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

What it boils down to

[Billosaur]

The Wisconsin State Journal has an incredibly good analysis of the mess. They write:

States have rebelled at the $14 billion in costs the act imposes on states, as well as worries that the new security system will invade residents' privacy and create what amounts to a national ID card.

Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.

Re:What it boils down to

[Plugh]

In New Hampshire, target of the Free State Project, it is not just about money.
The Federal government can dump as much cash on us as they want and we still are bound by law not to comply.

The exact wording of the bill that Governor Lynch is expected to sign this week or next says:
[T]he public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver's license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.

By the way, if click on the generalcourt.org link above, you'll notice that each legislator has a "liberty grade." Just like in school, from "A" thru "F" -- the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance rates each and every one of the 400 State Representatives, based on how the actually vote on freedom-related bills, every year. Just one of the many things that become possible as a critical mass of pro-liberty activists concentrate on a single state.

By the way... one of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Winters, is a Free-Stater -- check his acceptance speech

Re:What it boils down to

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I remember the time when Republicans complained about unfunded mandates back before they took power of the legislatures in the early 90's, now it looks like they are happy with making them.

Re:What it boils down to

[R2.0]

Although I agree in principle, one of your examples is dead wrong. No Child Left Behind is NOT an unfunded mandate. The Feds supplied a shitload of money to states, under the condition that they meet certain standards, which teh states themselves got to set. The states took the money, and are now bitching that they have to comply with the conditions.

There may be plenty of problems with NCLB - complaints I've heard include that it encourages "teaching to the test" (solution - get a better school administration) and that there isn't "enough" federal money to meet the mandate (no duh - it was never intended to be 100% funding).

My opinion is that the local school districts, having failed students for over 40 years, have decided to go into survival mode and are throwing out whatever arguments they can to keep from having to change their bloated bureaucracies and airy-fairy "learning strategies". There are good arguments to be had, but the "unfunded mandate" one is a red herring - the funding was there BEFORE the mandate came into effect.

And thinking the locals and states are pristine islands of goodness faced with a sea of federal bureaucracy and corruption is flat out naive - the feds have nothing on the states, and especially school districts, when it comes to flat out, cash in hand corruption (although they are catching up - I'm looking at you, Jefferson)

Re:What it boils down to

[Billosaur]

I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Federal budget comes from we the taxpayers, and I don't see why my local taxes need to be driven up just so Washington can stroke its ego.

Re:What it boils down to

[Billosaur]

While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).

It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.

Re:What it boils down to

[russotto]

What would happen if the airlines or other vulnerable operations refused to follow security standards, or just came up with their own?

Then we might be able to get on a plane without being treated like a fucking criminal for having a cigarette lighter or a bottle of water.

Re:What it boils down to

[pla]

The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.

Although you make a good point, you need to dig one layer further to see that some states object on moral (or at least, autonomy) grounds rather than merely due to funding issues...

You can break states up into "welfare" and "SugarDaddy" states (This has a very high correlation with red-vs-blue, incidentally, but I don't mean this post to start a partisan flamewar). The states that have so far objected to Real Id, almost without fail, fall among the SugarDaddy states, the ones with a net outflow of money vs federal taxes.

If your hypothesis (that most objecting states do so primarily for economic reasons) held true, then you would expect to see the exact opposite pattern among objectors/SugarDaddies. As the funding comes from the states anyway, whether directly or via the federal government, having each state pay their own way would cost the SugarDaddies less, overall.

Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, your hypothesis appears false... Though I would still applaud you for raising the point, since regardless of whether the states or the feds pay, we the people still get stuck with the bill at the end of the day (or April 15th, in this case).

Re:What it boils down to

[Anonymous Coward]

I went looking for information regarding the Illinois stance.

WHEREAS, Real ID would provide little security benefit and
still leave identification systems open to insider fraud,
counterfeit documentation, and database failures; therefore,
be it

RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the Illinois General Assembly
supports the government of the United States in its campaign
against terrorism and affirms the commitment of the United
States that the campaign not be waged at the expense of
essential civil rights and liberties of citizens of this
country that are protected in the United States Constitution
and the Bill of Rights; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the members of the Illinois General Assembly
oppose any portion of the Real ID Act that violates the rights
and liberties guaranteed under the Illinois Constitution or the
United States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; and
be it further

RESOLVED, That the Illinois General Assembly urges the
Illinois Congressional delegation in the United States

HJ0027 - 6 - LRB095 11206 DRH 31743 r

Congress to support measures to repeal the Real ID Act of 2005;
and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be delivered to
President George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales,
Governor Rod R. Blagojevich, Senator Richard Durbin, Senator
Barack Obama, and each of the members of the Illinois
Congressional delegation.

