maine doesn't have to accept the fed's ID standards. Then the TSA doesn't have to accept Maine DLs at airports. Who will win?

It should hardly be relevent in the first place. It's not like you can drive a car around a depature lounge or along the aisle of a passenger aircraft. AFAIK it's also not a requirment that all people in the other 49 states must drive.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Talchas]

TSA is a fed agency, right? Then Article 4, Section 2 ("The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states") sorta prohibits that. Of course, given how bent out of shape the constitution is, who knows if they'd actually rule that way.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Don't knock the elderly, crotchety people. Many of them have seen loved ones fight and die to protect important rights and freedoms, and they appreciate how important that was. Meanwhile, the PlayStation generation seem willing to surrender those rights to save a few seconds or a few cents, and to hell with the consequences. I know whose values I prefer.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Headcase88]

"Meanwhile, the PlayStation generation seem willing to surrender those rights to save a few seconds or a few cents, and to hell with the consequences."

Not only that, but they're always running on my lawn!

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[haagmm]

well, then maybe it will lead to a greater use of the downeaster. And maybe just maybe a GOOD FUCKING WAY to get from North Station to South Station and Logan.

I just took the downeaster for the first time, definitly the best way to get to boston.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[haagmm]

yea thats what i said

cept i left for college, and actually have a good job in the state now.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The older generations are no more insightful or freedom fighters than the younger ones. The WW2 generation passively did what their government told them just as they do today. Or are you talking about the baby boomers and Vietnam? There's a slight difference between seeing your brother get drafted into the military to fight a crap war and volunteering to fight in crap wars.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[ivan256]

The real question is why you need to prove your ability to drive a car in order to ride in an airplane...

Or why you need ID to travel across state lines all of a sudden.

(How else would the airlines crack down on third party ticket re-sales?)

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[kelnos]

Well, if the TSA doesn't accept Maine DLs at the airports, then everyone from Maine flying from there will have to submit to extra security searches. This would also be the case for Maine residents flying from airports in other parts of the country.

Flying without ID is perfectly possible: I found this out recently when I lost my DL while away on a trip. I expected to be hassled by bored, abrasive, grumpy people who would treat me like a criminal, and risk missing my flight due to the time spent in the 'extra security' line, but I was actually impressed with the speed, efficiency, and professionalism shown there. The TSA guy outside the security line who was checking IDs was even friendly, helpful, and actually said it was "no big deal." Of course, YMMV at different airports (this was LAS, for the record).

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I live in the UK. During WW2, many of my parents' generation and all of the elder generations lived through the blitz. I doubt there was anything passive about running for bomb shelters to avoid being blown to pieces every time those sirens went off. They lived through rationing, and the imposition of mandatory identity measures, and all kinds of other security precautions, and some remarkable departures from our usual political system. They saw, from across the Channel, what happens when governments get too powerful. And you know what? Within a few years of the end of the war, they decided that none of the special measures were necessary in peace time, and got rid of them all.

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[Fear the Clam]

Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Old Orchard Beach?

Re:1 state down, 49 left

[HardCase]

Kentucky

Commonwealth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maine is a full fledged state. If we wanted to be a commonwealth we wouldn't have separated from Massachusetts.

Re:Commonwealth?

[thepriceisright]

God Bless Maine! I'm from MA but have relations from that great state. When i read the article i laughed... That is so much like Maine. Give'em hell boys!

Re:Commonwealth?

[flyingfsck]

No, no, according to the Hellen Mirren movie, it is "Bleep! bless Maine!".

Amusing

[Dachannien]

It amuses me that the link "non-partisan vote" in the OP goes to a page whose title is "The Maine Senate Democrats".

Re:Amusing

[jpetts]

How about http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topi c=Portal+News&id=29095&v=article-2006 which goes to maine.gov?

I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".

Re:I don't get it.

[Samuel Dravis]

I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause. If they want to track people that go beyond different states, let them mandate a national ID card but make the fed be in charge of it. I don't think that will go over well though.

Re:I don't get it.

[Creepy Crawler]

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.

That and, it is like the older anti-freedom groups like the Nazis and the USSR did use extensively.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just answered your own question, so you obviously understand the reasoning.

Re:I don't get it.

[AJWM]

what is wrong with a national ID standard

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this.

And don't say "Commerce clause".

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with that argument? I, for one, am going to fight tooth and nail for every piece of information a government that thinks it's okay to illegally wiretap me wants.

Re:I don't get it.

[Bacon Bits]

Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it. Kinda like a trademark, jurisdiction in a case law precedent system like ours is 'use it or lose it'.

With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.

With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause.

With all the furor it gets here on /., I doubt that it is just because it runs afoul of the commerce clause and it's certainly not a state's rights issue that has everyone all riled up.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Digital ID cards meaning its probably going to end up RF ID'ed , your girlfriend/wife would know exactly where you are if shes in the mood for an argument. Not thats its going to be that easy , but questionable. Sundru

Re:I don't get it.

[adamstew]

I believe the biggest issue that people have with it is that the national ID standard requires people to bring in their original birth certificate, and a social security card. Those will get scanned in and uploaded to a federal database.

Re:I don't get it.

[tyler.willard]

What more reason do you need?

We're supposed to be an independent people distrustful of government. The people who founded this country overthrew their own government for fuck's sake.

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.

The standard should be "Why should we?".

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.

Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it.

What authority do they have to force me to pay for Social Security and have a card for that? What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?

Still that doesn't answer my question. All the people here that bash the idea of a national ID can't be on the Maine legislature.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.
How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

The standard should be "Why should we?".
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

...without saying "papers please".

The implication that it would lead to NAZI-style oppression is what's wrong with a national ID standard, and it's a legitimate argument. Trying to dismiss it out of hand does not change that!

Re:I don't get it.

[karmatic]

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
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.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:

Amendment X

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.

Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!

Re:I don't get it.

[sconeu]

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, with regards to the Federal Government, it is forbidden. See The 10th Amendment.

Re:I don't get it.

[cduffy]

The law specifies that this new ID would need to be used when boarding an airplane, opening a bank account, or taking several other actions.

Given that in travel via air is frequently the only practical way of getting around, requiring positive ID (and validation of said ID against a database, as the TSA is wont to do) before folks are allowed to fly is indeed a very significant step towards internal passports.

Not that this wasn't an issue previously; John Gilmore's attempts to fly anonymously (and tribulations doing the same) are quite well-documented.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
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.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?

So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:

        Amendment X

        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.

You mean Congress is not allowed to pass laws? What is their job exactly?

Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard! May I recommend starting with the IRS.

Re:I don't get it.

[edwardpickman]

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

Shades of 55 mph. That was the approach the federal government took in enforcing that standard. In that case Texas was the first state to say bite me. The states had more power when it was a confederation but they still have a lot of power. I wish they'd nail the Supreme Court for modifying the Constitution through interpretation. That's squarely a state power not a Supreme Court power. Interpretation doesn't empower them to rethink the Constitution to suit their tastes. The federal government has been robbing state powers for years. Time for them to stand up to the feds.

Re:I don't get it.

[tyler.willard]

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

You've answered your own question. Those examples are merely indicative that we've gone too far already. How does it limit you? The simple fact you can't conduct your personal affairs privately and without authorization.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment. Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry.

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Speed limits are anonymous. The seatbelt thing is also ridiculous, you should not be compelled to be cautious.

Lastly, cowardice is the natural enemy of liberty. Living in a free society is a dangerous proposition. If you don't accept that fine, say so.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights.

It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.

Re:I don't get it.

[illegalcortex]

Might as well ask people to explain why facism is a bad idea without bringing up Hitler or Mussolini...

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!

I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.

May I recommend starting with the IRS.

You may, but it would be stupid to do so:

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Re:I don't get it.

[Killall -9 Bash]

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

Yes.

Re:I don't get it.

[illegalcortex]

What authority do they have to set a national speed limit?

Re:I don't get it.

[maxume]

What does it gain us? My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them). A national id tends to embrace forgetting the difference, and it makes me nervous, for admittedly vague reasons.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

So what? Enough with the FUD. I do not count the spectre of terrorism to be a valid reason, nor do I see this tiny bit of security a justification for the feds to violate the constitution again.

I don't want to be callous, but frankly, people are far too worried about terrorism. If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list. I think you are probably more likely to drown in a 12oz glass of fruit juice than you are to die in a terrorist act.

The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans. That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball. Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree. They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.

Re:I don't get it.

[guibaby]

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty. How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

I hate put on my pointy hat, but in this day and age anything that takes away one shred of my privacy, I don't want to do. It could also be argued that privacy=liberty.

The standard should be "Why should we?". Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

I don't buy this argument. Given enough time and resources ANY document can be faked. And with a single ID standard, in order to update the protection scheme, I have to update 300,000,000 or so IDs

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason. Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

I think you are mistaken here as well. The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.

Re:I don't get it.

[XanC]

I completely agree with your interpretation of Amendment X (it's pretty straightforward, really), but I should point out there's a strong case to be made that Amendmend XVI was not legally passed. The crux of the argument is that a lot of states were forbidden by their state constitution from approving any federal amendment that would increase the power of the federal government, so those "yea" votes should not have counted.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

You're still trying to ask "why not?" That's the wrong question!

The correct question to ask is "what good would it do?" Since the answer is "none whatsoever," the government has no business doing it!

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

That's a shitty reason. You realize that people with valid IDs could just as easily be terrorists too, don't you?

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

The difference is that in the case of traffic laws, the benefit is real. In the case of IDs, "keeping people safe" is an excuse to keep people from realizing that the actual reason is to infringe people's right of privacy.

Re:I don't get it.

[SpectreHiro]

I might be wrong, but I think it helps to start with Article I: Section 8, which layed out Congress' powers, and which Amendment XVI was written to refine (I think).

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

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;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Interesting; I didn't know that. Of course, from the Federal Government's perspective, the state constitutions are irrelevant and it's the states' responsibility to control their representatives. By the way, was Georgia one of those states?

Re:I don't get it.

[ganjadude]

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

technically yes, the marihuana act of 1937 was enacted to stop the influx of the mexican population fro getting in the USA, it did not make weed illegal, just you had to have a stamp and well the government wouldnt give you one (i am lazy wiki it if you care)

If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government which means if one wants something done at the federal level, it needs to be ratified and amended, which is why alcohol prohibition had an AMENDMENT.

When Nixon created the DEA congress said no because...its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unless the PEOPLE wanted this origination, than it would need to be amended, which of course would never happen. Long story short Nixon told congress where to stick it and TA'DA we have this stupid orginisation which ruins lives and polices the world. (again im lazy google it)

So to answer the question, the Ganjadude says UNLESS STATE LAW STATES that marijuana is illegal, (which most do) than its not.

you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically

our president is an ex coke head yet he spends more cash locking up people for the same, what a crock

end rant

Re:I don't get it.

[steelfood]

It's not really quite just that. The interstate system was created based upon a broad interpretation of the "commerce clause" of the constitution. That is, congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce or some stuff like that.

Driver's licenses and other forms of ID are state-issued. The transportation system within a state is largely governed by the state. Even interstates aren't controlled by the US government in this respect, though I do believe federal money is used to maintain those roads. The state specifies the speed limit, patrols it, etc. You don't see the FBI lying in wait behind a groove of trees, but you do see state troopers.

A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.

Anyway, true Republicans would be appalled at a national ID. States rights, remember? It's probably why Maine passed this resolution practically unanimously. Democrats are the ones who should be endorsing it.

Re:I don't get it.

[guibaby]

I agree...But I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it. I think a little extra future vigilance would serve our safety much more than all of the encroachments on our privacy and potentially our liberty.

Re:I don't get it.

[node 3]

How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.

It's not about what *you* can do, it's about what the government, and the corporations and other private interests, can do, or will be made easier, by the card.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

Fuck you and your racist, fear-mongering bullshit. "Abu Mohammed" can no longer hijack a plane, and if he wants to fly, he could just get an ID and fly anyway. No ID is required to blow yourself up in a shopping mall (which has not happened in the US, and I highly doubt any government agency in the US has stopped such a plot, since that would be virtually impossible).

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

A national ID card will not keep me safe *WHATSOEVER*. It does the exact *opposite*, in fact. It makes it easier for those in power (government and corporate) to gather information on me, and such easy access to information will only strengthen their power.

You still haven't answered the question. Why *should* we accept such a card? What good will it do?

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Right, and which of those clauses authorizes the creation of a compulsory national ID card?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.

The law goes further than demanding IDs be issued. It prohibits you from opening a bank account unless you have an approved ID. The ID will be required to travel on a plane, collect social security, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

The federal government already has a list of people it prohibits from flying--even with ID. If you can't do anything without revealing your identity and having it checked against a list of suspects, then you lose constitutional rights such as the right to travel or speak anonymously. Those two liberties are crucial to an effective democracy.

Where I work there has been recent interest in checking people's names against government watch lists (FBI most wanted, Office of Foreign Asset Control, etc.). One of our customers recently asked us to check the names of all employees against those lists. We have had similar requests to check our clients and the people our clients work with (we're a middle man). These requests didn't suddenly pop up out of nowhere all at the same time. These watch lists are totally worthless from an investigation standpoint, yet someone is clearly pushing this agenda.

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

In the above two cases -

National speed limit could POSSIBLY be seen as an extension of the Commerce clause, with the Interstate Highway System also POSSIBLY seen as an extension of the same. Not saying that I agree with that particular interpretation of the Constitution, but...

Social Security, as a program, is almost indefensibly unconstitutional, but SCOTUS refuses to hear cases suing on any sort of constitutionality claim. Same goes for the disputed passage of the Amendment legalizing the income tax.

As for Maine's "authority", it is directly derived from the 9th and 10th Amendments. We really ought to require 4 years of Civics in High School so that we can properly educate the younger generations (damn, I can't believe I'm actually saying this, being only 30 myself...) in what their Rights and Responsibilities are, AND what the limits -REALLY- are supposed to be on the Federal government/Congress/SCOTUS/etc. If the Constitution doesn't say that the Feds CAN do something, then legally, they CANNOT do it (hence why SS and Medicare are both extra-constitutional - they usurp the power and authority of the states, as does much of the President's cabinet, in my opinion).

Of course, a lot of the bullshit that's gotten through Congress likely wouldn't have had the 17th Amendment never been passed. GREAT intention, actually, but it's led to the government being beholden FAR more to the squeaky rabble than it would be if the Senate were still controlled by the country's statehouses.

Note - IANAL, but this is basic civics here.

Re:I don't get it.

[XanC]

I understood there was some precedent for throwing out illegal votes in those case. Here's a page I found describing that point of view, I haven't read it yet myself.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notrat ified.htm

Re:I don't get it.

[grassy_knoll]

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

When did drinking and driving become a Federal offense?

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment.

I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry.
Like searching people at airports? It's not meant to stop all terrorism, but it will help. I see we will disagree on terrorism forever, so let's move on...

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

Interesting. By the way, what about this bit of the Constitution (which I had forgotten about when I wrote my previous post)?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

[quote]A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.[/quote]

It's specifically tied to the federal highway funds, same as the speed limit thing (although it's nationally 65 now, for the most part, from what I've seen).

Regardless, it's yet another usurpation of state power and authority by the feds. I'm waiting for New Hampshire to do the same thing (and kinda saddened that they weren't first).

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them)

Great! How 'bout I say I'm you and crawl into bed with your wife tonight. After all, I'm you... I mean me because I say so, right? Maybe I'll go get a few credit cards in your... er.. my name and get that big-screen I've been eye-balling. That house you're living in... it's mine. See my name, right there on the mortgage. What? You say that's your name? Fine, it's my word against yours, we'll split the profit. Now get off my wife and lawn and take my kids with you, whoever you are!

Re:I don't get it.

[sokoban]

What authority do they have to set a national speed limit? Absolutely none. And currently there isn't one.

There was one for about 20 years, but it was again enforced by the Commerce Clause. It was enforced by withholding highway funds to states which didn't comply.

Fuel savings due to the national speed limit, and lowering of highway fatalities were minimal.

Re:I don't get it.

[Bacon Bits]

Social Security is authorized by the 16th Constitutional Amendment (taxes on income).

States require an ID for the privilege of using state services such as state and municipal roads. A driver's license is a license to drive on state-owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want on your own property. If you buy the land and construct for a road from LA to New York you can drive 700 mph on it if you want. As it stands now the government owns the roads. If you want to use the roads, you must agree to the rules they have set forth. Don't like it? Don't drive.

Re:I don't get it.

[SpectreHiro]

Down fido. None of them do. I was agreeing with you and adding more information.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it.

Or it might be the "dropped the ball" comment is a polite way of saying the agencies involved were headed by a bunch of politically appointed cronies who were not in the least bit qualified to do the jobs they were appointed to.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

How does a national ID standard qualify as "regulating interstate commerce"? Where does it say that only a state can issue ID's? How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

Ummm, you do know that the sep. 11 hijackers had real genuine ID in their own names, right?

They don't need fake ID.

Re:I don't get it.

[Aleatoric]

Two reasons:

It's an unfunded federal mandate, which is bad by definition (if the feds want to force states to do something that costs money, the feds should pay for it (ideally, they shouldn't do it at all, but that's another issue)).

It won't actually do anything to prevent the kind of abuses that are directed at the current system (contrary to the mouthings of the statist community, the security reasons for implementing a national ID are bogus. There is no evidence (and plenty of contrary evidence), that these measures actually prevent ID theft, or false identification)).

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way things are now. Articles of 'good faith' impel the acceptance of IDs from any state, in any state. Any of the 'security' mechanisms that are mandated for a Real ID could be voluntarily implemented by the states if they so choose (not that any of those mechanisms are inviolable).

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

No, it's not actually.

The Social Security -program-, or any other public "needs" program that's similar (Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc) must be explicitly permitted, at least in -function-, in the Constitution.

Period. Basic civics, people, basic civics.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you some kind of moron, sent to this earth to punish me and all the other freedom-lovers in existance? Why do you think that national ID is a good idea?

Let me spell it out for you. If we require the government to collect a whole mass of information about everyone under the banner of security, they will use it to keep tabs on everyone. Did you not know about TIA(Total Information Awareness)? What happens when I can't get a job because somewhere in the database it shows that I paid for something at an adult video store three years prior using a check? Did you know that most places of business record your driver's license number on your check? It's likely that every business on the face of the fucking country will require me to swipe my driver's license before I pay for anything. Best Buy asks for your zip code, as do many other places. Radio Shack will ask for phone number, address, etc.. The swipe "will make your checkout more convenient!" In reality they'll grab everything off of your DL right down to your blood type and donor status so that they can sell it.

Don't even get me started on what will happen if even one guy cracks into said database. Abu Mohammed and his friends will have a whole mess of identities that they can use to enter the country.

Re:I don't get it.

[toby34a]

The fact of the matter is that there already is a National ID standard... it's called a passport. You need one to travel to any non-NAFTA country, and soon you'll need one even for Canada and Mexico. Don't people realize that a passport is a national ID standard and works for any case (beer, smokes, etc?)

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

You need an ID to drive a car in all 50 states now. How is this different?
Let's run through your list:
boarding a plane: Need an ID
opening an bank account: Need an ID (and Social Security number)
taking several other actions (like buying a beer, cashing a check, writing a check, using a credit card, driving a car.. the list goes on): Need an ID

Yeah, you pretty much need an ID to anything now, except my Texas state ID may or may not work in New Jersey. Seeing how few in Jersey have seen a TX ID, it's likely to get rejected. But with a national ID, my ID could NOT be refused in the other 49 states. So the way I see it, this actually INCREASES my freedoms while requiring nothing extra from me.

Re:I don't get it.

[swillden]

Of course, a lot of the bullshit that's gotten through Congress likely wouldn't have had the 17th Amendment never been passed.

Especially in conjunction with the 16th.

The original structure was elegantly designed to limit federal expansion. Before the 16th and 17th:

• The federal budget was approved by the House and Senate, but...
• the funds had to be collected from the states, whose...
• state legislatures had to squeeze the money from their constituents and...
• also appointed and could replace the US Senators, who...
• approved the federal budget.

Obviously, the Senate was very resistant to any expansion of the budget which would require their bosses (the state legislatures) to raise taxes.

The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem. So it was corrected by removing the influence of the state legislatures over the US Senate and by giving the federal government the power to tax the citizens of the states directly. Obviously, this pretty much gutted the power of the states.

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

If the power/authority justifying the passage of a given law is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, then no, they Feds do not have proper authority to be passing and then enforcing that law. Period.

The Constitution doesn't say "this is want you, the federal government, can't do, and if it doesn't say you can't then you probably can". It says "this is what you, the federal government, CAN do, and if it doesn't say you CAN, the you DEFINITELY CANNOT."

Part of the problem is the damned 17th Amendment and the popular election of Senators. As a quick refresher - for the first, oh, 125 years (or so) of our Constitutional Republic, the Senate membership was elected by each state's respective legislatures. The 17th Amendment, in an attempt to avoid the deadlocks that were occurring in these elections, was passed, giving electoral power over the Senate to the people (why have a bicameral legislature when they're all popularly elected, duh?) and empowering (with appropriate state legislation) the governors of the states to make interim appointments, ensuring that there's always a full Senate. As I said in an earlier post - it actually IS a good intention, but it's actual implementation is horrid.

And to the GP - none of those programs are Constitutional, and I'm personally having a hard time justifying even things like the FDA and FCC.
And let's not talk about the possible, if not probable, unconstitutionality of the DEA, BATF, CIA, NSA, etc (although I can see justification of the CIA and NSA as "defense" organizations). The fact of the matter is, the federal government, if it were to actually stick to it's constitutionally permitted limits, would be about 1/5 to 1/4 the size it is currently. Hell, I'd kill to see budgets the size of Reagan's -worst- at this point (those would be less than HALF what the current budgets are).

Note that I'm also a fan of a small standing military, with a very large trained reserve force, far in excess of the current size of the military reserves, frankly, and with units controlled and trained by the damned states as they were prior to the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's necessary *and* proper about requiring it?

Re:I don't get it.

[Skreems]

I agree with you completely. Letting the individual citizens vote directly for federal senate was the worst mistake in the history of this country. It essentially invalidates local politics in the minds of a lot of people, because they figure they already voted for someone who "outranks" state representatives, therefor they don't need to care. We've gone from a system of independent states which were more like individual nations in a loose alliance, to one large state with funny names for the different sections.

Re:I don't get it.

[aaronl]

Is the power to issue and regulate ID granted to the Federal by the Constitution? The answer is, obviously NO, IT IS NOT. That means that the Federal is barred from doing so, and that power is reserved to the States.

The passage that you reference reads:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Seeing that the Constitution does not give the Federal the power to issue individually identify and/or track all of the citizens of the country, nor does it give any power that depends on doing so, it is not necessary *or* proper for the Federal to do so.

Just because a parade of despots decided to take advantage of a gullible populace does not make them right for doing so.

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

Amen.

Couldn't have put it more succinctly.

Re:I don't get it.

[guibaby]

That is certainly a possibility.

Re:I don't get it.

[edwdig]

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

I believe it would be this:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Specifically, the part about providing for the general welfare of the United States.

Re:I don't get it.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

> The drinking and driving law is one of the few rational traffic laws we have

Its among the more rational, but I still don't quite buy rational.

I think there should be huge education campaigns about drinking and driving and the problems... and I should be allowed to drink and drive all I want.
However, if I drink and drive, and cause an accident, there should be special circumstances.
I knowingly reduced my ability to deal with whatever is out there, and in my mind that makes me a much more willful actor in the "accident".

If alcohol, drugs, cell phones, makeup, doughnuts, or trombones are an aggravating factor in your accident, you should be double or triple spanked... and those penalties better hold.

You should be ticketed or arrested for what you actually do, not what you might do.

Re:I don't get it.

[geniusj]

I've lived in a number of states, and am now carrying a Maryland license in Arizona. I've never had any issues with out-of-state IDs. People are trained on that, and if they are unsure, they'll give you the benefit of the doubt in my experience.

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

The key section of that is that the taxes "shell be uniform throughout the United States".
Each state, by apportionment, has a specific amount of the federal budget that is its responsibility.
The highest population states would pay the largest amount into the federal kitty, and the lowest population states the lowest, which each citizen paying effectively the same amount, on a per capita basis.

How each state COLLECTS that tax is completely up to them, but up until the passage of the 16th amendment, the feds did not have the power and authority to directly tax The People, but only indirectly tax by taxing the State Governments.

In a nutshell.

Again, more high school civics that everyone continues to forget the second they walk out of the classroom each day.

Re:I don't get it.

[northstarlarry]

(Jumping into the middle of the conversation here.)

My understanding is that Congress had the power to tax the States unequally, but not individual persons. If you look below, in Section 9, it goes on to say:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

So then Congress could say that they need $100, and that CA, being the most populous, needs to pay $12, whereas WY (I think) being least, only needs to pay 10c. Or they could also say that every individual person needs to pay a penny. But then the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to tax the income of persons.

But I could be off track.

Re:I don't get it.

[bladesjester]

word to the wise:
You never have your origional birth cirtificate. All you ever get is a notorized copy.

Re:I don't get it.

[Pym]

I'd also like to see more factual discussion of why people are scared of this. I know that in Washington DC, the Metro system linked their rechargable Metro cards to real names and other personal information (to be used if you ever lost it and wanted to get the money on it back). Having a private company, which has less regulations about what can and can't be done with private information than the federal government, be able to track your movement around on their system didn't raise any howls at the time, and in the past *eight years* it's been in place there. So what?

I fail to see how the average law-abiding citizen's rights are threatened by an ID card that could potentially tell the federal government information about activities that violate no law. If you're worried that any illegal activities might be exposed by these cards, well...

There isn't this kind of outcry about passports and international travel, and that information is collected by people who don't have your best interests at heart. And you know, I bet a week of dumpster diving your trash would tell someone a lot more potentially harmful things about your habits than an ID card would, just as handing your credit card to the waitor is much less secure and easier to take advantage of than low-grade encryption on a shopping website.

There needs to be a little better perspective here. Irrational fear and recreational paranoia are not good.

Re:I don't get it.

[The_Wilschon]

I think it is a states' rights issue. And states' rights issues certainly get me all riled up.

But anyway, no, it is not just about constitutionality. There are lots of other reasons why /. groupthink vehemently opposes the real ID act. I doubt that I need to enumerate them for you. However, this article specifically deals with a challenge by a state to a federal law. Which means that the most pertinent issues at hand are related to the constitution, specifically the concept of states' rights, the commerce clause, and the elastic clause. Again, why do you think this is not a matter of states' rights?

Re:I don't get it.

[RealGrouchy]

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.

Yes, and the resulting Civil War that you guys suffered taught Canada's Fathers of Confederation that the balance of power--as well as any unforeseen powers (like petroleum)--should go to the Federal government.

The provinces have been whining ever since.

- RG>

Re:I don't get it.

[joeljkp]

Has Amendment X ever been interpreted by the Supreme Court? I always thought it was a pretty natural amendment to try to challenge, but I've never seen it mentioned in any Supreme Court docs.

Re:I don't get it.

[MBGMorden]

Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?

So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know! It doesn't matter that it's not taking anything away. What matters is that Constitutionally, the Federal government has not the ability to be able to require something like this.

As originally setup, the United States was NEVER supposed to function the way it does now. Each state was to be effectively an independent country that makes it's OWN laws regarding its citizens, and they were to be very loosely tied together by the federal government; you can think of it as the United Nation acts today. Sure there's leaders in the UN and it is an association between countries, but no way is the UN gonna hand down laws that cover all members. That's the way the US was supposed to be. Somewhere along the way that morphed into "the federal government is all powerful and the states get to do whatever little legislation we ALLOW them to do". This concept, much more than slavery, was the cause of the American Civil War.

