Spamicles writes with a link to a Lawbean post about more rebellion against the Real ID act. New Hampshire and Oklahoma have joined Montana and Washington state in passing statutes refuting the ID act's guidelines. "However, these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes or accessing federal buildings. In addition to these four states, members of the Idaho legislature intentionally left out money in the budget to comply with the Act."
The Wisconsin State Journal has an incredibly good analysis of the mess. They write:
States have rebelled at the $14 billion in costs the act imposes on states, as well as worries that the new security system will invade residents' privacy and create what amounts to a national ID card.
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
...at lest in my state. Unfunded mandates, as they are called, are definitely nothing new. And states are no saints in this matter if they are anything like New Jersey. (sorry, have to call out my home state)
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
And what of the Eminient domain [wikipedia.org] cases there? Like the one that took a bunch of people's houses away from them and gave a drug company the property.
Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.
Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.
What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.
The net effect is lower federal taxes.
State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.
Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.
"Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed."
As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913 [wikipedia.org]. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say "no."
This is not to say that the states themselves have not been complicit in this (after all, they only object to expansion of federal powers when it's politically expedient), but blam
"As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say 'no.'" Citing the 17th Amendment does nothing to my assertion that the Court began serious abdication of authority in checking Congress in the 1930s. The confrontation between FDR and the Court (such as the Court packing plan that failed) and his ability to outlast them and ap
Well, since Cities are subunits of the State, with no independent Sovereignity (They are created and recognized by the State, and can be abolished by the State with no reprecussions, a State can not be abolished by the Federal Government), a State has the right to say "OKay, Toledo, you have to spend $1M this way".
State's right's activists protest the fact that the Federal Government, which was created by the States not the other way 'round, has taken up the habit of saying "Okay Ohio, you have to spend $
In New Hampshire, target of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], it is not just about money. The Federal government can dump as much cash on us as they want and we still are bound by law not to comply.
The exact wording of the bill [generalcourt.org] that Governor Lynch is expected to sign this week or next says: [T]he public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver's license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.
By the way, if click on the generalcourt.org link above, you'll notice that each legislator has a "liberty grade." Just like in school, from "A" thru "F" -- the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance [nhliberty.org] rates each and every one of the 400 State Representatives, based on how the actually vote on freedom-related bills, every year. Just one of the many things that become possible as a critical mass of pro-liberty activists concentrate on a single state.
By the way... one of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Winters, is a Free-Stater -- check his acceptance speech [youtube.com]
Well let's see... NH has no sales tax, no income tax, is the only state without a mandatory seat-belt law, is constitutionally prohibited from using eminent domain for private developments, has far less regulation on trades than most other states, just a few weeks ago passed an industrial hemp bill, and a few weeks before that came within 7 votes of passing a medical marijuana bill in the House of Representatives.
But all that is missing the point; it's not to say that NH is already "free"; if it were, there'd be no point in a Free State Project, now, would there? The point is that the structure of government here is amazing open and accessible, and the culture is already liberty-oriented.
If you'd like some details about why NH was a good choice as the target state, I suggest you read this PDF [lpnh.org].
Oh yeah, and for 2nd-amendment types... the whole state is open-carry without any license, and concealed-carry licenses are on a "shall-issue" basis. Here's the NH Gun FAQ [freestateblogs.net]; and more entertainingly, here's [google.com] what happened when some do-gooders in the Senate tried to make even the tiniest change to that shall-issue concealed-carry law. More video of that fun day is here [freestateblogs.net]
Oh yeah, and a few weeks ago NH became one of only 4 states in the USA to allow same-sex civil unions. We are the only state to have done so purely on the initiative of the legislature, and not as the result of any lawsuit.
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the projec
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
You're right and wrong. *Some* states are not balking at the concept, only the price. Montana and Washington State are treditionally independent. But most states simply do
I remember the time when Republicans complained about unfunded mandates back before they took power of the legislatures in the early 90's, now it looks like they are happy with making them.
