California Edges Toward Joining Real ID Revolt

The Department of Homeland Security's Real ID program has a real challenge on its hands from California. DHS had said it will only grant extensions from the Real ID rules taking effect on May 11 to states that apply by March 31 and promise to implement Real ID by 2010. California requested an extension but would not make the latter promise. DHS buckled and said, in effect, "Good enough." Perhaps they realized that trying to slap giant California around is qualitatively different than doing the same to New Hampshire. In another crack in the wall. DHS has granted Montana a waiver it explicitly did not ask for. From Wired: "For a short moment Thursday, millions of Californians were in danger of facing pat-downs at the airport and being blocked from federal buildings come May 11... DHS had said before Thursday it won't grant Real ID extensions to states who don't commit to implementing the rules in the future. That meant Tuesday's letter looked like enough to join California to the small rebellion against the Real ID rules. For Californians that would mean enduring the same fate facing citizens of South Carolina, Maine, Montana, and New Hampshire... [A]fter Threat Level provided Homeland Security spokesman Laura Keehner with the letter, Keehner said California's commitment to thinking about commitment is good enough."

Comments

Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[snarfies]

Borodin: Do you think they will let me live in Montana?
Capt. Ramius: I would think they'll let you live wherever you want.
Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pick-up truck, or umm... possibly even...a recreational vehicle, and drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Capt. Ramius: Oh yes.
Borodin: No papers?
Capt. Ramius: No papers. State-to-state.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[zappepcs]

Not only is that insightful, but brilliantly used. People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights. Uhmmmm this is one of those times folks, where state's rights protect your own rights. For some truly interesting reading you might try this link I saw yesterday http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia It's a long read but I think an important one when you consider what the Federal government is trying to foist upon us all. The entire notion of ID kind of falls apart when you actually dig into the constitution and laws which govern this country, your state, and local municipality... at least here in the US.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[drooling-dog]

This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[xSauronx]

it just struck me....but wouldnt this be the kind of thing people could do, but call their group "anonymous" while they protested it...? /not yet awake

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[JDWTopGuy]

What's this from? I'm probably supposed to know, I feel like a n00b.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[Hillgiant]

Hunt for Red October, I think. It has been a while since I read it.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[cayenne8]

"This setback for DHS is a very good and important thing. What I'd really like to see, though, is about 100,000 citizens converging on their local airport and taking it back through the sheer weight of their numbers."

I applaude CA for this too, but, it does bring up a VERY troubling thought. Why did DHS back off their strict regulations when it came to CA, but, not all the other states?!?!?

This is, after all, the United States of America. Isn't each state supposed to be an equal of the rest of the states? Just because one state has greater land mass and population, it is not more important or have greater rights that a small state like Rhode Island!! Hell, they set up congress with a senate to have equal representation among all states, to balance out the HOR with proportional representation, so obviously each state is supposed to be an equal in this union when it comes to rights.

Man...we're getting further and further away from the principals this country was founded upon. I hope at least on this RealID thing...states will finally make a stand, and start maybe with this as an example, to get the Feds off their backs and assert where the true power in the US is supposed to reside....the states!

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[khallow]

People get all wishy washy when libertarians talk about state's rights. Federalists too. Libertarians aren't the only ones with an interest in states' rights.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[Neko-kun]

Cause it's easier to over run Rhode Island with DHS agents than California :P

And if it really worked that way, ALL the states would follow California's emissions standards not just, you know, California*...

*I'm aware there are a couple states that do

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[cayenne8]

"And if it really worked that way, ALL the states would follow California's emissions standards not just, you know, California"

I guess I don't know why you made this comment of states all following CA's emission standards. They just aren't needed in most states due to differences in climate, geography and population.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my OP about states rights....and not having the feds treat all states equally.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[Shakrai]

Borodin: Good. Then I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman, and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me

The bold/highlighted statement clearly shows his lack of knowledge about America ;)

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[guywcole]

But the state's aren't resisting to protect state powers. They're resisting because of the cost of implementing.

If the fed's had funded this mandate, it would have been implemented already, regardless of how it relates to individual or state rights.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[sjames]

Probably because LAX is an important airport and if Californians found themselves unable to use it, they might cease to support it's existance at all.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[fishbowl]

Can you actually buy a vehicle that is NOT CA-legal?

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[Reziac]

Someone in the FA's comments had a good point -- restricting access to Federal buildings if you lack an RFID, er, RealID denies the Constitutional right to petition the courts. This is begging for a legal challenge to the RealID act.

And as I understand it, if a law is being challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, it cannot be enforced until the matter is settled. (If a constitutional lawyer is handy, they may want to comment on whether this is correct.)

As to the possibility of restricting access to medicines if you don't have a RealID -- this could be extended to just about anything. Want to buy a new car, or some real estate? Not without a RealID you don't!

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

The temptation is to say that protecting states rights is the same thing as protecting individual rights. In fact, that's the kind of sloppy argument which works so well on morons, which I encourage kings and royalty everywhere to use when controlling the oh so tiresome "independent" common rabble.

There, that ought to attract lots of flames. Now my point is that protecting states rights is the same thing as protecting individual rights ONLY where the two coincide. In a lot of cases - slavery comes to mind - protecting states' rights is the opposite of protecting individual rights. Don't conflate the two, they are not the same thing.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[electrictroy]

Yes.

Almost every car is made with two versions. One version for the CARB-legal states (basically California and New England), and one version for the other 44 States which is slightly dirtier.

As example: There are two versions of the Toyota Prius. One that gets ~50 mpg and is ULEV. Another gets ~47 mpg and is SULEV/AT-PZEV. They adjust the timing of the CARB-friendly engine for lower fuel economy but cleaner exhaust, and therefore make available two versions of the same car.

Re:Did the MT extension had anything to with this?

[cayenne8]

"Can you actually buy a vehicle that is NOT CA-legal?"

That plus I'm free to modify my car pretty much as I please outside of CA.

I've never lived in a state that has a emissions check...and some had no car inspections at all.

Good

[johnsonav]

I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.

Re:Good

[CRCulver]

I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire. Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. It would be refreshing to see the governor of any state, especially California, help to terminate the Real ID movement.

Re:Good

[johnsonav]

I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire. There are many people who move to Wisconsin to take advantage of their great public University. Then move away to a state, like California or Arizona to work where there are more jobs in their area of expertise. Then they retire to Florida, where they pay no state income tax. It is only because of the states' sovereignty, separate from the Federal Government, that the people in those states can decide for themselves what is important.

States' rights make more sense now than ever before. People are able to move from state to state more easily than in the past. It's a feedback loop. As more retirees move to states like Florida and vote, more retiree friendly legislation gets passed, and more are drawn there as a result. They are happy because they get to live in a state where they have the votes to get what they want. And I'm happy they aren't here driving ten under the speed limit, clogging up the highways where I live. It's win-win.

Re:Good

[TapeCutter]

Great idea, lets divide the population into seperate states based on age, 50 states means everyone gets to move roughly once a year before retiring to Florida. We can start by sending everyone under 30 to Alaska, that'll keep those damm kids off my lawn and make the highway safe to drive on.

Re:Good

[twistedsymphony]

I wish states would step up and grow a pair more often. It's about time the states remembered their place in our system of checks and balances.

Whenever someone goes on about giving more power to the federal government I politely remind them that this is the UNITED STATES of America ... not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of America.

I live in NH and a co-worker was complaining about NH was not adopting RealID and that they would have to suffer additional search and seizure at the Airports and borders because of it. After explaining what Real ID entails, they agreed with me that it's good to be a NH citizen, where on many an occasion we thumb our noses at invasive federal programs that do more harm than good.

There's a reason NH was chosen for the Free State Project, as much as I hate the winter months here, IMO, it's politically the best state to live in (tax wise it's the 2nd best state to live in too, and that's only because Alaskans get oil kickbacks).

Re:Good

[DustyShadow]

Instead of a band of 13 somewhat diverse colonies where people felt some allegiance just to their neighbours instead of the whole country, we now have national media and increasing cultural homogeny (Red/Blue state issues aside). We might as well reflect that in government. That would require amending the U.S. Constitution. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re:Good

[Panaflex]

If Cali had a pair they'd let this date slip without a word... TSA would hit the wall, DHS would get no respect.

You want to kill a law? Then ignore it.

Re:Good

[spikedvodka]

"Live, Freeze and Cry"

though I hear you about the winters... me being a maineiac

Re:Good

[CRCulver]

We can selectively interpret the Constitution to reflect changes in society.

Re:Good

[DustyShadow]

Only the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution. Not us and definitely not the Executive branch. The federal government can do only what the Constitution allows it to do. That power is quite limited. Any other powers are left to the states.

Re:Good

[johnsonav]

We can, and do. But there is nothing in the constitution that could be interpreted to remove states' sovereignty. The constitution was written, and remains, a compact between states and their respective citizenry. The constitution does not grant the states the right to exist; the states grant the federal government the right to exist. We can come up with new ways of interpreting the constitution, or even write a whole new one, but without rewriting each state constitution there is no way to remove their sovereignty.

The states have ceded a lot of authority to the federal government over the past 200 years, especially since the Civil War. Much of that, civil rights for example, has been for the best. But the ability of the states to write and enforce their own laws is what made it possible for this country to grow from 13 colonies to one of the most geographically and culturally diverse countries in the world. Laws that may apply to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin may be counterproductive in a largely urban state like New Jersey.

States rights are still important even after the closing of our western frontier and slower growth today. State governments are more responsive, flexible and approachable than the federal government. Local politics may not be as sexy as the soap opera in Washington, but if you truly want your voice to be heard, local and state is the only way to go.

The states have tremendous untapped power even now, in this age of a strong central government. Washington just got used to pushing whatever they wanted down the states' throats. Even if I thought that REAL ID was a good idea, I still want the states to dust off their boots once in a while, just to keep everyone on their toes.

Re:Good

[BForrester]

The onus is on Georgia and Louisiana to each "grow one" -- given that they are adjacent to Florida, the state widely recognized by geographers as "America's Wang."

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

You seem to have missed the main point:

- State Legislatures operate as a counter-balance against the D.C. government becoming too dictatorial. For example, California's Legislature refusing to implement the "real id" (or as I say, Spy ID) in its current form is a way to remind the D.C. politicians to stop acting like nationalized tyrants.

If States rights did not exist, we'd all be living like D.C. residents (no medical marijuana allowed, ~$100 a year vehicle tax, universal gun ban, et cetera, et cetera). By allowing States to act independently, we keep at least *some* of our freedoms because the State Legislatures act as a counterweight against power-hungry D.C.

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

But as Thomas Jefferson said, "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps."

As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

That's a HORRIBLE idea. It's equivalent to saying we should selectively enforce some laws ("don't drive faster than 65") but not others ("it's okay to steal because we have selectively decided not to enforce that law"). Stupid idea.

Re:Good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

As for "selectively interpreting" the Constitution?

Well, the Supreme Court looks at the same issues again. For instance, Plessy v. Fergison and then Brown v. Board of Education. That's because the 9th, 10th and 14th amendments are intentionally vauge and catch-alls. At the same time, the 14th amendment, and, due to changing conditions concerning interstate commerce, the commerce clause, give the federal government growing power over the states.

I think it's a good thing that in some cases the constitution states concepts like "people should be treated equally under the law" and lets society modify the details over time.

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

I *love* winter! Snuggle-up next to a warm fire with the gentle hum of a computer nearby & some sci-fi flickering on the telly. Ahhh. Cozy.

It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived.
So darn hot, you can't go outside without
feeling like a turkey roast in an oven.

(Besides with the supposed "global warming" coming along, New Hampshire may soon be like Maryland or Jersey - not too hot; not too col; just right.) ;-)

Re:Good

[cayenne8]

"I've oft heard the argument made that the idea of states' rights makes less sense nowadays when people regularly move to a different state than their own for university, and then perhaps to a different state to work, and then perhaps to yet another state to retire."