Re:I don't get it.

[fangorious]

Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

Even easier would be mandating unique IDs for each service provider, and banning the use of government issued ID numbers for any private enterprise.

Re:I don't get it.

[BalkanBoy]

> How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other
> 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that
> you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

Your right not to share anything, including personal information, with anyone under the blue sky is inalienable, whether you admit, recognize, like it or not. The fact that you are willing to give this up because you were compelled to do so by commercial or governmental interests does not reduce or nullify this God given right of "selfishness", or the right not to share.

The problem, with you in particular, is that you have been successfully desensitized to this right, to the point where you've given it up. You may not value this right, but rest assured, millions or possibly billions of others do.

> Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

This is a moot point. Most, if not all, ids can be faked as far as the actual piece of paper or plastic goes, regardless of how complex it is. This is why we do not rely on the document alone. When you fill out an I-9 form (Employment Eligibility Verification) at your new job, they typically ask you to present either a permanent resident card, or a work-type visa, or if you're a citizen, a passport or birth certificate. All of these documents, to a sufficiently technical/resourceful/skillful/malicious person, are relatively easy to fake. What gets you caught cheating (or telling the truth, in case you were)is the verification process that follows upon signing (thus by, swearing that what you put down is genuine) and submitting the I-9 form.

This is why basing security around objects is a lame, futile attempt of obtaining security. Can you build an impenetrable safe? Is there such thing as an impenetrable safe? Is there such a thing as an unfakeable ID? Security isn't about building bigger safes, or guns, or better ID cards - it is a process (and yeah, it costs money too).

> Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep
> me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Uh, no, it is not. Speed limits exist for one and only one purpose - it is the easiest way for the government to collect excess revenue/profits (that, and to keep insurance companies happy, since they're in cahoots with the gov't). How difficult do you think is for a traffic cop to fill his monthly quota? Speed, contrary to popular belief, does not kill. Your stupid behaviour, however, does, can, and will put you out of commission. This is a very, very important distinction most "reasonable" people fail to make. I regularly drive over the speed limit, have been driving over 15 years, and the most I've had is a fender bender in a parking lot (not my fault too). Am I or you any less safe because I drive over the speed limit (so far)? You could argue that I may die because I drive faster than the posted limit, but then again, a piano could fall on my head as I step out of the office too...

You really need to think before you respond with knee-jerky arguments that make no sense.

Re:I don't get it.

[kernelistic]

I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

Pray tell how this piece of intrusive technology will make anyone's life safer? The short and simple of it all is: IT WILL NOT. Will they require everyone to have retinal scans, fingerprint reads, and visual checks before boarding a plane? Of course not (Would you fly, if you had to do all this?)! What's next, DNA analysis from three random parts of your body before you can go on-board?

Don't drink the Fed Kool-Aid - As with anything they push, they paint it under a completely different light and end up screwing you out of some sort of rights that you previously had.

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.

When you are done pulling facts out of your ass and fear-mongering, may I suggest that read up on the subject? There is reciprocity between all states for Motor Vehicle Operator Licenses ("Drivers Licenses").

Re:I don't get it.

[LandruBek]

the speed limit thing (although it's nationally 65 now . . .

It's 80 MPH in Texas and 70 MPH in Iowa and Indiana. I saw it for myself last summer.

Re:I don't get it.

[Draknor]

Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

IDs are like DRM -- it only hurts the people who are innocent, and its no guarantee of protection. In fact, having a national ID would be *worse* -- why is ID theft such a big problem now? Because you are name & a number -- your Social Security Number. Two things that are very easily compiled into lists & transmitted electronically. If your entire financial history (& future) wasn't tied to your SSN, there would have to be some effort involved in proving your identity to a bank or credit card company. I don't see that as a bad thing; especially if that credit card company couldn't instantly access my ENTIRE FINANCIAL HISTORY and decide to jack up my rates because I'm late on a different card that is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Having a national ID will only make ID theft easier. And no, biometrics are not the solution -- they are not reliable, and they are immutable. Once your ID has been stolen, its kind of hard to change your retinas, isn't it?

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.

No, we already have laws that states have to respect other states' official documents, such as driver's licenses & marriage certificates. That's why you don't get pulled over in Nebraska and arrested for having a California driver's license. Businesses who won't accept out-of-state IDs - well, that's their right, and if you believe in the free market then you take your business elsewhere. But in my experience, I've never been denied for cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job, *OR* buying a beer because I had an out of state license. Maybe you are just unlucky?

Re:I don't get it.

[westlake]

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.

The Constitution does not demand a narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause:

The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is unclear. Although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples". Interpreting interstate commerce to mean "substantial interstate human relations" is consistent with much additional primary source evidence concerning the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution. This interpretation also makes sense for the foreign and Indian commerce clauses as one would expect Congress to be given authority to regulate non-economic relations with other nations and with Indian tribes. Commerce Clause

Re:I don't get it.

[TheoMurpse]

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.

Let's check out one way to read that, by choosing to delegate that power to the people:

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

There we go. Now if the people decide to give that power of theirs to the national government by electing politicians to the legislature who create Medicare (or whatever over program you want to call into question), then the federal government now has the power to do so.

Believe it or not, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power to perform judicial review. The Supreme Court is also not, strictly speaking, the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means (the Constitution never gives the Court this power). Both of those extremely important powers came from the Marshall Court in the early 1800s, with cases like Marbury v. Madison, and McCulloch v. Maryland.

Literally, the Chief Justice wrote, "Hey, we have the power to do this now," and everyone else went, "OK, I guess you do." If you look at what was going on at the time Marshall wrote the McCollough v. Maryland opinion, it was at a time Congress was just about to tear itself apart. In my opinion, the way the opinion reads is Marshall grabbed some new power for himself and his court, and challenged anyone else to take it away, knowing full well that the Congress was in no position to challenge his authority, since they knew any fighting would destroy the nation.

But that's just a theory. However, it does not remove the fact that the rationale I just used has been used since at least 1819 in the Supreme Court, and was even used by Founding Fathers in the 1790s to justify things.

Thank God for Constitutional Law, we have been talking about this all week.

Re:I don't get it.

[Pete Laird]

Here's what's wrong with it in a nutshell:

1) It's expensive (that's already been covered and seems to be Maine's main objection). Even if you don't have a problem with lots of government spending, the problem is that resources used to administer the ineffective Real ID program could instead be used on more effective counter-terrorism.

2) It exceeds congress' authority (but that horse has been beaten to death and beyond already).

3) Basic things we need to do to conduct normal activities in America will rely on beaurocrats administering a database and there WILL be errors. As an example, an employee of my company has been unable to travel from his home in Taiwan to our headquarters in California for 6 months because he's been erroneously placed on the "no fly" list. This sort of thing will only get worse with a larger and more comprehensive database. Imagine the frustration you'd have not being able to travel on planes, drive a car, or possibly even get a job because your name is erroneously listed, and having to spend months trying to "prove" that it's a mistake.

4) There is no tamper-proof ID. Terrorists, especially those with foreign state resources behind them will be able to alter or fake any ID we can come up with. Officials who control and issue these ID cards can be corrupted, etc.

5) Besides all this, it will do very little to protect us from 9/11-style terrorist attacks and may even be counter-productive. Most of the 9/11 terrorists could in fact have gotten an ID under the Real ID rules. Terrorist organizations are skilled at recruiting "clean" operatives (people with no criminal or suspect backgrounds) for critical missions. Knowing who someone is does not tell us what their intentions are and may well lull us into a false sense of security, the result of which is that resources which could be spent on measures that would actually be effective will instead be spent on administering this ineffective program.

Re:I don't get it.

[paitre]

Neat :D

On average, most places have gone to 65. I don't recall if it's a "mandate" or not, but I'd not be surprised if the feds finally gave up on the enforcement by funds scam after it became completely common knowledge.

Re:I don't get it.

[TheoMurpse]

Any argument people will make about federalism is irrelevant here. The fact of the matter is that this change to a nationalized ID will cost the states a lot of money, and the federal government has no plans to assist with the funding. In Texas, we can already barely support our public schools, and Texas public secondaries are hardly the beacons of knowledge that I wish they were. If, for example, Texas has to fund a new ID system, there will be a huge financial burden placed on a state already stretched to the limit financially.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jimithing DMB]

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.

If you see it that way then you're an idiot. Your drivers license should not be required for anything except for driving ever. You may be required to display some form of identification to verify your age when purchasing alcohol. That is because when prohibition was repealed, states were specifically authorized to regulate all aspects of alcohol by the constitutional amendment.

And it is bullshit that your California license is invalid in other states. It is valid because the states have agreements with each other to honor each others driver's licenses. Even if they didn't, Congress could pass a law stating this (if they haven't already) because one of the powers they explicitly do have is regulating inter-state commerce.

A bank may require identification for cashing a check. A bank is not the government. An employer may require identification for employing you. An employer is not the government.

The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts.

Re:I don't get it.

[Mr. Mindless]

You're a bit off there - that authorizes them to collect the taxes to pay for those services, but NOT to have the departments that provide them.

Re:I don't get it.

[HUADPE]

Congress has to pass a budget every year, confirm or reject nominations and treaties, declare war if needed, and investigate corruption in the other branches, impeaching and trying officials when appropriate. So yes, constitutionally, they do have a job to do every year. They could choose to do much less though.

Re:I don't get it.

[fangorious]

There isn't this kind of outcry about passports and international travel, and that information is collected by people who don't have your best interests at heart

That's because securing national borders is a basic function of a federal government.

Re:I don't get it.

[Apple Developer]

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
Unlikely because your ID should be valid in other states (otherwise how would people buy beer on vacation in another state?) due to the full faith and credit clause. Failing that, you should have already have a national ID--your passport. So really, this proposed new ID is really just redundant and a way for the federal government to intrude more into our lives than really necessary.

Re:I don't get it.

[Mr. Mindless]

It's specifically tied to the federal highway funds, same as the speed limit thing (although it's nationally 65 now, for the most part, from what I've seen).

You're right on the funding - but the speed limit isn't nationally anything anymore. MN, MI, CO etc don't loose funding for 70 MPH; MO, NE, WY don't loose funding for 75 MPH (these are IIRC). I'm sure you remember Montana's "reasonable and prudent" - I think they're at 75 day/65 night now.

Re:I don't get it.

[HUADPE]

The interesting part about constitutional interpretation back then was that the framers were alive. You could have actually asked them what they meant. Though that only matters if you care about original intent.

Re:I don't get it.

[wish bot]

If you think that you can safely control 1.5t of metal at high speeds when you've drunk all you want - then you either shouldn't be drinking or driving, hence the law.

Drink driving laws are there to protect lives from destruction by stupid people. That's a worthy law. And given the number of deaths caused by drink driving, it's a necessary law.

Re:I don't get it.

[blank_vlad]

Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".

--

It's abuse to mod a comment Overrated, Flamebait or Troll just because you disagree with it. The goal is to share ideas.

Just as it's an abuse of this forum to post deliberate flamebait to increase the chances you'll get a response to your questions. Besides, this and your other questions are all answered here: http://www.realnightmare.org/about/2/

Re:I don't get it.

[Stephen Samuel]

You need an ID to drive a car in all 50 states now. How is this different? You don't need to show your driver's license to the cops every time you start the car, tell them where you're going, and get permission.

Re:I don't get it.

[TheoMurpse]

You could have actually asked them what they meant.

Yes, except for the fact that the Framers often did not agree on what the Constitution meant. See arguments over whether the US could charter a national bank or not.

Though that only matters if you care about original intent.

Exactly. I consider the Framers to be lawyers working for clients, US citizens to be the clients, and the Constitution to be a contract of sorts. What the lawyers write is irrelevant in Contract law. Instead, what the clients want and especially what the contract itself says, is important. Thus, to put it bluntly, who the fuck cares what went on at the Constitutional Conventions. It's like lawyers meeting to discuss the wording of the contract. It is irrelevant. What does the contract say at the end of the day? There's no official commentary (unlike, say, the Uniform Commercial Code). Thus, in my opinion, original intent is not even close to being a valid Constitutional philosophy, not merely because there was no such thing as one original intent, as we see from arguments between Hamilton and Madison (both Framers) over what the Constitution means after it had already been ratified.

Not to mention that the Articles of Confederation (the first Constitution of the US) makes our current Constitution illegal, since any law of the land under the Articles had to be unanimously approved by all 13 states, and the Constitution was not unanimously approved.

But you don't see Original Intenters bitching about how the Constitution violates the original intent of the AoC.

The Constitution is weird, screwy, and the history of the US is frought with reinterpretations of what it means.

Hell, I already don't believe half of what I just said ;)

Re:I don't get it.

[belg4mit]

Sorry you lose, freeway speed limits (55 and stay alive) actually have their origins in fuel economy (1/2 mv^2)

Re:I don't get it.

[will_die]

Watch out you may get it after all this is slashdot where people think they known where in the Constitution it grants the right of Habius Corpus instead of preventing Congress from removing it except in certain conditions.

Re:I don't get it.

[belg4mit]

How the fuck does this get modded "Insightful" when it's anything but?
Everyone bitching about states rights, privacy and freedom could give
a flying fuck about these documents which are already on record (though
birth certificates are generally held at the county, but required for SSN)

Re:I don't get it.

[Mr. Mindless]

The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.

The 0.1 BAC may have been to protect others from an individual, but the 0.08 BAC laws are just a money grab. There's little evidence that a driver at 0.08 is more impared than one who is sober. If you take a look at some of the stats, drivers doing things that make them look drunk are more often than not stone sober. http://www.ridl.us/pdf_stats/index.html

Re:I don't get it.

[Charcharodon]

Yes and no, if the state you live in has laws against it, then no, but if they don't then yes it is legal. Now the only time the Federal Government can get involved is when you take your car full of it accross state lines with the intent to sell then you get back to it being illegal, but on a Federal Level.

That's why the Federal Gov't made a huge stink about it a few years ago and tried to arrest a bunch of people in CA who were legally growing and selling it IN STATE to other people with "Medical Pescriptions", but for the most part they were unable to prove these people were selling it over the state line so the charges were dropped.

I would strongly suggest you check with a lawyer before you start cultivating anything in the back yard for personal use. Relying on slashdot lawyers could get you in some trouble.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't people realize that a passport is a national ID standard and works for any case (beer, smokes, etc?)

Obviously, you've never tried to use your passport to try and buy beer. There are half a dozen places in Illinois that I know that won't take your passport. (I was 27 at the time) They wanted some other form of id. And, in many college towns, (esp. mine) they want state (TX) ids, even if you're from Indiana or Ohio or Virginia or wherever.

While I consider passport>D.L. ( I mean, really. It's my photo laminated togeter), it's not viewed that way to a lot of people, even in the airlines. I lost my liscence and used my passport while flying (domestic only) and had more screening then anyone else in the line (it wasn't random. I got pulled off after looking at the passport, before the boarding pass)

Re:I don't get it.

[Stephen Samuel]

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake. Obviously, you haven't read the news for the last 5 years ---- Abu Mohammed is dead. The reason why we know this is that he used his real ID, to board the plane.

Re:I don't get it.

[LandruBek]

ArcherB, I salute your dogged pursuit of this discussion. I see you are not satisfied by the rebuttals that have been offered you, but I think my fellow /.-ers have covered the main points. If you don't find their arguments compelling, then I don't think you are going to be persuaded. But I'm glad you have posted all the replies that you did.

There were a number of good points people made, and I think they are pretty weighty. But security is sexy these days and Common Sense isn't. The arguments articulated here are more important than most people appreciate. First, national ID looks unconstitutional, and I think it is always a good idea to stop unconstitutional Federal behavior, even if well intentioned. If constitutional limits are regularly trampled even for good intentions, they will become irrelevant on the day that we really need to say, "No, they can't do that." The government needs limits. This idea is very old and well established. Second, and related to this, is the idea of a healthy skepticism of government trustworthiness. Globally, government affronts to liberty and justice are common -- and the USA has dirty hands too, e.g., what allegedly has been done to Jose Padilla. Third, it is naive to think that the document would be unforgeable. Fourth, even terrorists get legitimate documents; making people have a valid ID card won't stop terrorism, as 9/11 proved. Fifth, consolidating all this identity data would make citizens more vulnerable to identity theft, not less. If the government has no the right to establish a national ID scheme, and if such a scheme would greatly erode privacy, and consolidate powers in the Federal that the framers of the constitution never dreamed of; if the scheme is going to be fantastically expensive ($9 to $12 billion according to the ACLU), if it won't stop terrorism (and how could it?) -- then let's not do it.

You might not agree with those who invoke Orwellian visions, but they might be more right than you realize. In this and the previous century, there have been plenty of "civilized" nation-states that have made their citizens' lives hell. The Soviets are just one example. Don't think it couldn't happen here. Don't make it easy for it to happen here. Stand up for the constitution; write your state legislators to reject Real ID -- or move to Maine.

Re:I don't get it.

[Stephen Samuel]

If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list. yeah. Drunk drivers kill the same number of people as died in the 9/11 attacks about once every couple of months.
The tobacco industry kills that many every week or so.
Then of course, there's guns ... Americans pointing guns at other Americans.

During Desert storm, there was a slow-burning fight over whether or not a young American would be safer fighting in Desert Storm than living in DC. I never did hear the end of that one.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it.

You're giving these guys too much credit. They're not taking a principled stand for state's rights, they just don't want to spend the money. If the federal government was paying for Real ID, the Maine legislature would have no problem with it at all.

Re:I don't get it.

[Caseyscrib]

(i am lazy wiki it if you care)

marihuana?

Re:I don't get it.

[khallow]

I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

Effective government agencies that competently enforce existing law beats commited lunatics. Also, make companies liable for negligence when they enable ID thieves.

Also, I don't see your story as supporting your point. Your story indicates that by ignoring existing ID law, you became gainfully employed. Ie, the existing law actually unemploys people. I think that benefit balances the perhaps slightly increased harm from terrorist acts.

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid.

We don't have ID cards. Your driver's license is still valid in other states.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, TX was not. Several (large, unpopulated) states gave the feds the finger.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They also paved the way for the Federal Reserve Act and in order for the Feds to directly tax the people and give the money to private banking (the Federal Reserve). This private bank (Federal Reserve) also controls the coining of money (since Congress signed over the right to this private entity), effectively controlling the amount of money in circulation and along with their fractional reserve system allows for expansion and contraction of the "market" at the whim of our private banking and Wall Street overlords. These overlords and their corporate subjects effectively control our congress critters and the media.

The banks control the corporations and (who ARE the mainstream media) through their control over the market, who in-turn control the congress-critters.

Your representatives are not representing you.
There is no such thing as a "free press".
There is no such thing as a "free market".
So much for "freedom".

When you watch something like Why We Fight, it explains the military-industrial complex. Well, there is a reason such a thing can exist in the first place...the thing that makes all this control possible - control over the money supply and the market.

Why We Fight
The Money Masters - Pt 1 of 2
The Money Masters - Pt 2 of 2

Re:I don't get it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Honest question: so why'd the States ratify the amendments, and cede that amount of control?

Re:I don't get it.

[pthisis]

My brother actually had his (legal) state of Maine ID cut in half and was accused of faking it in the mid-1990s. They were one of the last states to go away from crappy laminate-over-paper licenses, and it looked like a 1980s license from the rest of the country. He was out in LA, where such things aren't really common.

They told him he could leave or they'd call the cops, he waited around, and got a formal apology, they covered his replacement fees, and comped him for a few drinks and a couple meals or something. Certainly not worth the trouble for a working adult, but he was a broke student and also got a good story out of it.

Re:I don't get it.

[Tim C]

Other countries have a national standard ID card and have yet to become fascist police states; merely having a standard ID is necessary but not sufficient.

Re:I don't get it.

[zCyl]

You're a bit off there - that authorizes them to collect the taxes to pay for those services, but NOT to have the departments that provide them.

That's provided under Article II, Section 2, which states:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments."

It even conveniently has the word "department" to help you pick out the clarity of the intent.

Re:I don't get it.

[dryeo]

Does that mean that weed is really legal?
Well they had to amend the constitution to make alcohol illegal so why wouldn't they need to change the constitution to make pot illegal?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain to me why murder is so wrong? The planet is overcrowded as it is, the government gets inheritence tax if they were rich and if they were poor, well, we have too many of them as well.

And please, don't say "because I wouldn't want to be dead".

Re:I don't get it.

[loki_tiwaz]

well, you americans are all a bit pampered. it's 1010km according to http://www.sydney.com.au/distance-between-australi a-cities.htm now unless i am mistaken this takes you 3-4 sometimes 5 states across. this is from one capital city to another capital city. i should also add it cost about 130 to go brisbane to adelaide by plane. australian dollars.

maybe this is a good time to repopularise the clandestine road journey across borders :)

Re:I don't get it.

[The Evil Couch]

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

A better answer is "it will be harder for Jose Identity Theft to fake." Identity theft is far more prevalent than terrorism in the US, although I'm not really all that convinced that a national ID card would stop either.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize they're a small minority, but this may have a chilling effect on transsexuals.

Some cops & security personnel throw a fit if you're presenting as a woman but you have an "M" on your ID.

Right now, there are 50 separate jurisdictions with their own standards for how & when you can get new ID issued with your new gender. Some say you can change it if you're living full-time as a woman (pre-op). Some say you have to have sexual reassignment surgery first. I think there are even some states that say you can't change it. The point is, right now you can shop around and move to a state that's going to make the change easy on you. And, if they say you can't, then you can at least deal with bureaucrats on the state level to get policies changed.

If the DHS can set the standard for what information is on the card and how states share it electronically, I'll bet they also have the power to dictate the process to get that information changed. And with the current bunch in DC, that's very frightening for those who don't fit into their conservative moral cookie cutter.

An article in The Advocate (NSFW, suggestive ads, exposed flesh, no dangly bits though) from a trans woman covers some of the problems with the current, fractured ID system and touches on how Real ID may make things even worse.

Re:I don't get it.

[loki_tiwaz]

oopsie. brisbane to sydney is 1010km. for you americans, that is 631 miles, roughly (at a conversion rate of 1.6km to 1mi). perhaps it would be appropriate to add that the highway i am describing is 2 lanes for about 95% of its length and in some places winds back and forth over several mountains and if you were watching recent news got completely stopped by bushfires in the mountains north of sydney.

Re:I don't get it.

[MrNaz]

Well the "papers please" response to that question really embodies the answer. If I were to explain it to you further I would just be fleshing out the "papers plese" response you've already heard many times apparently.

The basic truism is that governments that have power, will abuse that power. The only safe way to protect society from governmental power abuse is to not give governments power they don't absolutely need in the first place.

It is for this reason that many believe the US government is pointing to terrorists and pedophiles as an excuse for them to legislate more power to themselves. Were there no reason, the idea is that the people, through Congress, would prevent the accumulation of power in the executive branch.

A federal ID scheme gives the executive branch power by providing an easy method of tracking and databasing the movements of people. Information like this is power in the most real sense to a government, as it can be used to identify political adversaries and squash them before they manage to make their ideas well known. If you think that this is conspiracy paranoia, then you don't know enough about the history of political change in the 20th century.

Re:I don't get it.

[ghc71]

The basic premise is this - while the Federal government protects the people from foreign threats, it is perceived as also being a threat itself to many facets of the lives of the people of the United States.
The reasoning goes like this:
1) We do not elect politicians on the basis of how well they run the country, but on the basis of how good they are at getting elected. That means they may be terrible at economics, social policy, administration, financial management, or people skills, but have good hair, white teeth, a loving spouse and attractive children, and are seen to attend church regularly.
2) Whoever gets elected will try to use their elected position to:
  a) get elected again. While one useful goal is "run the country well", a more useful goal is "convince everyone that the way you are running the country is the best possible way - even if it's not!"
  b) spend tax dollars buying stuff from companies run by their political allies, even when a competitor may offer better value.
  c) rework the taxation system so those taxes are paid most heavily by the people who didn't vote for them.
  d) legislate the morals and ethics of their supporters so as to make the behaviour they approve of mandatory and all other behaviour illegal, regardless of the morals and ethics of the citizens to whom that legislation is applied.

These facts combine to provide the rationale for the conclusion that we must distrust all politicians who are elected, for they have only displayed the same skills as are necessary for a confidence trickster, not for a statesman. Therefore, we should regard any attempt by politicians to extend their authority over the people as not primarily being for the people's benefit, and reject it.

Re:I don't get it.

[IL-CSIXTY4]

Great! How 'bout I say I'm you and crawl into bed with your wife tonight. After all, I'm you... I mean me because I say so, right?

An identity transaction involves three types of parties. There is a claiming party (you), a relying party (maxume's wife), and one or more vouching parties (you again). If maxume's wife doesn't know you, then she probably doesn't put a lot of trust in your claim or your vouching for it.

Even if you have a government-issued ID with your picture saying you were maxume, she still wouldn't trust it because she trusts her own senses to identify maxume more than she trusts someone else.

In your identity theft trial, the government (now the relying party) would likely ask her (now the vouching party) whether or not you are her spouse.

Re:I don't get it.

[swillden]

Honest question: so why'd the States ratify the amendments, and cede that amount of control?

Because it seemed like a good idea, obviously. There were a variety of reasons. Both the 16th and 17th amendments were part of a big reform movement aimed at fixing various ills in American society at the time. There was a strong perception (and a lot of reality) that government was bought and paid for by the wealthy, and that something had to be done to give the individual citizen more control. That movement had already led lots of states to use a popular referendum to select their senators (the Constitution just said that they were selected by the states, so the states got to pick how it was done). Strengthening the federal government was seen as a way to combat the domination of politics by the wealthy -- a rich man might be able to control a couple of states, but the nation as a whole was just too big to control that way, right?

I guess you could say that the states were seen as the tool of the wealthy, so by shifting power to the federal government and arranging for its key officials to be popularly elected, the system could be made to favor the little people.

Unfortunately, the pendulum has (IMO) swung way too far, and the wealthy have learned to control the federal government pretty effectively. At this point, it's arguably easier to get the laws you want by manipulating a single central government than by trying to work through the states, even if the states are individually easier to buy. Also, overly-direct democracy is risky because it leads to citizens voting themselves "bread and circuses". Consider the massive federal deficit, caused by decades of overspending because that's what the voters want, sustainable or no.

Further, I think that technology now makes it much easier for citizens to keep tabs on their representatives at all levels, which to me suggests that power should be pushed down the chain as far as possible, where the constituencies are small enough that a few angry people can make a difference. If I write a letter to my US Senator, it's very unlikely that it will be read by anyone other than a staffer who will try to summarize my opinion as a tally mark on one side or the other of an issue. The situation is different when I write to my state senators.

Hopefully, the states' rights movement that has been trudging along for the last decade or two will pick up some steam and push us back the other direction. Actions like this one from Maine are a good start.

Re:I don't get it.

[91degrees]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this.

They can't. Obviously. It was overruled buy the state. But they can specify a standard as to what is "federally approved".

Re:I don't get it.

[jrockway]

> Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".

Papers, please.

Seriously, that's the problem.

Re:I don't get it.

[jrockway]

> You don't need to show your driver's license to the cops every time you start the car, tell them where you're going, and get permission.

Yet.

Re:I don't get it.

[Curien]

Yes, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. You got another question, or are you done making yourself look like an idiot?

Re:I don't get it.

[mikelieman]

They don't have the authority to set a National Speed Limit.

