More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states. The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network. Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."

Comments

i don't see what is so great about state's rights

[circletimessquare]

we're americans first, right? we're not north dakotans or georgians or texans first, right?

why do you think a state government is somehow immune form all of the problems you see inherent in a national government? especially as pertaining to individual rights: why in your mind is sacramento or montpelier somehow a better guardian of your individual rights than washington dc? i frnakly don't understand the faith in state's rights

i do however, understand this: some conservative backwater areas of this country resent washington dc enforcing progressive social policies on them. and so they speak in terms of state's rights, but the real conversation is about resisiting positive social change, and preserving backwardness in the hinterlands

no, i'd rather empower washington dc and undermine bismarck. bismarck will close down abortion clinics, washington dc will keep them open. that's the real story here: state's rights is the last vestige of the social conservative

personal liberties and freedoms are increased by putting power in the hands of washington dc, and decreased by putting power in the hands of

of course, social conservatives won't frame it this way. they speak of the rights of the state of maine, or the state of montana, with the vehemence of the fight for personal rights... right, got it, the "personal right" of social conservatives ot push their agenda which always seems to run counter to real personal liberties

it's a smokescreen. don't drink the koolaid folks: personal freedoms is increased by national power, and decreased by empowering the states, whose center so fpower are often rotten with social conservatives and their american taliban agenda

when they scream about the rights of the state of maine, remember: augusta is a worse protector of personal rights and freedoms and privacy than washington dc is

of course, the social conservatives will scream at this notion. it undermine's their "personal freedom" to talk away your and mine personal freedom

don't drink the koolaid: state's rights is the last vestige of conservative assholes

the whole discussion is loaded with demoagogues screaming about individual rights, arguing for a system that actually decreases individual rights

states rights != individual rights

Uncle Sam Bush

[Doc Ruby]

George Bush is a champion of states' rights. His Republican Party stands for keeping Uncle Sam out of most private info, and out of your bedroom.

Re:Oh the Irony!

[nomadic]

Now it is the Southern and MidWestern states which benefit from the federal government squeezing the Northern/Coastal states for tax money to re-distribute to the Southern and Midwestern states!

"Now"? It's always been that way.

my head asplode

[circletimessquare]

i am the reason for the usa falling apart... by championing its unity

boom goes my head

you win in the game of cognitive dissonance, but i don't think you realize you counteract your own point with your own words. you got nice bombast, but try parsing for some simple logic next time: championing unity is not encouraging fractiousness

try some intellectual rigor on the concepts you discuss next time

k thx

Re:regional interest?

[sgtrock]

Your first mistake is assuming a problem that doesn't exist. There is no demonstrated need for a national ID or for a national ID standard. No, 9/11 didn't demonstrate either of those needs. Every single one of those hijackers had full sets of identification that were set up in their real names. So did Timothy McVeigh, for that matter. Instead, we've gotten along just fine for the minimal documentation necessary to demonstrate that our home state(s) have granted us the right to drive. Nothing that has happened in the past 50 years has changed that.

Your second mistake is not really thinking through the implications of the 9th and 10th amendments. Quoting here from Cornell's website:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

BR
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 tenth amendment is the real key in this particular debate. If the peopl and the states have not granted the right to the federal government to develop a national ID, then the federal government has no right to develop one!

Re:Maine isn't rejecting RealID because it's bad..

[neimon]

If you "go to university" as upposed to "I go to UMaine Orono," I'd guess you're from some other country. How about you shut the hell up and stop pretending you know what you're talking about?

Maine's government sucks no more or less than any other state's. The problem with Maine isn't the government, it's the fact there's no money in trees anymore.

Go back to your trailer in Waterville or Wells or wherever the hell it is and unplug your GWI account. You're not getting any value out of it.

No, even better, and don't forget to "go to hospital" or "go to university" in Canada, or Britain or wherever the hell you come from, because I'm sure you spell it "colour," too.

Ahem.

Sorry. I, too, live in Maine.