I think that should actually be an argument more FOR states rights. Since we are more able to move at will, we could more easily move to a state that 'thought' more along the lines we do. You don't like the drinking laws in NH? Well...then move to LA, home of the 'to go cup'.

Silly example, but, there are more serious reasons one might want to move and live in another state.

Re:Good

[cayenne8]

"It's better than Charlotte NC where I once lived. So darn hot, you can't go outside without feeling like a turkey roast in an oven."

Then don't even think of moving to the New Orleans area...I've had to turn on my A/C a few times already this year...I think the first time was back in Feb.

Re:Good

[Fjandr]

And that they are allowed to do this, my friend, is the fundamental flaw in the way government works today.

Re:Good

[2nd Post!]

Don't the people own all powers not explicitly defined for the various governments?

Re:Good

[oatworm]

I think they prefer "The Sunshine State".

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

I don't.

The Constitution is a Law. It's written in black-and-white and should be treated the same way. Otherwise the Law has no meaning if people choose to ignore what it says.

If there's a particular law which seems outdated (example: "two-thirds of other persons"), then it should be removed using the procedures provided (i.e. amendment or constitutional convention) not just randomly ignored in hopes it will go away. ----- The D.C. Gun Ban is another obvious case. I can not lay my hand upon any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows ALL guns to be banned from residents of the District, and yet for the laat ~30 years the courts chose to pretend that such a law exists within the document.

Piss-poor jurisprudence. Constitutional Law has no meaning if it is ignored. It might as well not exist.

Re:Good

[Russ Nelson]

Ugh. What a thoughtless comment. How do you create good policy? By having one set of smart people in the federal government? No (how could that POSSIBLY work?). No, you create good policy by creating many different policies at the state level, and seeing what works. Then, the smart states adopt those good policies.

Re:Good

[CRCulver]

The countries that usually turn up at the top of quality of living rankings are also marked by a great deal of political centralism. The U.S., for all of the supposed promise in its states' rights ideals, is pretty far down the list.

Re:Good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If there's a particular law which seems outdated (example: "two-thirds of other persons"), then it should be removed using the procedures provided (i.e. amendment or constitutional convention) not just randomly ignored in hopes it will go away.

I agree laws should not be ignored. However, laws should be written in a way so that they apply to new situations. For instance, fraud over the internet fit into other fraud over telephone lines (IANAL, so I may be incorrect), and thus didn't require a new law. API's are designed to be applied in many situations and so should the law.

By saying, freedom of speech shall not be restricted, and nothing else, the law allows protects a lot more than if you tried to explain exactly how to do that. One is administration, the other explination.

The D.C. Gun Ban is another obvious case. I can not lay my hand upon any part of the U.S. Constitution that allows ALL guns to be banned from residents of the District, and yet for the laat ~30 years the courts chose to pretend that such a law exists within the document.

Article 4 Section 3, Clause 2. We'll leave aside the fact that, as far as I am aware, you are overstating the extent of the ban.

Re:Good

[Plugh]

Parent post hit the nail on the head. Montana and New Hampshire did not ask for extensions. That would implicitly mean they want to comply but just need more time.

NH will not comply with the Feds, period. On Real-ID. Or on mandatory seat belts. LIVE FREE OR DIE. Capiche?

Re:Good

[Attila Dimedici]

The countries that usually turn up at the top of quality of living rankings are also marked by a great deal of political centralism. The U.S., for all of the supposed promise in its states' rights ideals, is pretty far down the list. They are also about the size (geographically and demographically) of an average state. Comparing Belgium to the US is similar to comparing Chicago to California. The US more accurately is comparable to the EU. So, you are saying that some states that aren't associated with a federation do a better job of quality of living than the federation that is the US. Has any of these quality of living ranking lists done one which compares individual states of the US to countries on the list?
This is completely dismissing the fact that every one of those "quality of life" lists I have seen has had a couple of items that they weigh pretty heavily that I consider to be questionable.

Re:Good

[bwisok]

Live free and flourish!

Re:Good

[mrcaseyj]

You want to kill a law? Then ignore it.

You want a law to kill you? Then ignore it.

There, fixed it for you.

Now it's consistent with what will happen if you try to enter a federal building while ignoring the security guards demanding RealID.

Re:Good

[Loucks]

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Nope, not in there. I hear that residents of the District currently enjoy all of the rights acknowledged under the US Constitution. Except that pesky right to bear arms, that is.

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

I'm not overstating the extent of the ban. As one lower court judge observed, "What is reasonable about the banning of ALL guns?"

It literally is ALL guns that are banned from D.C. citizens. Which violates the Constitutional Law guaranteeing every person has a right to own at least SOME kind of gun (even if it's just a pistol).

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

The best government is that government which governs least. Setting-up a system where State Legislatures battle with the National Legislature for power creates a system where the government is too busy fighting itself, to bother with enslaving its citizens and turning them into Serfs.

"If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.
If leaders were angels, there would be no need for a constitution.
Since neither is true, government is necessary to protect men from criminals,
and a constitution is necessary to protect men from their government & restrain its power.

- James Madison (paraphrased)

Re:Good

[electrictroy]

A lot of those so-called "Quality of Life" lists are nothing more than arbitrary opinion by some socialist. For example, they assume that if a country has government-run healthcare that's a "high quality" asset and move them up in rank.

I strongly disagree.

I think government-run anything is a negative. Were I to produce a list, most of the so-called "top" countries would actually be at the bottom, due to monopolistic anti-choice services, lack of individual freedom, and onerous laws that treat adults like children too stupid to run their own lives.

Re:Good

[twistedsymphony]

...(Besides with the supposed "global warming" coming along, New Hampshire may soon be like Maryland or Jersey - not too hot; not too col; just right.) ;-)

You'd think that but NH just had one of our coldest and snowiest winters in recorded history... I can't tell you how many times I heard the phrase "gee I wish we were seeing some of that global warming around here!"

Seriously though, I still have over 3ft of snow on my lawn, it's still below freezing, and the forecast is calling for more snow tonight.

Re:Good

[Panaflex]

I'm not advocating anarchy... laws are a GOOD thing. Bad laws should be struck down and buried. A law is not born good... it must follow tradition, morality, and principle.

If good people start dying because of a law then it isn't a good law, is it?

Re:Good

[TapeCutter]

"You seem to have missed the main point"

Actually you seem to have missed the joke. My point (if any) was that state rights cut both ways.

Re:Good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I hear that residents of the District currently enjoy all of the rights acknowledged under the US Constitution.

Well, the tenth amendment does not apply, as they are not a state. Under a view that claims the second amendment relates to militia, then the second would also not apply (not a state- no militia).

Re:Good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Which violates the Constitutional Law guaranteeing every person has a right to own at least SOME kind of gun (even if it's just a pistol).

You'll find it's easier to get people to agree to shotguns/rifles before pistols. The primary fear most people have about guns only apply to those that are a) fully-automatic b) concealable by criminals as they commit their crimes.

Re:Good

[Loucks]

The word "state" in the 2nd Amendment is used in the sense of "country" or "nation," and it therefore applies in the District. Also, the collective right/militia argument is, at best, an argument based on ignorance.

Your name isn't Adrian Fenty, is it?

Jorbs, they be taking mine

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

Hence the call for RealID. If you have one, supposedly you can finally prove that you are a citizen and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereto. Mexican? Sorry, amigo, don't let the fence scratch you on the way out. So with all the anger towards jerb-takers, politicians see an easy way to gain votes and not actually fix anything: RealID.

It is particularly sad that we're not more open to qualified foreigners, but rather lump all immigrants (legal or not) into the same category of jerb-stealers. If you want to see what the average American thinks of immigrants, watch Lou Dobbs once in a while. Then you'll understand that not only is there a strong desire in this country for RealID, but that those people are sadly the majority.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[Anonymous Coward]

I could go for some serious elaboration here. I genuinely don't understand this sentiment?

Like, how could one think that RealID would fix any of those problems? If employers want to only hire Americans, I imagine it's very easy to tell who is American. And if you want to be *really* rigorous, you could try passports?

There could well be something I'm missing?

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[BadAnalogyGuy]

See the Citizenship and National Origin sections: http://hr.albany.edu/content/legalqtn.asp

It is illegal to do what you are suggesting above.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[plover]

"Dey took our jerbs!"

It's easy to point to Manuel and blame him for cleaning toilets for $2.00/hr. After all, his skin is darker, and he don't talk 'murrican.

The real jerb problem in this country is not that Manuel is doing the $7.00/hr job for $2, but that our corporations have been shipping all our jerbs overseas, (both in manufacturing and services) and the corporations continue to pour U.S. dollars over the borders faster than Mexicans can climb back in. The large corporate interests must be pleased that all the focus on border security is masking their bigger role in collapsing our economy for their profit.

"Dey took our jerbs!"

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. So it is. Well, to an extent.

It appears that one can ask whether they are citizen before hiring. Then require proof after having hired. I know little of the labour laws, but surely having lied in an interview is sufficient to fire someone.

It still sounds to me like it is perfectly easy for employers to not hire illegal immigrants if they don't want to...

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The source of the angst is not Manuel, though. It was Binter from India who came here on an H1-B and took that PM job from Joe America Programmer. The loss of high-quality jobs to immigrants who have no intention of staying in the US for long periods is the root cause here.

There are two ways to look at Binter. The first, unfortunately, is the way we have reacted. We turned against him and Manuel and want them out of the country so that we can have those jobs back.

The second is to look at the benefits that these people bring to the country and strive to keep them here. Which is to say that we should be encouraging the best and brightest from around the world to come here and stay here instead of acting as a five year internship and then sending them home.

But anti-immigrant sentiment is nothing new, and it will always be fomented by the government whenever they need to gain some quick votes.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[CRCulver]

The reason Binter wants to go back to his home country is because he can buy a house and live like a king with the money he saved while working in the West. You see the same thing with Moroccans who slave for a decade in France and then move back to their home village in Morocco where they build themselves a gigantic house and enjoy a nice and fairly early retirement. When that's their motivation, it's hard to keep them here.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[Wowsers]

Anti-immigrant fervor has grown steadily during the Bush administration, mostly due to the over-investment in foreign workers during the Clinton administration and the economic downturn during the early 2000s. The anger is mostly directed at Mexican and South (and Central) American foreigners who are perceived as coming into the US and stealing jobs from hard working Americans.

The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it. Want to buy something in a store with cash, show us your ID card first. Did you vote for the wrong party, your ID is cancelled and you become a non-person, unable to get state benefits / pension / health-care.

The governments are very keen on using the pretext of immigration for ID cards etc., but it is they that deliberately open the borders to let anyone in, it is a problem they can control at an instant at no cost. Having people associate proving ID with controlling immigration is a real bonus.

No, the real reason behind having the ID system is that the government wants to know about YOU, they don't care about the immigrants. Freedom is rapidly dying as people forget (or more likely never taught) what WW2 was all about.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[asuffield]

It is particularly sad that we're not more open to qualified foreigners, but rather lump all immigrants (legal or not) into the same category of jerb-stealers. If you want to see what the average American thinks of immigrants, watch Lou Dobbs once in a while. Then you'll understand that not only is there a strong desire in this country for RealID, but that those people are sadly the majority.

It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid.

USA! USA! USA!

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[asuffield]

The same might be said for Europe, and currently for the UK who also have a fetish for wanting a "super" biometric ID cards and, more importantly, the all-knowing database behind it.

It's fairly well known in the UK that the ID card is just a political front for MI5 and the police force's desire to build a fingerprint database of everybody in the country. Nobody wants the cards, they just want to work around the recently passed laws that prohibited them from collecting DNA and fingerprints of people who aren't criminals, and they've seized on the idea of creating an ID card as an excuse to write new laws that will let them.