If a state doesn't want to comply, they just lose Federal Highway Dollars.

And, with REAL-ID, I'm thinking the "Stick" is "This D/L isn't acceptable for use boarding this plane".

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I fail to see how the average law-abiding citizen's rights are threatened by an ID card that could potentially tell the federal government information about activities that violate no law."

Er, in case you haven't noticed, lately Uncle Sam hasn't exactly been too fussy about things like Habeas Corpus, the right to a fair trial, or even about evidence for goodness' sake.
The argument that innocent people have nothing to fear from their government simply doesn't hold water. If I were feeling particularly pessimistic, I would suggest that the RealID act designed to make it easier to institute the draft again.
Have fun in Iran..

Re:I don't get it.

[Gabriel_503]

Please, I know it's not normally allowed, but please mod the parent up to a 6. It gave me chills reading that last little tidbit of information.

Not enough consideration is given towards the younger community in the respect that they will be the future voters who allow these treasons to go unchecked. It is simply a fact of reality that 85%, or likely far more, of this population has never even read the constitution and does not know the rights and limitations it affords. When the word "constitution" is uttered, it is a fact that most of these future voters are only aware and concerned with the Bill of Rights. If We the People are to truly ensure this country's future, as our enlightened fore fathers intended, we MUST bring these issues into the spotlight.

Our government, as much as we'd like not to believe it, is a separate entity from the people it was formed to protect. We, on the other hand, are the working class, the backbone of society, and it is up to us to stand up and guarantee the government hears our voice in order to protect our children's futures. This might sound like a mindless rant, but I ensure you this issue is as serious as a heart attack. And if it's not truly understood, then our country will assuredly be sleep walking into a police state. This simple concept I've imparted either will or will not be our children's future, our choice (no, your choice).

Colbert! If you're listening! Cover this issue thoroughly. We know you care about these issues. And according to statistics, there is definite merit is stating that you are the voice of our future, both literally and figuratively. Young minds need to know. Don't let us down.

And while you're at it, mod ganjadude's reply up to 5. Not everyone agrees on the topic of marijuana, but I think he nailed it from a legal standpoint.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?

They probably don't. Which is part of the reason they cannot comply with a request to treat a "driver's license" as an ID... They do, however have have the right to set rules relating to public roads within the state of Maine. Including traffic laws and specific requirments for vehicles & their operators. (Except in cases where a more local government can apply their own rules to public roads within their jurisdiction.) This is because public roads are built, maintained and policed by the relevent government.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So anal probing at the airports is ok, as long as college kids can still keep their fake IDs?
Go figure...

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

I agree with you completely. Letting the individual citizens vote directly for federal senate was the worst mistake in the history of this country.

One problem is that more voting does not always equate to more democracy.

It essentially invalidates local politics in the minds of a lot of people, because they figure they already voted for someone who "outranks" state representatives, therefor they don't need to care.

Probaly also killed off the possibility of state and regional political parties.

We've gone from a system of independent states which were more like individual nations in a loose alliance, to one large state with funny names for the different sections.

Together with a political system dominated by two large parties which are quite similar in many ways.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

The Social Security -program-, or any other public "needs" program that's similar (Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, etc) must be explicitly permitted, at least in -function-, in the Constitution.

If it isn't and there is a good reason to have it then there is a constitutional ammendment process. This is complex for the very good reason that such action should not be undertaken lightly or for trivial reasons (e.g. stopping people burning flags).

Period. Basic civics, people, basic civics.

Such understanding appears all too uncommon in the US today.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No - The Supreme Court has more and more been enabling the Feds to dictate to states what they can and cannot do via the commerce clause in the Constitution. The latest BS decision allowed the Federal Gov't to overrule the sovereign state of California's med. marijuana laws. The op is correct, though, in mentioning the use of 'federal money' dangled in front of states in order to entice the states to obey federal law.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

You're giving these guys too much credit. They're not taking a principled stand for state's rights, they just don't want to spend the money.

The principle here is that they don't want to be voted out of office for wasting their employer's (i.e. the people of Maine's) money.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

The 10th ammendemnt explicitally restricts the US Federal Government from having any powers not enumerated. Thus you'd need to either find explicit authority within the text as currently ammended or a later ammendemnt which alters the 10th.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc.

Actually it does matter if it violates something such as free speach. Since the US Government is explicitally forbidden from doing so...

The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.

Let alone all the creative definitions which have been applied.
Whilst it may be constitutional for the US Government to insist on people wishing to board commercial airliners to hold certain specific documents it is really only reasonable that they do the issuing. e.g. it might be constitutional to require all passengers and crew to hold valid passports.

Re:I don't get it.

[cduffy]

Yeah, you pretty much need an ID to anything now

Yes, you do. The question is whether it's appropriate for the federal government to require such.

I'm not arguing about what is true; I'm arguing about what should be true. If we only focus on "well, this isn't worse than what we already have", we're never going to start digging our way back out.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

The 17th Amendment, in an attempt to avoid the deadlocks that were occurring in these elections, was passed, giving electoral power over the Senate to the people (why have a bicameral legislature when they're all popularly elected, duh?)

This is actually a very important issue. One reason for having a multi-chamber legistature is to help ensure that proposed legislation is subject to critical examination. e.g. "Will it do the job?", "What loopholes exist?", "Is it necessary at all?", etc. To do this well you need a way to ensure that the different chambers are actually different. Differing selecting methods help here. Even if they were to all include some kind of popular vote the elections need to be different. Possibly including such features as "stand for one chamber and you are barred from standing for a post in another chamber for 10-15 years"...

And to the GP - none of those programs are Constitutional, and I'm personally having a hard time justifying even things like the FDA and FCC.

About the only obvious thing would be "standardization of weights and measures" as applied to "interstate commerce". Which is probably a rather smaller job that their current role.

Note that I'm also a fan of a small standing military, with a very large trained reserve force, far in excess of the current size of the military reserves, frankly, and with units controlled and trained by the damned states as they were prior to the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction.

You'd probably need a consitutional ammendment. Which would probably also need to state the purpose of the standing force. e.g. first line defense and training of the reserve. As well as addressing issues about who has control of complex weapons systems.

Re:I don't get it.

[Dragonslicer]

As someone above pointed out,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

(The Constitution was later amended to allow the taxes to be based on personal income)

Obviously people can disagree on how much money should be collected and spent for the purpose, but I would imagine that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid could easily be defended in the Supreme Court with the General Welfare clause.

Re:I don't get it.

[Dragonslicer]

And just to try to further boost Slashdot's opinion of the state, I'd like to mention that Maine made marijuana a legal prescription drug about 10 years ago.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

As originally setup, the United States was NEVER supposed to function the way it does now. Each state was to be effectively an independent country that makes it's OWN laws regarding its citizen.

In only a few places does the US Constitution use the word "citizen". In many place the term "people" is used, which is applicable to both citizens and non-citizens who have lawfully entered a country. It may also be applicable to non-citizens who have entered in some unlawful way. e.g. those claiming refugee status/political asylum or those who were abducted into the country in some way. (Even those who were simply lost and didn't realise they had crossed an international border.)

and they were to be very loosely tied together by the federal government;

Which had specific set of functions.

Somewhere along the way that morphed into "the federal government is all powerful and the states get to do whatever little legislation we ALLOW them to do".

Things such as "regulating interstate commerce" are probably more executive than legislative in the first place.

Re:I don't get it.

[Balthisar]

They don't and didn't. They tied state speed limits to federal funding.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to be callous, but frankly, people are far too worried about terrorism. If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list.

You mean, like you are more likely to be killed in Iraq than being killed during 9/11?

Especially if you happen to be someone living in Iraq.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!

They can pass laws, as well as ammending and repealing existing laws. Subject to the restrictions on those laws described in the US Constitution.

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

It's known as "weed" for the reason that there are plenty of places where the plant will grow as a weed. Expecting plants to follow legislation made by humans is rather daft. Hopefully the actual laws address delibrate cultivation...

Re:I don't get it.

[Guppy06]

"Especially in conjunction with the 16th."

The Sixteenth Amendment came from everybody disagreeing with a flawed Supreme Court ruling (namely Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.) that declared that taxing income for landlords was a direct capitation. But even then, that didn't prevent Congress from taxing income from wages and the like.

"the funds had to be collected from the states"

The federal government had the ability to levy indirect taxes without apportionment since at least Hylton v. United States in 1796. And even that ignores customs and duties, which was the main source of income for the early federal government.

"state legislatures had to squeeze the money from their constituents and"

The only taxes that the federal government can't touch without apportionment are property taxes (which, at the time, meant "slaves").

"Direct tax" means a tax on being warm and having a pulse; "property tax," a type of direct tax, is a tax on property just for the sake of being there. What you do with that warm body and the property you have under your control can be taxed indirectly.

"Obviously, the Senate was very resistant to any expansion of the budget which would require their bosses (the state legislatures) to raise taxes."

Note the order of the amendments: the Sixteenth predates the Seventeenth. The Sixteenth Amendment had the approval of 2/3 of the state-appointed Senators.

"The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem."

The Sixteenth Amendment was passed to ensure that pre-existing income taxes did not favor the wealthy landowners. The people wanted a more egalitarian/progressive tax structure.

The Seventeenth Amendment is a completely different animal from the states' point of view: it absolves them of pesky responsibilities. It is easier to sit back and cherry-pick which issues to complain about and challenge in federal courts than it is to actively participate in the federal process and potentially alienate voters. Senate appointments was one more way for a state legislator to lose the next election.

"Obviously, this pretty much gutted the power of the states."

The states can repeal either whenever they please, without intervention from Congress.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans. That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball.

Or possibly told to drop the ball

Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree.

At best things havn't gotten worst.

They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.

Or misdirections away from the fact that proper investigations were not carried out.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how the average law-abiding citizen's rights are threatened by an ID card that could potentially tell the federal government information about activities that violate no law.

And I fail to see why they need information on any actions I take that violate no law.

There isn't this kind of outcry about passports and international travel

outcry? No, since I do not have the money to fight another pointless law. Nor do I have the money needed to pay-off our government so they actually work for ME, like they are supposed to.

I will also never be traveling outside the country, even to Canada or Mexico, since I feel it is a needless invasion of my privacy, not to mention just plain f***ing STUPID to require a passport to go to Canada.

Does this mean they will finally do away with NAFTA?

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment. Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection.

It's quite likely that such "standardization" would make the task of creating bogus ID's easier rather than harder.

Re:I don't get it.

[Oligonicella]

Well, yes. And that would be why? Because of state's sloppy requirements allowed them to. Hmm. Make the requirements more rigid and uniform and you reduce the problem.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh noes! don't take away my fake id!

Re:I don't get it.

[dlenmn]

If you bothered to wiki it you'd know that the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1969 and was replaced in 1970 by the Controlled Substances Act. Under that act, cannabis is a Schedule I drug, so you'd better believe it's illegal to poses (I imagine that there's some sort of exemption for approved research). I haven't looked up the rest of your claims -- I hope they're more accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Ac t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances _Act

Re:I don't get it.

[spikedvodka]

The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts.

Reminds me of a joke from a while back...

An America, A Soviet, and an Austria are all talking about their respective systems of laws...
Soviet: Where I come from, we have the best system... if it's not Allowed, then it's forbidden
American: No No No, Our system is better... If it's not forbidden, then it's allowed!
Austrian: I beg to differ, Our system is the best... If it's forbidden, then it's allowed!

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

Your drivers license should not be required for anything except for driving ever.

Actually it's only driving on a public road. On any private road it's up to the owner to set the rules. The fundermental problem here is treating what is effectivly a machine operator's permit as anything else is daft.

You may be required to display some form of identification to verify your age when purchasing alcohol. That is because when prohibition was repealed, states were specifically authorized to regulate all aspects of alcohol by the constitutional amendment.

Though the actual requirement is more likely to be proving you are over a certain age. Your exact age/DoB, even your name, address, job, etc shouldn't be relevent.

And it is bullshit that your California license is invalid in other states. It is valid because the states have agreements with each other to honor each others driver's licenses.

It dosn't even need to have been issued in the US, even if you are a US Citizen.

Even if they didn't, Congress could pass a law stating this (if they haven't already) because one of the powers they explicitly do have is regulating inter-state commerce.

Similarly they have the right to regulate international commerce. With respect to driving this isn't just in relation to countries where driving to and from the USA is possible.

A bank may require identification for cashing a check. A bank is not the government.

Arguably it should be up to banks or the banking industry to come up with methods for verifying their customers. Rather than simply assuming that they have some optional document. Regular commercial competition would tend to weed out banks who require their all their customers to be drivers.

The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts.

Especially when what is actually going on is a restriction in what you can do. e.g. Banks actually charge quite a bit for the service of looking after your money. At the very least they lend and invest your money and collect the interest on in.

Re:I don't get it.

[maxume]

Thank you for embracing my point so whole heartedly. You basically asserted that my (actually hypothetical) wife should trust you more than she trusts her own eyes. The same way of thinking would lead her to believe an id that you had that said you were me. I didn't make that point very well, but I was reaching for it, and IL-CSIXTY4 filled in the details.

Re:I don't get it.

[Scudsucker]

I agree...But I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback.

No more so than asking why a man who ignored specific warnings about terrorists using hijacked planes as weapons, ignored warnings of a hurricane and doesn't think about Bin Laddin anymore somehow feels the right to demonize other people as being weak on security.

Re:I don't get it.

[jackbird]

Make the requirements more rigid and uniform and you reduce the problem.

Wait, I thought monocultures were bad for security...

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

Effective government agencies that competently enforce existing law beats commited lunatics.

Possibly all that's needed is to remove political appointees and avoid situations where honest hard working people are repremanded for arresting (even just investigating) the "wrong kind of terrorists". It is certainly a very bad thing where police are actual aiding terrorists, as has been recently revealed to have happened in Northern Ireland. Or in the US where people who have been behaving suspiciously have been quietly put on trial, even allowed to leave the country, simply because they arn't Arab or Moslem. Dangerous nutcases are dangerous nutcases regardless of their religion, ethnicity or nationality.

I think that benefit balances the perhaps slightly increased harm from terrorist acts.

In many parts of the world, the risk from terrorism, ranks alongside "freak accidents". Even amongst actual terrorist threats anti-abortionist and "animal rights" groups may be more of a problem than anyone following a perverted version of Islam (which is unlikely to be much different from perverted Judaism or perverted Christianity...)

Your driver's license is still valid in other states.

Indeed most of the planet.

Re:I don't get it.

[ArcherB]

You don't need to show your driver's license to the cops every time you start the car, tell them where you're going, and get permission.

True. But how is a nationalized ID standard going to change this?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Period. Basic civics, people, basic civics.

Ignorant (as the other guy pointed out, General Welfare clause) AND snobby? You are a gem.

Re:I don't get it.

[Scudsucker]

Social Security, as a program, is almost indefensibly unconstitutional

Not in the slightest. The Constitution was explicitly amended to allow the taxation of income, and already said in the Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well they get paid to look for it. They should ALWAYS expect the unexpected.

Re:I don't get it.

[Scudsucker]

Consider the massive federal deficit, caused by decades of overspending because that's what the voters want, sustainable or no.

Decades of massive over tax cutting for the wealthy hasn't helped either.

Further, I think that technology now makes it much easier for citizens to keep tabs on their representatives at all levels, which to me suggests that power should be pushed down the chain as far as possible, where the constituencies are small enough that a few angry people can make a difference.

I think the real problem is the lack of civic duty in the vast majority of the population, and the fact that we have a very lazy media. Just making poltics more local wont make much of a difference, imo.

Re:I don't get it.

[vertinox]

Other countries have a national standard ID card and have yet to become fascist police states;

Yet.

But to be fair many people will argue that there nations have or at least become a complete nanny state.

Given the choice of empowering federal government or limiting its power... One should always side with limiting.

Re:I don't get it.

[Scudsucker]

Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:

Speak for yourself buddy:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Re:I don't get it.

[Scudsucker]

The crux of the argument is that a lot of states were forbidden by their state constitution from approving any federal amendment that would increase the power of the federal government, so those "yea" votes should not have counted.

But in turn I doubt the constitutionality of any law forcing anyone to vote one way or another.

Re:I don't get it.

[stinerman]

Dude, we just went over this. "It" says that only a state can issue IDs because:

1) The Constitution did not specifically grant the power to issue IDs to the federal government.
2) The Constitution states that any powers not specifically granted to the feds is reserved to the people (the states).

With regards to Social Security, Medicare, etc. being constitutional ... guess what? They aren't! Imagine that. They are all based on a perverse reading of the commerce clause. The federal government was never meant to have much say in the lives of citizens. When they say "Congress shall pass no law", they really, truly meant no law. Passing those laws was your state's prerogative. The 14th amendment really fracked things up regarding the balances between states' rights and federal encroachment on those rights, so the Constitution becomes much harder to interpret (at least, IMO).

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

But security is sexy these days and Common Sense isn't.

Except that the former isn't even actually "security". Rather it's an illusion of security, produced by politicans and "journalists", who often don't appear to have the first clue about the subject. There's a lot of real security which isn't in anyway "sexy", involves a lot of hard work and is even counterintuitive on first inspection. One reason for the latter is that a big part of the problem is that the entities you are trying to guard against are intelligent and able to quickly change their behaviour. e.g profiling airline passengers actually weakens security against any remotly organised terrorist group who can take a bit of time. (Even more fundermentally there are plenty of ways of creating mayhem which don't involve aircraft or airports.)

First, national ID looks unconstitutional, and I think it is always a good idea to stop unconstitutional Federal behavior, even if well intentioned. If constitutional limits are regularly trampled even for good intentions, they will become irrelevant on the day that we really need to say, "No, they can't do that." The government needs limits.

There's also the matter that even good intentions can have dire consequences. Hence the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
There's also the problem of working out if the advocated intentions are the actual ones. Sucessful con artists are good at gaining people's trust even when they are talking complete fiction. Thing is that the same skills can also come in handy getting elected.

Re:I don't get it.

[stinerman]

I've heard such stories and have looked into them briefly. Of course, even if it were clearly against state law to approve such an amendment, the law is the law now. It's similar to the case where corporations gained personhood. No judge actually ruled on that, but a legal clerk put such a ruling in the footnotes of the decision. Have fun trying to bring that up in the courts, though.

Re:I don't get it.

[GlassUser]

Has Amendment X ever been interpreted by the Supreme Court? I always thought it was a pretty natural amendment to try to challenge, but I've never seen it mentioned in any Supreme Court docs.

What do you challege? It's an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't get any higher on the ladder. What you might challenge is if it were lawfully passed (there's little to no argument on that) or if current actions taken under the amendment's guise are in fact allowed by the amendment. But you can't declare an amendment unconstitutional - it IS the constitution.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

The correct question to ask is "what good would it do?" Since the answer is "none whatsoever," the government has no business doing it!

Note that this thing is not "free" at best it will just suck money. At worst it will mean that other things which might actually be effective won't get done.
The problem with criminal behaviour is one of action and intent. It really dosn't matter if someone arrested has a valid identity document or not. Indeed there is some evidence that some documents can be "get out of jail free cards". The evidence gathered should determine if the case goes to court and if a conviction results.
There's also the problem that left to their own devices governments will tend to target people "dangerous" to government (and members of government). It can be considered more important to get rid of people who may try and get incompetent officials shown as the fools they are than someone who might injure or kill some "plebs".

Re:I don't get it.

[Sloppy]

I think the real problem is the lack of civic duty in the vast majority of the population, and the fact that we have a very lazy media. Just making poltics more local wont make much of a difference, imo.

Some people feel that lack of duty because of despair. Duty or not, they don't think they can do anything. "My vote doesn't count," they tell me, and when they're talking about the national elections, I am hard-pressed for a comeback.

But at the local level, it is very clear that votes really do count, publicity matters, etc. You can get (relatively) instant gratification and results at the local level, and whenever that happens, civic duty is a lot easier to take seriously. I've seen what happens when a city government tells its people "fuck you," and a bunch of people say, "no, fuck you," and the city government says, "oops." Those people get pretty happy and start thinking they can take on the world.

Re:I don't get it.

[Kadin2048]

During Desert storm, there was a slow-burning fight over whether or not a young American would be safer fighting in Desert Storm than living in DC. I never did hear the end of that one.

The last I heard of it was that it depended on what statistics you used, and how you chose your prototypical "young American." If the young American was black, male, and between the age of 18 and 21, or something similar to that, it was possible to show that the chances of a violent death were smaller in the Army than in DC. I doubt that you would be able to show that service in Iraq was safer than DC for demographic groups where homicide isn't as prevalent, so it's really an exercise in choosing your samples.

Re:I don't get it.

[mpe]

It's not about what *you* can do, it's about what the government, and the corporations and other private interests, can do, or will be made easier, by the card.

As well as anyone who is trusted by these entities and/or has infiltrated them. Quite possibly several levels removed.

Whilst you may trust your own government do you trust every government your government trusts? Your government will share such information with anyone they trust. Governments routinely spy on other governments, even their "friends". Thus you are not just entrusting this information with one government in practice you are entrusting it to a collection of governments, mobsters, corporations, terrorist groups and other assorted entities.

Re:I don't get it.

[ynohoo]

"the free and easy commerce of social life"

prostitution was mostly legal back then, they just had a different euphemism for it...

"our Lord's commerce with his disciples"

a reference to wandering preachers, the precursor to todays tele-envangelists...

"substantial interstate human relations"

can't marry you 9 year old girlfriend in this state? try the next one!

I can't help thinking that today's federal government is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. We look to the Supreme Court to save us, but usually they just dodge the issue.

Re:I don't get it.

[joeljkp]

"Challenged" as in "invoked in a challenge to something else". Sorry for the confusion.

Re:I don't get it.

[illegalcortex]

Guess I should have included the tag...

Re:I don't get it.

[The Analog Kid]

Because the Federal Government was not given the power to issue licenses, it's a state right. While the Federal government in this instance is not actually the one issuing these ID cards, they are pretty much forcing states to do it anyway, by not allowing citizens of states to travel without them. Plus it's a piss poor "security" measure that does absolutely nothing. It's not like the 9/11 terrorists didn't have proper identification.

Re:I don't get it.

[newt0311]

um... Make the requirements more rigid and people will come out with a hack in a few months again. go to bruce schniers blog and do a little reading. You might find some good info there.

Re:I don't get it.

[ChristTrekker]

There are those who say that the states didn't ratify the amendments. But when the Civil War is still in the memory of most of the people alive then, who is going to argue when the FedGov says that's how it's gonna be? Standing up against the FedGov has a way of being hazardous to your health.

Honestly, I don't see any rationale for ratifying the 16th. It just makes no sense. The FedGov simply wanted more money. They'd been trying to impose direct taxation for several decades, but the courts had always intervened.

The 17th was purportedly to correct a procedural problem that occurred when Senate vacancies would go unfilled because of partisan squabbling in the state legislatures. It seemed unfair to let a state be underrepresented in the Senate, so direct election (to bypass the legislature) seemed the best answer. (Remember that the populist movement was in full swing in the early 20th c.) A better solution would have been to expand the governors' power of recess appointment, to allow him to do so if the legislature didn't take decisive action within X number of days (while in session), and have that temporary senator hold the position until the legislature did get off its butt. So to correct a relatively minor procedural problem, they broke one of the three crucial balance systems built into the FedGov. No small wonder that power has been lopsided ever since. And small hope of ever undoing it, because most people simply can't comprehend that you have less sway over your Senator when you elect him directly - when your direct constituency is millions of people, can you hear any one particular voice? Heck, even congressional districts have gotten way too large since they froze the House at 435. By the original reckoning we'd need 10k representatives!

Re:I don't get it.

[ChristTrekker]

But that's the problem...they are not general welfare. They are welfare specific to the people receiving the aid. The military provides general welfare - being defended from outside attacks benefits everyone equally. Those other things, they benefit only specific classes of people.

Re:I don't get it.

[XanC]

Well first off, it's the state legislature that votes for federal constitutional amendments.

And the way the people can keep the legislature in check is by having restrictions in the state constitution on what they are allowed to vote for. In this case, it was illegal for a number of states to vote for an amendment that would increase federal power (without first going through a state constitutional amendment procedure).

Re:I don't get it.

[Doctor Faustus]

The interesting part about constitutional interpretation back then was that the framers were alive. You could have actually asked them what they meant. Though that only matters if you care about original intent.

If you look at the constitutional convention and at what the framers were using as their own guidelines (republican theory in general, The Spirit of the Laws specifically), it's pretty clear that they realized they needed another check on the direct will of the people, but couldn't think of how to accomplish it. Most of them probably went along with Marbury vs. Madison because it completed what they were trying to accomplish in the first place. Just realize that John Marshal is just as much a founding father due to that as anyone else except perhaps James Madison.

Re:I don't get it.

[gibson042]

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!

I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.

May I recommend starting with the IRS.

You may, but it would be stupid to do so:

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You know, the Supreme Court did conclude in Brushaber v. Union Pacific (1916) that Amendment XVI created no new powers of taxation and instead merely clarified (ha!) the issues surrounding "income"; all taxes on it were to be classified in the same category as excises. As this forbade them from being direct taxes, it also severely limited the de facto constitutional meaning of "income". Legally, the IRS has no authority to collect a direct tax on the earnings of ordinary workers. Politically, however, you may be right about the stupidity of fighting them.

Re:I don't get it.

[kabocox]

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

I've read this, and most of it is uniforming the 50 states various DLs so if that guy form Maine takes a cross country trip and gets pulled over in Iowa, Texas, Flordia, or CA the police with DL card readers in those states could easily run the DL through the scanning hardware rather than manually type it in. They all pretty much require a picture, and a name, DOB, address, sex, race, height, and weight. Sigs are required in my state and a thumb print is optional. If 50 states are already collecting this info, why can't the feds ask for them to unify their DLs so that the cards are easily readable and in somewhat the same basic formate by all state governments and the federal government rather than just the issuing state gov? Not everything the government asks is evil and meant to be the end of the world 666 tracking everyone bit. This is a perfectly o.k. request to me.

Re:I don't get it.

[Quila]

It's not like the 9/11 terrorists didn't have proper identification.

Those 19 terrorists held 63 state drivers licenses among them, and some of them were in the country illegally at the time. The proposed system has a higher likelihood of catching such people.

Re:I don't get it.

[Politburo]

Nice try, but extend that logic. How does defending California help me here on the East Coast?

The thing is, the Congress (and since these programs have been in existence for 30-70 years, the people) have decided that it is indeed in the 'general welfare' to provide support to certain individuals (the disabled, retirees, poor people, etc).

Re:I don't get it.

[Quila]

Sorry you lose, freeway speed limits (55 and stay alive) actually have their origins in fuel economy

They have their origins in politics as much as anything, as 55 saved a tiny, statistically insignificant amount of oil, if any.

(1/2 mv^2)

It's a little more complicated than that, av + bv^2 + cv^3. Each car has its own optimum cruising speed depending on conditions. Factors (a, b, c above) such as aerodynamic drag, drivetrain efficiency, rolling resistance, environment and accessories used (pumps, radio, headlights, A/C, etc.) fit into the equation at any one time.

Basically, a huge SUV on a temperate day may be most efficient at 40mph. But a small, light aerodynamic car on a hot day using the A/C full blast may be most efficient at 65 or more.

Re:I don't get it.

[Politburo]

Relying on slashdot lawyers could get you in some trouble.

That's for sure, since your interpretation ignores SCOTUS rulings.