Now that is from the very end of this document. There appears to be more from this search, and I am going to try to look through these before I leave for work.

Note: I had to remove the item line numbers to get past the lameness filter.

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.

Re:What it boils down to

[Plugh]

Oh yeah, and for 2nd-amendment types... the whole state is open-carry without any license, and concealed-carry licenses are on a "shall-issue" basis. Here's the NH Gun FAQ; and more entertainingly, here's what happened when some do-gooders in the Senate tried to make even the tiniest change to that shall-issue concealed-carry law. More video of that fun day is here

Oh yeah, and a few weeks ago NH became one of only 4 states in the USA to allow same-sex civil unions. We are the only state to have done so purely on the initiative of the legislature, and not as the result of any lawsuit.

Re:What it boils down to

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 — and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.

Re:What it boils down to

[aminorex]

I basically stopped flying after the first round of clampdown. I will only fly when it is strictly necessary for business, and I will usually decline business which implies flying. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the establishment of fascism and the evisceration of the rule of law. I am willing to compromise because sometimes the impact of a bloody-minded rigid adherence to single principle does more harm than good by riding roughshod over the preponderance of other principles.

Good!

[N3WBI3]

Enough of the federal government spitting on the 10th amendment in the name of the WOT...

Re:Good!

[Aqua_boy17]

While I agree with you in principle, the unfortunate reality is that the federal government will probably wind up blackmailing non-compliant states into submission.

I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.

OTOH, we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. Washington can (and has) changed regulations and requirements for passports. They should leave drivers' licenses and state issued ID's alone.

Re:Good!

[MobyDisk]

I think this is a scenario in Game Theory. And the states played it wrong.

Scenario: Big guy tries to coerce the little guys into doing something they don't want to do by offering them a competitive advantage. This type of coercion cannot work if all the little guys agree not to acccept the advantage. They remain on equal footing. But if one of them does, they all must do so or be left at a competitive disadvantage. The mafia works the same way, and it only works because of human greed. The states were accepted the "federal funding" deals from the government. This happens on highways, schools, etc. Now they are stuck - they can't go back now, but they don't want to comply with the ever-increasing dirty deeds they must perform. It's exactly how the mafia works. If nobody paid the protection money in the first place, we would all be better off.

Re:Good!

[bender647]

New Hampshire already passes on some Federal funding (bribes), being the only state in the union that has refused to pass a seat belt law at the expense of highway funding.

Re:Good!

[Smight]

I think now the smart move as a state would be to switch back to representative electoral college. Especially if your are a stronghold state for some party. That way giving a little face time to a state you can't win in might still result in some votes; ignoring a stronghold state could cost the you also.

Re:My senator never heard of it.

[Short Circuit]

Ah, crud. I are an idiot. I pasted the wrong letter. The one I meant to paste was the one where she didn't believe there were any national ID programs planned.

This is the one I meant to paste:

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to a national identification system. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and I share your concerns.

There are currently no plans in place to institute a national identification system, although some people have suggested this idea as a measure to combat terrorism. Any such system would face serious legal and constitutional challenges. For example, implementing a national identification system would potentially infringe upon recognized privacy rights and the right to travel within the United States. Like you, I am very concerned about protecting our civil liberties from unnecessary government intrusion. I am aware of this concept, and will continue to monitor this situation closely.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so again whenever I may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

DS:jm

Re:Big deal.

[Baba Ram Dass]

Who is it hurting? Everyone who thinks the government should obey the Constitution, for starters.

I can see an issue here.

[rucs_hack]

Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.

Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?

I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.
When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.

Re:Big deal.

[Baba Ram Dass]

When the federal government passes laws regarding issues not enumerated in the Constitution, they are ignoring the 10th amendment. Pretty cut and dry, you would think...

And states do it to municipalities

[geoffrobinson]

...at lest in my state. Unfunded mandates, as they are called, are definitely nothing new. And states are no saints in this matter if they are anything like New Jersey. (sorry, have to call out my home state)

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:And states do it to municipalities

[Gorm the DBA]

Well, since Cities are subunits of the State, with no independent Sovereignity (They are created and recognized by the State, and can be abolished by the State with no reprecussions, a State can not be abolished by the Federal Government), a State has the right to say "OKay, Toledo, you have to spend $1M this way".

State's right's activists protest the fact that the Federal Government, which was created by the States not the other way 'round, has taken up the habit of saying "Okay Ohio, you have to spend $100M this way".