I doubt they even care whether the project succeeds in producing an ID card (it's currently failing, spectacularly - after three years of funding they've started collecting the fees and writing down your names, but there is no card, no database, no fingerprint collection, and no firm plan for when or even how they are going to do anything other than collect more fees; they are still wrangling with the contractors about who is going to be responsible for working out the plans for these various parts). The important part for them is that the laws will still be on the books, so they can escape from the recently imposed restrictions, even if there never is any card.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[moeinvt]

"The real j[o]b problem in this country is . . . that our corporations have been shipping all our [jobs] overseas."

You can't blame a corporation, whose sole purpose is to maximize profits for the shareholders, for taking advantage of a regulatory environment that encourages overseas investment. Nor can you blame them for engaging in legal lobbying practices in an effort to pass legislation that's in their best interests. The problem is the Republicans and Democrats who continue to create government policy that's contrary to the best interests of the vast majority of the population.

Or, perhaps you can go a step further and blame the vast majority of the population for voting these politicians into office, but I'd tend to cut the voters a little bit of slack considering the circumstances.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not a matter of quick votes. Basically, it is a matter of Adam Smith. This is the way the capitalism works. For the capitalist economy to work you need to have constant changes on the demand and supply chain, including the labor force one.
Basically, when the economy is growing, they need a fast influx of available labor, so the government and the press go to TV and start to sing Star Splanged Banner and say that we are a country of Immigrants, yada, yada, and then, voila!, the capitalists got their excess supply of labor force and they can throw the wages down, to maximize profits. They also give away easy credit, so the poor American Joe can buy all the beautiful things he sees in Cribbs.
Then, when the cycle of expansion must end, so the big capitalists can stop to invest money on capacity expansion, and finally take all the profit to their deep pockets, the government throws some airplanes on some buildings and start to campaign on tv, together with our amazing free press. So they begin to say that all the immigrants are raping white women (I really don't know why a Latin immigrant would rape a white-trash wacko instead of a hot Latina, but Bill O'Reilly knows), that all immigrants are terrorists, that all immigrants are stealing our jobs. So they deport everybody, and the supply of labor force falls. Then they cash in.
And they have excess profit so they can invest more, so there comes another cycle of Immigration is good, we are a country of Immigrants, etc.
Is just pure capitalism working, nothing else. And that is the reason why California will always have a more pliable Immigration approach. Basically, California's economy needs more and constant influx of excess labor force, because it is way bigger than the rest of the US.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[electrictroy]

I object.

It's not the immigrants I dislike. My closest friends were born in Japan, China, and Afghanistan, and I welcome them to the United States.

It's the ones who think "I'm above the law and don't need no stinkin' visa" who annoy me. My other friends followed legal procedure, filled-out all the necessary forms, and became U.S. citizens per the standards laid-out by the People's representatives in Congress.

The illegals did not.

They should be packed into buses, handed the required "request to become citizen" forms, and sent home to follow the *proper* way to enter this country. No man is above the Law of the land, not the U.S. president, not you or me, and certaintly not illegal entrants.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[cayenne8]

"It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid."

Actually, if you look at the majority of burger flippers out there....they also cannot speak English, because they aren't from the US. The sad thing is...there are many that are trying to give them the right to vote too!!

--And the invasion continues...

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[ahabswhale]

It has been known for some time that people of limited literacy (can read enough to flip burgers, can't read enough to work in an office) form a majority in the US - you have a majority that's either uneducated or just plain stupid. You can divide up any country in this fashion: 20% are smart to brilliant, 60% are average (or somewhat stupid as I see it), and stupid to moronic. I've traveled to eight countries (including England) and this seems to hold true everywhere I go.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[YttriumOxide]

You can divide up any country in this fashion: 20% are smart to brilliant, 60% are average (or somewhat stupid as I see it), and [20% are] stupid to moronic.

Perhaps, but I'd contest that these percentages are all around the national average, which varies greatly. The brilliant seem to be brilliant anywhere, granted, but the "average" and "stupid to moronic" seem to vary greatly from place to place (and not even "country to country" necessarily - you can compare individual states in the US, or even individual towns/cities within a state should you wish).

I've traveled to eight countries (including England) and this seems to hold true everywhere I go.

I've LIVED in 5 countries, and visited 39 so far. The place I spent most of my childhood was southern New Zealand, and the very idea of an illiterate person conjured up images of people raised in the wilderness by wild animals. Much later in life, I learned that the slums of Auckland do indeed contain semi-illiterate people, but it's a rare find indeed. To find an illiterate person in the US is unfortunately quite easy apparently.

(Note: I just checked Wikipedia and it seems that both New Zealand and the US are listed as 99.0% literate, but I honestly can not believe that 1 in every 100 people in New Zealand is illiterate (which would be 41000 people), even given the slums of Auckland. And even taking in to account what I just said about the US, I also have a hard time believing there are 3 million illiterate Americans.)

To get back to my point though - the "average" person seems to vary quite a lot, so even if your rough percentages are moderately accurate, the qualifications that those percentages refer to may differ somewhat.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[DamnStupidElf]

They should be packed into buses, handed the required "request to become citizen" forms, and sent home to follow the *proper* way to enter this country. No man is above the Law of the land, not the U.S. president, not you or me, and certaintly not illegal entrants.

So what do you do with the thousands (or is it millions now?) of legal U.S. citizens whose parents are illegal aliens, many of them very young? You think social services and foster care can handle that many (non-English speaking, mostly) kids? Or should the U.S. be in the business of expelling its own citizens now?

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[asuffield]

(Note: I just checked Wikipedia and it seems that both New Zealand and the US are listed as 99.0% literate

The US figure is from the CIA world factbook, which is, to put it as generously as possible, lies. The US government wanted to proclaim their literacy so they commissioned a study that would define "literacy" as meaning whatever level 99% of the population could manage. This turned out to be a few hundred words - such people can't read a newspaper. They basically consider you literate if you can read street signs. This result is widely derided.

This study gives a more meaningful answer.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[YttriumOxide]

Wow... so according to that actual percentage of literate people, by what a rational person would define as truly literate, is LOWER than 99%? I was giving the US the benefit of the doubt in my previous post and assuming the stated figure was too low (as it seems to be for New Zealand), however if 99% is actually too HIGH, that's a very serious and disturbing issue.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[electrictroy]

Nothing. You can't deport naturalized citizens. But you can deport their illegal parents. I'd give the parents the option to take their children with them (guardians determine the citizenship of minors), but the parents absolutely can not stay, even if that means turning the children over to an adoption agency (there are tons of sterile familes just waiting to adopt).

Criminals NEED to be punished, not patted on the back and said, "Good job." I'm sick and tired of people acting like it's okay to steal, rape, kill..... and then not get punished. Laws exist to be enforced, not ignored. This is a REPUBLIC, where the law rules, and people who break the law need to be punished.

(And yes I consider illegally entering as country to be as bad as stealing. You're breaking the law, and trying to gain access to taxpayer-provided services like food stamps when you never paid any income tax. That's stealing. Send them back to Canada where they belong.)

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[electrictroy]

I don't know why people talk about "literacy" like it's such a great thing. Gone are the days when the only source of information was books or newspapers... such as during the 1800s when European researcher Tocqueville observed virtually all Americans could read. Back then reading was a necessity.

But not today. Today you can acquire huge sums of knowledge from television and radio. For myself, I took college-level courses while driving & listening to an audio cassette. No reading required, because the information traveled from the professor to me via sound waves.

The idea that "reading is the only way to learn" is an old-fashioned as steam-engined trains.

A TRUE literacy test would also take into account modern forms of learning such as sight and sound.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[ahabswhale]

I'm sorry but this is a red herring. You can't sum up literacy into a simple percentage and call it a day. There are many ways to define literacy and every country has their own standards for doing so. You also have to consider that the US has a huge immigrant population, many of which can speak and read almost no English. These people would all be considered illiterate even by the loose standards the government came up with for their survey.

I've lived in three states spread across the US (CA, NC, and MN) and I've found virtually everyone to be literate if you exclude people who are either immigrants, criminals, mentally retarded, and the very poor. Of the people who are illiterate, it's their choice and not a failure on the part of the US to offer education. Note: by law, all children must attend school, however, there is no law that requires them to study. In New Zealand, you have virtually no immigration by comparison so you can weave a culture of literacy across generations very easily. It's not an apples to oranges comparison. There's no way a country like the US could EVER have a literacy rate at the top, short of countries like New Zealand suddenly not caring any more.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[YttriumOxide]

In New Zealand, you have virtually no immigration by comparison

Immigration New Zealand might disagree with you on that... New Zealand is actually VERY MUCH a migrant country.

You can't sum up literacy into a simple percentage and call it a day

I agree completely that literacy can't be summed up in such a simple way, but as far as I'm aware, most countries that measure literacy of the population do so taking in to account language differences and so on, not merely "how well can a random sample of people comprehend a particular piece of text"

There's no way a country like the US could EVER have a literacy rate at the top

I'll grant that, given the situation, but my comment was more that literacy rates do seem to be lower than they should be, not that they are lower than any particular country. I only used New Zealand as an example (which, according to the percentages I showed, isn't actually a very good example anyway, and most likely due to many of the factors you've referred to). Also note that I actually assumed US literacy at a much higher percentage than the 99.0% figure that I quoted.

As an interesting side note, I wonder how much the literacy rate is affected by the amount of homeless people that have been homeless for a great deal of their lives - such a thing is extra-ordinarily rare (to the point of practical non-existence) in New Zealand, however unfortunately as far as I've seen, most major US cities have at least a small percentage (probably well under 1%) of people that fit this category.

Re:Jorbs, they be taking mine

[YttriumOxide]

PLEASE tell me you're joking! Literacy is not just about the ability to learn new information by reading things, it's a basic requirement for a normal life in western society (and most others for that matter). An illiterate person can't get a job beyond the most basic of labour, can't function in matters of democracy, and can't even decide which restroom to use in a restaurant if there aren't pictures on the door. Literacy is about a LOT more than just learning and education (although it of course plays a very large role in those as well).
From the fact that you're posting to slashdot, I assume you are in fact quite literate, despite your anecdote about how you studied for your college level courses. Have you stopped to realise how much reading you actually do from day to day? Parking signs when you're driving (with the hours you're allowed to park etc), phone books, labels on food... the list goes on.

If it wasn't for arnold ...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Good thing they've got the governator.

If it wasn't for him, we'd be dead from aliens and terminators and who knows what else! Its no wonder that even the DHS can't push him around.

Re:If it wasn't for arnold ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer "gubernator." With the emphasis on goober.

Re:If it wasn't for arnold ...

[FearForWings]

I am more thankful for his earlier works of stopping crazy snake cults and assisting hot female barbarians.
And perhaps his work as a kindergarten teacher.

Re:If it wasn't for arnold ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing they've got the governator.

If it wasn't for him, we'd be dead from aliens and terminators and who knows what else! Its no wonder that even the DHS can't push him around.

Last I heard, California was being over-run by illegal aliens. I don't know about illegal terminators, though.

Who is being protected?

[Nomen Publicus]

Identity has little if anything to do with intent.

Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

So you have to wonder exactly what the government thinks it is protecting itself from by using REAL ID?

Re:Who is being protected?

[AJWM]

Citizens with valid and accurate papers are perfectly capable of entering a federal building with evil intent.

Heck, citizens with valid papers and evil intent don't even need to enter a federal building to cause harm. Timothy McVeigh just parked his Ryder truck full of ANFO in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

The bit about preventing non-RealID holders from entering federal buildings has nothing to do with securing the buildings and everything to do with extorting compliance with RealID.

Re:Who is being protected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are not aware of this, but federal buildings constructed after the Oklahoma City bombing have been designed so that attacks from automobiles are not possible. The face of the building is further away from vehicle access and there is a physical incline and/or barriers that make it impossible to ram or bomb the building using an automobile. Older buildings have typically been retrofitted with barriers.

These are the sort of facts you need to know before you try to make an argument.

Re:Who is being protected?

[DamnStupidElf]

You obviously haven't ever seen a truck with a good lift kit. Or watched any of the boulder climbing competitions. The kind of people who mix ANFO for fun are the kind of people who like lift kits on their trucks and/or climb boulders with them. Security at almost every non-military site (and many military sites) is still absolutely pathetic.

