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

[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

[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: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.

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: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: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: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.