Slashdot Mirror


Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It

SoCalChris writes "Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."

14 of 518 comments (clear)

  1. About Time by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.

    I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.

    1. Re:About Time by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      California and South Carolina still haven't been able to setup databases for child support payments by divorced fathers. What makes people think they can sync their DLs with the feds?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:About Time by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there.

      Wow, you're right! No one would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a proper license! Problem solved.

      You're kidding, right? You do know lots of people drive without a license. They're not usually caught until they're in an accident.

    3. Re:About Time by rossz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the overwhelming majority of fathers behind in their payments is because of inability to pay, a database isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Child support (and alimony) are pretty much set in stone and a change in the man's employment situation doesn't matter. If he suddenly finds him self unemployed or under-employed, as I'm sure happened to many slashdotters when the the dot com boost finally went belly up, he still has to pay the original amount. The court enforced amount is partially based on the man's earning capability (to prevent assholes from quiting good jobs just to screw their ex-wives), but the courts are blind to massive changes in the economy.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    4. Re:About Time by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where does the Constitution allow for the FCC? Is the FCC unconstitutional?

      Probably allowed by the Interstate Commerce Clause (hereafter referred to as "ICC"), since radio waves often cross state lines. Still, it's a bit of a stretch.

      How about the Air Force?

      Good question -- the Constitution provides for a navy, but armies are supposed to be raised ad-hoc for a maximum of two years. So is the Air Force more like a navy or an army? Or should it have required an Amendment to exist at all?

      The national highway system...

      ICC, probably. Also, it could be construed to be a "post road."

      ...HUD, CDC...

      I'd say "unconstitutional;" they were probably (dubiously) justified by the ICC.

      ...CIA, FBI...

      The FBI is on thinner ice than the CIA here; I'd say it could maybe be justified by the stuff about punishing "offenses against the law of nations" or the bits about the militia. The FBI I can't justify.

      ...the Marine Core...

      Part of the Navy; it's OK.

      ...FEMA...

      It's a stretch, but maybe it could be classified as "militia."

      ...social security...

      Unconstitutional, no question (again, dubiously justified by the ICC).

      OK, let me try it another way: If congress is only allowed to make laws that are specifically, (read: already) spelled out in the Constitution, why do we even have a congress at all?

      To make laws about only those issues that can't be handled by the states.

      Seems like don't really have much purpose.

      Yep, that is how it was originally intended to be! The states were supposed to have more (or at least equal) power than the Federal government, and the people (and local goverment) were supposed to have more power than the states. Instead, the Civil War, New Deal, and everything after that created this topsy-turvy situation, which isn't how it's supposed to be at all.

      Can we have the courts rule all these things out of existence?

      I wish. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is appointed by the Federal goverment (do you see the problem?).

      --

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

    5. Re:About Time by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are probably others. But at least from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777 there is no doubt that there were 13 independent states in what is now the eastern USA.
      Really?

      Yes.

      Can you tell me who the President of any of the countries was?

      An entity doesn't have to have a "President" to be considered a country; in fact, most countries don't have "Presidents." They have "Prime Ministers" or "Premiers" or "Kings" or "Dictators" or whatever instead. In this case, the supreme executives were called "Governers."

      Did these governments tax

      Yes. This should be obvious, since they still do that now!

      hold elections

      Ditto.

      print currency

      Yes (scroll down for discussion of individual states' currencies).

      raise an army

      They all had, and in fact still technically have, their own militias.

      send and receive ambassadors

      Who did you think they sent to the first and second Continental Congresses? Clowns?

      create treaties or any of the other things that "states" do?

      Yes.

      --

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

  2. blast from the past by malevolentjelly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this what Republicans used to be like? For state powers and against centralization? What would that make Bush? Fascist?

  3. Wow, I love this by rockhome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am a huge fan of the Montana state legislature right. To unanimously pass that kind of legislation says two things :

    1. They are for their constituents interests on this one.
    2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

    Kudos to you Montana. As Stephen Colbert migh say, You've got balls!

  4. Constitution by iamacat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard. It aberrant to subject 149 million people to a preference of 151 million. It's time to delegate most decisions to state level, where they would be hopefully passed on to local governments to honor the spirit of constitution (that was written when the whole US population was smaller than some metropolitan areas now).

    1. Re:Constitution by chuckymonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, more laws mean that average Joe cannot get through the day without breaking a couple of them. For example, everyone goes on and on about drugs and the cartels that support them, the crime that surrounds them and whatnot. Make the worst ones legal and suddenly there is no incentive for the any of that, the drug lords won't make money and the violence of drug dealing and underground smuggling suddenly just disappears. Here's another interesting concept of the drugs too, with a lot of the worst ones the addicts will quickly kill themselves off since they can get as much as they want. I know what the next comment is going to be "think of the children!", how about "BE A FUCKING PARENT AND KNOW WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING,WHERE THEY ARE AND WHO THEIR FRIENDS ARE!". People that want to do drugs are going to find a way and eventually go away. Look at the percentage of the populace that smokes these days, it's getting lower and more and more teenagers that I talk to think it's a disgusting habit. Anyway, this kind of thing with the card is bullshit. It's just another program that means nothing, does nothing, makes it easier to break the law, and lines the legislators pockets with money from whoever gets the contracts for it.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  5. Re:Lesson for the world by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

    I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.

    Thank you.

    ArcherB

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  6. Re:Good for them. by halo8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who hasn't broken some law or another?

    Thats the key phrase, right there.
    who hasn't broken some law or another?

    For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again.

    In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
    Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime
    Books and CD's have been banned in schools
    Trans Fat is illegal in some cities

    And it works both ways, Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right.
    What if gun were banned?
    Missed Child Payments
    what if using a racial slur was a criminal offense
    Getting angry and making a threat.
    Vengeful Neighbours
    Banning certain music or concerts dances clothes
    its goes on and on and on

    Sadly, its not to hard to imagine.

    Once the goverment gots you, the GOT you, your in the system.
    good luck trying to fly
    good luck renewing your license (Driving, Hunting, Practicing whatever...)
    good luck getting a job or a mortgage

    --
    The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  7. Re:Lesson for the world by cicho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point of requiring an ID is to institute laws that will prevent you from doing certain things without the ID. That' and to make sure that when you do those things, the government can know about it.

    And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.

    --
    "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
  8. Re:License by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, let's see: local government is full of people who are functionally indistinguishable from people in big government, except that they are either too pathetic to make it into big government, or are still working their way up.

    Sure, the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in small government is slightly larger than the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in big government ... but that's like saying that a vegan's feces will have more intact kernels of corn than those of a guy who eats nothing but steak. Either way, you have to go rooting through shit to find out, and neither is really any better than the other. There are easier ways to get corn.

    And "individuals"? They are remarkably rare. Anyone who actually thinks about anything beyond who America's next top model will be, is in such a small and inconsequential group of people that nothing they do is capable of having any real impact on anything ... other than to invent new technologies that can be used to make everyone more affluent and less free.

    I know, it's hard to accept the reality of this: one of the most fascinating psychological phenomena discovered in the past decade is the fact that nearly all Human behaviour and social understanding is predicted on the assumption that we are in the majority. We assume that whatever we want, whatever we believe, whatever we choose, is what most everyone else will wants/believes/chooses. But if you actually stop to think about anything beyond the most superficial drivel, you have placed yourself in a tiny, tiny minority, and nothing about you or what you think or believe is even remotely representative of your society.