Re:Who is being protected?

[Reziac]

Until, of course, RealID is required to pass through the security checkpoints into Secure Areas (such as surrounding courthouses), or across state lines..... Papers, Komrade!!

Re:Who is being protected?

[darkfire5252]

Ok, so that's one case of one building being impervious to a car bomb placed out front. I'd wager a good bit of money that there exist a number of federal buildings that are not protected from that. Even assuming that no external attack would damage a federal building, you run into the same logical fallacy that the airports subscribe to; if we keep all threats out of the area behind the checkpoint, then no attacks can occur. Even assuming the checkpoint is infallible (it's not), the reality is you've only moved the point of attack to the checkpoint. You haven't eliminated any threats, you just changed them.

So, let's look at which seems more likely: well-intentioned politicians debated the subject, and decided that federal buildings are (or ought to be) impervious to all outside attacks and have a blast-proof area suitable for a RealID checkpoint, therefore denying those without RealIDs access to federal buildings would eliminate that particular threat; OR politicians who have a vested interest in seeing RealID adopted publicly realized that, citizen or not, a person who cannot enter a public building (the DMV, the post office, city hall, the list is very long...) until they get a RealID are effectively forced to get one. Hrmm...

Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[resistant]

As has been remarked before (by myself and others), one of the more interesting results of demanding such specific identification of residents of states that balk at Big Brother is the abrupt denial of the Constitutional right to seek redress of grievances in the courts (read the Federal courts). If you have such "leper" identification, suddenly you cannot sue anyone in the Federal courts, or even show up to defend yourself if you are sued in a Federal court or charged with a crime in the Federal courts, or testify as a material witness in Federal courts. Will Federal judges issue contempt of court citations against the defendants, or against the armed agents who prevent the defendants or witnesses from entering the courtrooms? Getting Federal agents to enforce a blizzard of contempt of court citations against themselves could be problematic. I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one at drunken parties, but this all seems entertaining in a grim way.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[Harmonious Botch]

You can enter the courtrooms. You just get searched more intensively.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[resistant]

On the contrary, after the deadline, you cannot (legally) enter Federal buildings and therefore the courtrooms in them, even if you agree to be searched with a microscope and a probe captured from the aliens at Roswell. Without a "Real ID" identification or a (Federally issued) passport, you're technically screwed. Lots of people have no passport, nor feel any need for a passport, which is supposed to be only for entering and leaving the country, not for basic civil rights.

As a practical matter, though, I gravely doubt that the judges in those courtrooms would allow for an instant actually barring people from their courtrooms, leading nervous Federal security agents to ignore the black letter wording of the law, perhaps doing as you suggest and settling for giving the hairy eyeball to anyone arriving, voluntarily or otherwise, without his duly issued mark of the beast. They like giving people the hairy eyeball anyway, even without encouragement.

I suppose with this regime sooner or later someone will get cute and claim through a lawyer that he can't answer a summons regardless from a Federal judge because the law plainly forbids him from entering a Federal building without a "Real ID" identification or passport, and he has neither, and he cannot be legally forced to break the law. That would be amusing, although probably not to the judge who would be issuing contempt of court citations.

BTW, the Wikipedia entry is interesting and might as well be hereby linked

.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[sconeu]

Now that's an idea.

Sue the Federal Government over the Real ID. Send you lawyer to court. When the judge asks "Where's the plaintiff?", your lawyer states that you are legally barred from entering the courtroom by the Real ID act.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[Anonymous Coward]

I entered a federal courthouse last week without even being asked to see ID. That was good, because I had forgotten it at home. I suspect that there are already sufficiently many people who walk around without government-issued photo IDs that they have some procedure for letting you in without one.

dom

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[krondell]

Seems to me, that any law that prevents you from entering a court to defend yourself would violate your right to due process.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[Khyber]

The judge would just issue a temporary injunction against the act and bring your butt into the courtroom anyways.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[Anonymous Coward]

"or even show up to defend yourself if you are sued in a Federal court or charged with a crime in the Federal courts..."

no. they then issue a warrant for your arrest and drag you in.

btw, no juries either. just tell THAT to our oh so patriotic citizens --NO JURY DUTY, whoppee. ;)
http://fija.org/

american justice occurs in this order:
1. ballot box;
2. jury box (judge both law and defendant --see link);
3. cartridge box.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[fishbowl]

>Seems to me, that any law that prevents you from entering a court to defend yourself would violate your right to due process.

It would, but it would have to actually happen to you before you had standing to use it either as a defense argument or as
cause to sue for damages.

Good luck; your scenario is simply not going to happen.

Re:Upset Federal Judges and Litigators

[sconeu]

Maybe so. But it seems to me that the fact that he would have to grant a temporary injunction just to get your butt into the courtroom would weigh heavily in his final decision.

After all, the right to petition for redress of grievance is explicitly listed in the First Amendment.

DHS: Will You Marry Me?

[organgtool]

DHS is coming across as a desperate guy who proposed to a woman way out of his league. He anxiously tells his friends "She didn't commit to a 'yes', but she committed to thinking about committing".

Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[zappepcs]

Here is the link I meant to put in the post above: http://phoenix.craigslist.org/pol/581103415.html

Sorry about that... not back to normally scheduled reading.. or not

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I don't mean to come across as a troll.

That Santa Fe guy talking about rights freedoms and the right drive without license etc is a total kook. So what is going to happen if someone steals his truck? He is going traipse all over New Mexico searching for his truck rustler? Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Curunir_wolf]

I don't know what you're getting at, here. Are you saying that since he doesn't want to be hand over his rights to the MVD that he can't seek help from law enforcement when his property is stolen?

I say kudos to the guy for standing up for what he believes in. I wouldn't be brave enough to do it myself (nor the time to deal with all the legal research and filings). I support his efforts.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[electrictroy]

Well of course.

The government exists for the purpose of protecting our rights & returning stolen property, whether it's a car, television, refrigerator, lawnmower, or whatever. Of course it's the job of the sheriff to recover stolen property.

Vice-versa:

The man in New Mexico is 100% correct. The government does Not exist to deny our right to travel. This is why Amish Americans are free to use Pennsylvania roads without license, title, or restriction (though their preferred conveyance is by horse-and-buggy). Likewise we more "modern" americans with our gasoline-fueled vehicles have the same right to travel without restrictions as our Amish-American neighbors.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am saying he is very unreasonable. We are not in the horse and buggy days anymore. It is possible to cause far more damage with a car than it is possible with a horse and a buggy. Let him drive without a license if he wants to in his private property. The roads belong to all of us. We need reasonable restrictions so that we can all use it safely and effectively. If the guy can't demonstrate that he can operate a motor vehicle safely, I have the right to stop him from driving on my highway. My right to safe use of my highway can not be compromised by whatever rights he fancies he has. He has to demonstrate that he is capable of handling a vehicle safely, and that he vehicle he is using is safe, with proper brakes and lights and stuff. And we the people own the air collectively. We decide how much pollutants he can emit while operating his vehicle.

Whatever may be the merits of his case or his arguments, he can not unilaterally decide what rights he has. It is the courts of law that decide whether the rights he thinks he has are really his rights or he is blowing smoke. He went before a judge, and the judge ruled that he is a kook. So he remains a kook till an appeals court reverses it. Stop supporting such idiots just because he is sticking to the MVD. You might hate MVD and MVD could be as stupid and inefficient as any govt bureaucracy can be. But the opposition must be reasonable. Supporting all kinds of idiots just because they oppose MDV is stupid.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The roads belong to all of us. A car can cause far more damage in the hand of an incompetent operator than a horse and a buggy. My right to use the highway safely can not be compromised just because you think you have the right to bring anything you want and use it any way you want. It is my right to demand that you demonstrate that you are competent to use a vehicle, and your vehicle poses no hazard to me. That is the legal basis for creating the dept of motor vehicles to determine who is competent and what is safe. If you claim you don't need a license to drive on public roads, persuade a judge to agree with you. If not get a license. That guy went before a judge. And the judge ruled he is a kook. So he is a kook till an appeals court reverses the ruling.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Fjandr]

Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?

Considering it's the sheriff's legal obligation to protect the rights (such as property) of the individuals in his county, the answer would obviously be "yes." This question really has no bearing on the assertions made in that link.

Having known others who have successfully done the same thing, the only thing that any of the people who do this have to endure is harassment. If it were really kooky, they'd lose their vehicles and end up in jail. However, neither of those things actually happen.

Just because you (and most others) may believe that the status quo is legitimate does not actually make it so. The fact that courts dismiss these cases is a bit more telling.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[electrictroy]

(1) People driving large, damaging vehicles also pay more in gasoline taxes because those types of vehicles are gas guzzlers.

(2) "Don't damage the road" is not justification to deny someone's right to travel. Nor is "you are black" justification to enslave a person. Or "you are a pregnant woman" justification to deny the right to get a job. And on and on. Rights can not be taken away for trivial, bullshit reasons.

(3) Horse/buggies actually do quite a bit of damage to roads, so by your reasoning they should be banned until properly registered.

However the Amish Americans are very resourceful at getting their way. That's why they don't have licenses, they do pay property tax, but not income tax, nor social security, nor medicare. They may be "old-fashioned" but they still believe in HUMAN RIGHTS FROM GOD, and no politician is going to convince an Amish American that he has the authority to overrule the creator, or ban them from using the People's Roads. Therefore they don't follow what they consider to be unjust, illegal, unconstitutional laws.

I guess that makes Amish Americans "kooks" too?
Oh well; I suspect they don't care what you think.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Russ Nelson]

Out in the real world, it costs a $10 bribe to get a driver's license in India. No exam, no test, no proof of anything needed. And yet their accident rate is comparable to ours.

Regulation is *always* created to give somebody an advantage over somebody else. It's *never* created to protect against the incompetent. The real incompetents don't know how to drive, and DON'T drive. That's the law.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Lemmy Caution]

And yet their accident rate is comparable to ours.

Indeed, they are comparable. And the comparison is: theirs is higher.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is not the damage to the roads. It is my safety at issue. In principle, the people, have the collective right to impose restrictions and terms and conditions for fair use of all common property. The Government is our agency to make sure people use it safely without endangering anybody else, on a commonly accepted terms of use. That is the principle for issuing licenses for drivers. Road tax is a separate issue, people who use the road pay the tax to maintain it. Even if it is Amish, if they pose danger to the public, we have the right to restrict them. Amish have been cited for drunken driving of horse and buggy too. Amish have to follow traffic rules and safety rules too..

. And we do have the right to tax them if we so desire. Usually we let them by because they are so peaceful. But in principle, we do have the right to tax them for the road, for their property and even to collect school taxes for the county, even they don't send their children to the county schools. We the government protect their property from intruders and provide for a non violent conflict resolution mechanism. Without our protection, those peaceful Amish would have been eaten alive. So we have the right to tax them. But usually we don't because it is so unfair to tax such peaceful people.

The original poster is making the point that it is one's inherent right to use the roads as long as he is not engaging in commerce, and he does not need any license, he need not obey any fitness-for-the-road criteria etc etc. Such claims are unreasonable.

You can argue, the license is just to make sure the driver is competent and it should not be used for the identification of individuals etc. Or you can argue a particular requirement does not improve the safety of the road use. Or any such arguments on specifics of the law. And use democratic ways to elect people to change the law. But to make a blanket statement, anyone can drive a motor vehicle on any public road without license as long as he/she does not do it commercially is complete idiocy. It is not reasonable, ethical, moral, libertarian or legal.

First concern I have is my safety. Second is fair use of all people to use the roads. Third is the court deciding whether rights claimed by the individual are really his rights. Anyone who calls the judge a traitor, is not going to have my sympathy.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am from India. The accident rates in India are horrendously high. India has one third the area of USA and 3.5 times the population. So if count accident rate per thousand and such statistical measures you can make it appear as though accident rates are same in India and USA.