The United States Government is saying "we're going to create
these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and
the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for
Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
Although you make a good point, you need to dig one layer further
to see that some states object on moral (or at least, autonomy)
grounds rather than merely due to funding issues...
You can break states up into "welfare" and "SugarDaddy" states
(This has a very high correlation with red-vs-blue, incidentally,
but I don't mean this post to start a partisan flamewar). The states
that have so far objected to Real Id, almost without fail, fall among
the SugarDaddy states, the ones with a net outflow of money
vs federal taxes.
If your hypothesis (that most objecting states do so primarily for
economic reasons) held true, then you would expect to see the exact
opposite pattern among objectors/SugarDaddies. As the funding
comes from the states anyway, whether directly or via the federal
government, having each state pay their own way would cost the
SugarDaddies less, overall.
Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, your hypothesis appears false...
Though I would still applaud you for raising the point, since regardless
of whether the states or the feds pay, we the people still get
stuck with the bill at the end of the day (or April 15th, in this case).
I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Fed
You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 — and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
I basically stopped flying after the first round of clampdown. I will only fly when it is strictly necessary for business, and I will usually decline business which implies flying. To do otherwise is to be complicit in the establishment of fascism and the evisceration of the rule of law. I am willing to compromise because sometimes the impact of a bloody-minded rigid adherence to single principle does more harm than good by riding roughshod over the preponderance of other principles.
While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).
It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.
I'm perfectly willing to carry my passport when boarding airplanes or visiting the White House. What I don't want is to have a driver's license that ends up all RFID'd (and you know they'll ask for that next if they aren't already), so that I can be easily spied on when I'm going about my business on the ground and outside the precincts of the Feds. My driver's license already is cross linked with all sorts of stuff - bank accounts, insurance policies, &c. - that my passport isn't (at least the firms only ask for driver's license # not passport). It works well enough as is for my purposes, and the purposes of those I do business with.
And if you can afford an airline ticket, you can certainly afford a passport - which is a lot better than making even people who never fly pay more for a passport-level driver's license. As a side benefit, holding a passport may even lead more people to get out and explore the wider world, and get beyond the parochial American point-of-view on a few things.
It's not an expense issue that makes me object the the passport issue. The main issue for many folks is the lead time required. I have a passport personally as well but let's say I don't for a moment. I'm self employed and don't plan my schedule four months out, generally. Say I find my wife and I both manage to have a weekend off at the same time our son's visiting his grandmother. If we needed a passport to board a flight and one of us didn't have one, we'd be unable to take a spur of the moment flight
While I agree with you in principle, the unfortunate reality is that the federal government will probably wind up blackmailing non-compliant states into submission.
I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.
OTOH, we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. Washington can (and has) changed regulations and requirements for passports. They should leave drivers' licenses and state issued ID's alone.
I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.
We're all old enough to remember lowering the DUI limit from.10 to.08 because if your state didn't they would lose that same federal funding.
I think this is a scenario in Game Theory. And the states played it wrong.
Scenario: Big guy tries to coerce the little guys into doing something they don't want to do by offering them a competitive advantage. This type of coercion cannot work if all the little guys agree not to acccept the advantage. They remain on equal footing. But if one of them does, they all must do so or be left at a competitive disadvantage. The mafia works the same way, and it only works because of human greed. The states were accepted the "federal funding" deals from the government. This happens on highways, schools, etc. Now they are stuck - they can't go back now, but they don't want to comply with the ever-increasing dirty deeds they must perform. It's exactly how the mafia works. If nobody paid the protection money in the first place, we would all be better off.
we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport....and nobody is required to have one unless they are entering the country (even then, there are alternate options), and nobody is expected to carry it everywhere and produce it on demand.
By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.
If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anon
New Hampshire already passes on some Federal funding (bribes), being the only state in the union that has refused to pass a seat belt law at the expense of highway funding.
I cannot recall the exact quote but knowing this crowd, I am sure it is but a post away: Robert Hienlien once said something like: "When a government gets to the point where it requires identity papers, it is time to move off planet" Similar to the old Daniel Boone line: "when you can hear the sound of your neighbor's axe, it is time to move to the next valley"
Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature. When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.
