Slashdot Mirror
TSA Moves Closer To Rejecting Some State Driver's Licenses For Airline Travel (nytimes.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Jad Mouawad writes at the NYT that a driver's license may no longer be enough for airline passengers to clear security in some states, if the Department of Homeland Security has its way the Department of Transportation will start enforcing the Real ID Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2005 following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Homeland Security officials insist there will be no more delays. In recent months, federal officials have visited Minnesota and other states to stress that the clock was ticking. The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply. "The federal government has quietly gone around and clubbed states into submission," says Warren Limmer, a state senator in Minnesota and one of the authors of a 2009 state law that prohibits local officials from complying with the federal law. "That's a pretty heavy club."
Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."
Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."
No, it wouldn't do a thing about voter fraud, most of which is actually perpetuated by the elections officials, not the imaginary boogeyman of fraudulent voter registrations.
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:
It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.
It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states. The "mandatory" part is that the federal government will deny highway funding to any state with a drinking age under 21, which is why every state has 21 as the drinking age. While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.
I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Jesus Christ, not this line of crap again. "Regulated" in that time meant "functioning". And if there's any question as to what this was all about, take if from one of the writers of that article:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the public has an unquestionable right to arms in order to defend themselves from government tyranny.
And you are wrong, there are many people who want to take ALL weapons away from law abiding citizens. Of course their method to do that, ironically, is to use gun-toting cops and military to do it.
It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.
Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.
I mean, if you want to go down the road to that sort of argument, you have to start with the question of whether the federal government has the right to regulate air travel at all. It certainly isn't mentioned in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the 1910s and 1920s, there was much debate over whether a Constitutional amendment was necessary for Congress to regulate anything other than basic interstate commerce issues. With the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the federal government formalized its role in regulating some safety measures, only for commercial flights, and rather limited. (It's important to remember this was still in the middle of the Lochner era, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down any statute that seemed like government interfering with economic liberty.)
Of course, everything changed after the FDR court-packing threat and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937, followed by sweeping federal government expansion in 1937-42, effectively culminating in the end of federalism. (Standard example: Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before this time; marijuana prohibition did not, since it occurred at/after this time.) Federalism still nominally exists, but not really. Wherever the feds want states to do something, they tie up huge funding issues with it, as you say, so the feds bully the states into it.... and if they deem it even more important (e.g., TERRORISM!! AHHH!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!), then they'll just magically make it a federal power by fiat.
While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.
This statement is skimming over HUGE leaps in Constitutional law that have been changed by fiat just in the past few decades. After the terrorist threats in the 1970s, security screening was instituted with metal detectors and such at airports, but it was run by airports/airlines, NOT the feds, mostly because of Fourth Amendment concerns which would clearly prohibit such blanket searching (at least for the first 200 years of the Constitution or so). Prior to 2001, you submitted to voluntary security screening as a condition of the commercial contract you entered into with the airline.
Of course, after 2001 this whole 4th amendment concern was swept under the rug, and the crucial distinction between private voluntary search in a commercial transaction and government agents performing mandatory searches (which you could not just exit from -- now you could be detained by police even if you decided to leave after entering the security area).
But to get back to the real issue here -- you have to deal with the right to free travel within the U.S., which the TSA has arguably been disrupting since 2001. But the feds hesitated at first to stretch the Constitution that far. So -- while it was not widely known -- you could still travel domestically without ID for about a decade after 2001, as long as you made it clear to the TSA that you knew your rights and insisted.
But then the TSA closed that "loophole" (which used to be a g
Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:
Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.
Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.
This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), ...
Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.
... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.
While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems ... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.
People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.
Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.
Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing ...
In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.
So if you are the right age why aren't you in Iraq?
See what happens when you try to put a meaning on something other than what it actually has?
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not.
This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.
They are right. This isn't some "silly sports club definition", it's the literal law of the land in the US. 10 USC S113:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
In addition, it is not what you or I find reasonable. The Constitution spells out that it is what the court decides those words mean.
A common misconception.
We find in Article III Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Also, we find in Article VI that they are required to swear oaths upholding the Constitution: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".
Thus, there are limits on the ability of the court to decide what "those words mean". If in so deciding, they are either engaging a behavior that is not good, or in violation of the "Oath or Affirmation", then they are in fact not acting within their legal authority.
As the Bill of Rights provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment), and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment), it follows that the people have a say in determining whether either of these conditions has been met.
Further, the mere existence of unspecified rights "retained by the people" inherently places limits on the authority of the Supreme Court. If the judges were to decide to ignore the 9th Amendment, then there would be no rights retained by the people. But that's a contradiction, and creating contradictions in the legal system is unethical practice of law, and certainly a violation of a fundamental and universal right in any society based on the rule of law. Think of this as the legal equivalent of a proof by contradiction, as you might find in Euclid.
This also follows from the early history of the Bill of Rights: if people were prepared to trust the entities defined by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, then there wouldn't be a need for a Bill of Rights. But the Supreme Court is one of those pre-Bill of Rights entities, and hence the Bill of Rights - by it's mere existence - must be viewed as also placing limits on the Supreme Court. They may be the Supreme Court, but they are not the Supreme Law of the Land.
For example of the "good behavior issue", if the way a law is implemented involves ethical conflict of interest with respect to the legal profession (this is true for many laws in existence today), and reasonable alternatives exist, then we can assert that allowing such a law to be implemented and enforced is unethical practice of law on the part of the legal professionals in federal office. Clearly unethical practice of law is not good behavior.
In the current political and legal climate, where most politicians are lawyers, most lobbyists are lawyers, and a lot of money is received by politicians from various organizations of lawyers in the form of campaign contributions, that creates an especially great burden on those persons selected for judicial office (by those same politicians) to recognize the importance of not allowing laws involving ethical conflicts of interest that work to the benefit of the legal profession.
The fact that this has been looked at and decided by the courts makes it constitutional.
Not true. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that were not valid. Some of these have been reversed. Others have not.
Classic historical examples such as the decisions that upheld slavery, and the Jim Crow Laws. Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention, everybody with a functioning brain knew that slavery was wrong (just go look at the speech by Morris of NY). So certainly the Supreme Court decisions that permitted slavery to continue were invalid.
Another thing to consider is the Nuremberg Precedent, which basically says that government officials have a responsibility to do the right thing in spite of what the law or their hierarchy says. Certainly a right to expect this can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and as such, this creates an individual responsibility to do the right thing even when the judici