Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
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.
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.
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.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
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.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
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.
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.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
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.
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.
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?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"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.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
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.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.