Not too long after they stop accepting IDs from those states that refuse to take part in Real ID I can see something of a Civil rights thing happening.
Ok, fair enough, with you here.
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
A little weird now... "deposed?" The answer is, "until you vote them out," by the way. Then we get a new ruling class of bleeding-heart pinkos.
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. Hi
Separate from this issue is the precedant of states refusing to follow the orders of the Federal Government. What will be REALLY interesting is if these states succeed and then try the same strategy with other federal statutes the states don't like.
standards that apply to government:
Once it's made into law, it's very difficult to change it. Once it's written down, getting it taken off is nearly impossible, and that applies to names on lists as well.
Once a program is implemented, the inertia is difficult to stop or reverse, for all the political and financial reasons that it is difficult to get rolling in the first place.
If there is an opportunity for big business or big government to abuse something, they will, sooner or later.
The ONLY way to
Ah, crud. I are an idiot. I pasted the wrong letter. The one I meant to paste was the one where she didn't believe there were any national ID programs planned.
This is the one I meant to paste:
Thank you . . .
. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to a national identification system. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and I share your concerns.
There are currently no plans in place to institute a national identification system, although some people have suggested this idea as a measure to combat terrorism. Any such system would face serious legal and constitutional challenges. For example, implementing a national identification system would potentially infringe upon recognized privacy rights and the right to travel within the United States. Like you, I am very concerned about protecting our civil liberties from unnecessary government intrusion. I am aware of this concept, and will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so again whenever I may be of assistance.
When the federal government passes laws regarding issues not enumerated in the Constitution, they are ignoring the 10th amendment. Pretty cut and dry, you would think...
Ah, but then there's Article One, Section 8. Congress has been exploiting this by broadly interpreting "General Welfare", "Interstate Commerce", and "Necessary and Proper" for the past 150 years.
They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.
So, civil services and social security are non-constitutional because they're not run by each state?
Yes, they are, but at this point it is too late to end those programs at the federal level and replace them with state programs. Which is too bad. I, for one, would like to see some states take a more Canadian approach to public services while other states take a more free-market approach, and compare and contrast the results. States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said. And once a few states work out the initial bugs in their plans, other states can implement the best solutions, and everyone would be better off.
States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said
That would be Louis Brandeis [wikipedia.org], Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor [wikipedia.org] had a similar thought process in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
Actually yes. Please point out where in the Constitution that the Federal goverment has the power to implement such programs. Unlike what Bush would like you to believe there is no such thing as 'implicit' powers. Just the opposite. Unless the Constitution says the Federal government has the right to do something, they expressly DO NOT have that right.
"Having a unified repository of ID's is something that should have been done to begin with."
Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.
They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.
I don't think letting the federal government continue to push unfunded and unconstitutional mandates is any small measure of 'bad'.
Passports are the same throughout the states
Passports are not issued by the states
license plates are the same
No they are not EG California has a format of 1ABC234 and Minnesota has ABC-123
social security numbers are the same
Not issued by the states, they are issued by the fed for federal taxing purposes.
What's the big deal? Who is it hurting?
Evidently the states who have to let the federal government make decisions for them and the force the states to pay for it.
Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
Oh yea cause if you don't have anything to hide why would you be against repealing the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the constitution. I am assuming you mean illegal immigrants who don't want to be tracked and if they are already here illegally why in the heck would this stop them.
Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.
However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4. Coupled wi
However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4. Coupled with Article 1 section 8 paragraph 18,
Yes that would be why states don't issue green cards. How does that contradict what I said?
"Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4)."
Passports aren't issued by the states... was one of my points. They're universal.
Because they are intended for use with foreign entities. Passports are not a required form of ID to have in the US, only if you wish to travel outside the US.
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates.