Re:And states do it to municipalities

[Guppy06]

"Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed."

As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say "no."

This is not to say that the states themselves have not been complicit in this (after all, they only object to expansion of federal powers when it's politically expedient), but blaming politicians rather than the system they now use to gain power is treating the symptoms rather than the disease.

"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."

What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course.

"So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible."

You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs. Contentious political issues can end a political career, and a federal legislator with exponentially larger constituencies can take more political risks on such issues than a state legislator, for whom a few votes can make or break an election. State legislatures and officers only challenge Congress when it is politically expedient for them, and wouldn't stick their necks out to jealously guard their constitutional powers if it means siding with terrorists or pedophiles.

And besides, in the specific case of social programs, while the constitutional methods of federal control may be questionable or odious, the benefits and overall cost savings through the economies of scale should be obvious. Even if what you or I propose were to come about, there is certainly no guarantee that the various programs you seem to be against would be ceased rather than reformed through more legitimate means.

"States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity."

The political risk of enacting the Uniform Commercial Code was negligible at its worst. Disaffected civil libertarians can more easily make their influence felt in state legislative elections, making it more difficult for the states to make such legislation than it would be for federal politicians. Politics that need not be legitimately founded in constitutional concerns can and do get in the way of what is truly "necessary and proper" and there is no guarantee that such concerted, independent efforts could bring about just and effective government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the Constitution to begin with, as the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed.

Re:And states do it to municipalities

[Dausha]

"As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say 'no.'"

Citing the 17th Amendment does nothing to my assertion that the Court began serious abdication of authority in checking Congress in the 1930s. The confrontation between FDR and the Court (such as the Court packing plan that failed) and his ability to outlast them and appoint legislation-friendly justices directly precipitated the abdication I refer to. What the 17th did was allow lobby interests to directly bribe 100 Senators rather than the 100s of state legislators. And, while you're blaming conservative political views on my perspective, an extremely progressive law professor of mine openly admited that the New Deal was another "re-writing of the Constitution." While a harbinger of future excesses, distancing the Senate from the legislature does nothing to my argument about the Court failing to check Congress.

"What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course."

So, while attacking a solution, you fail to provide a counter. The solution must be reactive as the condition already exists. A proactive course would have been to prevent the incursion before it occurred. Perhaps by proactive you suggest that Congress itself govern itself. This is a laudable ambition, but ambitious men in Congress are too focused on maintaining power than of returning it to the People, or the states respectively. What should be ironic to you is that one, whom you claim espouses conservative views, would prefer to legislate through the Court; a tactic more commonly used by those with progressive views. A Conservative point-of-view would prefer Congress act sua sponte, or perhaps agitate for a new amendment to curb Congress.

"You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs."

You assume I presume. My whole point was that there should be local accountability for social programs. Our government, perhaps more now than before, has become one of passing the buck. Each power point blames another for the state of things and the People are lethargic.

Economic benefits of federalizing social programs is beside the point. Congress lacks legitimate Constitutional authority to legislate social programs. State legislatures inherited absolute legislative authority from Parliament, not Congress. States are given absolute legislative control with caveats (e.g. no war declaration or money coining). Congress is only given legislative control of a few areas where a bunch of men in wigs thought minimally necessary to keep the states together and function as a group. And, I submit to you that a uniform code for social programs would convey many of the same benefits.

I cite the UCC as but one of several uniform codes. There are others which have met with lessor success. Even the UCC is handled with variation among the states. Granted, there was minimal political cost by the premise that banks across the U.S. should agree to follow roughly the same rules. That's just sound (interstate) business. Others, such as the Model Penal Code, have met with less apparent success.

I'm not saying that a uniform code is without political consequences. You're comments seemingly fail to grasp my core points. First, Congress has usurped its authority and none have checked it. Second, that political consequences should be felt at the local level. You're explaining _why_ Congress has gotten away with it. I do not address the obvious reality of motive.

I would respond by saying that your comments underscore the anti-democratic nature of social legislation passed by Congress. If these programs were asserted at the local level, it may well have been political suicide

Re:Big deal.

[N3WBI3]

"Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with."

Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.

They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.

I don't think letting the federal government continue to push unfunded and unconstitutional mandates is any small measure of 'bad'.

Passports are the same throughout the states

Passports are not issued by the states

license plates are the same

No they are not EG California has a format of 1ABC234 and Minnesota has ABC-123

social security numbers are the same

Not issued by the states, they are issued by the fed for federal taxing purposes.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting?