The Controlled Substances Act applies everywhere. Not just when you cross state lines, sadly. SCOTUS ruled that it is indeed "interstate commerce" even if the product is grown and sold wholly within one state, or even when no money or other items of value change hands.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Re:I don't get it.

[Bacon Bits]

It doesn't matter. The Feds can't compel the states to do it. This isn't an objection over the intent of the law, it's an objection over the legality of the law. Just like the feds can't write a law abridging your right to free speech, they can't write a law abridging a state's right to govern it's own citizens.

How reasonable the law is is irrelevant. They must word the law to say "states who do choose to support this program get $X million in funds". The federal government is not authorized to say "the states must do this" except for the specific cases outlined in the Constitution: commerce, national defense, and enforcing the Constitution.

Re:I don't get it.

[Politburo]

You legal analysis is off. Congress created the Controlled Substances Act. The Executive Branch is tasked with executing and enforcing the laws, in this instance via the Justice Department. The President has authority under the Constitution and United States Code Title 5, Section 5317 to create agencies within Executive Departments.

If Congress didn't really want the DEA, why did they confirm its Administrator?

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately states rights were abolished at the close of the civil war.

Re:I don't get it.

[Charcharodon]

My point exactly, I hadn't paid too much attention to the case after it started. I find the government arguement to be stupid. They get to regulate it because her personal use growing would impact the illegal market.

Though from what I've read it sounds like this clash is far from over.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jimithing DMB]

The biggest problem with your comment is that you feel that being allowed to do something is "increasing your rights." That is incorrect. What you are really referring to is the authorization to do something. Of course, I would expect thinking like this from the land of fruit and nuts. Especially when what is actually going on is a restriction in what you can do. e.g. Banks actually charge quite a bit for the service of looking after your money. At the very least they lend and invest your money and collect the interest on in.

I think the poster I was replying to was referring to cashing a check at the issuing bank or at some check cashing joint, not depositing it in his account or cashing it at his own bank with his own account as collateral.

To me it sounds like he's pissed off because he's a poor bastard who's being denied his "rights" to do something. The reality of it is that the government isn't denying his rights to do anything. Most likely, he needs a driver's license to cash a check because he can't just take it to his own bank. I have no trouble with the issuing bank or a third party check casher telling him to piss off if he can't identify himself.

Re:I don't get it.

[Politburo]

Though from what I've read it sounds like this clash is far from over.

I think it is, at least in this arena. While the composition of the court has changed, the "states rights" conservatives are usually blinded by their knee-jerk urge to reject anything possibly pro-drug. Even Scalia joined in Raich. The courts aren't going to change things.. it will take state legislatures and ultimately the Congress, imo. Either that or an Executive (governor/president) who pardons non-violent drug offenders and refuses to enforce the laws.

Re:I don't get it.

[teknognome]

We don't have ID cards

That isn't true; most states' DMVs (and a quick google search indicates California is one of them) do issue ID cards. They're valid for identification the same as driver's licenses are, just not for driving, and are generally similar in appearance and content.

Re:I don't get it.

[Myopic]

Ha! You, sir, very clearly know almost nothing at all about the Constitution. Others have pointed out that if it's not in the Constitution, it *is* forbidden; and you yourself have shown how little you know about American history. I sincerely hope you are in third or fourth grade, before American history really gets taught in much depth. Or, maybe you are a foreigner, so you wouldn't have much business knowing our history.

Re:I don't get it.

[Myopic]

I agree with everything you said except blaming Nixon for the DEA. "Creating" an agency is a moot act unless someone gives you a bunch of money to run the agency with, and in this case that "someone" was Congress, who can very easily stop funding the DEA. Congress is the ultimate seat of power in America *because* of their control over the budget.

The same argument goes for lots of other things. Today, we see it in the debate over the war in Iraq.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't feed the troll.

Re:I don't get it.

[belg4mit]

Erm, no see, 65^2 or 70^2 minus 55^2 is non-trivial, 1200 and 1875 respectively.

Obviously drag et al. complicate things, but kinetic energy is a decent first order approximation.

Re:I don't get it.

[ivan256]

I presume you want it explained to you without using those words because you don't know what they mean.

Making it lawful to treat everybody as a suspect is the only tool required for widespread corruption and exploitation by government authorities. If you aren't free to exist without being in a continual state of active compliance, you aren't really free. In this particular case, the line between slightly less free and completely un-free is very thin.

There are other arguments too, involving the ability to link independent data sources together in violation of an individual's privacy. If you care about your privacy, you should be opposed to having a unified identifying number.

Re:I don't get it.

[srvivn21]

you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, Close, but not quite. One ounce is the legal possession limit in Alaska, as long as you are not near near school propery (including school buses). While ownership of fewer than 25 plants is constitutinally protected, manufacture (cultivation, perhaps? I'm not particularly familiar with the process...) is not legal.

and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically I count 12 for each. AK, CA, CO, ME, MN, MS, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, and OR have decriminalized it (though the fines can be rather steep). AK, CA, CO, HI, MD, ME, MT, NV, OR, RI, VT, and WA use it medically.

*shrug*

Re:I don't get it.

[ivan256]

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Two of those are wrong, and one of them is a highly divisive issue. We have speed limits to keep others safe from you. The same goes for drunk driving.

You are right that it is the responsibility of our government to do whatever is within its power, and within reason to protect its citizens. The government has other responsibilities as well. It has to choose solutions that respect all of its responsibilities at the same time.

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the United States Supreme Court struck down the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act as unconstitutional. Took only 32 years for that law to finally be put right. No, the Controlled Substances Act, insomuch as it seeks to regulate intra-state commerce, is not valid. It is unconstitutional. To the extent that it also delegates lawmaking authority to the executive branch, it is also unconstitutional. It has been a little over 32 years now. It is high time the Supreme Court restored some sanity to this aspect of the American legal system. The prisons have gotten much too full because of it.

Re:I don't get it.

[Quila]

Obviously drag et al. complicate things, but kinetic energy is a decent first order approximation.

It basically boils down to this: You're car is wasting a LOT of energy as you are driving (add to the waste by turning on the A/C, etc.). The faster you get from point A to point B means you spend less time wasting that energy. But there is a point for each car in each condition where that advantage runs up against the losses due to increased speed (mainly due to aerodynamics), and the sweet spot, the optimum speed, is met.

Yes, it can make the difference between 65^2 and 55^2 irrelevant, because you save more than you lose. However, at 65 you've about hit the top end of optimum cruising speeds found these days.

If it were not for this fact, 20 mph would be an efficient driving speed in a normal car (it isn't).

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same token I wouldn't complain showing an ID every time a fly an airplane or would really be pissed of every time the driver asked me an ID to board the cab.

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

I'm from Georgia... believe me, I know (of course, the war itself was still reasonable on the part of the Union because human rights trump states' rights).

Re:I don't get it.

[mrchaotica]

How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause?

The Necessary and Proper clause only authorizes actions undertaken in support of those powers which were already listed. In other words, if the other clauses don't give the federal government the authority to create a national ID card (and they don't), then the necessary and proper clause doesn't add that authority.

Re:I don't get it.

[radtea]

Now if the people [wikipedia.org] decide to give that power of theirs to the national government by electing politicians to the legislature who create Medicare (or whatever over program you want to call into question), then the federal government now has the power to do so.

Nope. There is no mechanism defined in the constitution for the people to delegate their powers in this manner, other than holding a constitutional convention and amending the document itself. So as it stands, elected politicians have only the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, period. The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. And this illustrates the difference precisely.

Re:I don't get it.

[falconwolf]

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
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.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right. Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?

Nowhere in the tenth amendment does it say rights, it talks of power. If the Constitution does not give the federal government the power then that power is reserved to the people or the states. As the Constitution does not say the feds have the power this means the feds have no power in requiring a national id.

So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!

Congress can pass any law they want but that does not mean every law is Constitutional.

Falcon

Re:I don't get it.

[TheoMurpse]

If Congress only has the powers specifically given to it by the Constitution, then what the heck is Article I, Section 9, doing in the Constitution? For those who don't want to make the jump, Section 9 includes the phrase No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. If the Constitution never gives Congress the power to grant titles of nobility, why did the framers even put that prohibition in the Constitution?

elected politicians have only the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution, period

Not technically true. For example, see the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. If you disagree with my above reasoning, then the "necessary and proper" clause is mere superfluousness, which serves to make the Constitution appear to be a poorly-written document, highly suspect since it is a Constitution written by some of the most brilliant legal minds of the age. The alternative is that the "necessary and proper" clause says Congress has the authority to perform necessary actions and proper actions (as opposed to actions which are simultaneously both necessary and proper). In Medicaid's case, it has been deemed to be proper (and perhaps many would argue it is necessary as well). Beyond that, as I read Article I, Section 8, Subsection 1, Congress shall have Power To [...] provide for the [...] general Welfare of the United States, and what is the United States but a collection of people, many of whom need medical assistance.

Also, while many would argue the Preamble is not legally binding, but merely expository, if you are an original intent proponent, the Preamble states why the framers wrote the Constitution, and that includes in order to [...] promote the general welfare. Or did you never watch Schoolhouse Rock? ;)

In any case, the Constitution only specifically grants Congress the ability to legislate three crimes: high-seas piracy, counterfeiting, and treason. Would you argue that it is a bad idea for the federal government to criminalize anything else is?.

Re:I don't get it.

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>If you think that you can safely control 1.5t of metal at high speeds when you've drunk all you want - then you either shouldn't be drinking or driving, hence the law.

But why does one equate the other?
I know I can't control my car fully under that much alcohol. I'm not sure I can control my car well enough after 2 drinks... so I wait it out.
If I was inclined to go ahead and drive anyway... the existing laws wouldn't stop me. After two drinks, I can pretty much guarantee I'm under the limit, and I wouldn't get a drunk driving arrest.
However, if I get tagged for unsafe driving, and I've had a little to drink, call that an aggravating factor, and off we go.

Either way, you've got the law ready to spank you. Just one is there to punish what you do, not what you might do.

>Drink driving laws are there to protect lives from destruction by stupid people. That's a worthy law. And given the number of deaths caused by drink driving, it's a necessary law.

Then why don't we have laws against operating the radio while driving?
If video screens are required to not show video while the car is operating, why can't they disable controls on a radio and just have mute and volume operational. Any other changes, and you have to stop the car to make the changes.
That would save thousands of lives as well.
Why isn't anyone enforcing laws that would curb eating while driving?

I seriously think we could craft the law that drinking and driving would be perfectly legal, but the problem behavior that nearly always results would be very illegal. And it could be crafted in such a way that it would cover other conditions under which you are not in control of your vehicle (cell phone, tv, food, etc)

Re:I don't get it.

[ganjadude]

marihuana is the traditional spelling of the word marijuana, even in congress to this day SOME articles written use this spelling but as of around 1960 -1970 they started using the term marijuana

Re:I don't get it.

[ganjadude]

this may be how it is recorded, but will you look back and say its congresses fault we went to war in iraq???? no you wont, or you shouldnt anyway

Re:I don't get it.

[ganjadude]

i just gotta add this in there

In Alaska, cannabis was decided legal for in-home, personal use under the Ravin vs. State ruling in 1975. This ruling allowed up to four ounces of cannabis for these purposes. A 1991 voter ballot initiative recriminalized marijuana possession, but when that law was eventually challenged in 2004, the Alaska court's upheld the Ravin ruling, saying the popular vote could not trump the state constitution.In response to former Governor Frank Murkowski's successive attempt to re-criminalize cannabis, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state. On July 17, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins awarded the Case Summary judgement to the ACLU. In her ruling, she said "No specific argument has been advanced in this case that possession of more than 1 ounce of cannabis, even within the privacy of the home, is constitutionally protected conduct under Ravin or that any plaintiff or ACLU of Alaska member actually possesses more than 1 ounce of cannabis in their homes." This does not mean that the legal possession threshold has been reduced to one ounce, as this was a mere case summary review filed by the ACLU, not a full case. Reinforcing Ravin, Collins wrote "A lower court cannot reverse the State Supreme Court's 1975 decision in Ravin v. State" and "Unless and until the Supreme Court directs otherwise, Ravin is the law in this state and this court is duty bound to follow that law". The law regarding possession of cannabis has not changed in Alaska, and the Supreme Court has declined to review the case, therefore the law still stands at 4 ounces.[citation needed]

Re:I don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution cannot be amended without the consent and participation of the States.

The 16th Amendment passed not only in the Senate of the 61st Congress (which represented the various States) but also by the legislatures by 42 States (with 4 rejecting the amendment and 2 not accepting or rejecting).

The 17th Amendment had a much longer history, but ultimately was ratified not only by both houses of Congress, but by the majority of States. (Alabama even ratified the 17th Amendment in 2002).

If the States are unhappy with the 17th Amendment, they certainly can get rid of it even with the opposition of Congress -- that's what Article V is for, and this is is the locus of residual power to the States, notwithstanding the Walker cases this century.

However, you will not find the requisite 34 states, and Congressional action (Zell Miller's proposed amendment went nowehere) is even less likely.

Ultimately, all the legislators face the People electorally, and if a majority of them really wanted a repeal of the 17th Amendment, it would happen. Don't hold your breath.

Re:I don't get it.

[ChristTrekker]

You agree to watch your neighbor's house while on vacation because he'll do the same for you when you're away. You both benefit from cooperation. That's general welfare.

Money over privacy?

[adamstew]

The article made it sound like that all the legislature cared about was the money it would cost to implement the national ID, and that they didn't care about any of the privacy issues.

Re:Money over privacy?

[AlHunt]

The article made it sound like that all the legislature cared about was the money it would cost to implement the national ID, and that they didn't care about any of the privacy issues.

Living here in Maine, let me assure you that privacy was discussed just as much as money. All your personal information; name, address, social security number, FINGERPRINT, all consolidated in one card and entered into a handy database for some shmuck to put on his government-supplied laptop to be stolen at Arby's.

No, thanks. You're welcome, America. The rest of you get busy.

The bitch is I JUST submitted this story before I found it here on the front page.

High five, Maine.

[croddy]

I, for one, welcome our new lobster-eating overlords. We've been long overdue for a state legislature to stand up to the security-crazed national congress and tell them to shove their citizen surveillance programs back through the orifice that produced them. It's great to see the federalist division of power in action.

One does the crime, all must pay

[Soloact]

Requiring a National ID "to fight terrorism" is like punishing everyone for the offense of one. Many corporations are like that, the military is like that, and too many governments are adopting that practise. One person (or a small number) does something wrong, and suddenly there are procedures made that everyone must follow "to prevent the acts" of the few (look at the airports).
How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?
In the USA, States need to fight for the States' Rights as Maine just did, and as Wisconsin did by outlawing mandatory chipping of people.
This "pervasive" form of governing, or ruling, seems to becoming more and more "invasive". Some would argue, "...if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?" , of which my argument is, "I am a good civilian, so leave me alone."
Of course, all of my comments are IMHO.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[SpectreHiro]

How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?

Although I agree with your sentiment, I wonder how exactly one punishes someone willing to die for their cause. Nothing frightens the establishment more than a suicidal attacker, since there's no way to deter them. Imprisonment? Torture? Death? For a suicidal attacker, these are already accepted as the price of their act.

This is why I tend to think that there can be no effective solution for terrorism. An attacker who plans to die while attacking you is prepared to surmount any hurdle, no matter how high. Sometimes I'm idealistic enough to think that we might be able to prevent terrorism, but that would require not pissing people off so badly that they're willing to die just to hurt us. So far, that's not an option that our society's been willing to consider.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[Soloact]

You have it, exactly, how does one punish those who are willing to die for their cause? Quite impossible, as they kill themselves in the process. But to pile on extra laws that take away liberties and freedoms punishes everyone else, thus the terrorist's cause wins. Of course, the one who kills himself loses.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[MikeTheMan]

Unfortunately it seems this is the way most things are dealt with in our (American) society. School was like this (one kid screws up, nobody gets to go to recess). Roads are like this (a few idiots keep cutting people off taking a right-on-red, and now there's a NO TURN ON RED sign and nobody can). The government is like this (one big terrorist attack, and now everyone is suspected of being a closet terrorist).

Apparently officials don't have time to deal with the real offenders and they'd rather just screw everyone over collectively for the wrongdoings of a few.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[Oligonicella]

"...that would require not pissing people off so badly..."

And, if your mere existence as a non-Muslim is sufficient to piss them off enough to blow you and themselves up, your response is what? To simply convert to avoid being the pisser? M'thinks not. They already want to kill me just because of what I do or don't believe. So, give me a plan -- an intelligent one -- that allows me to remain me and deal with those people.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[Anonymous Coward]

Requiring a National ID "to fight terrorism" is like punishing everyone for the offense of one.

Haha! The feds are going to take your keg away! Kids are running asceered...

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

[zacronos]

[Muslim terrorists] already want to kill me just because of what I do or don't believe.

Um, no. From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on "terrorism": Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), [and] deliberately target "non-combatants". Do you believe 9/11 was a hate crime? What about the violence in Iraq? Beirut? If you do, then I think you are very ignorant of the issue. It's not about hate, at least not primarily (I'll grant that hate has become a factor, but I think it's an inflammatory symptom that results in feedback, not a fundamental cause, of the violence). It's about trying to accomplish a political goal. No, the goal isn't to convince/scare us into becoming Muslim -- it's not hard to realize 9/11 would have the opposite effect, and bin Laden is not stupid.

So, give me a plan -- an intelligent one -- that allows me to remain me and deal with those people.

I can't lay out a complete plan, because it's a very complex issue. But, you could start by trying to understand their motivations and their perspective. You don't have to agree with them or convert and become them, but you can't hope to know how to deal with them until you understand them. If you are really so clueless about the motivations of Muslim terrorists, I can't possibly educate you in this post -- I can only suggest where to start educating yourself. The information isn't being hidden or suppressed, so it's not too hard to find if you're willing to go look; unfortunately, there's no real mainstream discussion of those motivations in the US, so you will have to go find the information yourself rather than just reading pre-digested news. A lot of it has to do with the Palestine/Israel conflict and our influence (past and present) there -- read some translations of bin Laden's statements, he's not trying to hide his motivation. And no, the Palestine/Israel conflict is not because "they hate the Jews". No matter who is right or wrong in that conflict, no matter what a practical solution would be, no matter what atrocities have been committed by which groups, anyone who has researched the history of the conflict even a little will realize there's far more behind it than blind hate.

A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[COredneck]

If Congress refuses to significantly change the Real ID Act, then rebellion is the way to make it fail. The Act is built on a flimsy deck of cards. If a few of the most populated states like CA, NY, IL, MI, TX decide to blow it off. The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.

It needs to be completely repealed. It was passed without discussion, without debate. It became law as a "rider" on a must-pass piece of legislation. With the Democrat Congress, its demise is more likely. We should contact Contact Congress and ask the law be repealed completely concerning the driver's license provisions.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[ad0gg]

Congress won't repealit because it will be used against the congressmen in upcoming elections. They portrayed as weak on terror. Only thing we can hope for is that is that congress doesn't fund the program which kills it. Or even better, its goes to court and found unconstitutional.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[TubeSteak]

The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.

Remember around 2002ish when John Ashcroft decided to prosecute GreenPeace for violating some 1872 maritime law? That law had only ever been used twice, the last time in 1890.

Suffice it to say that there are 200+ years worth of detritus in the books that are not enforced.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[freedom_india]

I don't think that will happen.
Those who portrayed themselves as Strong on terror (Republicans) lost miserably. Of course FOX can claim the people are wimps and cry babies.
But the truth is people are sick of war mongering, tough guy image that sucks out life from 3000 US countrymen for no purpose.
Now if any congressman, senator, Bush or Cheney had sent his daughter/son to fight and die in Iraq, people would really understand they are tough.
But when the leaders are wimps, and war-profiteers (Halliburton stock options for Cheney) people see through them right away.
This congress can do it.
But let's see whether the moneybags win first or not.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[mpe]

If Congress refuses to significantly change the Real ID Act, then rebellion is the way to make it fail. The Act is built on a flimsy deck of cards. If a few of the most populated states like CA, NY, IL, MI, TX decide to blow it off. The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.

Are public roads federal or state. Since there dosn't appear to be federal police enforcing traffic laws it would appear that the latter applies.

It needs to be completely repealed. It was passed without discussion, without debate. It became law as a "rider" on a must-pass piece of legislation. With the Democrat Congress, its demise is more likely. We should contact Contact Congress and ask the law be repealed completely concerning the driver's license provisions.

The primary purpose of the document is what type of vehicles the holder can drive on the public road. i.e. nothing to do with their being a passenger in any vehicle. (Let alone such unrelated tasks as operating a bank account or buying goods). How do these provisions help with the primary purpose?

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[mpe]

Now if any congressman, senator, Bush or Cheney had sent his daughter/son to fight and die in Iraq, people would really understand they are tough.

Or even gone themselves, "real leaders" do so from the front...

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[theCoder]

Which is why all laws (even the most sane ones prohibiting theft and murder and such) need to have expiration dates. If every law needed to be renewed every 10 years or so, that would (a) get rid of the old laws no one cares about any more and (b) keep the lawmakers busy so they don't have time to make up new worthless laws, while at the same time making them look like they're doing something important to their constituents.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to come in here and drop astroturf on this forum, you should at least refer to the new Congress as the "Democratically-controlled Congress" and not the "Democrat Congress." I'm sure your "Democrat" employers would prefer you to not sound like their no. 1 opponent, G.W. Bush.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Scudsucker]

Those who portrayed themselves as Strong on terror (Republicans) lost miserably.

How the media keeps implying that the GOP is stronger on defense is beyond me. I want to ask pundits how any of the following shows strength on security:

• Blowing off outgoing Clinton administration officials who were trying to warn them of Al Queda.
• Appologizing to communists for a plane crash that their pilot clearly caused (wingers like to forget about this one)
• Reading My Pet Goat for twenty minutes after the nation has come under attack, rather than calling your two-time Secretary of Defense, your Vice President who is also a former Secretary of Defense, or NORAD, which you should have heard of during your time in the Air Gaurd.
• Spend years savaging Democrats as being unable to protect the country, and then stay on vacation while a hurricane - that you were warned about in advance - was destroying the Gulf Coast.
• Let Bin Laddin, who actually attacked us, get away in the Tora Bora mountains so you could invade Iraq, a country that never attacked us.
• Doesn't think about Bin Laddin anymore.
• Grab power, shred the Constitution, demand the right to torture and secretly imprison people, launch huge domestic spying programs - and yet are completely bat-shit clueless about the fact the largest ports in the U.S. are about to be taken over by an Arab company.

Republicans have proved over and over again that they are weak, not strong, on national security. The press needs a complete enima along with the Republican Party.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[freedom_india]

You are ABSOLUTELY right on all counts. However the press would Not attack them because the press is owned majorly by large corporates who have benefitted from tje huge tax cuts and other facilities Bush gave them.
That is why Fox is attacking Obama as Osama and implying he is a terrorist.
Obama should file criminal charges against Fox CEO, and get him arrested under sedition charges. The law as it stands today makes sedition charged people to be sent to Gitmo. Bush would be aghast to see his law being ujsed against his cronies.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Quila]

It was passed without discussion, without debate.

The original bill had at least two controversial sections. One would have shared driver data with Mexico and Canada, and another limited judicial review. That these are not in the final bill shows that there was discussion, and that the bill was modified according to the input of the legislators.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Vr6dub]

Its a good sign of the state of affairs in this country when we are expecting the Dems to restrict the power of the government. Are we in the Twilight Zone? Republicans/Democrats are NOT what they used to be. Me? I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and like a small federal government. What the hell am I?

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[schwaang]

If a few of the most populated states like CA, [...] decide to blow it off...

CA Senator Diane Feinstein is one of the "liberals" who strongly supports Real ID. (She's also sponsoring a pro-DRM bill, and she voted to affirm the NSA chief who brought us illegal wiretapping to be head of the CIA claming that he would "speak truth to power".)

I suspect that many of her loyal constituents would be upset about that if they knew, but how many people have the first clue about what the federal government has been doing?

The point is, yeah the states *could* block Real ID, but Senators see increased federal power as the hammer for all nails, and their constituents are mostly in the dark.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Feinstein is a fascist's. I remembered her supporting the Real ID. It is time to get rid of both parties being in control. It is time for third parties to go in.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[COredneck]

The controversial section required states to sign a new compact as written by the AAMVA which is composed of high level executives from law enforcement and motor vehicle agencies. The compact is called Driver License Agreement (DLA). The AAMVA is pushing the DLA pretty hard and we need to keep an eye on state legislatures to make sure it does not pass. The AAMVA is even using Federal money from NHTSA to get states to sign it. NHTSA is an organization in the Federal Gov't that supported draconian enforcement of traffic laws and are big proponents of a 55 mph speed limit. They also refuse to change regulations to allow our headlights to be improved and get to the level of the European spec headlamps.

In addition to the data sharing from the agreement, it would require traffic violations to be reported and ant state who has signed it MUST put it on record with POINTS. Even down to the in-consequential minor violation such as no front license plate. Most states do not put equipment, registration and parking violations on a driver's record. With the DLA, they MUST put it on.

Unlike the Driver License Compact (DLC) and the Non Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) which was written with imput from State Legislatures, the DLA was written without their input. Most states that sign those two compacts pretty well follow the views of them but some states like Colorado and a few others do not assign points for minor out of state traffic offenses. On the NRVC, another state cannot ask your home state to pull your license for blowing off such minor tickets such as parking or registration violations and it is mainly aimed for moving violations such as speeding.

The AAMVA is a Non-Governmental Organization that proposes and pushes policy very hard but yet, they are not subject to open door laws. If you go to their web site, many items related to the DLA are locked out with a Username/Password combination. When Rep. Sensenbrenner pushed the Real ID Act back in 2005, I inquired about the DLA and in no uncertain terms, I was told that is was none of my business !

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

If a few of the most populated states like CA, NY, IL, MI, TX decide to blow it off. The Federal Gov't would be in a bind.

It would be a constitutional crisis likely to change the course of American history if a majority (or even a few) of the states no longer respect the doctrine of federalism.

Suppose the US government sues Maine to require them to enforce the Act.* The Court could find that the law is unconstitutional, and everyone wins. However, it would likely find in favor of the federal government, at which point Maine has two options: follow the law, or don't. Under Maine Constitution Article 4, Section 2, the legislature has enough votes to override a Governor's veto. If the Governor enforces the federal law over the state law, there could be impeachment proceedings in Maine, as the Governor would no longer be "tak[ing] care that the laws be faithfully executed." See the Maine Constitution, Article 5, Section 12 and Article 9, Section 5.

If he favors state law over federal law, he'd be flagrantly disobeying the Court, and then all sorts of nastiness may follow. The President may call in the Maine National Guard, a lot of whom may feel more loyalty to their state than to him, what with the war in Iraq and all. The President may direct the DOT to stop paying for Maine highway repairs, the DOEd may stop subsidizing Maine schools... it could get really nasty. He might even attempt to arrest the Governor. The chances of things going that far are remote, but the fact remains that at the end of the day the President would have to do something. He can't just let this go, because it's all downhill once one state feels they don't have to follow laws passed by Congress. The word "secession" springs to mind.

* As a really nifty side note, the trial court for that case would be the US Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction since a state is a party. None of this dicking around waiting for the case to go up through the court system.

Bills getting attached to odd

[Nutty_Irishman]

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.) Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)? Seriously, besides saving time and being lazy, I fail to see why military spending and tsunami relief would be put into one bill. But bills like this happen all the time-- and usually it's much worse. I don't understand why there are no restrictions/oversight in place to monitor the grouping of bills.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[mrchaotica]

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)?

