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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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

.

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."

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.

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: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.

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?

[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.