But in reality, roads are so horrible, the average speed is 40 Kmph within cities and much much lower during rush hours. Between the cities, the speeds are between 60Kmph and 80Kmph. And the accidents are horrible. Ambulance service is bad. Measured in passenger kilometer terms, India's rate is about 100 times worse than USA. See the stats below.

90000 Indians die in road accidents, despite having less than 1% of the number of vehicles in the world. Assuming USA 150 million vehicles, traveling 15,000 miles per vehicle, 25000 traffic fatalities per year, India with 15 million vehicles, traveling 6000 miles per year, the accident rate in India is 90 times worse than USA.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Reziac]

I think what he's getting at is that a "driver's license" USED to be certification that you were a reasonably good driver, sufficiently safe to turn loose on the public byways. This has changed rather radically, coincidental with the introduction of photo IDs.

(Driver's licenses didn't used to have your picture, just your name and a certification of what class(es) of vehicle you were tested on.)

The use of a driver's license as a required form of ID, tho, probably IS unconstitutional, in the strictest sense. Likewise, confiscation of personal property because of failure to follow a possibly questionable law.

I agree the guy is a kook, but he does have a point.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[Curunir_wolf]

Well what you are talking about, there, is prior restraint. You're saying that it's alright to deny someone their rights until they follow some process or other, and pay some arbitrary fee. That's just not justifyable in any sense, when you want to have a free society. You might as well pass some laws that say no one is allowed to print a newspaper or hand out flyers until they get a speech permit and obtain a speech license. After all, they may say something that is harmful or incites violence, or is seditious or libelous.

Re:Damn that commy cut and paste buffer

[electrictroy]

>>>"In principle, the people, have the collective right to impose restrictions and terms and conditions for fair use of all common property."

That's correct. And in the State of New Mexico, the people have chosen *only* to regulate cars used for commercial purposes. Non-commercial cars are not required to register.

That's the law.
You may not like it,
but that's the way it is.

Its Official... I am an Idiot

[keirre23hu]

Posted this to the wrong story... need caffeine

Montana Governor

[Speare]

A couple weeks ago, I heard the governor of Montana on NPR, talking about why his state wasn't going along with the federal plan. It was an embarrassing interview, he tried to sound folksy as a rural westerner would, but ended up sounding ornery, obstinate for no real reason, and clueless on the real issues. In my opinion, he missed a real chance to explain real reasons why Real ID doesn't make sense. I very much wish that they would get security experts like Bruce Schneier to talk in layman's terms about the actual shortcomings, or even Constitutional scholars to talk about the states-rights issues that apply here, than to get politicos who just want to explain why they "ain't signin' up today fer a concept of tomarra."

Re:Montana Governor

[superid]

The interview can be found here I heard it too but have not re-listened to it. I suppose he could have been a little more polished and less cranky but I think the gist of his argument was that it was a nebulous federal requirement that would cost Montana money and there would be no benefit.

I hope he doesn't back down.

Re:Montana Governor

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree his heart's in the right place and he does know his own reasons for disagreeing with the plan. He just didn't explain it, and when so few people out there really understand security OR freedom, this guy may have set back the debate.

Re:Montana Governor

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS on that. I heard that interview and it got me really fired up for the first time. It may not have motivated you, but it motivated me. When he said it's time to "tell them to go to Hell", I realized that there IS at least one politician with some balls. How rare.

Re:Montana Governor

[DannyO152]

Never underestimate the power of cranky cheapskatery to convince an electorate. Indeed, "it will raise taxes" can kill initiatives which have long-term payoffs. I'm glad this time the argument is on the side of the angels and Declaration of Independence.

Re:Montana Governor

[Apotsy]

WTF? Clueless? Embarrassing? Maybe you should listen to it again. He certainly did list several "real reasons" why RealID doesn't make sense. He said most of the 9/11 hijackers would have qualified for it. He said it can be obtained with a birth certificate, which as he explained is easy to forge. He mentioned the lack of federal funding. He even used the phrase "unfunded mandate", something Bruce Schneier lists on his site as well, which is funny because you wish interviewers would talk to Bruce instead, even though this guy said pretty much the same thing. Did he list everything wrong with it? No, but it was a short interview. Also, his accent was nowhere near as thick as you portray with your mocking quote at the end.

The only thing "embarrassing" here is your post and the prejudice it reveals in you.

Re:Montana Governor

[Reziac]

He's a farmer by profession. What's he *supposed* to sound like??

States the Last Hope?

[Phoenix666]

Congress won't defend the Constitution or Rule of Law anymore. The Supreme Court has been compromised.

Perhaps the states are our last hope. If California, New York, and just a few of the other big states say no to all the nonsense, the federal government shall have to back down or stage a coup.

It would be great to see them band together and take a very strong, pro-Constitutionalist stance on RealID, as well as the other recent intrusions on states' rights (I mean it in the Constitutional sense, not the neo-con sense).

For instance, the deployment of National Guard overseas at the expense of Civil Defense; the National Guard units belong to their respective states and actually answer to the governors, not the President. Or take the Medical Marijuana initiatives that passed all around the country in 2006 and which the Federal Government has been trying to countermand--it's not my issue but the states have the right under the Constitution to regulate such matters within their own borders.

Maybe, just maybe, if the states lead the way Congress will grow a pair.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Atlantis-Rising]

See, this is a view that I don't understand and never really understood.

You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that.

You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that.

Now, Congress may not be enacting the laws you like, and the Supreme Court may not be ruling the way you think it should. But Congress is empowered with enacting the law, and the Supreme Court is empowered with judging it, and as I see it, both groups are doing exactly that.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Sandbags]

The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...

Facts:
- The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in place currently. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will also be closely guarded by top security people since it's such a public issue. Access will be restricted to public sector netowrks, not open to the public or common hacking attacks, just like the ATM network and existing police and DMV systems. It will be monitored constantly. Do you think South Carolina has a top notch FBI security team monitoring access to THEIR systems? I can tell you as someone who knows a few former programmers at the for SC state who wrote that system, NO IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT! there have even been breakins at DMV offices where PC, printer, and blank IDs have been stolen since the system requires no direct connection to a secure validation network in order to print IDs.

- Currently, all you have to do if you loose your license in one state is move to another and apply for a licesne there. Too many DUI's? just move and reset. Under Federally issued ID, this will not be possible, and states can protect themselves from repeat bad drivers (driving is a privelidge, not a right, and if you abuse it, we have the right to take it away and make sure you can't get it back, even if you move). This will lower insurance costs across the board.

- Few people in security (professional residential, even bartenders) can be expected to know how to spot fake IDs from every state (There are over 200 legal forms of ID circulating in america). With a single secure ID, we don't have to even look for fake info, we can swipe it, compare a computer screen to information on the ID, and compare the picture to the person, even use a biometric scan as further confirmation. RFID may not be secure, and it may only take a few days for someone to crack the chip in the ID and distribute hardware and software to edit it, but cracking the text printed on the ID will be much tougher. The state of CT has one of the hardest to forge IDs I've ever seen, and I've not seen them all. If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)

- Anyone with a valid or fake ID today can sneak into just about any federal building. Real ID will make this more, not less, secure, as fakes will be easier to spot, and real ones that are invalid will be harder to get.

- yes, you information will be accessible by more agencies and organizations than ever before. Most of this will still require a warrent unless it's for entering say a speeding ticket. Your financial information will not be tied to this ID, only your address, ID number, and a few minor details about you. It's no more secure of insecure than your current drivers license, which all of us regularly give photocopies of at will to anyone who askes, right? If you already give this out, who cares if agencies, with strict controls over this information and who it's accessed, have it?

- You can't log onto this database and pull records for large amounts of people. This is an integrated and unique system. To get a record, you have to fill out a query. Even as a hacker, and even if you could get onto an authorised terminal or hack your way in, and even if you had a copy of the client software package used to access this database, at best, you can get a few search results at a time, and only 1 record at a time. Search too much or too long, or try to backdoor the system, and it will know. the database will simply be too big to "steal." all you can do is access it.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[moeinvt]

"You say "Congress won't defend the constitution or the rule of law", but it's Congress's job to create the rule of law, and it does that."

The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.

"You say the "Supreme Court has been compromised", and yet the purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on constitutional questions (among other things), and it's doing that."

Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Atlantis-Rising]

The point is that Congress is also BOUND BY laws. Just because Congress is empowered to create and pass legislation doesn't mean that they are somehow immune from existing laws. Furthermore, their powers are specifically elaborated in The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. If they were defending the Constitution, they would have, for instance stopped a renegade executive from stripping them of their exclusive power to declare war. They'd also be holding hearings into why the executive branch is spying on U.S. citizens without probably cause, etc. etc.

Yes, Congress is bound by the laws. However, what you are talking about with regard to the Executive are not issues of constitutional jurisdiction but of political will. Congress has many avenues legally available to it, but it chooses not to exercise them. In this case, you have Congress tactictly agreeing with the executive. If you feel that's inappropriate, there is recourse via the Court.

Perhaps "subverted" would have been a better description? Yes, they're making rulings all the time, but if their rulings are no longer in line with the Constitution, then they are failing to uphold the law and should be removed from their positions . . . but now we're back to Congress again.

In your opinion. Given that the Court is given the JOB of interpreting the constitution, perhaps a rational entity would conclude that if you and they disagree on whether something is in line with the constitution, we might merely give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for whether it is in line to impeach judges for refusing to toe the line of Congress, that's arguable at best, and Marbury v. Madison and Powell v. McCormack both point out that the Court feels it may have jurisdiction in cases where they are not mere 'political issues'. In practice, if I recall correctly, this means that impeaching judges is only really done when they have committed crimes.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Olipyr]

I'd rather have freedom than this supposed "security". Having freedom is having security.

Hopefully, I'll be able to move to a more educated country in the very near future.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[FearForWings]

If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)
But if all you have is a faked REAL-ID does that mean you don't have to appear in the federal courthouse for your trial?

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Sandbags]

What freedom are they taking away from you by replacing one form of ID with a nother one?

They already have all this information about you in the govenment's (IRS) taxpayer database... You already have a drivers license... You already can't enter a federal or state building without one...

By issuing you a universal ID, they're: making it cost less (only 1 organization paying millions for programming, not 51 of them), simplifying state to state communication, reducing insurance fraud, reducing tax fraud, helping reduce Identity theft, and having a better tracking system for criminals who move out of one state into another...

Short of the "big givernment" paranoia option (which honestly, since they already have this data in less secure systems, doesn't change with this new ID), how exactly does this impact your FREEDOM!?!?!

Stupidity is in allowing irrational fears to overcome sound judgement. We have the opportunity to shape this program (it's years out yet), make existing information more secure than it is today, unify and simplify government, save money, and more. The only people who have to fear this system are: people who don't pay taxes, people who commit insurance fraud, and people on the run from the law in one way or another... Sure, there's a risk someone might hack the system, but it's not like they can download the whole database, or even chunks of it, and it's all information that's already available as public records under the Freedom of Information act for anyone who has ever paid property taxes or owns a home!

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Curunir_wolf]

The states do have their own soverign rights. Many of them fought against changing driking laws to 21, many against manditory seat belt laws, many against multiple speed limit changes. Fact is, all the federal government has to do is wave federal highway money in front of them (or threaten to take it away) and the states will bend and take it in the ass. They have over and over and over again...

Sad, isn't it? It's really all about money. States that decide they get more highway funds than it will cost them to implement Real ID will implement it, while states that get small amounts of highway funds will oppose it.

Facts:
- The Real-ID system will be at least as secure (if not more) than the best existing state ID system in place currently. Sure, it will be a big target, but it will also be closely guarded by top security people since it's such a public issue. Access will be restricted to public sector netowrks, not open to the public or common hacking attacks, just like the ATM network and existing police and DMV systems. It will be monitored constantly. Do you think South Carolina has a top notch FBI security team monitoring access to THEIR systems? I can tell you as someone who knows a few former programmers at the for SC state who wrote that system, NO IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT! there have even been breakins at DMV offices where PC, printer, and blank IDs have been stolen since the system requires no direct connection to a secure validation network in order to print IDs.

