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."
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.
I hope they need Python or Java developers. Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...
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
Isn't this what Republicans used to be like? For state powers and against centralization? What would that make Bush? Fascist?
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...
This is the first time in Montana history that our illustrious MVD had to be ordered NOT to perform something work related.
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.
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!
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).
Thank you Montana! This will probably ending up going to the Supreme Court, and I hope Montana wins. The requirements for the "Real ID" are ridiculous. I don't even know where my birth certificate is! I've had a valid state driver's license for 17 years- suddenly I need to prove again that I was born? I've had a valid SSN (and card) for 20-some years- I now need to re-prove my national id (c'mon, you know it is)? Utility bills- am I joining a library? Hell, will I need 3 references, a DNA sample, resume, and a documentary (on DVD of course) of my life next?
All this does is make life harder on regular people. Just like gun laws- when the current laws are not being upheld, lets make more! Just uphold the current laws on getting a driver's license. At least in Pennsylvania, you have to provide a birth certificate and another form of ID. If the states' held up this standard in the first place, you wouldn't have to implement a secondary layer. Pass a law making the states to uphold their current standards.
Blah, I hate government in general. Sorry, just had to pay taxes....
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...
If this week has taught us anything, it's that one should always have a backup plan for black-bear-ies.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
First state?
I thought Maine http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6153532.html already did this with Idaho and Washington following closely behind? Or have those laws not been enacted yet?
I'm from Montana, and all I can say is: I am very, very glad that Schweitzer is governer now. Judy Martz, our previous governor(governess?) would have gone along with the REAL ID act, just to be compliant with our wise and noble leader in DC.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
No one hates your freedom like we do... Uh, oops, I mean, like the terrorists do. Everybody knows it's the terrorists who hate your freedom. And of course only the terrorists can take your freedom away... Uh, um, no, not exactly, they can't... In fact only we can take your freedom away... er... You shouldn't question these things... Now be a good patriot and lie down and let us step on you for your protection.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
In other news .. the entire state of Montana has been declared an "Enemy Combatant". Plans are under way to use the national guard to secure and build GitmoII around the entire state.
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.
Montana has pretty much always stood up for states rights. The one tyme I can think of they didn't was when they raised the legal age for drinking to 21.
I'm glad to see another state stand up against the Real ID Act. But as Vermont's logo is "Do not tread on me" I'm supprised they didn't pass such a law first.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
By enacting this legislation, Montana has denied its residents access to any federal programs that require the presentation of government-issued photo identification. One notable example is your passport: a photo ID is required to get a passport. No skin off the nose of the feds - in fact, it's less work for them to round-file all the passport applications from Montana once the ID requirements roll around.
And good luck getting back into the country when you head up to Alberta for cheap prescription drugs. You may be required to show a passport or other photo ID to re-enter the country across the Canadian border (and a passport is required when traveling by air), and since DHS is in charge of that, they can take one look at your Montana driver's license and turn you away.
It isn't always too cold. Sometimes it is too hot.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
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.
Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).
Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).
The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...
May, as well, have "Real ID"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Under no government regime would you have a problem if you just ignored what is around you, stayed in you little life and never gave a damn.
Even under Nazi* rule, you would have been fine.
Of course the moment there is a glitch, or someone that doesn't like you makes a phone call, then you relize those things you never used may have been a tad important.
Tlak to annyone who has had some lie to authorities about child abuse. They are guilty until proven innocent. Even if that can prove there own innocents, you are still watched and checked up on.
Now, how can you prove to me you haven't abused your child?
That is the same kind of logic the admintration, homeland security, and the people running Gitmo use.
Along with questions like
"Will you stop all terrorist acitivties?"
" I never..."
"YES OR NO!"
"no"
"So you admit you were a terrorist."
*I am not comparing this situation with the Nazi. Only using the to illistrate that jst because you keep your head down and don't make waves doesn't mean you have any rights.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Real ID was passed back as part of an "essential" Iraq funding package. As such it had no separate committee hearings. And at the time, guess who controlled Congress?
Many states are opposed to this not due to privacy concerns but simply because it's another unfunded federal mandate. Minnesota estimates it will cost the state $31 million over five years. Total national costs have ballooned to something like $17 billion. Congress allocated all of $40 million to pay for it.
I know it would take some work for me to produce a certified birth certificate or passport to get a license.
It will be interesting to see what happens when boarding restrictions, etc. go into effect. If this law isn't killed outright at the federal level, I believe it will be effectively ignored in many situations.
More info and an opinion piece:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1110277.html http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1119732.htmlLets 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.
Hey, there's an easy answer for that one. Put an RFID tag into every license plate (or into the tags, since those need to be replaced all the time anyway). Then put RFID scanners into every traffic light, every intersection, periodically in streetlights, etc. Anytime a car passes without a valid RFID-tagged license plate, the scanner automically signals the nearest police car, photographs the car, activates the vehicles "disable" code, detonates the land mines, deploys the hunter-killer bot, or whatever else the state feels is an appropriate response. And if the vehicle DOES have a valid RFID tag, then it's a simple matter to verify whether or not the owner has an approved license. It doesn't help much if the driver of the vehicle isn't the owner, but that's what the RFID tags that were jammed into everyone's skulls were for. Seriously though -- RFID license plates and traffic light camera/RFID-scanner set-ups are basically a foregone conclusion at this point. They're inevitable.
Benjamin Franklin said it best way back in 1775: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Feb. 17th, 1775 I was born in MT have lived here all my life. Today I am very proud of my state.
Truth is we don't have an immigration problem.. we have a welfare problem.