Again, no they are not!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_license _plates_in_the_United_States) "For example, the small states Delaware and Rhode Island are able to use formats of 123456 and 123-456, respectively, while California uses the seven-character format 1ABC234, and several other populous states use the seven-character ABC-1234 format." and "In some states, information such as county of registration or month of expiration is incorporated into the number. The last number on a Massachusetts license plates indicates the month the bearer's registration expires (1234 AB would expire in April, the fourth month; zero is used for October expirations"
As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.
Right because our real problem with illegal immigrants is that they fly!
Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man.
Has nothing to do with an innate distrust of authority but thanks for bringing your straw man to the chat, he might make for better conversation than you are.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
Never said it was a bad idea I said it was unconstitutional. We dont jsut do things because they are, at the time, a good idea. I also said granting power to those who in the future might abuse it is not a good idea either. That the kind of thinking that lets you elist in the military at 18 but not celebrate it with a drink until you're 21.
Yes, because those are issued by who? The correct answer is: The Federal Government. States are not footing that bill, nor have they ever footed that bill.
license plates are the same
*BUZZ* Oh, sorry that answer is incorrect. Some states list counties on their plates, others require two plates, while some only one. Some states have specialty plates that others do not. The way the tags and registration are charged is different by state or municipality. About the only way they are similar is in the fact that the identify a state
Passports are a federal document, not state. I would hope they were the same.
icense plates are the same..
No they're not. There are a minimum of 500 different license plates for the states. More than likely, double that number due to the specialty plates once can get. I know in PA there are fourteen different license plates one can get not including the generic one.
Passports are not up to the states. States are not allowed to restrict travel.
License plates are up to the states, but the automotive industry makes the cars and they don't want to make 50 different types of license plates mounts.
Social security numbers are assigned by the federal government.
Immigrants are not the only ones who don't want to be followed by "the man". Any freedom-loving individual wants the same.
What it boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)
Emphasis mine. That's what makes this so unpalatable to the states, just like "No Child Left Behind" or welfare reform. The United States Government is saying "we're going to create these standards and you are going to pay to implement them" and the states are naturally balking at having to foot the bill for Washington D.C.'s foolishness.
And states do it to municipalities (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
New Jersey (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, yes, not only is our Governor too stupid to wear his seatbelt, but he hasn't done much to stop the unfunded mandates, nor lower property taxes significantly.
And what of the Eminient domain [wikipedia.org] cases there? Like the one that took a bunch of people's houses away from them and gave a drug company the property.
FalconRe:And states do it to municipalities (Score:5, Informative)
Unfunded mandates is the natural effect of Congress' abuse of its Spending Power. Once upon a time, Congress' power to spend was limited to spending necessary to fund its other enumerated powers. Somewhere in time (1930s?), Congress began to expand its realm and the Courts acquiessed.
Now, it is generally believed that Congress can legislate anything provided it allocates funding first (barring some Amendment violation). So, for a while Congress started funding all sorts of crazy things so it could enact laws beyond its enumerated reach. Eventually, Congress' ability to legislate overreached its ability to fund. Thus, Unfunded Mandates.
What is needed is a concerted challenge in SCOTUS to return Congress to its legitimate role of legislating within its enumerated powers, and spending within those powers.
The net effect is lower federal taxes.
State legislatures, conversely, have no enumerated power limitations (in the U.S. Const. anyway). So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible.
Perhaps Congress could legitimately advocate for certain policies (e.g. Real ID), but it could not use money or the scent of money to enforce it. States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity. The proper answer is State actions to make things uniform, not Congress imposing beyond its legitimate reach.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As tempting as it is for those espousing conservative political views to blame the New Deal, it actually stems from 1913 [wikipedia.org]. Unfunded mandates are nothing more than a natural consequence of removing the state legislatures' ability to say "no."
This is not to say that the states themselves have not been complicit in this (after all, they only object to expansion of federal powers when it's politically expedient), but blam
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Citing the 17th Amendment does nothing to my assertion that the Court began serious abdication of authority in checking Congress in the 1930s. The confrontation between FDR and the Court (such as the Court packing plan that failed) and his ability to outlast them and ap
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
State's right's activists protest the fact that the Federal Government, which was created by the States not the other way 'round, has taken up the habit of saying "Okay Ohio, you have to spend $
Re:What it boils down to (Score:5, Interesting)
The Federal government can dump as much cash on us as they want and we still are bound by law not to comply.