How about "because politicians suck" instead?

No, really: this unrelated crap gets tagged on because politicans have no morals, and they want to push their agendas even when they're against the will of the people (not to mention the rest of the politicians). So, they tack stuff onto the bills at the last minute so that the issues don't have to be voted on, and the rest of the politicians don't call them on it because they're all doing the same damn thing themselves.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[harmanjd]

Which is why there is continued mumbling about a 'line item veto' which would allow the President to veto riders on a bill which don't really belong and which wouldn't pass congress on their own. The main reason it never happens is because the Congress wants to keep the ability for 'pork' on bills (why don't they just call it spam?) so that they can get funding or whatever for their particular neck of the woods that the rest of the nation really doesn't care about.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[Pikoro]

It is because there is no provision for line item vetoing of these things.

Think about it. A bill either gets passed into a law or it doesnt't.

There is no way to pick and choose what parts of the bill are passed, hence why presidents keep asking for line item veto powers. This would allow them to remove this extra crap from bills in which they do not belong.

Say they are going to pass through a major bill on redoing the entire national highway system to allow automatic driving cars and congress is under alot of pressure to pass the bill into law. Along comes some congressman who says "Hey, this is great! This bill is guaranteed to pass through both houses with minimal fuss. Why don't I tack this extra paragraph on that will channel funds to my pet project!".

The congressman knows that nobody in thier right mind would not pass the bill just because of this one paragraph is in it. Related or not. So, the bill turns into law, the guy's pet project gets it's funds, and everybody's happy except for the tax payers who just sent 5 million dollars to the guy's brother's company.

Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.

The problem with the current administration is that line item veto, if allowed, would most likley be used to veto the parts of bills that would limit his power to "fight terrorists" so it's a 2 way street.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[Jartan]

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)?

There are a couple things that can cause it. Basically they can group whatever they want. In this case they probably were going to pass a bill with the Real ID stuff anyways and they slapped it into the tsunami relief bill to lessen the political uproar it would cause otherwise.

Other times it's a give and take sort of thing where person 1 wants X and person 2 wants Y so they agree to put both on a bill and sign it.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together...

Because the North won the war.
Here is a little gem from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:
Aritcle I
Section IX
20. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

That would make a nice ammendment to our Constitution, wouldn't it?

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[Draknor]

Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.

Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for the executive (whose job it is to implement & enforce said laws), to *change* law & potentially cut out whatever comprises have been made to get the law passed.

For an extreme example, see this outrageous use of letter-by-letter veto power that Gov. Doyle has in Wisconsin. He partially vetoed words & numbers in the budget bill to redirect $400 million from transportation to schools. Link to PDF of Frankenstein Veto

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[uncreativ]

Tommy Thompson did this too.

Though I have to say WOW on that "line" item veto. My fovorite part is how he string together random consecutive zeroes to put together a whole new number. With that kind of line item veto, you really are legislating. Really scary thought--especially with that kind of power in Doyles hand.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[bar-agent]

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

That would make a nice ammendment to our Constitution, wouldn't it?

It would indeed. Congress would never go for it, but luckily, they don't have to. If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.

I think I'll e-mail my Governor.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[DataBroker]

can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together

Typically the add-ons are caused by politicking. Let's say the bill is to increase military spending (with the intent to create a new military base for a new aircraft). Everyone agrees that it's a good thing to create this base; but, only in their own state. Each representative wants the base in their state so they can get the federal spending to flow to their own state.

Since the bill is going to pass, but only one base is being created, the politicking begins. Wisconsin wants the new base so the Wisconsin rep meanders over to the TX, LA, and FL reps and says, "hey.. how about we allow additional Gulf oil drilling? Let's add that to this bill, and some wording that the base will go into Wisconsin. Then we can all vote yes on it."

Everyone throws something into the bill so that everyone gets something for their own interests.


Or use the same idea of trading favors, but expect that reps save the favors up. "I'll abstain from voting on gun control next month, but you're going to vote in favor of my state getting the base." [now look back on voting records and you may find that what's not being voted on is as telling as what is being voted on]

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[Politburo]

If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.

Not true, and you're calling the wrong official.

If 33 State Legislatures petition the Congress, then the Congress is supposed to call a Amending Convention. 33 States (actually all 50) have petitioned the Congress and the Congress has refused to call a Convention. In fact, 567 petitions have been submitted over the years.

The Supreme Court has failed to force the Congress to perform its Constitutional duties. See http://www.article5.org/ (a badly designed website, but has the info).

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

[falconwolf]

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

That would make a nice ammendment to our Constitution, wouldn't it?

It would indeed. Congress would never go for it, but luckily, they don't have to. If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.

Unfortunately I'd bet the same thing happens in almost all states of the union.

Falcon

Maine is not a commonwealth

[natpoor]

I am pretty sure that Maine is not a commonwealth, but this is Slashdot so who fact-checks?

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[Compulawyer]

Actually it is. Maine was the northern part of Massachusetts (which is a Commonwealth). Massachusetts doesn't recognize that Maine broke away and considers Portland and Kennebunkport to merely be suburbs of Boston.

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[boston2251]

Bravo on you for knowing that..I just had a hardcore history class flashback..being from Boston...goodonya..

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[node 3]

Does Massachusetts prosecute tax evaders (ie: those that pay taxes in Maine, and not Massachusetts)? If not, I'd submit that even if Massachusetts has never officially recognized Maine as a separate state, it has done so de facto.

Also, do Massachusetts textbooks list Maine as a separate state? Does the government of Massachusetts have any official dealings with Maine? Etc.?

All of which, of course, has no bearing on whether Maine actually *is* a separate state. Does Maine consider itself a separate state? Does the US Government (yes, it does). Do the other 48 states? Even if Massachusetts actually believes Maine is still part of Massachusetts, the GP is right, Maine is a state, not a commonwealth, as such status is not for Massachusetts to decide on behalf of Maine.

Re:Maine is Not a Commonwealth

[xquercus]

You are right on. As a native Mainer I assure you that all facets of Maine politics refer to the "State of Maine". This is in contrast to Massachusetts and Virginia where "commonwealth" is used on documents from tourist literature, vehicle licensing, to bills in the legislature. Pennsylvania and (I believe) Kentucky refer to themselves as commonwealths as well. I believe Puerto Rico also refers to itself as a commonwealth.

-Jeff

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[Compulawyer]

I may not always be in the Hub, but I'll always be a Bostonian.

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[Compulawyer]

Ok - let's set this straight:

1. A tax "evader" as opposed to an "avoider" is someone who fails to pay taxes that are LEGALLY OWED. Just because someone pays taxes in Maine instead of Mass. does not make them a tax evader.
2. Textbooks have been wrong in the past. That is (one reason) why publishers release new editions.
3. It was a JOKE. Just because I have the work "lawyer" in my nick doesn't mean everything I post here is serious legal analysis. If the RI, CT, NH, or VT legislatures had passed that Act, I might have said that Providence, Hartford, Manchester, or Montpelier was a suburb of Boston. The only thing different here is the kernel of truth that Maine actually WAS part of Massachusetts at one point and that kernel, coupled with the fact that Massachusetts actually IS a Commonwealth, provided the set-up for the joke.

For further discussion on the analysis of jokes, please refer to the website and associated writings and other works of a noted expert in the field, J. Martling, Ph.D.

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[natpoor]

They fixed it in the main post! Amazing! Now if they would fix all the it's/its...

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[pla]

Massachusetts doesn't recognize that Maine broke away and considers Portland and Kennebunkport to merely be suburbs of Boston.

Strangely enough, Maineiacs (at least living North of Portland) also consider Southern Maine as "Mainachusetts".

As for what Southern Maine residents consider it - Oh, wait, we don't have any. Nothing but walled-off gated summer palaces for rich weirdos (for example, the Bush family) who we thank greatly for paying the $2 York toll at least twice per visit.

"The way life should be" indeed!

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth

[node 3]

1. Which has what to do with what again? If Maine is still part of Mass., then people in Maine are subject to Mass taxes (unless explicitly excluded). Their failure to file and pay taxes to Mass. makes them evaders.

2. The question isn't whether the textbooks are wrong, but whether the State of Massachusetts teaches their children that Maine is a separate state. If you really *are* a lawyer, you'd know this is a valid argument against the notion that Mass. considers Maine as just part of Mass. (ie. if I were one of those "tax evaders" from Maine, it'd be in my list of arguments).

3. One critical element of a joke is that it be funny. I'll grant you the "suburb" part drew a chuckle, but that wasn't enough to make it clear you meant the whole thing as a joke.

The problem here is that your joke was very limited in scope (ie. *very* few people will get it) and presented as fact (completely dry and deadpan). I can assure you there are now more people who think they "know" that Maine is considered part of Mass. by Mass. than there are that found themselves rotflol.

Federalism

[CompressedAir]

About time someone struck a blow for federalism. Good for Maine.

Re:Federalism

[aldheorte]

You mean ANTI-federalism.

Domino Theory

[Stanislav_J]

Someone had to be first to stand up to this. (I was betting on New Hampshire, which has been very vocal about their opposition, or Vermont based on their general countercultural eccentricties. But they all share a remnant of that good old Yankee stubborness.) Other states have voiced their concerns, but now that someone had the balls to be first, maybe more states will make their opinions known through their own legislatures.

Or maybe it means nothing at all, and all the states will eventually kowtow to their federal masters like they always do. Yeah....that's probably the way to bet.

10.1

[way2trivial]

it's like this..

28 guys want military spending
31 guys want tsunami relifer
only 2 guys want both.

that means, lump them together, get 57 votes

Goddamn straight

[ShimmyShimmy]

This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it. I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake. Not that I, ahem, would know anything about that.
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.

Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks.
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?

I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.

Re:Goddamn straight

[clacke]

I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank?

Umm, it's not a substitute for the driver's license, it is the driver's license. With the added bonus that as long as you keep it you don't need yet another card. The driver's license is supposed to identify the user anyway, so it only makes sense to make it a real ID. That's how things work in the Old World. ID cards that are only ID cards are used only by people who don't have driver's licenses. Yes, if you have a license and lose it, you need to get a new ID. It's not like this is something that usually happens to people.

Re:Goddamn straight

[mpe]

This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it.

It is also good that these legislators appear to understand some of the reasons why the idea is bad.

I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake.

It would make sense to tackle the actual problem. That of overloading one document with multiple, even mutually exclusive tasks. i.e. the only people who need to know your SSN are employers and banks (if they are paying you interest). A driver's license should be used only for driving vehicles on public roads. If there is an actual need for an identity document (or a document to demonstrate the holder is older than a certain age) then the best thing to do is create one which just does this.
Indeed for many purposes proving "identity" isn't of much practical use. What matters when boarding a commercial flight is that you are threat to the aircraft, its crew or your fellow passengers. It would make more sense to have everyone boarding take a breathalyzer test. Since drunk passengers are a known hazard, drunk pilots even more so.

Re:Goddamn straight

[mpe]

Umm, it's not a substitute for the driver's license, it is the driver's license. With the added bonus that as long as you keep it you don't need yet another card.

Except that this isn't always a bonus. Since the one card may come with various abilities you may rarely, even never, want to use. An analogy would be would be is it better to carry one "master key" to every door you might possibly want to open any time in your life or a bunch of keys for the doors you regularly use.

The driver's license is supposed to identify the user anyway, so it only makes sense to make it a real ID.

All the "identity" it needs is to prove that the holder is the holder for a fairly restricted set of activities. i.e. those related to driving a vehicle on public roads.

Re:Goddamn straight

[Quila]

By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID

It's possible, but then so is a magnetic stripe or smart card chip.

I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank?

It is the drivers license. Anything that happens when you lose your license now will happen with this one. The law covers both state-issued ID cards and drivers licenses. If you don't need both now, you won't need both after this.

It will obviously be scanned at every point of use.

That can happen with most current drivers licenses. Mind doesn't have a magnetic strip, but it does have the large barcode on the back with all the info.

Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database.

That is the only thing that scares me. The states and feds need to enact privacy rules concerning the use of the license if any data is going further than it does now.

Re:Goddamn straight

[kabocox]

It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?
I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.

If they really wanted to do it "right," this is what they'd do and "why". The "government" local, state, and feds don't really have any idea who its citizens currently are. The feds issue out SSNs to new borns now, but that's just a name and number and won't be used until their around 16-18 and start working. The government doesn't know if that 16-18 year old fresh worker was that newborn. Let's go now to birth cert. What ID information is currently on one to id the new born with the citizen? The babies foot print. I don't know if that's optional or required. Do we currently use foot prints anywhere else to verify ID? Nope. What ID methods do we have and use? Picture IDs, finger prints, dental records, eye scanning, DNA, and giving you a number and saying that's an form of ID. Um, we'll never actually try to push large scale ID for religious reasons in this country. If the government was going to do it "right," they'd take fingerprints, an eye scan, some sort of dental record, and a DNA record an all of those would be used to form an ID number at birth and store them. The next time that you show up for a state drivers lic, you shouldn't need any form of ID. Your local office will use one of those methods to ID you and take a current photo and put in your current living address. (DLs typically have sex, race, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and DOB so all that current information would be recorded about you and stored. When is the next times that the government takes note of you? When you pay your taxes, during the census and when you leave and re-enter the country. The IRS likes to know alot about you. They know how much you make and mainly what you spend your big purchases on if its taxable or that you can take if off your taxes. The IRS could use your ID number to record all that other info about you, but they don't care about your actual id, unless you don't pay and then they have to send other government folks to get you. The census folks never really know. The census folks ask and ask every one that they can find all sorts of questions. All it would take additional to what the census currently does is for them to ask for the id numbers or finger prints. I could see all those finger prints being scaned and compared to registered citizens or immigrats. If you aren't in the government database, some government other fellow will be along. Currently we issue passports for those leaving and entering the country. In my locked down state, we'd be recording all that inital birth info for every vistor or immigrat from another country, to obtain a passport, you could just run into any gov. office and ask for one, and they could scan you to find out who you are, and take your current height, weight, hair color, eye color and print it out. Our government wouldn't really need those passports. They "know" who all the citizens are. If you aren't in the database, you aren't a citizen and either get deported to the country of your choice or jailed.

What's funny is that we've had the tech. for this ever since fingerprinting. We've not really been far enough along until police agencies could run a print and get results back within seconds though. The difference is now instead of police agencies all government agencies would ask for that or another form of ID so that they'd know who you are. Id theft/forgery would be a federal homeland sec. crime. We could do this and it would would work for the war on terror. The only problem is that we'd have a second civil war getting our exising citizens to have a through ID by the government.

Here is another idea that we could attempt at the same time. Let's have a federal currency card instead of all this cash. They could star tracking and finding out all sorts of things by doing that as well. If you are going to have a second civil war, you might as well go whole hog and become a complete government knows everything about you state.

It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s.

[jk379]

The law doesn't have a way to force Maine to comply as that's a states rights issues.

What I predict will happen is that the Federal government will start by holding back the money that they would disperse to the state for highway dollars just like they have done for other measures. (The ones that come to mind is seat-belt and drunk driving laws but I know that there are others.). If holding back Federal highway funds they will find other funds not to give the state.

Re:It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly why the federal government shouldn't take money from taxpayers to distribute in any form to states. Unfortunately very few Americans think of it that way; even if they do, for some reason they like to think of abstract cases where the fed might help out by being given this power rather than looking at the reality of the results.

Re:It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s.

[Todd Knarr]

It'd be interesting to see a state respond by saying "OK, if the Federal government doesn't want to pay for it's Interstate highways, it can have them back. Oh, and it can also have back all responsibility for maintaining them, enforcing the laws on them, clearing snow off them in the winter, the lot. We wish them luck with it, and if anyone finds the conditions deteriorating they know where they can call the owners.".

Re:It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a special toll on all out-of-state and federal government vehicles? $250 per vehicle per year or something like $10/toll instance. It is not that out of line. Better yet, toll all out-of-state vehicles as they are the ones taking Maine's money away, indirectly.

Re:It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s.

[Politburo]

It would also be interesting to see the public's reaction to such a move.

My guess: That state's government would be reorganized at the next election.

You don't shutdown the roads of your state. That's just stupid. Interrupting the flow of goods to and from your state has serious consequences for the citizens and businesses of that state.

MS always wins

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/26/stories/2007012609 111800.htm

A quote: "Detailed discussions in this context would open new vistas of cooperation by using the funds available under the agreement."

new *vistas* of cooperation ??

interesting.

One for the State(s)

[adambha]

With an increasingly Orwellian federal government I am excited to see individual states standing up to 'Big Brother' for a change.

The only true 'power' over the states the federal government has is primarily due to interpretation of the Commerce Clause which arguably defies the legislative intent of the original drafters of the Constitution in the first place.

coming soon in 2010...

[Nitroadict]

"dude, can you hook me up with a fake REAL ID?"
"I'm not letting you drink, 18 year old younger brother."
"No, I need one so I can move out and spawn."

Yay for Maine. REAL ID is (in the dictionary sense) typical of the political "repacking the old in something new" bull$hit crowd.

federalism + meh = history repeating itself...

bullies

[drDugan]

my daughter said something quite profound about a year ago: "Standing up to bullies is easy, you just stomp on their toes".

It is profound for several reasons. You shouldn't fight the bully head on, they are bigger and (in this case) control the White house and the Army.

But you make it hurt, a lot (you "stomp"), but you do it below the vision of most people watching.

You stand right up to the bully, to their face and make them face you. Most bullies are craven and will crumble at the first sign of real resistance.

Bush Psychology -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml

This is just the first step in a long, painful road to recovery for this nation.

Re:bullies

[Anonymous Coward]

That's deep until you realize that stomping on somebody's toes just means they're going to punch you in the face even harder.

Re:bullies

[Anonymous Coward]

if it were just 'anybody' then yes, likely to get hit back. not so with bullies. bullies are almost always bluster and no real cohones for a fight. Bush is a classic dry-drunk bully.

Re:bullies

[Sax Maniac]

Thanks for that link... very informative!

Re:bullies

[Quila]

That almost looks legitimate, with the MD and PhD at the top, until you read the adjectives throughout and realize that the authors started not from a position of disinterested professional psychological analysis, but from a personal dislike of Bush. That taints the whole thing.

Congress can win this very easily

[schwit1]

Remember when the 55mph speed limit was not the law, but a suggestion, and all states complied? Any state that didn't go along was denied federal highway funds. Same could happen here.

Personally I have no problem with congress appointing non-government experts to define minimum security standards for important documents. But congress is treating RealID as a security end in itself.

Re:Congress can win this very easily

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many highways are there in Maine?

That technique has been applied to various things including the legal drinking age,
and there have been states that resist and hold out for sometime (indepdendently
wealthy, have little to maintain).

Re:Congress can win this very easily

[schwit1]

It doesn't have to be highway funds. Every state has a pain point.

Re:Congress can win this very easily

[Quila]

Remember when the 55mph speed limit was not the law, but a suggestion, and all states complied? Any state that didn't go along was denied federal highway funds. Same could happen here.

This one's a bit different. The states use licenses as ID, and it's the only kind of ID that most people have. The federal government just said that it itself won't accept any ID that doesn't meet its standards. The states are free to comply or not, but their population may not be happy when the feds don't accept their state-issued ID. In that case, they can obtain a passport if they are legally here. If they aren't legally here then I don't have sympathy for them anyway.

Re:Congress can win this very easily

[Anonymous Coward]

So how come Michigan's limit is at 75 mph?

Correction...

[parasonic]

Who even calls this nullification? I consider it a flat-out rejection.

If this whole thing is true, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you, Maine.

Alrighty...

[Anonymous Coward]

without saying "papers please".

Instead, I'll say: Achtung! Geben Sie mir Ihre Papiere, schnell!

Notice that I didn't say "please" (Bitte)

talk

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they have the balls to prohibit the Feds from inforcing it within the their borders.

I for one...

[rlanctot]

welcome our crab-eating chowder overlords!

Re:I for one...

[Matteo522]

You mean chowdah!

Re:I for one...

[Dragonslicer]

And crab-eating? That should be lobster, not crab. Only in Maine can you buy lobsters from trucks on the side of the road for about $5 per pound.

New England has the smarts.

[Anonymous Coward]

It really doesn't surprise me. New England is home to a lot of the nation's smartest people. The tech industry in the region is quite significant, for instance. Take IBM, which is headquartered in Armonk, New York.

They've basically been held hostage by the central and southern states for decades now. States like Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alabama and Arkansas collect billions of dollars in federal equalization payments, with most of that money coming from the taxpayers in New England, Washington State, and the coast of California.

The people in the central and southeastern states have consistently voted into office politicians who do their best to piss all over the Constitution. It's basically a case of them not knowing better. With most people in such states not really understanding the importance of the Constitution in the first place, it rests on those more educated people in New England, Michigan, Washington State and western California to uphold that which truly makes America a great place to live.

States overturning federal mandate?

[one_red_eye]

States overturning federal mandate? OMG! When do we get to have a coup d'état?! I've had enough of these socialists trying to tell me what to do. And aren't they already using the RFIDs in passports? Didn't that turn out to be a really bad idea because any loser with a scanner could get the information?...

Re:States overturning federal mandate?

[Charcharodon]

There is already the hammer sol'n for the RFID in passports which takes care of the RFID without invalidating the passport.

The real power is in the States, it's just that most people are ignorant about government and only care about a free check from Uncle Sam, which of course Uncle Sam took out of their own pocket anyway.

Euhh

[mdsolar]

It looks like an ID, and it smells like an ID, but once you scrape all the numbers off it's still an ID. http://www.bertandi.net/mp3/thesassage.mp3
---
http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

SS

[Friar_MJK]

Yea, I already have my nationally issued I.D. card... It's called my social security number! People ask me for it all the time when I do even the most basic of purchasing. Soooo, this would solve??? There will always be ways around it no matter what you do. Remember... those "sneaky terrorists" get more resourceful all the time!

Re:SS

[Dragonslicer]

Which is actually illegal. Social Security numbers are explicitly prohibited from being used for identification purposes.

Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[bill_mcgonigle]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

If Mainers have the balls to stick this one out I shall applaud them. This should make for some good news coverage this year.

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[jshark]

can't.....resist....urge....

I grew up in Maine and New Hampshire, and hence, did a lot of travel between the two states. A lot of hiking up in the White Mountains followed by a drive back to the Portland area. You could always tell, even with your eyes closed (no, not as the driver), the *second* you hit Maine. In NH the tires went "hmmmmmmmmmmm" on the road, as soon as you hit the first millimeter of Maine "buddabuddabuddabuddaKA-BUMP<pothole>buddabuddaCRU NCH<'nother pothole>buddabuddabuddaTHUD-CHINGchingchingching<p othole and your hubcap poppping off and rolling away>..."

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[walt-sjc]

The Maine turnpike (one of the few roads that receives federal funds) is just fine. The vast majority of it has been repaved in the last 3 years during the widening project.

That said, non-freeway/tollway NH roads are a LOT better than Maine roads. When they need to be fixed, NH frequently rebuilds the road base - NH has higher standards when it comes to how roads are built. Maine just puts a 1" think skim coat of new asphalt down, sometimes grinding first. NH also has more people, and a dramatically fewer miles of roads. Maine is also a welfare state, and most money goes to social programs. NH hardly has any social programs. It's a matter of size and priorities.

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[Kadin2048]

The Maine turnpike (one of the few roads that receives federal funds) is just fine. The vast majority of it has been repaved in the last 3 years during the widening project.

Well, that's why they're going eye-to-eye with the Federal government now. They must have decided that with the new pavement, they're set for the next 25 or 30 years!

(In my defense, I used to live in Maine, loved the place, and would move back in a second if I could find gainful employment there. The "Boston-Atlanta Metro Area," as Gibson put it, doesn't suit me.)

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[haagmm]

actually all of the NEWER paving in the state of maine has involved rebuilding the road's surface, this has lead to serious time involved in stabalizing the seriously poor ground conditions that exist in this state. I dont want to know how bad its going to be next year with this winter of perminant frost heaves though ....

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[walt-sjc]

actually all of the NEWER paving in the state of maine has involved rebuilding the road's surface

Not on most the state (numbered) roads around where I am, and in the rare case when they do rebuild, it's NOTHING like the rebuilding NH does. Different standards. I see them widening roads, moving power poles further back instead of 1 foot off the pavement, but they don't seem to be going down several feet to get under the frost line like NH does to fix the underlying problems. This also doesn't address the problem of grinding, repaving, and literally 2 weeks after completion, digging 30% of it up to do utility work (with the patch being horrible.)

I've seen them patch and patch and repatch the same damn pothole 5 times during a summer, and they always do the work in the rain when they know DAMN well that any patch done in the rain won't hold. The level of incompetence is astounding.

I've lived in many different areas of the country, and I have never seen such poor planning and execution as Maine, at all levels of government, has.

Re:Resisting jokes about Maine roads...

[cayenne8]

I thought there was a /. article last year, mentioning that New Hampshire had already voted to blow off the Real ID thing. Wouldn't this make Maine the 2nd one to do it?

Great...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Norway outlaws iTunes, and Maine outlaws RealID.

Now I can't decide WHERE to move! Can sombody outlaw something wicked in a place that doesn't have winter?

Re:Great...

[networkBoy]

Damn that made my night, thanks.
2:20 and at least an hour ahead of me before I can quit :(

Re:Great...

[RiscIt]

Well if this season and last year are any indication, I can tell you from experience that Maine no longer has a winter. At least, not one that you could consider an inconvenience.

These past 2 years have been pathetic and our snow sports/ski industry is hurting quite a bit as a result.

Re:Great...

[iminplaya]

Just stick with Norway. They have fjords.

Re:Great...

[haagmm]

go outside today

this is not an excuse for the past to ABSIMIMAL winters, but its fucking COLD out there atm

Re:Great...

[spun]

I hear Hawaii just outlawed smashing kittens with sledgehamemrs. Bora Bora made it illegal to shave your balls with a weed whacker in public. In St. Croix, you are no longer allowed to call yourself a chikcen just because you've stuck feathers up your ass. It's now against the law to shit in a water fountain in Bermuda. You can't shoot nuns for sport any longer in Curacao.

There, take your pick.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy...

Move to the Conch Republic in the Florida Keys. They ceded from the United States back in the late 1980s so they can pretty much do anything they want..

I have a really cool flag from back in the day..

Re:Great...

[RiscIt]

Yeah.... too cold to ski or snowmobile and enjoy it. We can't win.

Re:Great...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And parrots... :-)

Re:Great...

[djones101]

Now I can't decide WHERE to move! Can sombody outlaw something wicked in a place that doesn't have winter? Sure, move to Florida. We have all kinds of strange laws, including one that states it is against the law to put livestock on a school bus. Guess no more cowbell for the short bus.

Drinking Age

[PAjamian]

I agree with 21 as a good drinking age, but I don't like the idea of the Federal govt enforcing that on the states, it should be up to each state to decide without pressure from the feds.

Re:Drinking Age

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Why 21 is better drinking age than 18? As it is, at least here in Finland, almost everybody have drank alcohol long ago before turning to 18. In other parts of Europe young people also drink alcohol very young, and this haven't flushed the continent under the table. What I have heard, both from European exchange students visiting US and from Americans, is that young people instead of drinking alcohol, because it's so hard to get, blow pot. So one 'bad habit' is traded to another one.

On a note, when one turns to 18, he is adult, he usually moves to own his/her place, he can vote, he can be elected and he can/has to go to a army. So why not give all the rights to 18 year old at the same time when he/she comes fully liable on his/her own life?

