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."
Now if they can only bring back the old "reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits, also in defiance of the federal government...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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'.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian). There are inevitably going to be problems with control to the data (who has access?), it isn't going to stop fake ID's and it paves the way for people to give up more and more information to a central state.
The benefits are simple, the state gets a large access which it can then use (and most of the time misuse). It will be inevitably linked to other databases, and then the state can do what the East German state did.
It knows when you broke the law, and if you do something it doesn't like, it pulls you in and charges you with whatever it likes. After all, who hasn't broken some law or another?
This comment from the BillingsGazette, shows some other possible uses for the government. "We also don't think that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., ought to tell us that if we're going to get on a plane we have to carry their card, so when it's scanned through they know where you went, when you got there and when you came home," said Schweitzer, a Democrat. (And isn't Montana the state with the highest level of gun ownership or something? Someone should shoot the federal agents, that would teach the fuckers.)
I wank in the shower.
Or medical cannabis laws in California. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
Even if the federal government did get their way with the states, how would the implement this? They want the state government systems to synchronize their records with the national government. Sounds easy to the unwashed masses (Washington Bureaucrats), but in practice this is very, very difficult. I'm sure there are slashdotters on here who can speak to difficulties in linking just local governments to state systems let alone at the NATIONAL level!
I was once on a project linking a city government's records (I wont mention what kind) to the state government. Except for the fact that the city was using legacy system X running on X, and the state was on legacy Y running on Y. Oh, and don't forget the Bummsville servers which also need to integrate; and they haven't upgraded they're setup in 8 years and nobody knows how it works anymore.
I PRAY that the feds get they're way and we get to see how much of a mess it is for them to link these disparate, outdated, undocumented systems together.
The Feds won that battle a long time ago by a.) allowing pretty much anything under an outrageously broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and b.) threatening to pull federal highway and other unrelated funds from states if they did not comply with random laws covering a broad range of topics.
Seems to me if the feds can threaten to pull funds that a state's taxpayers paid into if the state doesn't follow some totally unrelated regulation, the state should have the ability to opt out of paying into those types of funds on behalf of its taxpayers. So, if the feds pull highway funding, the states should be allowed to withhold the portion of federal taxes its citizens pay that would normally go to the federal highway budget and have the taxpayers pay that money directly to the state's highway fund instead.
Also, I'd like a unicorn.
The original constitution provided for the House to be elected directly by the people of their state, and for Senators to be elected or appointed by the state legislatures. What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life. It also meant that a lot of the things we see coming out of Washington, including such "unfunded mandates" as the Real ID act, which imposes enormous costs on the states that the Federal government doesn't pay for, can't be remedied by the legislatures who have to vote the money for these things recalling them.
A great number of states once told the Federal government where they might stick their legislation.
...But back then, there were no cruise missiles, strategic bombers, et cetera.
The result was a very long and bloody war, resulting in the defeat of those states. Granted, the South gave a damned good fight, only succumbing to the North 'zerging for the win'...
In a country where we're so afraid that we're banning fingernail clippers from airplanes and crying over a ridiculously low number of casualties in Iraq, there's not going to be any sort of real civil war without which something truly astonishing happens.
Rights being eroded isn't truly astonishing, it's been going on since 1865.
Lets say, just for the sake of this argument, that I am from Montana. Lets also say that I don't have a passport. If I am not allowed to enter Federal Buildings without a RealID compliant drivers license or passport, wouldn't that mean that I am now forbidden to enter Federal Court? So now I cannot sue anyone in Federal Court. When the State court and Federal Court share a building, I cannot even go to State Court. And the best part? Since the passport office is a federal building, I can't even go to the passport office to get a RealID compliant ID card. Oh yeah, I can't even meet with the IRS to go over my taxes. I just became a non-person. Of course, that assumes a strict reading of the law, and IANAL.
That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.