Evidently the states who have to let the federal government make decisions for them and the force the states to pay for it.

Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".

Oh yea cause if you don't have anything to hide why would you be against repealing the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the constitution. I am assuming you mean illegal immigrants who don't want to be tracked and if they are already here illegally why in the heck would this stop them.

Re:Airlines

[wytcld]

I'm perfectly willing to carry my passport when boarding airplanes or visiting the White House. What I don't want is to have a driver's license that ends up all RFID'd (and you know they'll ask for that next if they aren't already), so that I can be easily spied on when I'm going about my business on the ground and outside the precincts of the Feds. My driver's license already is cross linked with all sorts of stuff - bank accounts, insurance policies, &c. - that my passport isn't (at least the firms only ask for driver's license # not passport). It works well enough as is for my purposes, and the purposes of those I do business with.

And if you can afford an airline ticket, you can certainly afford a passport - which is a lot better than making even people who never fly pay more for a passport-level driver's license. As a side benefit, holding a passport may even lead more people to get out and explore the wider world, and get beyond the parochial American point-of-view on a few things.

Re:Big deal.

[bar-agent]

So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?

Yes, they are, but at this point it is too late to end those programs at the federal level and replace them with state programs. Which is too bad. I, for one, would like to see some states take a more Canadian approach to public services while other states take a more free-market approach, and compare and contrast the results. States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said. And once a few states work out the initial bugs in their plans, other states can implement the best solutions, and everyone would be better off.

Re:Big deal.

[thebdj]

Passports are the same throughout the states Yes, because those are issued by who? The correct answer is: The Federal Government. States are not footing that bill, nor have they ever footed that bill.

license plates are the same *BUZZ* Oh, sorry that answer is incorrect. Some states list counties on their plates, others require two plates, while some only one. Some states have specialty plates that others do not. The way the tags and registration are charged is different by state or municipality. About the only way they are similar is in the fact that the identify a state and have numbers (or letters or both) on them.

social security numbers are the same Please see my statements on the passport discussion above. You cannot compare federally issued identifications (which have their own myriad of uses) to the driver's license.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man". This is a violation of civil liberties? It violates the 10th amendment, for which we already fought one civil war. (Trust me, the American Civil War was about more then just slaves.) It hurts all Americans. It has nothing to do with being monitored, but everything to do with privacy over security. It happens the two are really mutually exclusive and you cannot achieve both at the same time. I think you will find that we are creeping up to the line where people are not willing to cross.

Also, this is a lot more about money. States do not want to foot the bill for a government project. If the feds really wanted "National ID cards", then they should setup the infrastructure and absorb the costs to do it; unfortunately, they do not know how and it would be a disaster, just look at the time it takes to get a passport.

Everybody is missing the states rights issue

[Danathar]

Separate from this issue is the precedant of states refusing to follow the orders of the Federal Government. What will be REALLY interesting is if these states succeed and then try the same strategy with other federal statutes the states don't like.

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:Big deal.

[smooth wombat]

Passports are the same throughout the states,

Passports are a federal document, not state. I would hope they were the same.

icense plates are the same..

No they're not. There are a minimum of 500 different license plates for the states. More than likely, double that number due to the specialty plates once can get. I know in PA there are fourteen different license plates one can get not including the generic one.

social security numbers are the same...

Again, that's a federal issue, not a state issue.

What's the big deal? Who is it hurting? . . . those who don't want to be followed by "the man".

You answered your own question. I distinctly remember when I was younger, people would talk about how the folks in the Soviet Union and their satellite states would spy on their own citizens, track their movement, who they talked to, etc. In fact, my dad told me that as a ham radio operator, regardless of where in the Soviet Union you talked to someone, you sent your QSL card to one central box number in Moscow.

Forcing a national ID card on people is nothing less than doing exactly what Reagan and others harped about what was wrong in Russia for over five decades. Why would we want to follow that example?

Re:Big deal.

[Applekid]

Ah, but then there's Article One, Section 8. Congress has been exploiting this by broadly interpreting "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", and "Necessary and Proper" for the past 150 years.

They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.

Re:Big deal.

[Shakrai]

States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said

That would be Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor had a similar thought process in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."

Where are those justices when you need them?

Oklahoma

[Ian McBeth]

I am from Oklahoma.

One of the reasons we don't want to spend all the $$ to comply with RealID, is that
we just completely redid our driver's licenses in the last 4 years, at a significant cost.
The new ones are much harder to fake, and have both index finger's prints electronically bar coded on them.
Our ID's have plenty of info about us now, no more is necessary.

