Slashdot Mirror
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."
Perhaps an Amendment guaranteeing our heretofore unenumerated Right to Privacy?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
If you live in the US, you can voice your opposition to the REAL ID Act by sending your senators and representative a message using the handy form at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30
As de Tocqueville said:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"
I am not a crackpot.
state versus nation != individual versus government
True.
anyone reading your post above would get the distinct impression that when the state of maine fights washington dc, they are fighting for your individual rights
In a way that is true. Laws like one restricting 18 year old people from drinking are anti-freedom. They remove the rights of an individual to choose for themselves. When the federal government imposes such a restriction, it restricts at least as many and perhaps more people than a federal restriction. As such, making this an issue of states rights, instead of a federal mandate results in no more, and quite likely less restriction of freedom.
seems to me that the state of maine is fighting for the rights of the state of maine
I take it you don't see the benefit of moving more power to the states.
why in a million years should i trust that the government in augusta to be a better guarantor of my rights than washington dc?
You shouldn't trust them and that isn't the reason to support state rights. Why do extremely socialist countries turn into authoritarian regimes? Many of them have a democratic process that is completely subverted, but started off very similar to our own. So why is it that those countries so commonly fail in that way? The answer is quite simply, consolidation of power. The more power you put in fewer hands the more motivation and risk of that power being seized by an individual or group. The more centralized your decision making and the more people you have answering to a single authority, the greater the risk.
The founders of our country understood this risk. They broke up the federal government into competing branches and spent a lot of time specifically writing own all the powers the feds should never have and trying to bolster state rights as much as possible. They knew the less power was concentrated in one place, the harder it would be for a single group to control that power for personal gain and to the detriment of the people. Also they understood an important facet of human nature. Power tends to consolidate. People who seek positions of power are the same sort who tend to want accumulate more power. Unchecked, they would take more and more power until they were an authoritarian system. That is why it is important to decentralize power and have multiple factions competing.
i am firmly of the opinion that my individual liberties are better preserved by undermining state's rights
On a case by case basis, this can be true, but in the grand scheme of things, every power the feds get increases the risk that the US will be completely taken over by a small group.
state capitols, it seems to be, always seem to be rotten with more corruption and social conservative agendas (agendas always at odds with personal liberties and freedoms) than what goes on washington dc
Sometimes, but the damage they can do is limited because it only applies to one state. As such, there will always be reform movements and people can always vote by walking to a new state. When it gets too bad, there are the feds to step in and clean house. If we instead centralize all power with the feds, who steps in and cleans house?
what goes on in montpelier or sacramento or bismarck is no better, and often a lot worse, and often a lot less scrutinzed
Actually the more localized an issue, the more likely people are to both get involved and feel that they can make a difference. Ask the average person if they think their vote in the general election matters. Now ask them if they think their vote on state constitution amendments matters. Now ask about the local school millage. Notice a trend? The individual would be right to. It is possible to become active and get a Green party or Libertarian party candidate elected mayor. It has even happened that they have been elected to control a state. The same sort of reform on the federal level is unlikely to ever happen beca