You're kidding, right? First of all, it will still be the state DMV's that are running and controlling the system, it will just be "connected" to a nationalized database. Sure, there will be more, and more higher-paid *government* security folks, but there will also be a lot more people with access, and less centralized control over who they are.

- Currently, all you have to do if you loose your license in one state is move to another and apply for a licesne there. Too many DUI's? just move and reset. Under Federally issued ID, this will not be possible, and states can protect themselves from repeat bad drivers (driving is a privelidge, not a right, and if you abuse it, we have the right to take it away and make sure you can't get it back, even if you move). This will lower insurance costs across the board.

This is just a total fiction. If you get so much as a speeding ticket in one (of many) states, it will follow you to whatever DMV you next register with (in most places). Currently, this is accomplished mostly by states joining cooperative agreements. The only thing nationalizing will do is that they will track you down *faster* than they do now, but they do it now. Try having your license suspended in one state and going to another to get one. You won't be able to do it except in some very rare circumstances. Not worth the cost and loss of privacy, IMHO.

- Few people in security (professional residential, even bartenders) can be expected to know how to spot fake IDs from every state (There are over 200 legal forms of ID circulating in america). With a single secure ID, we don't have to even look for fake info, we can swipe it, compare a computer screen to information on the ID, and compare the picture to the person, even use a biometric scan as further confirmation. RFID may not be secure, and it may only take a few days for someone to crack the chip in the ID and distribute hardware and software to edit it, but cracking the text printed on the ID will be much tougher. The state of CT has one of the hardest to forge IDs I've ever seen, and I've not seen them all. If REAL-ID takes even a handfull of their tricks, you won't see a lot of these faked (especially if it becomes a federal crime to do so, not a local misdemeanor!)

So you expect every bar and restaurant to install biometric iris scanners just to check everybody's ID? It will all be cracked eventually, and changing the

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Sandbags]

Sad, isn't it? It's really all about money. States that decide they get more highway funds than it will cost them to implement Real ID will implement it, while states that get small amounts of highway funds will oppose it.

True, so true. Except that politicians from that stae won't be able to go to washington to complain about it if the can't board planes without it...

More people with access, yes. Less control over who they are, no. The application interface, who gets to install it, control of logon credentials, etc, will all be handled internally. Besides, as long as the system is secure from outside network access, what do you care if some dumbass at the DMV looks up information HE ALREADY HAS ON YOU TODAY (and risks imprisonment by doing it without proper authority)?

As for speeding tickets, very few states cooperate on tracking points and suspensions. Insurance companies do a fair job, but there are allways ways around that. Heck, almost 1/4th of the drivers in SC have NO INSTURANCE. Points and penalites don't necessarily translate from state to state today, and how points against your license fall off over time differes as well. People who get DUIs and loose licenses change states all the time. even when insurance knows about it, in some states, legall ythey have to insure you anyway, and at state set maximum rates.

My local grocery store has biometric finger scanners at every register. These things are cheap. bars and clubs don't HAVE to install them, they just need a card reader to validate that the information on the front of the card matches what's in the chip. They'll likely get an insurance discount, liquer license discount, or some other benefit to justify the minor cost anyway.

IRS information will CERTAINLY be tied to the ID number, but NOT in the same database. various privacy acts protect people like the police from having access to tax information or other records unless a judge believes that information has an impact on the case against you. The DMV will only have access to your personal ID info, your vehicle and registration info, posibly local property taxes on that vehicle in some states (in a seperate local database). Airport agents will record your passing, and will have access to your passport file, but not your driving records or tax information. They'll be able to identify if there's a warent for your arrest, if you're on a watch list, etc, but other than confirming who you are, they have no reason to access the other information and again, it would be blocked by various privacy acts. ...and moreso, their systems likely won't even have true access to the database, just a record check on the ID swiped and confirmed. They won't be able to simply look up random people unless they have the ID number of that person. As for political offiliation, well, if you REGISTETRED as a republican, than what are you hiding anyway? You've already given non-screened people access to your address and political affiliation. What do you care if the FBI knows too? If you haven't declared your affiliation, how would they know?

making it illegal to access database information won't stop federal agencies who don't fear prosecution, I agree, but remember, those agencies ALREADY HAVE this information... Changing the type of ID you have has NO IMPACT WHAT SO EVER on their ability to look you up if they want to. If they don't want to, why the fuck would they waste their time???

Data mining this system, well that's also going to happen, but it's not like they don't already do it. Again, if you have ever paid taxes, bought a car, been married, or signed a credit application, they HAVE YOU ON FILE TODAY. This database does not provide them any NEW abilities, other than being able to more quickly have local security personel identify you when you're standing in front of them. The FBI and CIA do what they do completely seperately. Some nut job at the DMV won't be able to mine the database... not unless he's got a

Re:States the Last Hope?

[riondluz]

And I've never been prouder of my State (vermont) for demanding the return of its guard.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Anonymous Coward]

driving is a privelidge

The only people who believe this shit are the mouth-breathing sheep who also bleat mother-fucking Larry Ellison's self serving mantra that "There is no longer such a thing as privacy. Get over it". Go to the ball shop and buy even a little pair and quit drinking the "You only have the few meaningless rights we say you have" Kool-Aid (tm).

Maybe if you take my easy-to-follow advice, they'll even teach you the correct spelling of privilege.

Re:States the Last Hope?

[Reziac]

OTOH, if the big states knuckle under, the smaller states (in popupation and congresscritter-count) won't have a chance -- unless said smaller states all band together. As someone above pointed out, chances are that CA is actually just blackmailing the Feds for more money, and will give in on RealID when CA gets what it wants. CA itself has been edging toward police state for a long time, in terms of how the Us vs Them mentality works.

And here's another thought -- what about economic pressure from small states to large ones? the big states still need to import food and export goods, whereas the smaller states are more likely to be economically independent (gov't funds aside).

And we all know how secure REALID is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, if teenagers have already figured out how to forge them, then real terrorists will have no problem with it either.

So I ask, exactly how secure does this REALID card make us again?

Re:And we all know how secure REALID is...

[ahecht]

Why Did They Feel The Need To Capitalize Every Word In That Article? It Made It Awkward To Read.

Re:And we all know how secure REALID is...

[bblount]

This is how Fox News keeps their news 'fair and balanced'. After all, capital letter weigh more and help the words balance.

Phoenix666 in 2012!

[iknownuttin]

Run for the Constitutional Party!

I've been reading "John Adams" and I'm really starting to see how far we, the USA, have strayed.

I made so much money on 9-11

[Rooked_One]

As soon as I saw it, I knew that mass producing american flags as stickers, magnets, and hats would be a way to make a quick but.

Was it ever! I made so much moola in a such a short period of time that I wish we would get hit again.

of course this is not me - but I simply wanted to raise your emotions about how capitalistic our society is and let you be the judge... how did you feel when I typed that?

Re:I made so much money on 9-11

[Miseph]

I felt like you should have posted that somewhere more relevant and closer to the top.

You might also want to consider a minor re-write, because it came across as very phony right away. You may also want to consider dropping the disclaimer, because it will greatly change people's responses. It's a sub-par trolling effort at this point in time, but it's a solid concept and with a little reworking I think you could get some truly priceless e-rants.

Re:I made so much money on 9-11

[Rooked_One]

my apologies - I typed that 10 minutes after I rolled out of bed....

In other words - it made sense to me but the rest of the world was prob left in the dark ;)

Re:I made so much money on 9-11

[Reziac]

I laughed. It's how people have been everywhere since forever -- no matter what happens (including major disasters), someone can find an advantage in it, and if it does no harm, more power to ya.

However, in our 9/11 disaster, the advantage went to what is now DHS, which does indeed do harm... tho it fills the same marketing niche.

10th Amendment is basically ignored.

[Shivetya]

States lost a lot of their rights when they permitted people to choose Senators and ever since then the Federal Government has run over the states...

Re:10th Amendment is basically ignored.

[zehaeva]

some one please mod parent into the stratosphere please; we ignore the constitution way too often here.

Re:10th Amendment is basically ignored.

[mrcaseyj]

The founders didn't think the people were very smart. They set up an indirect democracy that separated the people from decision making, sometimes by several layers of representatives. Under the system they set up, the people don't get to vote on federal laws. The closest we get is that we elect the House of Representatives directly. But Two layers were used to separate us from the Senate which was chosen by the state governments. And contrary to popular misunderstanding we don't elect the president either, the choice of president is separated from us by three layers. We elect the state governments, the state governments chose the electoral college, and the electoral college chooses the president. The judiciary is nominated by the president, thus adding a FOURTH layer of separation from the people. Maybe with four layers between us and the Court, and three layers between us and the president, it wasn't so bad to cut the separation between us and the lawmakers in the Senate to just one layer. After all, even one layer often gets us laws out of sync with the interest of the people.

Its Official... I am an Idiot too

[Anonymous Coward]

No apologies necessary. Shoot, I rather enjoyed it. Radioactivity? Cats in cars? Danger?

Are you talking about that one episode on SNL where the wounded Terminator trys to warn Linda Hamilton that Toonces can't drive?

could someone articulate to me

[circletimessquare]

exactly what the problem with real id is?

we already have driver's licenses

i don't understand the rabid opposition to it

to me it seems a sort of so what

Re:could someone articulate to me

[Reluctant Wizard]

Agreed.

As I understand it, the Real ID requirement was mandated by congress. DHS is simply enforcing it as written.

And I've not seen any official references to a Real ID compliant driver's license being required to get a job. There is already a federal system to check social security numbers for that.

The big news in recent days is that Chertoff said that non-Real ID compliant DL's will not be acceptable for those wanting to fly on US-originated airline flights. He did state, though, that a passport would be valid for such purposes. Now for all you who think that the Real ID driver's license requirements are too much of a privacy intrusion, why not just get a passport? I got mine a couple of years ago, and all I needed was a photo and my birth certificate -- no fingerprints, no DNA, etc. -- simple.

As a matter of fact, if a law enforcement type ever asks for my DL, the only time I actually show the DL is if I'm driving, as that's the purpose of it. The rest of the time, I show my passport. The only information it has is my name, my birth date, and a passport number -- no address, no SS#, nothing. Drives em nuts, cause they just keep looking back and forth between it and me, and not really knowing what to do. They really don't know how to treat it: they can't run it against a state or federal database, because they have no access to State Dept. records, they can't cross reference it with any of their traffic or criminal records, and it leaves them feeling a bit out of their league.

They usually just nod, grunt, and give it back, then leave me alone. Priceless!

Re:could someone articulate to me

[Fjandr]

The problem is the concentration of information in linked databases. That information will be abused if (when) a dictator comes to power, and the more centralized the information the easier it will be to abuse.

If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.

Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expect this system will be different.

Re:could someone articulate to me

[ohearn]

You should see what happens when you hand them a militaty ID. I've yet to see law enforcement carry a CAC card reader, even in towns that have military bases. Unless they have the proper scanner all they get is a pic, name, and which department under DOD I work for. Everything else is stored in a combination of barcode (pixel code might be more accurate description actually, magnetic swipe, and embedded computer chip.

Of course I also doubt the whole issue of technically not being allowed into a federal building (including court rooms, even if you are he one on trial) without a RealID compliant license carries much weight when you pull out a DOD access card for ID.

Re:could someone articulate to me

[fishbowl]

Military ID's don't indicate MOS anymore? I suppose that's a good thing.
I always use my passport. When a Federal Agent claims that a US Passport
is not valid identification, I'll find a way to parlay that into revenue
of some sort.

Speculations on why this could be bad

[assertation]

It is a bit too "tin foil hat" for me, but this FREE movie does provide valuable speculation as to why people should be worried about things like RealID. Here is a short youtube trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

You can download the movie for FREE and LEGALLY here:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID?