The Fed, just needs to mind its own broken fences, instead of telling us how to keep ours from falling.

Re:Oklahoma

[ZeoRanger]

I worked with the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety during the implementation of the new DL's, and helped deploy the new equipment. The 'touch signature' (fingerprint) that is captured is NOT encoded anywhere on the license. As of right now, these images are stored on a central server, and used ONLY as an additional means of verification when the license (or ID card) is issued / renewed.

In addition to the fingerprint, the digital photo that is taken is run through facial recognition software - your photo is initially captured by a driver examiner when you take your driving test or apply for an ID, and then again at the Tag Agency where you actually receive your license / ID. The two photos are compared by the software, and the license is issued if there is a high match percentage (I don't know the actual number).

(As an aside, this has virtually eliminated 'valid' fake ID's being issued, in the case of one person going and applying for an ID or DL, testing for it and being approved, and then giving someone else the verification document to take to a tag agent.)

The state used to require two forms of ID to replace or renew a DL / ID; with this new system, your fingerprint and your photo fulfill that requirement and verify your identity without requiring any additional documentation.

The barcodes on the license only contain the information that is actually on the front of the license - There is a standard barcode that contains the DL number and Date of Birth (if I recall correctly), as well as a '2d' barcode containing all the information (address, organ donor, etc).

Re:Big deal.

[N3WBI3]

However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4. Coupled with Article 1 section 8 paragraph 18,

Yes that would be why states don't issue green cards. How does that contradict what I said?

"Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4)."

Identify Citizens (Passport), Immigrants (Green Cards), and this license scheme is aimed at citizens not aliens.

Perhaps you should learn the Constitution before trying to interpret it.

Perhaps you should RTA and my opinion before trying to garner what I think about national ID. We have one and its called a passport what section 8 does not say is that the id can be compulsory that is for the courts to decide and it certainly has nothing to do with making states format their ID to match the federal standards.

Thoughts....

[Stanislav_J]

So the feds are going to tell a few million residents of these states that suddenly as of such and such a date they can no longer fly? Sure, like that's going to happen. We're already at or near the tipping point on this -- if even a few more states say "no thanks" it could hopefully sabotage the whole thing. This could turn into a major federal power vs. states rights battle -- after all, licensing is a function traditionally assigned to the state level.

Realistically, though, I think sooner or later the Real ID monster will be unleashed, but after some additional delays and perhaps a grace period tacked on. At the very least, I want to see this debacle delayed until after July 2010. Cos that's the earliest that *I* can renew my license by mail for another seven and a half years (I can renew 18 months prior to expiration plus 6 full years beyond that). Then I'm set until January 2018, by which time I'll be 60 and too old to give a shit any longer.....

Passport != National ID

[dazedNconfuzed]

we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. ...and nobody is required to have one unless they are entering the country (even then, there are alternate options), and nobody is expected to carry it everywhere and produce it on demand.

By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.

Re:Airlines

[JustNilt]

It's not an expense issue that makes me object the the passport issue. The main issue for many folks is the lead time required. I have a passport personally as well but let's say I don't for a moment. I'm self employed and don't plan my schedule four months out, generally.

Say I find my wife and I both manage to have a weekend off at the same time our son's visiting his grandmother. If we needed a passport to board a flight and one of us didn't have one, we'd be unable to take a spur of the moment flight up to the San Juan islands from Seattle, where we live. Well crap, there goes that romantic weekend. Say, for example, a relative in Florida dies. If you lack a passport, you're supposed to miss a funeral?! Bah.

The issue is what right the federal government has to say what MY state decides is appropriate information to determine I am who I say I am? I'm pretty sure that's not a power granted to the federal government in the US Constitution. The right to travel freely within my nation's borders is potentially at risk. This is not a small issue yet many don't really seem to get it. This is a basic freedom.

This law will be challenged as unconstitutional if it's not overturned before it's supposed to be enforced, mark my words.

New Jersey

[falconwolf]

Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.

And what of the Eminient domain cases there? Like the one that took a bunch of people's houses away from them and gave a drug company the property.

Falcon

Free State Project

[falconwolf]

I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?

The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the project organizers wanted to get thousands to move there who would then tip over politics there.

Falcon

id required

[falconwolf]

If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are

This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.

I do understand the state's right to require it

I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anonymity, which some Supreme Court rulings have said is essential to the First Admendment's right to free speech and free assembly. If the state, political entity, can require a person to show id at any tyme this limits their willingness to engage in political actions or protests.

Falcon