Re:Drinking Age

[simm1701]

Speaking as someone who was an exchange student in the US (from the UK) the average american student gets to university, goes to a party, has large (for them) amounts of beer for the first time and cann't handle it.

The average brit on the other hand has probably been drinking beer since about the age of 12 (younger if you count shandy) the amounts will have increased over the years, they have probably been really ill once on holiday and after enduring their parents laughing at them and talking very loudly the next morning they tend to have a much better idea when to stop.

I remember one party where I drank 4 frat boys under the table - what was scarey was it was sequential not parallel!! But then the beer there is in 330ml cans and only 3 or 4 percent!! Me I'm a real ale person - 6-8% and in pints (yes it comes in pints) or yards...

Re:Drinking Age

[oudzeeman]

plenty of good American beers are more than 3-4 percent (unless you live in Utah or something). most of the beers I drink are around 5, but some are 7-9% or more

Re:Drinking Age

[joshetc]

Nooo in the USA everyone underage drinks anyway. Most drink more before 21 than after 21. The law just means they get their old friend / parent / whomever to buy it for them..

Re:Drinking Age

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm

[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you linked to says that the indian economy will soon be larger than the UK's.
Population of india 1,123,000,000
Population of UK 60,536,000

I'm surprised their economy did not overtake years ago.

Re:Drinking Age

[Antimatter3009]

As an American who grew up in the Cayman Islands (where the drinking age is 18 and until recently was very lax) I have to agree with you. When I got to college in the US I didn't really feel the need to overdrink (either too much at once or too often), while a lot of people I met did. The best way to get people to not drink too much or do stupid things while drinking (ie drive) is for parents to expose them to what it's like before they get out and figure it out on their own.

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

congrats...you're a limey lush. Or a lush limey. Whatever the case, you have a nasty liver.

Re:Drinking Age

[Selivanow]

It's a culture thing. Here everyone in America is taught that drinking is bad. Very Bad. Only drunks do it. Etc, Etc.
BTW- Where I live it is legal to allow your children to drink on your own property, so long as you are not "endangering" their wellfair (it's amazing what the Dept. of Social Services will call endangering), which pretty much means don't let them get trashed.

I have never understood the 21yr drinking age anyways. Like the parent said, if you start drinking young you learn to respect it and to know your tolorance. If the drinking age was considerable lower, say 12-15, then maybe America wouldn't have so many stupid drunk 21yr olds getting in their cars completely hammered and crashing into telephone polls. Nah, we're kinda stupid that way and probably wouldn't learn that anyways.

Re:Drinking Age

[simm1701]

You mean there is such a thing as a good American beer???? You must be kidding me ;) sex in a canoe all the way!

Just joking, I freely admit the micro breweries there are rather good actualy - it was just the main stream lables that were dire.

Rock Bottom in cleveland ohio was my usual haunt, there or Fado's which had a rather good Guinness on tap (imported from dublin iirc rather than the canadian brewery)

I'm in Amsterdam right now - they really do their strong beers well here - mostly belgien, several of them trappist beers, but I'm more of an ale/bitter/stout person than a lager/pilsner drinker - but then I'm also a home brewer so its not much of an issue :)

Re:Drinking Age

[rifter]

Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm

[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

That is interesting indeed. I had been told by Indians that Gandhi was called the "nanga fakir" which they said meant "naked fakir" although the most naked he is ever depicted, unlike some ascetics, was to have his top half uncovered (basically like being shirtless, though he is usually shown wearing a type of robe). I did not know that this originated as an insult by Churchill (of all people) but it did. I guess it is similar to the New England colonists adopting the moniker "yankee" which originated as a Dutch slur lobbed at them from New Amsterdam,and the later adoption of "Yankee Doodle" as a fight song after British soldiers used it to mock those colonists in the Revolution.

It does look like it is not too late for others to get in on the act of mocking Gandhi, if even in jest.

Still, I think it is disengenuous to refer to the Indians who are "taking our jobs" as "naked fakirs." After all the reason they are able to do your job so well is partly due to the fact that in addition to the Indian appreciation for education they also have learned to appreciate certain aspects of European and American culture; you'll find that most of them are for lack of a better term very much westernized, and certainly modern. They are thoroughly Indian as they are part of the new India. Though it does often please us American IT folks to be called wizards and gurus, I am not sure how Indian IT people would feel about being called fakirs, naked or not, especially given the religious implications. I guess they can answer for themselves, unless they feel like you are trolling after all and do not deign to respond.

(I actually think that this was probably a troll after all given the username, but it was thought-provoking even if unintentionally so, and given the subject matter I felt compelled to comment anyhow).

Re:Drinking Age

[ubergenius]

That, I believe, is more of an individual action, however. I had never had a drink before age 18, and I have never been truly drunk (personal decision). I am now 23, and still don't drink heavily. I have some wine here and there, some beer, and maybe a shot or two, but never anything heavy. It's called discipline, and it is something you don't have to start drinking at age 12 to learn. It's just unfortunate that most American kids (my generation) have not learned that.

Re:Drinking Age

[Antimatter3009]

True. I'm just saying that many people don't have that sort of discipline (as you pointed out). Experience is always a good teacher. Additionally, the simple fact that they can't have it makes a lot of people want it. Giving it to them (even in limited amounts) will at least take that out of the equation. I'm not saying we should force everyone to drink underage so they know what it's like, just that raising the age only makes the problem worse.

Re:Drinking Age

[ubergenius]

Oh, I'm not arguing against lowering the drinking age at all! 21 is a ridiculous age to set the legality of consuming alcohol at, and I didn't wait until then myself (first drink, besides random sips of beer, was 18). I'm just saying you shouldn't HAVE to lower it just so people don't act like jackasses.

But, yes, it should by 18 or younger. 16 even sounds like a good age to start.

Re:Drinking Age

[Scudsucker]

You mean there is such a thing as a good American beer???? You must be kidding me ;) sex in a canoe all the way!

Heh, you better watch out for small town bars....a couple years ago I went canoeing for a week in Minnesota, and on the way out we stopped for a drink. Coors Light, Bud Light, Old Milwaukee Light...their idea of a "dark, heavy beer" was Budweiser. Frikkin close to water, indeed. My opinion of this town was quite low, until we passed the liquor store, which had better beer and was about twice the size of the town's church. :)

Re:Drinking Age

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I'm surprised their economy did not overtake years ago It was. Through the 18th century India was the largest economy in the world. Infact the GDP of UK is equal to the dividends paid by the East India Company compounded at 3% per year. Cant recall actual numbers, but it was paying 40 million pounds as dividends in the late 1700s. Each payment is worth 14.7 billion pounds today (40e06*(1.03^200)). Summed 100 years of the company rule and a 90 year rule by the Crown directly, one could argue that the entire British economy is what was stolen from India.

India developed the wealth. Got too fat. Got too fractured. Muslims came and looted for 800 years. Then the Europeans exploited them for anothe 200 years. Then Britain became proud that its 10 year olds can out drink a Mongolian and its 18year olds can act in porn movies legally and its porn stars pay income tax. So it is losing now. India is on the ascendant. Then it too will get fat. It is already fractured along caste, religion and language. It too will sink. Someone else will rise. That is the way of the world.

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in France I'd be amazed if anyone over the age of 12 had never had an alcoholic drink.

What you have to remember, ubergenius, is that after you have drunk a bottle, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.

Re:Drinking Age

[Mr. Underbridge]

plenty of good American beers are more than 3-4 percent (unless you live in Utah or something). most of the beers I drink are around 5, but some are 7-9% or more

Amen. Especially on the west coast, all the craft brews are hoppy and strong as shit. Stone Brewery is one of my favorites, and I recently polished off a 22 Ozer (about a pint and a third for you Brits), over 10% alcohol. Fantastic barley wine. Yup.

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinking age has no issue up here in Maine. All the kiddies just go over to Canada where the legal age is 19 (or 18 in Quebec :D).

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

My first alcohol was a Bud Light at 13. It really turned me off. I didn't drink again until I had a Mike's Lemonade at 20. I'm 24 now and I occasionally drink beer (primarily Sam Adams), but mostly I drink rum. Either straight, with coke, in mojitos, etc. Rum is awesome. I still don't drink often, though (usually months between drinks).

Re:Drinking Age

[HiThere]

Not too sure about that. I got drunk frequently before I turned 21. Since I turned 21, that hasn't looked appealing. Now if I choose I can go get a drink, or a bottle. Then, if I got a bottle, I killed it quickly so there wouldn't be any evidence. (Senseless, considering the kind of evidence that being drunk can leave, but that was the reasoning I remember using.)

Observation of friends and associates tends to convince me that I wasn't alone in my reaction, though I might possibly be in a minority. Certainly my reaction was towards one extreme end of the possible ways to react.

OTOH, there have been some recent studies of neural growth that lead a bit of credence to a drinking age of 21. (Well, they're hard to interpret, and the people who published them may have been grinding an axe. I.e., while the science might well be good, they may well have shaded the interpretations.)

Re:Drinking Age

[Bassman59]

Amen. Especially on the west coast, all the craft brews are hoppy and strong as shit. Stone Brewery is one of my favorites

Stone Ruination IPA is Ben Franklin's proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Even though there's no God. Doesn't matter; we still have beer!

Re:Drinking Age

[dfghjk]

"...the average american student gets to university, goes to a party, has large (for them) amounts of beer for the first time and cann't handle it."

It may be a typical experience but it's hardly "the average american student" experience.

The funny thing is you speak like drinking ability is a measure of manhood. Who cares? There's a lot to be said for being a lightweight--it doesn't cost as much to have fun. Drinking isn't the ultimate in human experiences anyway, though when you start drinking at 12 perhaps it frequently becomes so.

BTW, a frat boy is hardly the measure of drinking prowess.

Re:Drinking Age

[Myopic]

Whoa now let's not drag marijuana thru the mud here. Smoking pot ("blowing"? oh you crazy Brits) is not nearly as bad as drinking alcohol, for either society or the individual.

Re:Drinking Age

[Vr6dub]

Your liver must love you. I don't think you put forth the best argument for lowering the drinking age. My opinion...If you're old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to drink.

Re:Drinking Age

[budgenator]

The thing an 18 year old living on his/her own as a responsible adults needs to do is learn the fine art of brewing their own beer and vinting their own wines. Failing to learn these life-skills dooms a person to a life time of drinking sub-standard corporate piss-waters. Consider the three years as a no-compete period to hone your skills.

Re:Drinking Age

[falconwolf]

I agree with 21 as a good drinking age

BS. If someone can join the military and possibly get killed then they should be able to drink, without their parents' permission. And parents should be able to give their teens an alcoholic drink, even when eating dinner in a restaurant.

, but I don't like the idea of the Federal govt enforcing that on the states, it should be up to each state to decide without pressure from the feds.

Agreed, the feds shouldn't be holding state hostage over things it has no Constitutional authority over. That includes overbearing laws the courts use the interstate commerce clause to justify.

Falcon

Re:Drinking Age

[Cardcaptor_RLH85]

Truthfully members of the US Military only have to follow the local drinking laws of the State or Nation that they are stationed in. For example US Navy personnel at sea only need to be 18 to drink on ship because, there is no actual federal drinking age and the US Armed Forces have a default drinking age of 18 when there is no other territorial law to deal with.

Re:Drinking Age

[Mycroft_VIII]

Not positive, but I believe drinking at age 18 is allowed on base (assuming you are 'off duty' and do break any other rules).
    Also parents/guardians are allowed to give thier children alchoholic beverages (or else a lot of church rituals would make criminals of parents). Though I suspect if someone let thier ten year get trashed routinely they would be subject child abuse/neglect charges.

Mycroft

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember one party where I drank 4 frat boys under the table

Did you spit, or did you swallow? Or was this watersports?

what was scarey was it was sequential not parallel!!

Into bukkakke, I see!

Re:Drinking Age

[sydbarrett74]

Agreed. My father was born and raised in Peru, where they had no practical drinking age (he came to this country in 1951). From the time I was 3 or 4, he would give me sips of his beer, and allow me to drink wine and champagne at parties my parents hosted. As a result, when my buddies in high school purloined beer and booze and thought it was a huge deal, I would retort, 'BFD -- I've been drinking in moderation since childhood.' My father's philosophy is that he would rather I drink under his watchful eye than sneak pulls from a flask behind a building with my friends. And it worked -- at 32, I can literally count on both hands the number of times I've been drunk to the point of wretching. Some states are wise -- they allow minors to consume alcohol if accompanied by a parent or guardian (Virginia being one of those states). Americans like to think we are the biggest party animals in the world, but collectively we're a bunch of schizophrenic, perverted, prudish pussies....

Re:Drinking Age

[Anonymous Coward]

whats worse, is in boston, theres a 11pm curfew at nightclubs if youre under 21....

Re:Drinking Age

[penthouseplayah]

I've been in the US, and the enforcement of the drinking age of 21 is the most stupid thing I've ever met.

The drinking age was raised all over US by way of federal highway money during the early 80'ties. In the small college town I lived in, the police was spending more time breaking up parties just because than stopping every single car on the street. Plenty of people drove (sneaked) home drunk. If there was a 30% chance of getting caught no matter how good you were driving, I think the problem would have been solved, but NO. We can't have all these young people having fun.

Re:Drinking Age

[laa]

Oh yeah, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning :)

No seriously, that's the way it works in most places, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Having your parents teach you how to properly use alcohol is way better being taught by older buddies...

Well hurry up and get it.

[k1e0x]

The Income Tax, the Social Security Tax, and the Medical Tax are not legal because they are a direct tax that is not a apportioned to the population as the constitution clearly states.

The constitution that is our highest law, has certain rules that regard taxes. This is because the founding fathers wanted our government to be limited in its ability to collect taxes. They believed the power was with the people, the states, and lastly the federal government.

The Apportionment Rule. (Article 1, Section 2 and 9)
".. Direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States .."

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

The Uniform Rule. (Article 1, Section 8)
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So.. its quite clear the framers did not want an Income Tax (including income taxes by other names for "social well fair") or the large government that would result with it. This is important because this type of government does not reflect the type we have very much at all. The idea is radically different and.. honestly.. the Fed needs to go.. its way over due for it.

--

Since the Constitution does not state that we require ID at all. (and in fact seems to support the fact that we do not.) That right is reserved by the people and the states and the 10th Amendment enforces that.

10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

The Federal government can not force states to ratify REAL_ID. They also can not force the people to accept it. They do not have this power, they have never had this power. However it wont be the first time that the federal government has forced something upon the people.. case in point.. Who here really thinks the Income Tax is a great idea?

The most convenient form of id

[barakn]

...would be some sort of RFID chip injected under the skin, or maybe something lower tech.. perhaps a serial number tattooed on the arm. We should make one of those standard.

Functional Equivalence

[wtansill]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

"Nice little road system you got here -- be a shame to see it deteriorate!" is functionally equivalent to "Nice little candy store you got here -- be a shame to see something bad happen to it!" Which one is the Mafia, and which is the government?

Re:Functional Equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

"Nice little road system you got here -- be a shame to see it deteriorate!" is functionally equivalent to "Nice little candy store you got here -- be a shame to see something bad happen to it!" Which one is the Mafia, and which is the government?

Old protection racket scheme, you pay for protection or you will need it. The US tested this and found it to work "nicely" for the IRS. If you don't pay them what they decide you owe they will come take it from you. Where did the Mafia get it? Probably from some government or another, perhaps the Vatican. Plenty enough documentation in history that the church sold you salvation, from them. Interestingly enough governmental oppression via taxation and/or church control is what brought most of our predecessors to the US. UK tried to control and milk the colonies via taxation etc..

Originally the federal government was supposed to be funded only by the graces of the states and tariffs and the states' governments controlled who went to the senate and thus their senators would protect the sovereignity of the states from popular demands and federal power seizures. Changing senators to popular elections shifted the balance of power, unfortunately it has taken power not just from the states but from the people. Of course you can also argue that the people have abdicated their power and/or that corporations have bought it away from them. Both in many ways are all too true, just like the public school system was set up to train you to accept and tolerate this kind of behaviour from the government and from corporations. I for one am convinced the major reason entrepreneurship is more prevalent among people who move into the US then those who grew up in within the public school system.

Only way I can see this changing is for those who are able to re-educate themselves to do so and try to influence others to do the same. We need to establish more entrepreneurship, including the family farms and we could use some truth in the newspapers etc too. We need to either retake our political parties or form new ones, from the grass roots level up. Got an elected official on the take? Vote him/her out irregardless if its legal contributions to them or not if they selling their vote they are selling their vote and they need to be voted down. Above all else we need to remind people that we should not rely on the government for everything. The more we ask of government the more power we have to give them to do it and eventually they start to claim they already have the power to add more on.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Common Sense Thomas Paine

I would suggest everyone re-read Common S

Re:Functional Equivalence

[manifoldronin]

"Nice little road system you got here -- be a shame to see it deteriorate!" is functionally equivalent to "Nice little candy store you got here -- be a shame to see something bad happen to it!" Which one is the Mafia, and which is the government?

Ow, come on, I don't like the highway fund holdup scam either, but you are overstretching it. The mafia would actually proactively come and torch your place if you don't pay up, whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops and destroy the highways. They are just not going to pay for maintaining it - which is bad in the political sense of an overly enpowered central government, but nothing wrong in the (common) sense of "I'm not paying you if you don't do it my way".

Washington State

[Mr 44]

One of the cooler examples of legislative balls is buried in section 26.23.150 of the Revised Code of Washington:

  Finding -- Implementation -- Intent -- 1999 c 138: "The legislature declares that enhancing the effectiveness of child support enforcement is an essential public policy goal, but that the use of social security numbers on licenses is an inappropriate, intrusive, and offensive method of improving enforceability. The legislature also finds that, in 1997, the federal government threatened sanction by withholding of funds for programs for poor families if states did not comply with a federal requirement to use social security numbers on licenses, thus causing the legislature to enact such provisions under protest. Since that time, the federal government has delayed implementation of the noncommercial driver's license requirement until October 1, 2000.

          The legislature will require compliance with federal law in this matter only at such time and in the event that the federal government actually implements the requirement of using social security numbers on noncommercial driver's license applications. Therefore, the legislature intends to delay the implementation of provisions enacted in 1998 requiring social security numbers be recorded on all applications for noncommercial driver's licenses." [1999 c 138 1.]

Although compared to Maine, WA state is still pretty weak... They totally caved in on RealID.

No, Federalism.

[Elemenope]

You're mixing up ancient (and long dead) political parties' titles with a form of government. Federalism is a form of government where governing duties are divvied up between two different layers of government, one national, and one more local. Maine saying 'hey, IDs are our job not the feds' is a blow for, not against, Federalism as it lives in the US Constitution (10th amendment, most specifically). The anti-federalists were, IIRC, a political movement opposing the ratification of the US Constitution (and the federation that would be created by that document); they preferred the pre-existing Confederation, which was a much looser union with few if any national gov't duties to speak of.

All I can say is "About Time!"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time that SOMEONE stood up for the rights of Americans. No one wanted this "law" in the first place, it got shot down in flames whenever it came up for a vote in congress. It was so reviled that the only way the sponsers could get it passed was to "attach" it to a "MUST PASS" military spending measure.

I just dont get it !

[Mr Europe]

To me, as an European, the whole fight against Real-Id seems absurd. Without a national id-system I would be really worried that any neighbor guy could act as me ! The only problem I find in the Real-Id law is that the cards might be remote readable. And that could be solved with a metallic box for the card. Not that handiest idea, but the security brought with reliable identification is much more important. Ok there's another thing too: "The card may include 'a common machine-readable technology' that Homeland Security will decide on". Sounds too vague. The content should be decided beforehand.

I'm not now talking about president Bush's ridiculous terrorist fíght. I'm talking about someone else using bank account or getting my private medical information. Or opening a bank account under my name and getting a big loan.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, as an European, the whole fight for Real-Id seems absurd. With a national id-system I would be really worried that any neighbor guy could act as me! The least important problem I find in the Real-Id law is that the cards might be remote readable. And that could be cracked with a metallic box for the card. Not that handiest idea, but the security for the government brought with un-reliable identification is much more important to the government. Ok there's another thing too: "The card may include 'a common machine-readable technology' that Homeland Security will decide on based on which company the head of homeland security has shares in". Sounds too good to be true for the bureaucrats. The content should be decided beforehand and should include a picture of your wifes muff.

I'm not now talking about Dictator Bush's ridiculous terrorist support campaign. I'm talking about someone else using bank account or getting my private medical information using a copy of my card. Or opening a bank account under my name and getting a big loan using a clone of my card so they must be me? Government please tell me who I am and wipe my arse while you're at it? Who wipes the governments arse? Heil Bush!

Re:I just dont get it !

[rucs_hack]

Were non terror related reason the cause, perhaps people might be less against it. The problem with this is it by definition dictates that anyone without an ID is immediatelly suspect, and would potentially be subject to arrest or questioning. That's the way these things have *always* gone in the past. That the Bush administration deny this will occur is beside the point, that is what these things are for, to monitor the movements and identity of the entire population, you can't gloss over the fact that this implies there are serious consequences for refusal to obey if it's required. Can they, in all truth, state that there will *never* be a US government that will abuse it?

Not for nothing does the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' exist.

Also, a large number of US citizens are there because their ancestors fled nations that mandated total control of the public, or segments of the population. That kind of history doesn't get forgotten easily. I'm in the UK, but my family are here because of just such an exodus. I personally intend to refuse to take part in any ID scheme here as well.

Ok, so this may be over-reacting, but the fact is, this is a step too far for many people. National ID of this kind has scary implications, no matter the 'sensibleness' of the implementation.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, as an European, the whole fight against Real-Id seems absurd

To me, also a European, I find the European supine attitide to the
state (the same state, incidentally, which gave us Mussolini and
Hitler) and thair lack of regard for their personal privacy
absolutely terrifying.

PAPERS PLEASE.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Magada]

As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government and have very little (if any) notion of how free (in the real sense) US citizens were a mere 50 years ago, and still are, despite repeated encroachments upon their rights by successive abusive far-right governments. There are a couple good technical solutions to the problem of authentication, but a unique state-mandated uniform ID is not one of them. For the unique id is a single point of failure, and it's very, very weak.

What ties you to your precious govt-issued ID, pray tell? Does it store (in a secure manner) data about something you are, like a DNA sample or a fingerprint? Or perhaps something you and only you know, like a passphrase? Both, maybe? Not likely. All it does is constitute a a search key for data mining and no, the photo don't cut it - they're trivially easy to fake and biometrics don't really work yet.

Use your head a bit, mmkay?

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

Having to constantly show your ID card to various
petty officials of the state can be depressing. Oh,
that doesn't happen to you? Let me guess -- you're
white, right?

I spend a lot of time in Paris and I see exactly what
ID card are for -- the are tools for bullies and
especially racist cops. Funny you should be so attached
to them.

And please don't speak for Europeans like that -- we're
not all state-loving arseholes you know.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Scarblac]

As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government

Legal drugs, legal prostitution, legal abortion, legal porn, legal drinking age of 16 (and not much policing below it)... real oppressive and nanny-like, yeah. Fix yourselves first.

Re:I just dont get it !

[mrscorpio]

Don't forget the socialist healthcare, welfare middle class, and 50% income tax.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Jack Sombra]

"As a European, you've probably grown up under an oppressive nanny-type government and have very little (if any) notion of how free (in the real sense) US citizens were a mere 50 years ago, and still are,"
Yes 50 years ago America really was the "Land of the Free and opportunity" but these days it is rapidly moveing up the list of oppressive western democracies. Not only due the actions of the government but also due to it's legal system, especially the civil litigation section.

Few years ago read a futuristic fiction story where people were trying to sneak across the mexican and canadian borders, not to get into the US but rather to get out of the US so they could be free and have a opportunity at a good life. Looking at how fast things have detiriorated in the US over the last 50 years if things continue in same direction and at same speed in about 50 more years fiction could very well become reality

Re:I just dont get it !

[Mr Europe]

I thought that a situation where citizens can't trust their government is a problem S-American, African or Asian dictatorships. I may have been wrong.

But shouldn't there be a reliable way to prove one's identity ? You don't accept a central registry of DNA of finger prints ?

Re:I just dont get it !

[rucs_hack]

Not when the reason is 'National Security' because of 'Threats to the Nation'. That's the start of different classes of freedom, and that's the same as no freedom at all.

Anyway, I have a normal passport that I've used for the last thiry odd years, and I am not required to use it unless I want to to travel.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Dragonslicer]

I'm with you on this one. I don't have a problem with the basic concept of "all states must use this basic format for their driver's licenses." It would certainly be a lot better than dealing with 50 (actually, more, since many states, such as Maine, are or recently finished the transition to new styles) completely different styles and trying to remember what they all are. The real problem will be what they make the standard. "All states must put their state seal in the top left corner, have the person's name, address, and license number, in that order, below the state seal, and have the photograph on the right side of the license" would be fine. "All licenses must have an RFID chip that can be read from 10 feet away and be registered with the federal government to be stored in a database" would be not so fine.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Cro Magnon]

I thought that a situation where citizens can't trust their government is a problem S-American, African or Asian dictatorships. I may have been wrong.

Yup, you're wrong. It wasn't that long ago that European dicators abused and massacred their own citizens. There's also concerns that a certain N-American country might be heading towards dictatorship. Evil dictatorships can spring up anywhere, even in nations that used to be democratic.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Scudsucker]

Don't forget the socialist healthcare, welfare middle class, and 50% income tax.

Yeah, it would be nice if we had those things too, instead of only caring about much money the top 1% can rake in. If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as CEO pay over the last couple of decades, it would be fifty bucks an hour.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Magada]

Erm. I'm not an USian, can't fix what is wrong with that great country. As for Europe, legal drinking age is 18 in many places, prostitution is illegal but "tolerated" (gov't demands income taxes but doesn't recognize the occupation as legal) in yet many more, straight porn isn't a crime but some forms of political expression may be. Seatbelts are mandatory almost all over the place. So is health insurance. Gimme a break.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

You're very wrong. In large part due to the two-party system (where they each aren't that different) and electoral college, our politicians and us are in different universes. We indeed cannot trust our government. They have and still do act counter to our interests, and use any strength they are allowed against the general citizen. With our current CinC, it just isn't going well. The DMCA is a good example now, but previously, check out Manson. It's actually much more fascinating than the propaganda makes it out to be.

DEA: Nixon's paranoia..
Drinking age, smoking age, illegal prostitution, etc.: Fundies fearing as usual, wanting to press their morals on the rest of the population.

We are not a unified population, and have non-class social divides over these kinds of issues. However, us here have grown up with it, so we get by even when we can't have a conversation with someone else in the same building who's one of the brainwashed. That's just how it is here, and we're used to it.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not as if Americans pay any less tax. Add up your sales, personal property, real estate, motor vehicle, etc. taxes to your income tax and you'll realize you pay 50% anyway. But you don't get the health care and social safety net.

Re:I just dont get it !

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a national id-system I would be really worried that any neighbor guy could act as me !

I wouldn't be worried if I wasn't forced to had an identity. But social security and the credit system give you one whether you want it or not. Identity theft wouldn't be possible without identity, but misuse of social security numbers and the very existence of the credit system force one on you and leave you vulnerable to a problem that's not even your fault.

Re:I just dont get it !

[mrscorpio]

Uh, no. You're forgetting that you have higher income tax AND VAT, which is higher than our sales tax.

Re:I just dont get it !

[SonicSpike]

Well, first off, in the US it's illegal (unconstitutional). Congress is not authorized by the states in the Constitution to institute a national ID.