The exact wording of the bill [generalcourt.org] that Governor Lynch is expected to sign this week or next says:
[T]he public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any driver's license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.
By the way, if click on the generalcourt.org link above, you'll notice that each legislator has a "liberty grade." Just like in school, from "A" thru "F" -- the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance [nhliberty.org] rates each and every one of the 400 State Representatives, based on how the actually vote on freedom-related bills, every year. Just one of the many things that become possible as a critical mass of pro-liberty activists concentrate on a single state.
By the way... one of the sponsors of the bill, Rep. Winters, is a Free-Stater -- check his acceptance speech [youtube.com]
Parent
Re:What it boils down to (Score:5, Informative)
But all that is missing the point; it's not to say that NH is already "free"; if it were, there'd be no point in a Free State Project, now, would there? The point is that the structure of government here is amazing open and accessible, and the culture is already liberty-oriented.
If you'd like some details about why NH was a good choice as the target state, I suggest you read this PDF [lpnh.org].
Parent
Re:What it boils down to (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yeah, and a few weeks ago NH became one of only 4 states in the USA to allow same-sex civil unions. We are the only state to have done so purely on the initiative of the legislature, and not as the result of any lawsuit.
Parent
Free State Project (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
The aim of the Free State Project was to find a state where liberty loving people could move to who would then turn the state around on it's head and eventually get rid of all these laws, rules, and regulations. NH comes as close to this already as most any state, and the projec
Money Money Money (Score:2)
You're right and wrong. *Some* states are not balking at the concept, only the price. Montana and Washington State are treditionally independent. But most states simply do
Re:What it boils down to (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What it boils down to (Score:4, Insightful)
Although you make a good point, you need to dig one layer further to see that some states object on moral (or at least, autonomy) grounds rather than merely due to funding issues...
You can break states up into "welfare" and "SugarDaddy" states (This has a very high correlation with red-vs-blue, incidentally, but I don't mean this post to start a partisan flamewar). The states that have so far objected to Real Id, almost without fail, fall among the SugarDaddy states, the ones with a net outflow of money vs federal taxes.
If your hypothesis (that most objecting states do so primarily for economic reasons) held true, then you would expect to see the exact opposite pattern among objectors/SugarDaddies. As the funding comes from the states anyway, whether directly or via the federal government, having each state pay their own way would cost the SugarDaddies less, overall.
Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, your hypothesis appears false... Though I would still applaud you for raising the point, since regardless of whether the states or the feds pay, we the people still get stuck with the bill at the end of the day (or April 15th, in this case).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying the states are balking at picking up the price tag. I for one wouldn't mind the standardization of license information for the purposes of making it easier to identify drivers within the United States. I draw the line at turning it into a nationalized ID system for the purposes of tracking people. And frankly, if the US Government thinks this up, then they should foot part of the bill for its implementation, since this is a national program. The money in the Fed
Re:What it boils down to (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What it boils down to (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd probably get a significant increase in visitors from outside the US as well. I can't speak for terrorists, but I know that I have declined to visit the US on both professional and personal grounds since 9/11 — and not because I think terrorists are going to fly my plane into a building.
Parent
Re:What it boils down to (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While that may be true on the surface, in fact the Federal government has under-funded the programs that are supposed to work to support the act, leaving the states to foot the bill, using already stretched school budgets (Note: they are stretched because frankly a lot of that money is being wasted... but I digress).
It isn't enough for Washington to come up with ideas -- they have to make the ideas practical and easily fundable. But when it comes to money, Washington is a town full of amnesiacs.
