More States Rebel Against Real ID Act

Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."

Comments

Re:Big deal.

[N3WBI3]

Passports aren't issued by the states... was one of my points. They're universal.

Because they are intended for use with foreign entities. Passports are not a required form of ID to have in the US, only if you wish to travel outside the US.

License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates.

Again, no they are not!

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_license _plates_in_the_United_States) "For example, the small states Delaware and Rhode Island are able to use formats of 123456 and 123-456, respectively, while California uses the seven-character format 1ABC234, and several other populous states use the seven-character ABC-1234 format." and "In some states, information such as county of registration or month of expiration is incorporated into the number. The last number on a Massachusetts license plates indicates the month the bearer's registration expires (1234 AB would expire in April, the fourth month; zero is used for October expirations"

As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.

Right because our real problem with illegal immigrants is that they fly!

Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man.

Has nothing to do with an innate distrust of authority but thanks for bringing your straw man to the chat, he might make for better conversation than you are.

Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.

Never said it was a bad idea I said it was unconstitutional. We dont jsut do things because they are, at the time, a good idea. I also said granting power to those who in the future might abuse it is not a good idea either. That the kind of thinking that lets you elist in the military at 18 but not celebrate it with a drink until you're 21.

Re:And states do it to municipalities

[Dausha]

"Unfunded mandates"

Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.

Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.

What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.

The net effect is lower federal taxes.

State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.

Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.

Re:What it boils down to

[Plugh]

Well let's see... NH has no sales tax, no income tax, is the only state without a mandatory seat-belt law, is constitutionally prohibited from using eminent domain for private developments, has far less regulation on trades than most other states, just a few weeks ago passed an industrial hemp bill, and a few weeks before that came within 7 votes of passing a medical marijuana bill in the House of Representatives.

But all that is missing the point; it's not to say that NH is already "free"; if it were, there'd be no point in a Free State Project, now, would there? The point is that the structure of government here is amazing open and accessible, and the culture is already liberty-oriented.

If you'd like some details about why NH was a good choice as the target state, I suggest you read this PDF.