What are we scared of? Why not allow anyone to come into this country? It will make us so much stronger of a nation. Immigrants wont always be poor if we give them the freedom to be successful.
Besides this we have no reason to be tracking our people in a free nation. ID just does not prevent crime. We do not live in Soviet Amerika yet.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
I don't know what grounds they would use in court to oppose it, but then again, I'm not an expert in Constitutional law.
But you're probably right that the law will get repealed before a court challenge gets very far. That's really the point of some states moving to oppose the law, to get it repealed, but it does involve calling the bluff of Congress, which could prove very damaging to the residents of those states if the bluff fails.
How do you know, have you done any research on using hemp instead of nylon?
As a climber I'd hate to carry a wet hemp rope
The cords of the parachute that saved expres Bush Sr, when he bailed out over the Pacific when his plane was shotdown were probably made from hemp. The US government went so far as to make a movie, "Hemp for Victory", to encourage farmers to grow hemp during the Second World War partially because of the need for ropes. Now I've never carried hemp cord so I can't say how heavy it would be dry or soaked, but the gov decided it was worth it to grow hemp. Admittedly though nylon cord is light, while I've done a little climbing and would like to do more, I used to repel a lot. Off of clifts mostly but some out of helicopters.
and as a driver I'd hate to have a celluloid air bag in my car.
How do you know air bags made from hemp wouldn't be able to do the job? Or is there some other problem?
FalconShould there be a Law?
It makes Bush the same thing as the congressional Republicans who drafted and overwhelmingly voted for the Real ID act.
I'd like to blame Bush and dismiss his presidency as a fluke, but all signs indicate that what we're seeing in the White House represents the direction the Republican party is headed. And that is sad.
Montana did not ratify Prohibition, nor did Montana law enforcement enforce Prohibition within Montana's borders.
The Montana Constitution includes the following clause: Section 33. Importation of armed persons. No armed person or persons or armed body of men shall be brought into this state for the preservation of the peace, or the suppression of domestic violence, except upon the application of the legislature, or of the governor when the legislature cannot be convened.
This has been used, in the recent past, to limit federal law enforcement incursions into the state, a fact which has been credited with being responsible for the group known as the Montana Freeman being arrested (by the Montana police, who wished to prevent another Waco-type incident), without a shot being fired. This means that Montana does not feel that the feds have the unlimited right to do as they please in Montana, or to Montanans.
A resolution has been passed by the Montana legislature requiring federal law enforcement that wishes to do anything in Montana to act through the appropriate local sheriff. The intention is to eventually give this the force of law. This tends to signify Montana's sovereignty as a state, as well as its willingness to stand up to the feds.
And, for a passport, you do not NEED a photo ID if you can get a citizen to whom you are well known to vouch for you. You'll also need some other paperwork, but you CAN get thru without a driver's license.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
At one point, the Democrats were the party that was solidly behind states' rights and the Republicans were all about centralized power.
Actually at first there was the Democratic-Republican party which Thomas Jefferson was a member of. Back then the other major party was the Federalist Party, then some of it's members became members of theWhig Party and others joined the Democratic Party.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If at first you don't secede ...
now living in Brooklyn, this makes me proud. I hope that other states follow Montana's lead and flip D.C. the bird on this one. C'mon, New Hampshire, you know you want to. "Live Free or Die" and all that.
It's interesting, isn't it, that a general rebellion against federal overreach seems to be brewing. In 2006 a number of states across the West passed medical marijuana laws only to have Bush claim they couldn't do that. Yes, a guy from the "state's rights" party claiming that states don't have the authority to regulate that which the Constitution clearly says they do.
Then you have the various states and municipalities across the country now passing pollution laws that are stricter than federal regulations because "someone has to do something about climate change."
Wonder if the un-funded mandate of No Child Left Behind has added any fuel to the fire...
In any case, I sincerely hope the states do get together and whack D.C. on the nose. The centralization of power in this country is out of control and anti-thetical to effective representative government.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
No, you do have to show ID. Based on a secret government rule, no less. http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/ John Gilmore took it all the way to the Supreme Court and they declined to hear the case.
The GOP is for states rights when it suits their interests, and against them when it suits their interests. Just as they aren't really against "big government", they're against social spending - bring on the military spending and the corporate pork projects. Or how they talk about keeping government out of people's lives, and then turn around and ban gay marriage. Democrats are the same way, of course - but they haven't spent the last few decades being two faced hypocrites about it.
It's just that nothing happens to them. Often they are released back into the community. Even if you dumped them over the border, they come back.
This ID card will not help with keeping illegal aliens out of the country because we don't DO anything when they are caught.
It WILL allow the government more control and easier suveilance of all citizens. This I cannot abide.
Blar.
I think you might be a victim of the revisionism that happened primarily 1865-1890 - or secondary "history" books that were influenced by this. Try reading some of the Southern announcements of secession. They're all pretty clear it's about "property". If you read what's written (particularly by southerners) after the end of the war, remember that they then had a reason to present secession as something that the North had "forced" them into.
...interesting that my captcha to post this is "redneck"...:-)
I worry that the Article 4 section 1 of the constitution could be interpreted to mean congress has the right to force states to adopt real ID. The article states that congress can enact laws to prescribe the way records are proven between states. I wonder if they can use that to force this issue on states.
Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
We need an Amendment that defines "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" in a way that matches both the original intent of the words as well as plain commmon sense, instead of letting it mean the radical thing that the courts redefined it to mean.
It's absolutely ludicrous that the various states' rejection of Real ID, federal decisions about what doctors are allowed to prescribe, etc, is somehow viewed as defiant or objectionable. It's simple democracy, and it's not cool that our distant rulers in DC are working against that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.