[MobyDisk]

I find it interesting that the states are refusing to implement REAL ID, but the state's representatives voted for it. So who are they representing if their state is willing to flat-out refuse a law? This is a very serious breakdown of representation. It is absolute confirmation that the representative democracy is not working.

The other aspect of all this is that while Slashdotters are praising the states for standing-up for civil rights, the reality is that the states are fighting REAL ID because of funding issues, not because of civil rights issues. If the government tied federal funding of schools (or highways, or parks, or somethng) to the implementation of REAL ID, then the states would quietly fall-in line.

Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually by state's refusing to go along, it's working as planned. The federal government has no authority to force states to follow RealID, as the Constitution does not delegate the power to license to the federal government.

Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID?

[raymansean]

Real ID was tacked onto a must pass military spending bill. It was a sleezy thing to do and there lays the problem with a lot of things that are tacked onto bills. I bill should cover one topic and set forth only one act. IE a spending bill has nothing to do with national ID's.

Re:But... didn't the states vote for REAL ID?

[Spleenl3oy]

Actually no, its not the states' representatives that voted for it. Its the people's representatives. Thanks to the 12th amendment, the senate is no longer the representative of the states. If the states themselves were still to pick the senators, then your statements would be correct and the states would have no one to blame but their own representatives.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Having 50 different ID cards in the country isn't ideal, but there are much better ways to go about things. This is just berserk.

California doesn't need the U.S.

[echtertyp]

California can and should go its own way. California would be a rockin' country, with all of the good things (high tech and babes) and none of the bad stuff (rust belts and religion). Heck, the California flag already says "California Republic". Make it so!

Re:California doesn't need the U.S.

[fyrewulff]

If the state is so great, why are the majority of people leaving it coming to Nebraska? We've imported most of it's gangs aswell!

captcha: senate

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is ideal.

The number one driving force behind fake IDs in our country are college kids who want to get drunk. Not terrorists, not murderers, just kids who want to go to the bar. These people, collectively, have millions of dollars of spending money behind them, more than any terrorist cell could hope to achieve without playing the lotto.

By keeping them split up among 50 states, the effect of that money will be spread out. Create one single ID nationwide, and the combined money of a bunch of drunk college students will break that ID faster than you can blink.

lol

[circletimessquare]

bureaucratic jujitsu. using the redundancy in the system against itself ;-)

your all missing the plus sides of REAL ID :-)

[Jenos]

if you can't enter a federal building then you can't be forced to serve on a federal jury :-)

Schneier on Real ID

[Anonymous Coward]

REAL ID
National ID Cards
Identification and Security

'bout fricking time

[Russ Nelson]

It's about fricking time that the federal government realizes that this is the United STATES, and that it's run BY the states, FOR the states. And if the DHS doesn't like it, they can go screw themselves.

Re:'bout fricking time

[artanis00]

It's about fricking time that the federal government realizes that this is the United States, and that it's run BY the People, FOR the People. And if the DHS doesn't like it, they can go screw themselves.

Fixed that for you.

you are speaking fear and hysteria

[circletimessquare]

#1. there is nothing in a hypothetical central database that does already exist in an acutal central database today

#2. no one actually lives their lives successfully with the chicken little "the sky is falling!" attitude of ANY DAY NOW WE WILL HAVE HITLER. of course it's possible the usa can lose its democracy and become an authoritarian state someday. howabout we worry about that after we go another inch down that mile required to get to that reality? yes, i can hear your reply already "WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

zzz

there is such a thing as false complacency

there's also false alarmism

you are very solidly in the false alarmism territory

which is ironic, because you don't successfully fight government initiatives you say are founded on fear and hysteria with fear and hysteria of your own

Re:you are speaking fear and hysteria

[Microlith]

there is such a thing as false complacency

And we live in it today.

there's also false alarmism

Government should -never- be trusted. This is a basic concept behind the founding of the United States. There is no need for a Real ID, or any form of National ID. It says something that they'll accept a passport, since passports should only be required when traveling internationally.

The federal government has no right or need to establish the identity of every person in this nation. If they need to know it is because we are passing outside of our borders. Everything else is the duty of (and ONLY of) the states in which people reside.

Or you can keep decrying those who point out the dangers in giving the federal government more of what it inevitably wants, and ignoring the warnings of those who founded this country.

Re:you are speaking fear and hysteria

[Fjandr]

"WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"

Way to put words in someone's mouth. I never claimed we were almost to a dictatorship. Bravo for trying to subvert a completely legitimate concern by attempting to make it seem like I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.

It has nothing to do with false alarmism. Abuse of the data WILL happen at some point in the future. There is nothing in governmental history that supports a claim to the contrary. The level of abuse is something that nobody can accurately predict, but there is always the potential for it to be massive. I'd love to hear a reasonable argument that any of the above is incorrect. Please make one if you have anything resembling evidence to the contrary.

I also didn't claim the initiative was founded on fear and hysteria, nor was my post written from a hysterical or fearful position. You really need to work on your argumentation skills.

All it might take is ...

[celtic_hackr]

for a group of people to book a flight, and then have everyone on that flight provide ids only from states in the no-fly list. Then repeat that in lots of places. Are airlines really going to want to turn back that many people and risk lots of lawsuits for refunds, bad relations, etc? Of course, it'd be hard to do something like this. The rebel spirit seem to be missing in America today, all the 60's hippies have become the enemy.

well then let me get you with this observation

[circletimessquare]

you apparently have the fatalist view that abuse will happen, nothing you can do about it

ok

i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it

catch me now?

you seem to think i am bizarre for making light of almost certain abuse

i happen to think you are bizarre for thinking it is useful to fight almost certain centralization

with the same cynical fatalistic acceptance about abuse you show to me, i am here to tell you everything is already centralized, your fight is a joke, it's already over

but if you like empty useless symbolism, keep up the brave struggle

(rolls eyes)

Re:well then let me get you with this observation

[Fjandr]

I'm a fan of fighting for what I believe is right rather than rolling over and taking anything anyone wants to dish out, even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Abuses can at least come to light when there are people who are willing to dig and to fight, and sometimes those abuses may even be punished. Letting bad things happen and saying or doing nothing only makes it easier for abuse to become a common institutionalized occurance.

You can cast aspersions at or hold in contempt the people who dare to oppose the status quo, but those are the very people who have historically made the most positive impacts on societies in general. I'd prefer to aspire to that with little chance of success than to live as an empty, meaningless cog who goes along with the status quo because of the belief that I am powerless to change it.

In the end, those who do nothing (or actively support the system) have nobody to blame but themselves when they are abused.

Re:well then let me get you with this observation

[AGMW]

i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it

There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! The problem is that most people don't seem to care one way or the other - I guess that's one of the bad things about living in a democracy - however right you might think you are, if more people believer otherwise you are, by definition, wrong.

You say you think it's too late but don't seem to give an opinion about whether or not you think it is a good idea? For me, I'd say it's a bad idea - much like the ID Card scheme (and accompanying central DB) in the UK. The Government has no business trying to keep track of its citizens ... indeed, we are not the government's citizens, it is OUR Government! Certainly in the UK, it will cost a huge amount of money and not really offer any tangible benefit over the existing ways to identify youself. It also has the [tin foil hat on] potential to be very bad indeed.[you may now remove your tinfoil hat].

Do You Trust Your Government?
For those of us in the UK ... remember the Paddington Train Crash in 1999? One of the survivors, Pam Warren, was most vocal about her damnation for the Gov for letting the railways get into such a state in the first place. A special advisor to Stephen Byers, the then Transport Secretary (I think?), sent an email to the Labour Party's Millbank HQ seeking info on Ms Warren, potentially to try and discredit her.
The fact that our Gov could even think to work in such an underhand manner must surely start alarm bells ringing when they then press ahead with ID Cards giving such spurious reasons as preventing terrorism (9/11 terrorists boarded the flights under their own names - Spanish ID Cards didn't prevent the Madrid train bombers, etc), or reducing welfare fraud (when the vast majority of welfare fraud is perpetrared by the real people over emphasising their problems rather than pretending to be someone else!).

Anyone heard about the US Presidential Candidates having their passport info hacked into? However much they swear the info will be secure, it won't be. It just won't! The only way to have the info totally secure is if there is no provision for accessing the info, which obviously defeats the object of the exercise.

Sadly, I fear you are both likely to be correct about your fatalistic views. The ID Cards are coming and they will be abused by someone - let's just hope it's organised crime who abuse it, because if it is the Government doing the abusing we will have few options to combat it!

dude

[circletimessquare]

drivers license

passport

social security nubmer

done deal

your fighting a war that was lost long ago

furthermore

"there is such a thing as false complacency"

-And we live in it today.-

i look forward to you using that line when you that the gw bush government is creating false fear and panic about terrorist threats to justify taking away our privacy rights

you don't have to accept false complacency, you don't have to accept false alarmism. but you can't claim one is the status quo the same time you claim the other is the status quo and still retain a grtasp on intellectual coherency or honesty

Cal Native

[rossz]

I was born in Kaliforniastan and have lived my whole life here. I don't, for one second, believe this state will fight the national ID system. Our two senators (Box and Feinstein) are socialists to the extreme. They firmly believe in the nanny-state and have always fully supported forcing the peasants to be tagged and bagged.

Why do I still live here? I'm a contract tech worker (Linux system administrator) and this is where the jobs are. Plus, the weather is better than most other places in the world. To move to another state I would have to take a permanent position, which I am not against. However, nothing has come along that has attracted my attention enough.

Re:Cal Native

[ad0gg]

What do US senators have to do with what the polices of the state government? You should look harder for jobs outside of the state.

Re:Cal Native

[rossz]

Senators have enormous power in a state. They get the federal funding that this state is so addicted to.

Ok, that was unfair. I'm implying that only this state is addicted to pork. In reality, all states are firmly attached to that pork teat.

I should clear things up a bit. I think California is merely attempting to extort additional funding from the Feds before they jump naked into the Real ID pool. California has been very happy to go along with the Federal ID requirements in the past, so I don't believe for a second that our elected officials have suddenly discovered their backbones.

Oh, and to whomever moderated me down as a troll. Bite me. You are obviously a Box/Feinstein socialist/communist fanboy. My previous posting was hardly a trolling attempt.

Re:Cal Native

[Reziac]

"I think California is merely attempting to extort additional funding from the Feds before they jump naked into the Real ID pool."

That's an interesting perspective... I was suspicious of the sincerity of California's newfound "objections", and you just codified for me what didn't smell right. CA wants to be SEEN to object, especially if that generates some political leverage, but CA don't REALLY object. (I sure as hell can't envision any of CA's law enforcement agencies objecting.)

As to Feinstein and Boxer, you're absolutely correct. Want to have horrible nightmares? Imagine those two on a Pres/VP ticket. Or either of 'em as Hillary's running mate. [runs away screaming]

Re:Cal Native

[rossz]

Want to have horrible nightmares? Imagine those two on a Pres/VP ticket.

YOU BASTARD! Now I'll never get a good night of sleep! :(

Re:Cal Native

[Reziac]

Hey, you can't say I didn't warn you :)

The most frightening part is that given Hillary's success to this point, I think a Feinstein/Boxer ticket is all too realistic a possibility in the future. :(

Re:Cal Native

[Taelron]

How the hell is Feinstein still in office? The city of San Francisco hates her.... She bankrupted the city when she was mayor and slap a lot of civil liberties in the face... Since her and Boxer have been in office they have not once voted in line with the way I view things. Even when there was a vote for increasing Veterans benefits and fixing the Veterans Administration whose budget was majorly slashed by Clinton, the two of them proudly emailed their constituants about how they side stepped that but were pushing for tighter gun control... Sadly, a law abidding citizen has to pay around $1000 after fees to legally own a pistol, yet a criminal will get that same gun on the street for $100. The gun laws are only making law abidding citizens criminals... And the worse part is while Feinstein is trying to strip gun ownership from the masses, she herself carrys one. In fact she has a "conceal carry permit" which is hard as hell to get in California... Impossible in the city of San Francisco... http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm

Re:Cal Native

[Reziac]

I'm on Boxer's mailing list. I often want to slap her. :( As you say, very seldom do they vote in line with MY beliefs, and I'm hardly unique.