Airlines (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Airlines (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you can afford an airline ticket, you can certainly afford a passport - which is a lot better than making even people who never fly pay more for a passport-level driver's license. As a side benefit, holding a passport may even lead more people to get out and explore the wider world, and get beyond the parochial American point-of-view on a few things.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Say I find my wife and I both manage to have a weekend off at the same time our son's visiting his grandmother. If we needed a passport to board a flight and one of us didn't have one, we'd be unable to take a spur of the moment flight
Good! (Score:3)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember the country-wide 55 mph. federal mandate that was put in place durng to the last energy crises. States that did not comply with the mandated maximum speed limit (I think Wyoming was one) lost their federal funding for highways and transportation.
OTOH, we already have a federal ID. It's called a passport. Washington can (and has) changed regulations and requirements for passports. They should leave drivers' licenses and state issued ID's alone.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
We're all old enough to remember lowering the DUI limit from
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Scenario: Big guy tries to coerce the little guys into doing something they don't want to do by offering them a competitive advantage. This type of coercion cannot work if all the little guys agree not to acccept the advantage. They remain on equal footing. But if one of them does, they all must do so or be left at a competitive disadvantage. The mafia works the same way, and it only works because of human greed. The states were accepted the "federal funding" deals from the government. This happens on highways, schools, etc. Now they are stuck - they can't go back now, but they don't want to comply with the ever-increasing dirty deeds they must perform. It's exactly how the mafia works. If nobody paid the protection money in the first place, we would all be better off.
Parent
Passport != National ID (Score:3, Informative)
By the Constitution, nobody is required to produce ANY paperwork (IDs included) for the feds unless a judge specifically says a specific person has to under specific conditions. "Real ID" grossly violates the Constitution.
id required (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're found wandering about as an adult without adequate ID in my state (Florida), that alone is enough to send you to jail until such time as you can produce some documentation confirming who you are
This must be new, less than 10 years old. I grew up in FL and while living there there was no requirement to carry id, you only needed a dl while driving.
I do understand the state's right to require it
I don't, it's only needed if you want a police state. And requiring an id is an assault on anon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Similar to the old Daniel Boone line: "when you can hear the sound of your neighbor's axe, it is time to move to the next valley"
I can see an issue here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. His worlds were full of the kind of people who would love this stuff. Fanatically loyal, good clean white folk, ready to believe, and die for, anything a government told them. They were also undeniably Aryan in nature.
When it comes to fiction, especially fiction of such historical importance to the world of SF I am willing to dismiss such concepts as products of a different age and enjoy traversing the early history of SF. However, to see people trying to change America in such a way that only the fictional American Aryans of the 1930's would accept it as is, is a frightening thing indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, fair enough, with you here.
Just how long have we got to wait until the Neo conservative ruling class get deposed?
A little weird now... "deposed?" The answer is, "until you vote them out," by the way. Then we get a new ruling class of bleeding-heart pinkos.
I'm something of a fan of Pulp SF, particularly the early stuff, your EE 'Doc' Smith and the like. Hi
Everybody is missing the states rights issue (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a few solid if not often reviewed (Score:2)
Re:My senator never heard of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the one I meant to paste:
. . for contacting me regarding your opposition to a national identification system. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue and I share your concerns.
There are currently no plans in place to institute a national identification system, although some people have suggested this idea as a measure to combat terrorism. Any such system would face serious legal and constitutional challenges. For example, implementing a national identification system would potentially infringe upon recognized privacy rights and the right to travel within the United States. Like you, I am very concerned about protecting our civil liberties from unnecessary government intrusion. I am aware of this concept, and will continue to monitor this situation closely.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to do so again whenever I may be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
DS:jm
Parent
Re:Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are, but at this point it is too late to end those programs at the federal level and replace them with state programs. Which is too bad. I, for one, would like to see some states take a more Canadian approach to public services while other states take a more free-market approach, and compare and contrast the results. States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said. And once a few states work out the initial bugs in their plans, other states can implement the best solutions, and everyone would be better off.
Parent
Re:Big deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
States have a powerful function as "laboratories of democracy," as I believe someone said
That would be Louis Brandeis [wikipedia.org], Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor [wikipedia.org] had a similar thought process in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich: "Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."
