Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 621 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Doctrine of Nullification? by Samuel+Dravis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:I don't get it. by tyler.willard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:I don't get it. by karmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Doctrine of Nullification? by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
  5. Re:I don't get it. by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  6. bullies by drDugan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:I don't get it. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Drinking Age by Iloinen+Lohikrme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  10. Re:Functional Equivalence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  11. Re:Doctrine of Nullification? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  12. Re:I just dont get it ! by Scarblac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  13. Re:I just dont get it ! by mrscorpio · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't forget the socialist healthcare, welfare middle class, and 50% income tax.

  14. Re:Doctrine of Nullification? by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.