Didn't know about Feinstein's CW permit, but that's exactly the sort of hypocrisy I've learned to expect from her.

As to how these people stay in office -- name recognition, and little else. Most people vote for the candidate whose name they recognise on the ballot, or from the news, or wherever.

True story from the 1972 Presidential election, from a fellow I knew who was doing door-to-door opinion polling. Over and over he encountered this scenario:

The folks being polled would espouse all sorts of classic conservative beliefs: low taxes, no gun control, small government, stay-the-hell-out-of-my-life.

The last question he asked 'em was, "So who do you think would make a good president??"

And what did these *conservative* voters answer??

"Teddy Kennedy".

SAY WHAT?!!!??!

I've long since stopped believing in democracy, considering where it's gotten us. :(

"Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel

I don't want chips tracking me...

[Doug52392]

That's the ultimate goal of the REAL ID Act: To be able to monitor and track EVERY American. There was a film I saw recently that highlighted the significants of the REAL ID Act and how it's really being used: Zeitgeist: REAL ID/RFID conspiracy.

The government just want RFID chips being a necessary of life so they can shut your chip off if you don't trust everything the government says! And it's only a matter of time before we have implantable chips IN OUR HEADS!

Interest threat model variable constraints ...

[Zero__Kelvin]

"By 2014, according to the plan, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a Real ID-compliant card, except people older than 50, officials said. That exception would give states more time to get everyone new licenses, and officials say the threat from someone in that age is much less."

I didn't realize Osama Bin Laden was so young!

cue uplifting music

[circletimessquare]

battle hymn of the republic, comment spoken with a forceful tremulous voice, as the marching men's humming grow louder and louder...

zzz

dude: everything about real id is already in existence

it's a pointless technicality. you honestly think you are actually making a difference fighting a nonchange. you're not fighting over whether or not a gun is pointed at your head. you're fighting over what color the gun is that is already pointed at your head. an absurdity

get over yourself. or rather, you go on with your bad self if it makes you feel any better. but don't fool yourself into thinking you are actually making a difference with this particular struggle

i actually applaud your idealism about for fighting for privacy. but could you do me a small favor? could you marry your passion with a little intelligence? could you take all of that earnestness and put it into a struggle that actually makes a difference? real id ain't it. sorry kid

Re:cue uplifting music

[Fjandr]

Condescension doesn't help your argument. It just reveals that you're an ass.

State DMV databases are not currently universally linked together (NCIC and III do not cover the functions required by REAL ID, in case that was what you meant), nor are drivers licenses standardized among the states (among other provisions that have also not been met by the states). Ergo, your assertion that "everything about REAL ID is already in existence" is patently false. There are some things that it mandates that were already in existence at the time of its passage, but that does not mitigate the fundamental flaws in your argument.

Congress sells us a lemon

[MomaSaid]

How this 'act' was passed into law is the main problem with our system(IMHO). Should congress pass a law masquerading as something else; a law that affects the very basis of our country's survival? (freedom)

I must say that it appears in our history that regretful laws are passed during catastrophe and national trauma... ...And, by the time we're done analyzing this one law the next will be ready and pushed on us with god knows what riding with it.

So, my question is; is there a way to halt new laws from being pushed on us before this fades from our minds? Or maybe it doesn't fade but instead soaks assloads of our resources fighting it...

Re:Congress sells us a lemon

[capoe3]

Simple make Congress read the bills before they are passed. Somehow Congress passed a 1000 plus page document in a day, anyone think they read it or it was on a shelf waiting for a chance to get it through?

SO?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what will happen to those of us who tell the feds to FUCK OFF! to their FASCIST "Real ID"?

I have ZERO reasons to go into a federal building.

I don't fly.

Just what will we all be missing?

Oh, we'll be missing out on the total control of the USA.

Everyone please read this article

[chord.wav]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html

Ten Steps To Close Down an Open Society

1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2 Create a gulag
3 Develop a thug caste
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
5 Harass citizens' groups
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7 Target key individuals
8 Control the press
9 Dissent equals treason
10 Suspend the rule of law

(smacks forehead)

[circletimessquare]

"There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! "

drivers license

social security number

passport

done deal, already happened

why don't some people understand the obvious: real id is not a change of status quo, it is merely a continuation of the status quo under a new name

it's the difference between arguing over whether or not there is a gun pointed at your head (valid fight) and arguing over the color of the gun pointed at your head (absurd fight)

it HAS HAPPENED ALREADY

wow

[circletimessquare]

"State DMV databases are not currently universally linked together"

it's pretty amazing how you show colossal distrust of what the government does in one comment ("FASCISM IS COMING DUDE, FER SURE!"), and the next moment you make a comment of colossal naivete of what the government does

the dmv info is not in a universal database on the federal level? (choke, snicker)

uh huh ;-P

as for condescension, yes: i am an ass, and yes: i am being condescending to you. you're naive. shade that meaning with idealistic if you want to be positive, or ignorant if you want to be negative. but either way, your passion is not wedded with much intelligence. a shame

Re:wow

[Fjandr]

And yet you still haven't provided anything to back up any of your claims. Assumptions, gaps in logic, personal attacks, and opinions with nothing to substantiate them. Great way to convince people you're right. On the other hand, if you're not here to exchange ideas in a civil manner, I suppose that means you're actually just trolling.

I hope you get something out of that air of superiority, as it certainly won't earn you any respect. I truly pity you. I can't imagine living through whatever it is that makes you communicate in the manner that you do.

Sorta saving face

[sjames]

This looks like just one part (of 50) of DHS's efforts to save face. I notice in the U.S. maps for Real ID, the two conditions are 'granted an extension' and 'extension not requested'. Not one 'in compliance' or 'will comply by original deadline'.

That includes Washington D.C.!!!

Now we hear that they granted Ca. an extension in spite of their refusal to comply with the terms of the extension and Wisconsin being granted one in spite of not even asking. Clearly DHS wants to put off the humilliation of a bunch of states publically refusing to 'respect their authoriti" for a couple more years. Not that their current response of 'granting' extensions never asked for makes them look all that 'in charge'.

Damn You 17th Amendment...

[mikelieman]

Damn you...

Re:Damn You 17th Amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn you...

Why?

The 17th Amendment simply restates the original wording of Art I sec 3 but replaces "chosen by the Legislature thereof" with "elected by the people thereof". It also requires that a Senator meets the qualifications for the largest legislative assembly in the State. Finally, it allows each state to legislate the rules for filling a vacancy, provided that there is ultimately an election.

It's not really much of an amendment.

In practice, the Legislatures -- with the sole exceptions of Utah (which rejected the amendment) and Florida (which never completed an action to ratify or reject the amendment) -- voluntarily devolved their power of Senatorial election to the People of their respective States.

Let me stress this: they relinquished their power willingly to the citizens of their respective states.

Why? Because that's what their citizens wanted, it was already being done in several states, and the states that were not going down the path already usually had weak or literally non-existant representation in the Senate.

Is the 17th a bad thing? It exposes every individual Senator to the electors in his or her State every six years, rather than to the State Legislature every year or two, or every few years, or only once (depending on the rules in the State in question). It also gives Senators a clear personal, democratic mandate in Washington D.C. -- rather than some Senators having a clear mandate from the current majority in the Legislature, a murky mandate from a previous majority, or an unchallengeable appointment for life, depending on the rules in each State. Many Senators were not public figures at all, and were often party officials or donors.

Moreover, prior to the 17th amendment, vacancies were often left unfilled for years at a time, simply because rules in State legislative assemblies allowed blocking actions (filibuster, for example, or supermajorities).

Finally, Several states had already been devolving the election of Senators to the citizens by plebiscite, with the Legislatures simply formally reiterating the results of the extra-constitutional election.

In some alternate reality in which the 17th amendment was not ratified, most states would have come under direct internal pressure to devolve the election of Senators to the citizens of the state by direct election anyway.

Although the personal, democratic mandate enjoyed by Senators since the 17th seems like it would shift power away from state legislatures, the reality is that few state legislatures tried to hold their Senators on a tight leash, and those that did tended to fail spectacularly anyway.

part of it is the cost and what is stop this from.

[Joe The Dragon]

part of it is the cost and what is stop this from becoming the next NCLB with standardized stuff that does not fit in all the way or is missing parts that should be part of it.

The several States could withhold the federal tax

[Iowan41]

levies. Recall their senators. Something. This is another element of tyranny. Another plank in the platform that we do not any longer possess a legitimate federal government.

Surveillance State

[Brandybuck]

California is the Big Government state. I seriously doubt it will tell the Feds to take a flying leap. I'm not trusting them to keep the Surveillance State at bay. I have to do a lot of flying between the Bay Area and Southern California. Regardless if my California driver's license is Real ID or not, I will start driving instead of flying. The less the state or Feds can track me, the better. I've got nothing to hide, it's just none of their damned business.

Do you trust your government?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure as hell hope not. But just in case you do, I advise you to learn from history lest you be doomed to repeat it.

Name the political party of note who after their rise to power used exterior threats and political pressure it start unjustified wars, and then following the forms of the constitution slowly legislated them selves more and more authoritarian control, and used blind patriotism to silence opposition, while slowly eroding civil liberties liberties through new bureaucratic initiatives?

If you guessed the bush administration....

YOUR WRONG!

Hitler and Nazi Germany came to power by those means, and remember under German laws he did it legally! They voted the national socialist into power, and then through key pieces of legislation they gave them selves more and more power until they didn't have to pretend not to be dictators anymore.

Thats right they successfully LEGISLATED away democracy.

And for all you head in the sand people who want to cry 'that couldn't happen here'...

Care to put money on that?

Perfect excuse...

[Taelron]

to get out of Jury duty... Sorry, cant enter the federal court house, dont have a RealID...

Woot!

Re:Perfect excuse...

[Reziac]

I'll have to remember that one :)

As it is, they don't want me anyway... my business partner's brother is a lawyer and municipal judge :)

Hmm. Occurs to me that there's no way you and I could have a trial by a "jury of our peers", since OUR peers are all smart enough to get out of jury duty! ;)

Re:(smack yer forehead again, but harder!)

[AGMW]

Oh sorry ... when you wrote ... that centralization of the data will happen I took that to mean, well ... will happen. My bad, reading English and all.

So, what you are actually trying to say is that it has happened. Right. Now that is indeed a fair point and, if true, would indeed make arguments about the colour of the gun (nice analagy!) a bit of a waste of time.

I'm not so sure it is all cut and dried - certainly in the UK the various methods of keeping tabs on the populous are in place, drivers license, soc No., passport, etc - and throw in being able to trace use of credit/debit cards, and of course the CCTV and number plate recognition systems - we are indeed already well inside the surveillance society many here on Slashdot try to rail against ... but I don't think they have it all joined up yet, it's not all in one big DB which would allow all sorts of data mining to be done - look at the calls to fingerprint and DNA sample 4 and 5 year olds who shows signs (behaviour traits etc)that they may become criminals later.

Your arguement appears to be that we are no longer on the slippery slope, having slipped to the bottom already. I'd suggest we haven't got anywhere near the bottom of the slope yet, and there is still mileage in kicking and screaming to try and stop the slide - but that's just my opinion as I can easily imagine a more locked down Police State than the one in which we currently live leaving room for considerably more slide!

You still don't express any opinion as to whether it's good or bad though? Either you think it's a good idea and are content with the status quo, or you think it's bad and have given up trying - neither are particularly worthy in my book, but best case would have to be that you are happy with it, 'cos giving up sucks!

States are not represented in Washington

[SonicSpike]

States have zero representation in Washington DC. The People have representation but the States don't.

The House is elected by the People. The Senate used to be elected by State legislatures, but after socialistic nonsense that was amended early 20th century so that Senators were popularly elected too. This means that your local state government has no representation to the Federal government which is A VERY BAD THING.