Secondly, good citizens are always distrustful of their government, whether liberal, conservative, green, libertarian, Republican, Democrat etc. This country was founded and designed to be free with all rights inherent with the people (or the states). Liberty was gained by the US founding fathers from the British crown, and has been passed down in the form of a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives (legislators). To give liberty and freedom away again is to violate everything the US was founded upon.

Expect an army on your door-step...

[Anonymous Coward]

soon to 'liberate' you.

Drivers licenses are not for identification

[tlambert]

Drivers licenses are not for identification, they are used for control and information gathering.

That should be reason enough for you. If you don't believe me, have your driver's license stolen (mine was), and try to get the stolen license invalidated. It's practicaly impossible to do, even if you have a police report in hand.

The problem is that everywhere a driver's license is used does not phone home to verify that the driver's license is in fact not stolen; so anyone who looks roughly like the picture on the front of the license (a biometric identification device intended to prevent fradulent use, BTW) can use the license to identify themselves as you, and there's no cross-check that they are in fact NOT you. This is roughly the same as if you did not do a reverse DNS check followed by a forward lookup on a contacting IP address to verify that the machine contacting you is in the domain which the claim to be from. Your SMTP server might as well be an open relay.

My personal experience ended up with them doing effectively nothing but charging me $25. I suggested that they place a sign on their desk that said "This Side Towards Enemy", since their processes were clearly not directed at the criminal(s) who stole my license.

-

As to privacy, when they swipe your license in a reader to allow you to purchase cold medicine in most large drugstore chains these days, they are in technical violation of the Patriot Act Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(A)(iv)(I)(bb), in not taking a written signature for the log book, and they are in violation of HIPPA.

The HIPPA violation is collection of more information than they are authorized by law to collect (name, address, and amount purchased); instead, they collect the entire three stripes of the license, which includes all the information in the AMMVA mandated standard ANSI D320-2003, which also includes type of license, whether or not you are a senior citizen, your age, sex, birthdate, identification number, expiration date of the license, endorsements, hair color, eye color, height, weight, restictions (handicaps relevent to driving), and the issue date.

The HIPPA violation, depending on whether the information is controlled according to HIPPA standards, could also constitute a second violation of the Patriot Act, Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(C)(ii): "prohibit accessing, using, or sharing information in the logbooks for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with this title or to facilitate a product recall to protect public health and safety" -- in other words, they better be damn careful about their information systems attached to their cach registers.

Think about that the next time someone asks you about a national ID card, or you have a cold and consider buying Sudafed.

-- Terry

Re:Drivers licenses are not for identification

[alienmole]

Re the Sudafed-buying thing, my g/f told me that recently when buying Sudafed at CVS (in the NY metro area), she was not required to show ID; whereas at Target, she was. Thanks for the HIPAA information, now I'm going to go hassle Target about it just on principle.

Re:Drivers licenses are not for identification

[beakerMeep]

This is roughly the same as if you did not do a reverse DNS check followed by a forward lookup on a contacting IP address to verify that the machine contacting you is in the domain which the claim to be from. Your SMTP server might as well be an open relay. might want to leave that part out when you explain this to regular people ;)

Re:Drivers licenses are not for identification

[adolf]

This, my friends, is why it might a good idea to demagnetize or otherwise damage the stripe on your license.

You don't need a bulk eraser or a degaussing coil or any of those things.

Just wipe a neodymium magnet across the magstripe a few times in random directions and with random polarity, and you're done. It's probably not completely erased, but the data will be so hosed that it won't be readable anyway.

Such magnets can be had cheaply from nearly any geek-oriented electronics surplus house, or scavenged from the head actuator of any modern-ish hard drive.

It's quick and easy, and greatly reduces the automatic information-gathering potential of store clerks, bouncers, and (apparently) pharmacists, none of whom have any business knowing what restrictions are on my driver's license.

Not that I would personally ever indulge in any such intentional destruction, of course.

Re:Drivers licenses are not for identification

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is completely ignoring the point:
  why the fuck is cough medicine a controlled substance?

Hemp

[Anonymous Coward]

A further crisis for Hemp arose in America during the 1930's due to propaganda created by companies with vested interest from the new petroleum based synthetic textile companies and the large and powerful newspaper / lumber barons who saw Hemp as the biggest threat to their businesses (they created the confusion between Cannabis Indica (marijuana) and Cannabis Sativa (Hemp).

The Marihuana Act was passed to get rid of hemp not marijuana.

Hemp fiber has been discovered in archeological sights all over the world. One of the oldest archaeological relics in existence is a piece of hemp cloth from the Mesopotamia area. The printing of the first book, Dharani, a collection of prayers from ancient China was made entirely from hemp. Guttenburg's bible was printed on hemp, as were many other major printings of the bible. Artists during the Renaissance painted on hemp canvases. The ships Columbus used for his 1492 expedition were fitted with hemp sails and riggings, as was the Mayflower. The first currency of the Americas was printed on hemp. The drafts of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper, and Washington and Jefferson were both hemp farmers, Jefferson even stating that "Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country". Many of the first American flags were sown from hemp cloth. Henry Ford built and powered a car with hemp. Americans were encouraged to grow hemp to support both the WWI and WWII war efforts, known as the "Hemp for Victory" campaign.

http://www.earthfirst.org/hemp.htm

YES!

[crhylove]

Hell yeah! That fully kicks ass! Power to the people of Maine!

rhY

Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain?

[master_p]

Someone care to explain why a national ID card is bad? here in Europe many countries have national IDs but that is not the cause of the slow elimination of human rights.

I would prefer to have one digital pad which contained all my personal information, including money and tax information, so I do not have to carry a cash card, credit card, health card, library card, bus & metro card and money with me all the time. Such a card would also make bureaucracy far less, because for any affair with the state I wouldn't have to gather lots of papers about my origin, my taxes and my bills. With such a device, I would be able to complete my affairs with the state from the comfort of my house, avoiding queues and frustration.

As for security, the pad should be encrypted and unusable without me providing a key, a password and a one time passcode for each action. The password would be used to enable the key, the key would be used to decrypt the data while the passcode could be used to enable the action through a callback via my mobile phone. The bad guys could stole the pad, but if they don't have the key, the pad would be useless. They could steal the key, but if they don't know the password to activate the key, the pad would be, again, useless. And even if they manage to get the password, they wouldn't have the passcode to do the withdrawal.

Georgia and many others states

[Shivetya]

already have legislation either pending or introduced into their current sessions that will effectively nix this tripe.

Yet I would not rely on a Democrat controlled Congress to rid us of it, if anything they will morph it and we will be stuck again

English as a Language of Law

[Danathar]

All the twisty wisty arguments below by people about what the Constitution means or does not mean is a PERFECT example of why using English for writing LAW is just plain stupid.

The Ambiguity in english allows 3 different people to interpret the same clause 8 different ways and ALL OF THEM ARE RIGHT depending on the time of day...

Although not perfect if the constitution were written in Latin things would be easier.

I have the feeling though that if the founding fathers were brought forward in a time machine, given a summary of history of the planet since they kicked the bucket and then took a look at the "liberty" that congress/prez/Supreme Court has taken with the constitution they would be horrified.

Is your card needed

[Anonymous Coward]

to go from town to town? That is the equivalent of moving state to state in the US.

is it needed to get on a plane? Or is it your passport.

is it needed to get on an internal flight?

Unfortunately

[Flying pig]

Many of the places that have summer all year round have very high crime rates. I think there is a truth hiding here. In cold countries people tend to be more repressed and the legal system is less needed. In hot countries they are much less repressed and the laws become more repressive to try and keep things under control.

Also in cold climates people spend more time indoors thinking about things. In hot climates you need a big enough GNP to afford air conditioning.

This may or may not explain why England is often (as it is currently) ruled by the Scots, and when they get down South to London they spend all their time passing laws against English behaviour.

Re:Unfortunately

[benzapp]

That is ridiculous. England is filled with crime because it is barely English, and within 50 years, it will be minority English.

Cold countries typically have low crime rates because the lease intelligent races are averse to cold. It is the cold climate that allowed the superior intelligence of several groups such as Europeans and Orientals to evolve. Living in a warm climate involves minimal intelligence or restraint. Africans, "Hispanics" and many Southeast asian groups fall into this category.

Whereas in cold climates, self control is mandatory otherwise you will never get through a winter... in warm climates, food and opportunity is abundant everywhere. There is no need for long term planning, as long as your population level is small.

In New York City, blacks commit the lions share of crime, far disproportionate to their population. You know what trend is always unnoticeable? January and February have the lowest crime rates. They are tropical animals. They don't like the cold.

Re:Unfortunately

[j-pimp]

In New York City, blacks commit the lions share of crime, far disproportionate to their population. You know what trend is always unnoticeable? January and February have the lowest crime rates. They are tropical animals. They don't like the cold.

Here are my issue's I see with your agrument. Civil servants move out of the city and keep their residency there due to requirements for their job. A NYPD cop is not allowed to live in New Jersey. The poor on the other hand, tend to migrate. When they come to the city they tend not to get a state ID because why pay for something with no benifit. My point is that NYC is blacker than most people think.

Also could you show me these crime rate numbers and population numbers? Are you using census data. Are you adjusting census data for any assumed corrections like the fact that illegeals tend to not fill out census forms? How does the drop in crime in January and Febuary break down by race? Maybe even the smart white people get to a point where the temperature is too cold.

Look, plenty of people have made the race and climate arguments before you. However, unless your going to cite and defend or attach things like Flynn Effect, you're going to sound like a bigot.

Re:Unfortunately

[iminplaya]

All right! Daniel Carver posting on Shashdot. "Wake up, Waaht Peeple." Looks like I'm not the only one getting nailed by mods with no sense of humor. Gotta find a way to weed 'em out.

Re:Unfortunately

[legojenn]

hahaha...that's funny. You are joking....aren't you? Call me crazy, but I am sure that a bigger reason for more crime in warmer areas is that there are more people. With more people there is more anonymity. That's why cities tend to have higher crime rates than small towns. You combine that with poverty and discrimination (real or perceived), you get trouble.

Re:Unfortunately

[Valdrax]

I'm sorry, but that's both the most stridently racist and ridiculous nonsense and the worst abuse of statistical correlation to imply causality I've seen on Slashdot in a long ages, and I cannot believe that some fellow asshat modded it up.

Re:Unfortunately

[iminplaya]

(Score:0, Troll)

Ay! Pégame! Pégame duro mamasita pero no me dejes!

Re:Unfortunately

[smoker2]

Prick !

Re:Unfortunately

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

As opposed to the crime-free wonderland we lived in, before the Pakis and other wogs started clogging the high street, eh wot?

Britons don't commit crimes. But who nicked my wallet in Wapping?

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put. Now I understand why people in cold countries go out of their countries to commit crimes by occupying hot countries and subjugating them?

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Man! (Should be)Score:5 Funny, and everybody here tripping over themsleves in righteous indignation. You definitely got the money shot. Good show! Of course we gotta give kudos to the "insightful" mod for raising the temperature a bit.

It isn't?

[TheConfusedOne]

Gee, I wonder who it was who issued me that passport then?

In this case, the Federal government is NOT in fact issuing ID's (driver licenses in this case) but they have come up with an idea and are using their current federal funding as a method of "encouraging" states to adopt those ideas.

In the case of a DL it becomes more complicated because it is used across state boundaries and is also one of the accepted forms of identification for air travel. That would probably allow the Federal government to further stretch the commerce clause to cover it as well but they didn't decide to go that route.

I'm pretty sure that the federal approach of using the threat of cutting off funding to get desired results has been upheld many times. Most recent would be cases related to the Solomon Ammendment.

Re:It isn't?

[aaronl]

The Constitution does not explicitly allow the Federal to issue passports, either. However, the purpose of such a document is more easily understood to be necessarily independant of any one State, and necessary for the security of the Nation. Also, many citizens are never issued a passport, since it is not required for any government service.

A DL is accepted across state lines because of reciprocal state agreement. Not all states accept out of state licenses for all things. For example, MA did not accept out of state DL as proof of age for liquor purchase for a long time. FWIW, the "power of the purse" is one of the many reasons why the Federal was never supposed to have a revenue source such as income tax: it let them gain undue power over the States and citizens. You can look fairly square at 1913 as the cause (amendments 16, 17).

Re:It isn't?

[TheConfusedOne]

The point about the passport is that there is a compelling role of the federal government in issuing identifications. There's also that pesky social security number though you'll probably argue that that's just to support the revenue source thing (I'm curious as to how you think the government could provide for the general welfare and other stuff without money though...)

As for reciprocal state agreements that's under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause rather than something that is negotiated amongst individual states.

Re:It isn't?

[aaronl]

The entirety of Social Security is of dubious legality, but that's not here nor there. Compelled participation in a retirement program doesn't interest me, and I would choose to opt out of SS if I were both able to and ready to go back to private sector employement. My current job allows me to pay into a pension rather than SS. It is still not voluntary, but at least is better than the Federal way. I would rather see retirement be a completely private-sector and voluntary choice, but barring that, it is more appropriate at the State level.

I don't think the Federal should have no budget; I see considerable need for there to be a Federal government. We used to operate that level through excise and tariff. This kept it to a reasonable size, and prevented it from trampling State powers, as well as individual rights. It also allowed the States to be very different from each other, which is better for our freedoms. A combination of constant loans (the endless printing of fiat currency) and the ability to take as much of the GDP as desired has allowed the Federal to remove nearly all authority from the States and become much more powerful than ever intended.

Re:It isn't?

[craigob]

(I'm curious as to how you think the government could provide for the general welfare and other stuff without money though...)

The Federal government was funded by tariff and excise taxes before 1913. If the government stuck to it's constitutional functions outlined in Article 1 Section 8, and refrained from encroaching in other areas, the revenue from tariff's alone would be more than adequate to finance the government.

Money

[Mark_MF-WN]

If the states don't get their highway money, can they stop the feds from getting their income tax money?

This is an incredibly stupid way to run a government. If you have a multilevel administration, each level should be able to count on its funding. States/provinces/cities/whatever should KNOW that they'll have their allotted funding, PERIOD. If the feds feel that their law is SO important that they will override the ability of the state/province/city/whatever, the alternative should be having the leader of that subordinate body arrested and shot. IE: if Maine doesn't want the mandate ID cards, the governor of Maine gets a bullet to the head in a small dark cell somewhere in Washington DC, and gets replaced with someone who knows their place.

If the law isn't important enough to murder the governor and state legislature over, it's not important enough for the feds to fuck with at all. At least in the Republican system ... I suppose if the US were to revert to being a constitutional monarchy or something, it would be a different case entirely.

Re:Money

[dhasenan]

For quite a while, the federal government charged each state a per capita tax. Now it's a direct income tax, due to the sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

On the other hand, if Maine determines it's cheaper to maintain its own roads than to go with RealID, there's a few thousand other regulations it can ignore.

Both Ways

[Mark_MF-WN]

It's funny ... other Canadians I know who have visited the UK come back with most, if not all, of the following:

• A leprachaun-accent (I'm totally not kidding, I swear you've NEVER heard ANYTHING like it).
• A taste for botox taken orally (aka: British pub food...)
• A godlike alcohol-tolerance.

In any case, Britain really does have some kind of a very different culture regarding alcohol. And that's speaking as a Canadian, a citizen of a country that's already pretty serious about its boozing (there are few things we love more than watching a visiting American tourist drink four Canadian beers and start puking their guts out ... other than watching them weep when they discover how shitty the conversion rate from the US dollar is these days...)

Re:Both Ways

[Digz]

Egads, I've been that American.. :)

Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee lad of 18, a couple friends of mine had met some ladies from Canada on a MUSE (yeah, it was the days of yore). Naturally, we scheduled a road trip to Toronto to physically meet them. We arrived at the hotel, they showed up with some Molson XXX and neglected to mention that its alcohol content was twice what we were used to. Being the young strapping college lad that I was, I immediately embarked on a mission to down four as quickly as I could (i.e., in about 10 minutes).

Half an hour later I was in the bathroom trying to conceal the sounds of my sudden alcohol content revelation.

About 2 in the morning, one of my buddies starts shaking me awake. "I think I'm gonna be... BLARGH!!" All over my shirt.

I learned my lesson, though, and was much better prepared for my next trip. ;) (The first night of that trip consisted of 38 draft Labatt Blues, a shared 16 pack of Molson from the beer store, and two shared pitchers of something I don't remember anymore at another bar).

Re:Both Ways

[Some_Llama]

"other than watching them weep when they discover how shitty the conversion rate from the US dollar is these days..."

Yah can we do something about this please, your ruining the lives of many a good comedian (and the ability to rib my Canadian friends!)

Re:Both Ways

[hswerdfe]

you are obviously not from the east coast.

Dirigo

[oudzeeman]

Maine's motto is Dirogo, or "I lead". It's good to see my government living up to this once in a while.

By the way, in 1839 the Governor of Maine decared war on England over a boundary dispute with New Brunswick. This was the only time a state has decared war on a foreign power. The conflict was settled before any blood was shed.

Re:Dirigo

[Myopic]

I don't know the history of that, which sounds interesting, but I do know that the legal province to declare and wage war is exclusive to the federal government. So what I'm saying is they didn't declare war so much as they "declared war", with the little fingerquotes there.

Specifically, the Constitution gives the right to declare war to the feds; and goes on to specify that no state shall engage in war. So, the Constitution implicitly limits a state's preogative to declare war, and explicitly limits their prerogative to engage in war.

Re:Dirigo

[Anonymous Coward]

I am from Maine and I love my state. We're both conservative and liberal at the same time, we care about our environment, and we care about people. I am very pleased that we're flatly denying this requirement and that true to our motto, we're leading the country in this matter. This requirement is but one piece of the larger and vastly more ambitious plan to revoke even more of our constitutional rights.

Much like what is currently being shown in episodes of 24, the current administration has factions within it that would like to remove liberties and persecute millions of innocent Americans. Unlike what's being shown in 24, the real threat to our country is our current administrative ineptness in international relations and our failure to execute on a sustainable national energy policy.

We are a smart and ambitious people. Let's devote our best and brightest to development of clean and limitless energy technologies like fusion. With such a development, the world will have limitless power and we will no longer need to fight for control of ever dwindling fossil fuel resources. When that fighting stops, so will terror attacks, international hostility and the removal of our constitutional rights on those basis. I am proud that Maine is fighting a symptom of this issue and I hope that we will all fight the cause.

The answer lies among us and the passion that lies in the heart of our people can solve this problem forever. Let's start today!

People dont care for privacy. Really!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is slashdot. So most people are mouthing off against the ID cards and intrusive govt, lack of privacy and States' rights and all that. Step in to the real world, you will find people who:

1. Frequent shopper cards from grocery stores so that they get 25cents off a loaf of bread. In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.

2. Use credit cards even after they send them a year end profile of expenses, making it a no secret how much data they collect and retain

3. are least bothered by the extensive data collection by their banks and their "partners" who pelt them with "new and exciting products".

Come on guys. The private sector is a bigger threat to your privacy and well being than US Govt is. You have some semblance of control over US govt, whereas you have none over the private sector. The interests of US Govt coincides with the interests of people lot more than the interests of private sector overlapping the interests of people.

But if you want mod points and build your karma, you have to blast the govt.

Re:People dont care for privacy. Really!

[ericrost]

FYI, there's a really easy way to not be tracked by shopper cards. Get the card, don't fill out the form. Sure they know what "a shopper" is doing. But they don't have your info. And there are FAR better reasons to not use credit cards than privacy. Like that fact that very few of us actually own our lives any more. Car, house, any major purchase... how many things do you own?

Re:People dont care for privacy. Really!

[Politburo]

In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.

That's illegal under HIPAA.

Re:People dont care for privacy. Really!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Frequent shopper cards from grocery stores so that they get 25cents off a loaf of bread. In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.

    Sure, but Albertsons isn't going to run that data through a system to check if you should be allowed to wander freely or be kept locked up. On the other hand, determining who should be incarcerated is the argument in -support- of RealID.
    In case you don't see why that's a bad thing, bear in mind that the correct response to "If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to fear?" is "I fear that you are using a poor algorithm."

Re:People dont care for privacy. Really!

[ostawookiee]

People put down their real contact information on the applications for grocery buyer cards? Dumbasses.

Re:People dont care for privacy. Really!

[lysse]

I can opt out of the private sector. If I don't want a loyalty card, I don't have to get one. If I don't want a credit card, I can do without. If I don't want my bank knowing where I'm spending I can make a point of always using ATMs. But last I checked, there's no way of opting out from beneath my country's government.

That's why I don't want them stealing my privacy. It's my choice how much of it I sacrifice and where, not theirs; even if I want to post every detail of my life to a LiveJournal, that's my choice - it still doesn't give anyone the right to take it from me by force.

You wouldn't say that it's OK to rape someone who sleeps around, so why on earth would you advocate the same line of reasoning where privacy is concerned?

National ID and States Rights and Privacy

[thorkyl]

The National ID removes the states rights to govern its own people.
1. The State no longer declares and controls drivers licenses
2. The State no longer sees the revenue for the license
3. The Fed controls who gets a drivers license
4. The fed knows where you are at all times?
        Sounds like the UK faces/id system
5. The fed is attempting to do the same thing with animals
        See NAIS

6. I will nuke my National ID card then wait for the fine then sue for a faulty card

----
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Mod parent -5, really fucking stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes. And that would be why? Because of state's sloppy requirements allowed them to. Hmm. Make the requirements more rigid and uniform and you reduce the problem.

You unbelievable dipshit.

The reason why the 9/11 hijackers had legal IDs is because THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THEM! Each one was in the US legally, and each one legally obtained ID, using his own name. ID ensures nothing except a person's identity.

Having law enforcement figure out that an individual is planning some criminal activity before it takes place is what will prevent another 9/11. And it's quite clear that 9/11 took place in no small part because numerous agencies failed in that task.

National ID and CWP

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok lets say that they replace the states drivers license with a National DL

I have a concealed weapons permit that is issued by the state and tied to my DL
    The fed "is required" to have a warrant to access those records

Federal/National ID
  Great now BushCo knows that I carry a 45 in my belt

No Thanks

I think I will move to Maine next month

It should not be because there was no debate

[Brass Cannon]

Whether you agree with the bill or not (I don't), the Real problem with it is that it was not debated. The bill for the Real ID Act was attached to a "Money for the troops" bill. I don't know which, look it up.

Without an open discussion no sides were heard. The legislature did not make a decision about this particular issue. No one wants to be seen as not voting for giving the troops funding.

It should not be because there was no debate.

Oh, it gets better.

[Kadin2048]

Something tells me I might like Maine...

Even better, in Maine you can own a machine gun (just as long as you pay the $200 BATF transfer tax to the Feds).

All the better to keep those crazy kids off your lawn...

My Favorite Bumper Sticker

[SkyDude]

A bumper sticker was seen around New England for years and it was simple and to the point: "Ayuh - - Been to Maine"

Illegal aliens are one reason

[Quila]

Such a card would have the one big effect of making it very hard for illegal aliens to get drivers licenses. After that, businesses could ask aliens for drivers licenses to be pretty sure that they are indeed legal, thus further making life harder for those here illegally.

States that pander to those who ignored our national sovereignty and broke the law will of course not like the RealID Act.

I don't like any reporting-to-Washington aspects of this, but there should be minimum standards for licenses across the country. The states haven't done it themselves, so the feds finally did it in a way that is constitutional.

Re:Illegal aliens are one reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like any reporting-to-Washington aspects of this, but there should be minimum standards for licenses across the country. The states haven't done it themselves, so the feds finally did it in a way that is constitutional. you must be some horrible form of a future reincarnated hillary clinton. Exactly where in the constitution does it say this is legal? It doesn't, so go back and inform yourself a bit before opening your mouth and sounding like another political idiot robot.

Re:Illegal aliens are one reason

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is not Constitutional and it is wrong on every level. Try to understand this...

The Federal Government has no rights or responsibilities other than those specifically granted and stated in the Constitution. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. All other rights belong to the States or the people. ALL. Not most. Not the ones the Feds have not yet deemed inconvenient. ALL. Try to grasp that. It a very important concept.

Now... That means they have no right to mandate how a State regulates its population in regards to motor vehicle use. They have no right to mandate what information should be kept on file or how it is to be stored. They have no right to ask for identification at all other than in very specific situations as previously determined by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the law. The fact that most people don't care doesn't mean squat. THEY HAVE NO RIGHT! Period. End of story. Send them packing back to whatever rock they crawled out from under.

In addition... and this is the most important point to be made here and apparently the one most people are missing... these cards can be used by whoever happens to posses them. Your card gets stolen and sold and someone out there is now you. No recourse. Nothing in the Federal law that says they have to stop tracking what was done with that card. They don't need to track who did it because it's your card. It must have been you.

For those of you that are still wondering what's so wrong with a National ID card, try this. Ask a Jew that was living in Germany in the early 40's about his/her tattoo. That's what this is about. It's none of their business who I am, where I'm from, what I do, where I stand on any issues or any other piece of information that I don't specifically volunteer to give them.

Re:Illegal aliens are one reason

[Quila]

That means they have no right to mandate how a State regulates its population in regards to motor vehicle use.

Actually, the government has no rights, only powers. But one power the federal government does logically have is the power to decide what it will accept as valid identification. The states are free to ignore the federal standards and tell their citizens to get passports if they want to deal with the federal government where an ID is required.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[mdwh2]

I would prefer to have one digital pad which contained all my personal information, including money and tax information, so I do not have to carry a cash card, credit card, health card, library card, bus & metro card and money with me all the time.

The problem is not with a standardised ID system (which most countries without "national ID cards" already have on a voluntary basis anyway), but it's the things which go with it - e.g., a big Government database which stores all your personal information, including everything you spend money on, your health, books you take out the library, and every journey you make on public transport.

And given a choice between "having" to carry a few items (where not doing so gives me minor inconvenience, and I don't have to if I don't need those things) and having to carry an ID card (where not doing so means I am a criminal), I think I'll take the former.

Also note that not all ID card systems are the same. I don't know about the US' plans, but the UK plan differs from those that "most European countries already have" (e.g., biometrics, one big database, the immense cost of it - over £90 per person...)

I hope other states follow this example

[no1nose]

Like my home state: Nevada.

Re:I hope other states follow this example

[Myopic]

As you probably know, your state issued IDs to the 9/11 hijackers. I know that because I got my driver's license from the very same DMV where they did, up in North Las Vegas. I talked to the guy there who was checking my birth certificate and passport REALLY carefully. He was so careful I wouldn't be surprised if he were the very guy who gave them their IDs.

Something must be working ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans.

OK.

That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball.

OK. Have they picked up the ball since then?

Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree.

Oh, I guess not, according to you. Why hasn't there been a repeat, then?

They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.

OK. Then why hasn't there been a repeat? Something must be working.

Where are these invincible unstoppable terrorists who also somehow don't exist (and are thus "FUD")? If it's not much of a threat, then why can't *any* reasonable measures help, according to you guys? If, on the other hand, it's an near-omnipotent threat, then why is it called "FUD" not to be feared at all?

Re:Something must be working ...

[Radar|TGS]

OK. Then why hasn't there been a repeat? Something must be working. Homer: "There's not a single bear in sight -- the 'Bear Patrol' is working like a charm."

Lisa: "That's specious reasoning."

Homer: "Thanks, honey."

Lisa: "According to your logic, this rock keeps tigers away."

Homer: "Hmmm. How does it work?"

Lisa: "It doesn't."

Homer: "How so?"

Lisa: "It's just a rock. But I don't see a tiger, anywhere."

Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Re:Something must be working ...

[falconwolf]

OK. Then why hasn't there been a repeat? Something must be working.

Maybe because it was planned to happen only once?

Falcon

Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[spun]

"Nice little road system you got there that we paid for -- be a shame if you did something to piss us off and we stopped giving you money."

There, fixed that for you. FYI, Maine is one of the largest moocher states, taking in $1.40 in Federal benefits for every dollar paid in Federal Taxes. See here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.htm l

Re:Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[ak_hepcat]

Wahoo! Check us out! Alaska is #2, at $1.87 of your precious tax dollars.

Of course, if you've got a problem with that, we'd be happy to change the price
of the oil we've been selling to you..

Re:Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[spun]

That's nothin' man, I live in Albuquerque, NM. $2 in funding for every $1 spent, woohoo! Wait, no, that sucks. Unfair is unfair, whether you are on the giving or the receiving end of the unfairness.

Re:Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[holt]

FYI, Maine is one of the largest moocher states, taking in $1.40 in Federal benefits for every dollar paid in Federal Taxes.

Which, of course, makes it all the more impressive that they're (apparently) willing to forgo those monies in favor of not complying with the Fed's ID card scheme.

Re:Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[gurps_npc]

I live in New York City. We give the Federal government about 11.4 Billion dollars than we receive in federal spending. We also give the State government about 7 Billion more dollars than we receive in state spending. That comes to about 18 billion dollars total.

Basically, most cities get screwed on federal payments. Large percentages of the money go to smaller towns, because they are ineffecient and need more money to do anything at all.

Re:Is Bad Analogy Guy using another account?`

[spun]

What really pisses me off is that those smaller states and towns then have the gall to turn around and complain about "those durn liberals in them big cities with their entitlement mentality."

Another Setback?

[Steve B]

The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C.

Oh, well, it's not so bad when you're used to it....

Not your saviors

[jimcooncat]

From TFA:

Pingree, Maine's House majority leader, said the Real ID Act would have cost the state $185 million over five years and required every state resident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms of identification--including an original copy of the birth certificate and a Social Security card--would be uploaded into a federal database.

-----
Doesn't seem to me they're standing up to the Feds for our rights. I'm sure its the money for an unfunded mandate. Logistics are tough too, to pull this off in our state.

I can see the capitol building out my window, and have three lobsters in my truck. You understand if I just had to say something about this!

just a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Would allowing the states to opt-in to these programs (social sec., Medicare, etc.) make them constitutional?
Assuming that no state would be penalized for not opting-in, and that a state that opts-out would not be required to help finace those programs that they would then not be a part of.

Just wondering.

Re:just a question

[stinerman]

Based on my belief on how the Constitution reads, no. Of course, what I believe isn't worth shit because I don't sit on the Supreme Court.

haha.. pwned by anonymous coward

[ClioCJS]

Yes, you are a dipshit. I wish I'd been the anonymous coward so I could have called you on it first. :)

new hampshire already voted no last year

[ProfBooty]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd177.htm

The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly to reject the Transportation Committee's recommendation of ITL and in a subsequent motion to pass HB 1582, forbidding any state agency from participating in any national ID requirement.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when a user forgets his password? Or when Grandma suddenly has a heart attack and the EMT's need to know who she is?

I think Slashdot is trying to answer my question on its own....thats creepy.
The captcha is..... RETINA

55mph

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have posted 55 mph speed limit signs, but not all jurisdictions enforced them

They Hate Us For Our Freedom(R)

[Ender Ryan]

Wow, you are being insufferably ridiculous. 9/11 didn't happen because They Hate Our Freedom(R). It was a response to the actions of our government in other parts of the world, whether good or bad. Way to buy into the propaganda.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[Myopic]

Someone care to explain why a national ID card is bad? here in Europe many countries have national IDs but that is not the cause of the slow elimination of human rights.

Your countries are like our states. Would you be happy if the EU wanted to force you to give up your "national" ID and get an EU ID? Well shit, I don't know, maybe you would, y'all aren't quite the same as us -- we Americans grow up in a tradition of not trusting controlling government bodies thousands of miles away.

Also, I don't know where you live, but Europe is experiencing a slow elimination of human rights. Here in America we still grasp to the last bits of having the right to spend our own money (we don't have tax rates as high as you do -- yet); we still grasp to the last bits of having the right to privacy (everpresent watching cameras aren't yet everywhere here like they are in, say, London); our businesspeople still have a little bit of the right to do business with people of their choice (our companies don't have to justify who they hire and fire); we still enjoy a substantial right to bear arms (which I've heard has been done away with in Britain, maybe elsewhere). That's not to say America isn't suffering from a profound lack of rights.

Maine's state motto is Dirigo which means "I Lead"

[Anonymous Coward]

I am from Maine and I love my state. We're both conservative and liberal at the same time, we care about our environment, and we care about people. I am very pleased that we're flatly denying this requirement and that true to our motto, we're leading the country in this matter. This requirement is but one piece of the larger and vastly more ambitious plan to revoke even more of our constitutional rights.

Much like what is currently being shown in episodes of 24, the current administration has factions within it that would like to remove liberties and persecute millions of innocent Americans. Unlike what's being shown in 24, the real threat to our country is our current administrative ineptness in international relations and our failure to execute on a sustainable national energy policy.

We are a smart and ambitious people. Let's devote our best and brightest to development of clean and limitless energy technologies like fusion. With such a development, the world will have limitless power and we will no longer need to fight for control of ever dwindling fossil fuel resources. When that fighting stops, so will terror attacks, international hostility and the removal of our constitutional rights on those basis. I am proud that Maine is fighting a symptom of this issue and I hope that we will all fight the cause.

The answer lies among us and the passion that lies in the heart of our people can solve this problem forever. Let's start today!

No highway money?

[CFD339]

Fine. We're keeping our lobsters, and when the rest of you are all boiling from global warming because you didn't have the foresight to hire enough pirates, you'll have to stay south because you're puny federal ID cards won't work here.

bwahahahahahaha

Trusting the vouching party

[Cro Magnon]

If ArcherB can convince Mrs Maxume that he is her husband, then he will win the ID theft trial, since the government doesn't know Maxume and is relying on her word.

The hard part would be convincing Mrs Maxume, since she presumably knows what her hubby looks like and isn't likely to mistake a total stranger for him. But if he can find a vouching party that she trusts more than her eyes or Maxume's word, then ArcherB can steal his identity with impunity. Where to find such a trusted voucher is ArcherB's problem. :)

Re:Trusting the vouching party

[IL-CSIXTY4]

I think we have the makings of the next "Brazil" here!

I may be oversimplifying but...

[Vr6dub]

extreme times call for exreme measures.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[Anonymous Coward]

which I've heard has been done away with in Britain

You have no idea. Do you know what the only handgun we're allowed is? It's a .22 revolver with two shots and something like a two foot barrel. And it has to be kept in a gun club, under lock and key. And you have to be a member of that gun club, and you have to shoot it regularly or it will be taken away from you.

And unfortunately, most people just don't care. We British have convinced ourselves that the government knows best and that our disarmament is for our own safety. We like to forget how the roots of gun control were for profit and then for social control.

Here are a few

[michaelwigle]

Although I rarely agree with anything the ACLU has to say, this site http://www.realnightmare.org/about/1/, lists 7 reasonable reasons. I also personally appreciated the disctrimination issues referred to here (being a legal permanent resident). There are some practical reasons to not try to jerry-rig 50+ state systems into 1 gigantic foobar DB. If the federal government is going to create a national ID that clearly identifies every person in the borders of the country and clearly states what "class" of person you are in this country the least they could do is do it at the Federal level and make it separate from Driver's licenses which are still controlled by the individual states.

good beers in the USA

[falconwolf]

You mean there is such a thing as a good American beer???? You must be kidding me ;) sex in a canoe all the way!

There are lots of good beers in the US, however most aren't mass market brands. Most are either microbrews or homebrew. Ah, I see you're joking.

I'm in Amsterdam right now - they really do their strong beers well here - mostly belgien, several of them trappist beers, but I'm more of an ale/bitter/stout person than a lager/pilsner drinker - but then I'm also a home brewer so its not much of an issue :)

Have you tried any of the framboise, fruit beers?

Falcon

Preach it, Bruthah AC!

[DuBois]

Amen! Amen! AMEN! Right on! Paine ROCKS! Just wish more politicos had read him, let alone heard of him.

I know you didn't mean this as lecture, but we need more preachin' like this, bruthah! Keep up the great posts!

homebrew

[falconwolf]

The thing an 18 year old living on his/her own as a responsible adults needs to do is learn the fine art of brewing their own beer and vinting their own wines. Failing to learn these life-skills dooms a person to a life time of drinking sub-standard corporate piss-waters. Consider the three years as a no-compete period to hone your skills.

Ah, yes homebrewing. More people young and old should homebrew.

Falcon

Re:homebrew

[budgenator]

You would think that using and developing open source software and homebrewing would have a harmonic resonace; and /. would be crawling with homebrewers.

Re:homebrew

[falconwolf]

You would think that using and developing open source software and homebrewing would have a harmonic resonace; and /. would be crawling with homebrewers.

I agree, OOSers and homebrewers seem a natural fit. I have come across a few on /. who homebrew. Some have posted links to homebrew software, something I hadn't thought of before. Keeping a log of brewing is one thing but the homebrew software does much more than that. I may install some to try out. However I first need to make some space where I can setup my equipment, the apartment I live in now is small and filled with clutter.

Falcon

disciplining children

[falconwolf]

This idea that not hitting your children means you're not disciplining them is nonsense.

The idea that spanking your child for discipline is abuse is nonsense too. Some kids only learn when they suffer pain. Do you cook? If so are you careful so you don't burn yourself? If so why? More than likely you were burned as a child. I know I was, a number of tymes, one that sticks in my mind is when as an adolescent I was cooking and I got burning oil on my arm. After that I made sure I didn't do what I did to cause that again. So while I exercise care, I don't fear cooking. Actually I love to cook, and bake.

Falcon

Re:disciplining children

[nasch]

The idea that spanking your child for discipline is abuse is nonsense too.

I don't think so. The position that it's wrong to strike children is (I hope we can agree) not nonsense. For someone who holds this position, spanking would be an abuse of parental power. Anybody who says it's equivalent to hitting a child in the face is way off base, but I don't think it's nonsense to call spanking abuse.

Some kids only learn when they suffer pain.

That is possible, but I would be surprised if it were true of any child without a history of abuse, or some kind of mental handicap.

 

Do you cook? If so are you careful so you don't burn yourself? If so why?

That is a really terrible analogy. Getting burned is a natural consequnce of touching something hot. Getting spanked is a natural consequence of absolutely nothing. It is artificial discipline. Just because we are careful not to burn ourselves does not prove that spanking is effective.

Re:disciplining children

[falconwolf]

I don't think so. The position that it's wrong to strike children is (I hope we can agree) not nonsense.

No, I obviously disagree. I believe that in some circumstances spanking is appropriate, maybe not many but in some it is. Therefore to say it's wrong is nonsense.

Falcon

Re:disciplining children

[nasch]

I believe that . Therefore to say is wrong is nonsense.

I hope I don't have to point out how ridiculous this is.

nothing to do with nullification or hwy funding!

[JimBobJoe]

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

This was repeated over and over again in this thread, and while it's too late now, I should point out that it's a common misunderstanding.

The REAL ID Act doesn't affect highway funding at all nor does it have anything to do with doctrine of nullification.

What it will do, essentially, is direct the Department of Homeland Security to refuse to recognize a license that is not issued under REAL ID Act criteria. While there are peculiar situations here and there, its main implication is that non-REAL ID Act compliant documents may not be used as identification for air travel.

The REAL ID Act does give states hypothetical wiggle-room--issuing both REAL ID Act compliant and non-compliant license documents, but the state is required to indicate which documents are not REAL ID Act compliant if they choose a mixed issuing system.

If the state refused to do any REAL ID Act compliance, then DHS is required to reject all those states licenses for identification purposes--again, that basically leads you back to air travel issues.

Schools don't use physical punishment

[falconwolf]

Some school districts do use corporeal punishment, spanking, some don't. Some that use it have to get parental permission first, others don't.

I find its usually people who hit their kids or were hit as children that steadfastly defend physical assault as a valid parenting technique. Which means they have a fuckload of emotional baggage attached to the issue, and are not a good source of info.

Of course, they know how effective it can be. However just because parents were spanked as children doesn't mean they're abusive as parents. In some situations spanking is effective and in others it's not. Growing up I was spanked, however, while I don't have children myself I have a nephew and two neices I babysat and I never even spanked or otherwise hit never mind abused them. And not just because I didn't spend much tyme with them, for almost a year I took care of my older neice from Friday evening to Monday morning three tymes a month. My sister who was her mother got divorced about the tyme she was born and she was in the Army Reserves so she had duty one weekend a month, then as a nurse in a hospital she had to work every other weekend. Those weekends she worked or had duty she would come over to my place and drop her daughter off on Friday night, then pick her up Monday morning.

Falcon

governemnt and mafia

[falconwolf]

Ow, come on, I don't like the highway fund holdup scam either, but you are overstretching it. The mafia would actually proactively come and torch your place if you don't pay up, whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops and destroy the highways.

Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco and see if they don't do stuff like send in the troops.

Falcon

Re:governemnt and mafia

[manifoldronin]

Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco and see if they don't do stuff like send in the troops.

When did I ever say "they don't do stuff like send in the troops"?

Are you just trolling or simply too stupid to understand the concept of "context"?

Re:governemnt and mafia

[falconwolf]

Check out Ruby Ridge and Waco and see if they don't do stuff like send in the troops.

When did I ever say "they don't do stuff like send in the troops"?

Right here: whereas the federal government isn't going to, like, send in the troops

Falcon

Re:governemnt and mafia

[manifoldronin]

And how is that - a state decides to practice its legitimate rights and not to do things as the federal government wishes - the same as in Waco - a group of people were believed to have commited a crime?

At the end of a dinner, you are asked if you'd like anything else, and you say "No, I'm fine." How would you like to be denied any food forever simply because you have said that once?

It's called "context", stupid.

supremacy clause in the US Constitution

[falconwolf]

If the original bill was passed by the US House and Senate and signed into law, a state has no right to nullify that law. This is because of the federal supremacy clause in the US Constitution. Here's a link with the details.

A state may not have the right to nullify a federal law but they do have the right to say the law is unconstitutional. So, if it's a question on constitutionality, then where does the USA Constitution give the federal government the authority to require a national id? And remember the Constitution is a restrictionn on what the feds can do, if the Constitution does not say the feds can do it then they can't.

Falcon

do you need id to fly?

[falconwolf]

Or why you need ID to travel across state lines all of a sudden.

Actually you don't need id to fly, but if you don't have or show id then you may have to go through a more thorough search at the airport.

Falcon

do not fly list

[falconwolf]

Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.

Then you haven't had your name on the Do Not Fly list. Yosuf Islam, previously known as the singer Cat Stevens, found himself on it. Sen. Ted Kennedy has been barred from flying a number of tymes because his name was on it. He may of killed someone when he went off the road in a river but he's not a terrorist.

Falcon

the USA Constitution

[falconwolf]

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

The USA Constitution does not say the feds can do many of these and they should be gotten rid of. That or amend the Constitution to allow them And as the Costitution is a limit on the feds it does prohibit them from requiring a national id. The Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791 even states this clearly:
"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."

Falcon

powers of US federal government

[falconwolf]

Whilst it may be constitutional for the US Government to insist on people wishing to board commercial airliners to hold certain specific documents it is really only reasonable that they do the issuing. e.g. it might be constitutional to require all passengers and crew to hold valid passports.

Can you show where the USA Constitution gives the federal government the power to require documents to fly?

Falcon

refusing to enforce drug laws

[falconwolf]

The courts aren't going to change things.. it will take state legislatures and ultimately the Congress, imo. Either that or an Executive (governor/president) who pardons non-violent drug offenders and refuses to enforce the laws.

A few years back someone ran for sheriff in Texas campaigning on a pledge to not enforce drug laws. I don't know if he won or not though.

Falcon

Re:refusing to enforce drug laws

[Charcharodon]

We had similar things in California. The severe anti-gunness of the People's Repulic of California stops about 40 miles outside the counties of all the major cities. Lot's of local sherif ran and were elected based on a refusal to enforce confiscations and registration schemes. Even the the State Prosecutors finally said they wouldn't enforce the new guns laws that were coming out in droves every every year since they hadn't even had a chance to figure out the old ones yet and there were alot that ran afoul of the State Constitution.

knowing the USA Constitution

[falconwolf]

It is simply a fact of reality that 85%, or likely far more, of this population has never even read the constitution and does not know the rights and limitations it affords.

I'd agree most students don't know and would fail a test on what the USA Constitution says. Yet when I was in school in one of my classes, poly sci I think, we had to memorize the Preamble. And this was a public school.

Falcon

roads

[falconwolf]

National speed limit could POSSIBLY be seen as an extension of the Commerce clause, with the Interstate Highway System also POSSIBLY seen as an extension of the same.

I agree the Commerce Clause can help here, however as the Constitution specifically states the US government has the responsibility of postal roads, using the interstate commerce clause only reinforces the power of the feds to build highways, the highway system.

Falcon

power and Amendments

[falconwolf]

The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem.

I'd add the 12th Amendment, Choosing the President, Vice-President, was added for this purpose as well. It gives political parties greater power and should be repealed. Let's go back to voting for the president and NOT the president and vice president. The winner becomes the president and the runnerup the vice president.

Falcon

control of politics

[falconwolf]

I think the real problem is the lack of civic duty in the vast majority of the population, and the fact that we have a very lazy media. Just making poltics more local wont make much of a difference, imo.

I might of agreed with this but a lot of politics is local, ie people have more control over local politics than they do over state, regional, or national politics. This has been a problem with the LP, Libertarian Party. If the LP were to concentrate on getting a lot of candidates elected locally, they could then have more success at running national candidates.

Falcon

number of political parties

[falconwolf]

It essentially invalidates local politics in the minds of a lot of people, because they figure they already voted for someone who "outranks" state representatives, therefor they don't need to care.

Probaly also killed off the possibility of state and regional political parties.

I'm not sure about that. Years ago as a college student I was deputized to register people to vote, and for the party of political affiliation we had about 40 different parties in the state that the voter could register as.

Falcon

id and flying

[falconwolf]

And, with REAL-ID, I'm thinking the "Stick" is "This D/L isn't acceptable for use boarding this plane".

Currently an id is not required to fly. However if you choose not to show your id then you may have to good through a more thorough search to get on the plane.

Falcon

New Hampshire and the Free State Project

[falconwolf]

Regardless, it's yet another usurpation of state power and authority by the feds. I'm waiting for New Hampshire to do the same thing (and kinda saddened that they weren't first).

Yea, seeing as how New Hampshire is the home of "Give Me Freedom or Give me Death" and "Do not Tread on Me" as well as the home of the Free State Project I'm kind of supprised Maine beat them to the draw.

Falcon

You never have your origional birth cirtificate.

[falconwolf]

All you ever get is a notorized copy.

Or a certified copy.

Falcon

driver's license

[falconwolf]

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid

BS. I can use my license in any I could drive state without having a license issued by that state. I've driven from Florida to Canada using the same license. My license which is issued by the state I live in and I can use in every other state. I can even use it in Canada and Mexico. Now if I were to go to some other countries I may have to have an international driver's license, however I can go to AAA to get one.

Falcon

We don't have ID cards.

[falconwolf]

Actually states do issue id cards, for instance if a teenager can't get a driver's license or if an adult has their license revoked they can get an id card.

Falcon

national id

[falconwolf]

The fact of the matter is that there already is a National ID standard... it's called a passport.

And you are not required to get one, not even to drive or go to the bank to cash or deposit a check.

Falcon

national ID

[falconwolf]

I fail to see how the average law-abiding citizen's rights are threatened by an ID card that could potentially tell the federal government information about activities that violate no law. If you're worried that any illegal activities might be exposed by these cards, well...

Is There a Good Response to the "Nothing to Hide" Argument?

And you know, I bet a week of dumpster diving your trash would tell someone a lot more potentially harmful things about your habits than an ID card would, just as handing your credit card to the waitor is much less secure and easier to take advantage of than low-grade encryption on a shopping website.

Nope, what financial records I get I either file away if I'm going to keep it, or if I don't keep it, mostly credit card offers, I either shred or burn. Most of the tyme I don't even toss out receipts when I pay with cash, which I try to use most if not all the tyme, unless I shred it first.

Falcon

intersexuals

[falconwolf]

An article in The Advocate [advocate.com] (NSFW, suggestive ads, exposed flesh, no dangly bits though) from a trans woman covers some of the problems with the current, fractured ID system and touches on how Real ID may make things even worse.

And what of intersexuals? For those who have never heard of them or don't know what they are, intersexuals are born neither male nor female or are both.

Falcon

what am I?

[falconwolf]

Its a good sign of the state of affairs in this country when we are expecting the Dems to restrict the power of the government. Are we in the Twilight Zone? Republicans/Democrats are NOT what they used to be. Me? I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and like a small federal government. What the hell am I?

If you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal then you're Libertarian. Though Democrats are somewhat socially liberal, neither they nor Republicans are fiscally conservative. The Republicans twice ran up the biggest budget deficits and in between the two tymes Democrats ran up the biggest budget surplus. Democrats and Republicans who occupies the White House that is.

Falcon

Replying to my own post

[Flying pig]

Which should have either been ignored or moderated Troll - it was intended as a slightly provocative joke - some Scot obviously has no sense of humor.

The current British PM is a Scot. The current Home Secretary is a Scot. The next Prime Minister will most likely be a Scot. The Home Office is admittedly in chaos; we have severe prison overcrowding. The head of the Youth Offending division has just resigned and given an interview in which he complained of the criminalisation of the behaviour of young people and the drawing of excessive numbers of them into the criminal justice system, with no signs whatever that this was reducing crime or reforming the convicted. This guy is no bleeding heart liberal; he is the former head of the Probation Service with an excellent track record. Because he opposed the Government lock-them-up policy, he was told he had to re-apply for his own job. The present Government is attracting the opposition of the judges because it keeps passing new laws to create new crimes, regardless of whether existing ones are being applied. Of course a mess of new laws lengthens trials, increases the number of appeals, increases the cost of justice and creates confusion in the police, who are expected to understand them all, completely and immediately they are passed. My side swipe about Scots passing excessive legislation in England was based on a serious point about Government attitudes and policy.

When it was clear that the Government had lied over Iraq, I formally resigned my membership of the Labour Party. I learnt last week that a former leading party activist in our area - who had asked me not to leave - has now resigned in disgust.

Personally, as a very English - Home Counties, Cambridge graduate, working in IT - person, I feel I usually have far more in common with English people of Indian and West Indian extraction than the Scots, and I don't just mean cricket. Their whole cultural and philosophical tradition I find quite alien, more so than, say, the Dutch and the North Germans (and yes, I have read Hume as well as Trainspotting. But I do make an exception for that great genius Macaulay). Now that there is a separate Scottish parliament, there is a perfectly legitimate question to be asked as to why the Scots are allowed to legislate on social laws, education etc., when England cannot legislate for Scotland. Consider the hypocrisy of Scottish MPs who voted for university tuition fees in England while their fellow party members voted against them in Scotland. If it's flamebait to refer to this, then the level of what is allowed in political debate has sunk very low indeed.

passports

[falconwolf]

Our government wouldn't really need those passports

Passports aren't really for the nation that issues them but are for any country that requires them for a foreigner to enter. US citizens don't need passports to go to Canada or Mexico, but to go to Europe one is needed, European countries demand one for entry. So passports aren't used in the US like the internal passports the Soviet Union used to require.

Id theft/forgery would be a federal homeland sec. crime. We could do this and it would would work for the war on terror.

BS, there is not one valid reason a national id will work against terrorism. Not ony will it not work but it will actually make it easier for terrorists, a national id is one long chain and a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. This could be employees, it could be how the system works, or it could be the software, db used.

Falcon

Europe and prostitution

[falconwolf]

As for Europe, legal drinking age is 18 in many places, prostitution is illegal but "tolerated"

Maybe not all but some European countries have redlight districts with legal prostitution. I recall when I was in Germany they even had magazines listing prostitutes and how you can contact them to setup an appointment.

Falcon

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[falconwolf]

I would prefer to have one digital pad which contained all my personal information, including money and tax information, so I do not have to carry a cash card, credit card, health card, library card, bus & metro card and money with me all the time.

That shoud be your choice, not a government requirement.

Falcon

is a bnational id constitutional?

[falconwolf]

The states haven't done it themselves, so the feds finally did it in a way that is constitutional.

Please point out where the USA Constitution gives the federal governemnt the power to issue or mandate a national id. Hint, there isn't one.

Falcon

Re:is a bnational id constitutional?

[Quila]

Please point out where the USA Constitution gives the federal governemnt the power to issue or mandate a national id. Hint, there isn't one.

They didn't do either. The feds just said what the minimum requirements are for ID that they will accept. The states still run their own IDs and are free to ignore the federal standards.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[master_p]

"The problem is not with a standardised ID system (which most countries without "national ID cards" already have on a voluntary basis anyway), but it's the things which go with it - e.g., a big Government database which stores all your personal information, including everything you spend money on, your health, books you take out the library, and every journey you make on public transport."

Where does it say that ID cards for US citizens will be backed up with a database of personal information? where did you read that?

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[master_p]

"Would you be happy if the EU wanted to force you to give up your "national" ID and get an EU ID?"

No problem for me. I does not matter if my country is 1000 or 10,000 km long.

"we Americans grow up in a tradition of not trusting controlling government bodies thousands of miles away"

We don't trust authorities either, but at some point Earth is going to have one government, especially if contact is made with alien civilizations. Earth is not that big, you know; there are people who have walked or biked it.

"but Europe is experiencing a slow elimination of human rights."

Indeed, but that is not because of ID cards, but because of people in power being hungry for more power and control. We've had IDs for over 50 years, but no problem with human rights until recently.

"Here in America we still grasp to the last bits of having the right to spend our own money"

Taxes are necessary for an organized society. We still have the right to spend our money, and of course, the right to own property. And those rights are not to go away anytime soon.

"We still grasp to the last bits of having the right to privacy (everpresent watching cameras aren't yet everywhere here like they are in, say, London);"

What cameras have to do with privacy? cameras are not in our houses, they are on the streets. When I am on a public road, in a public place, someone is going to see me anyway. There is no difference with cameras.

"our businesspeople still have a little bit of the right to do business with people of their choice (our companies don't have to justify who they hire and fire);"

Neither do we.

"we still enjoy a substantial right to bear arms"

America's difference with Europe is that America was born through armed conflict, hence the right to bear arms is justifiable. As long as people don't get trigger happy, I am fine with that right.

"That's not to say America isn't suffering from a profound lack of rights."

Indeed, and Patriot Acts got a severe blow in the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

But you still did not explain why IDs are bad.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[mdwh2]

I didn't say the US system would do that, the post I replied to said it would be good to store all this information together. Furthermore, the idea that European countries have "ID cards" is not in itself relevant, as "ID card" can mean many different things, including storing such information.

Pseudoephedrine

[alienmole]

Because pseudoephedrine is used to make methamphetamines.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[master_p]

It is relevant: the state may know a few things about you, but that does not mean less freedom. You still do not explain why there is a problem with ID cards.

Re:Why national ID is bad? someone care to explain

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't reason why this might be bad, maybe you need to wake up and look around. Start with some wikireality on "civil libertarian"...

For starters, the Hiibel case.

http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/case.html