Where are those justices when you need them?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? the delegation of identification is not, constitutionally, the purview of the federal Government and as such it falls under the 10th amendment. Just because something might be a good idea and might be useful does not mean it should be forced on the states despite clear constitutional roles. The more money and or information you give the federal government the more power you hand them.
They didn't say the changes had to be done tomorrow, and the pros outweigh the cons.
I don't think letting the federal government continue to push unfunded and unconstitutional mandates is any small measure of 'bad'.
Passports are the same throughout the states
Passports are not issued by the states
license plates are the same
No they are not EG California has a format of 1ABC234 and Minnesota has ABC-123
social security numbers are the same
Not issued by the states, they are issued by the fed for federal taxing purposes.
What's the big deal? Who is it hurting?
Evidently the states who have to let the federal government make decisions for them and the force the states to pay for it.
Basically immigrants and those who don't want to be followed by "the man".
Oh yea cause if you don't have anything to hide why would you be against repealing the unlawful search and seizure provisions of the constitution. I am assuming you mean illegal immigrants who don't want to be tracked and if they are already here illegally why in the heck would this stop them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
However, regulation of immigration is in the federal governments purview, per Article 1 section 8 paragraph 4.
Coupled wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes that would be why states don't issue green cards. How does that contradict what I said?
"Congress has the right to establish laws concerning national standards for ID cards as it would be a means of identifying citizens, immigrants, and aliens, both legal and illegal, which falls under laws concerning naturalizations (USCONS Art1 Sec 8 Para 4)."
Re:Big deal. (Score:4, Informative)
Because they are intended for use with foreign entities. Passports are not a required form of ID to have in the US, only if you wish to travel outside the US.
License plates across the states are the same, and DON'T carry a different format such as european plates.
Again, no they are not!
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_license _plates_in_the_United_States) "For example, the small states Delaware and Rhode Island are able to use formats of 123456 and 123-456, respectively, while California uses the seven-character format 1ABC234, and several other populous states use the seven-character ABC-1234 format." and "In some states, information such as county of registration or month of expiration is incorporated into the number. The last number on a Massachusetts license plates indicates the month the bearer's registration expires (1234 AB would expire in April, the fourth month; zero is used for October expirations"
As far as illegal immigrants go, they can still get ID's locally and not be tracked throughout the nation, only locally if THAT. They can also board planes after that point.
Right because our real problem with illegal immigrants is that they fly!
Pick apart everything I say because of your beliefs on fighting the man.
Has nothing to do with an innate distrust of authority but thanks for bringing your straw man to the chat, he might make for better conversation than you are.
Having a unified set of ID's, just like the military, is not a bad idea.
Never said it was a bad idea I said it was unconstitutional. We dont jsut do things because they are, at the time, a good idea. I also said granting power to those who in the future might abuse it is not a good idea either. That the kind of thinking that lets you elist in the military at 18 but not celebrate it with a drink until you're 21.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Passports are the same throughout the states
Yes, because those are issued by who? The correct answer is: The Federal Government. States are not footing that bill, nor have they ever footed that bill.
license plates are the same
*BUZZ* Oh, sorry that answer is incorrect. Some states list counties on their plates, others require two plates, while some only one. Some states have specialty plates that others do not. The way the tags and registration are charged is different by state or municipality. About the only way they are similar is in the fact that the identify a state
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Passports are a federal document, not state. I would hope they were the same.
icense plates are the same..
No they're not. There are a minimum of 500 different license plates for the states. More than likely, double that number due to the specialty plates once can get. I know in PA there are fourteen different license plates one can get not including the generic one.
social security numbers are the same...
Again, that's a federal issue, not a
Re: (Score:2)
Passports are not up to the states. States are not allowed to restrict travel.
License plates are up to the states, but the automotive industry makes the cars and they don't want to make 50 different types of license plates mounts.
Social security numbers are assigned by the federal government.
Immigrants are not the only ones who don't want to be followed by "the man". Any freedom-loving individual wants the same.