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."

Comments

Voluntary?

[NoKaOi]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Re: Voluntary?

[timrod]

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.

Re:Voluntary?

[MachineShedFred]

I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.

Re: Voluntary?

[AthanasiusKircher]

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

Anonymous travel

[mi]

Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.

Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

Well, use a passport. Unless the IRS takes it.

[dfenstrate]

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.

More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[WillAffleckUW]

Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.

We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.

None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.

Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.

Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gabrieltss]

The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state. 10th Amendment baby! Tell the TSA to allow people on the plane - or LEAVE the state.

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!

Just remember the U.S. Government FUNDED and TRAINED Al Qada! Don't believe me - try reading your history! The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen during the 80's to fight Russia in Afganastan. Who was the head of the Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden! Where di Al Qada come from? The Mujahideen! Oh and while we are at it where did ISIS come from? Al Qada. Who the HELL do you think is behind all the "terrorism"? Your GOVERNMENT of course! Why would they do it? Look at all the TYRANNY that they have put into place in the name of "saving us from terrorists".

Madison's statement IS coming true!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison

Not the best examples

[mx b]

The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".

Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated. People involved in car accidents likely appreciate the fact that cars are registered; remember the license plate and tell the authorities, even if they drive off, and we know who's responsible.

I imagine that trains and planes have more regulation for similar reasons; as we now know, you could potentially cause a plane to crash into a building, for example. A train derailed can hurt lots of people and destroy lots of cargo. There's large responsibility again, so we do extra checks. If something goes wrong, we now have a shortlist of people to investigate.

Not saying the system is perfect. I worry about the surveillance state too, and am not a fan of the TSA's decisions lately. But we must acknowledge that the current system evolved for reasons (like safety and responsibility) that need to be carefully balanced with our liberties. Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as they say. But definitely voice concerns to your congresscritters, and keep it in mind in upcoming elections.

The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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. 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"), 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.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing. It is fine to say you have a disagreement with a stance, but let's please not demonize groups of people and pretend that we aren't what we are -- a country with a diverse set of beliefs that really isn't easily categorized.

As an aside, If you want your freedoms and the constitution respected more, vote for Bernie Sanders. He has said no to surveillance state, no to perpetual war, no to corporate control of the economy and elections, and coming from a small state, he is very moderate on gun regulation. Let's all agree to stop voting for the typical establishment candidates and vote for candidates like Bernie if we want to see real results.

Re:Not the best examples

[drnb]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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.