Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

More States Rebel Against Real ID Act 295

Posted by Zonk
from the lonely-out-there dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More States Rebel Against Real ID Act

Comments Filter:
  • by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:11AM (#19477971) Journal

    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)
      • by Billosaur (927319) *

        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.

        • While I am not wild about taxes, I would not mind as long it was wisely used. The problem comes in when we get taxed (wether at 1% or 60%) and it is wasted such as what the federal admin currently does.
        • New Jersey (Score:3, Interesting)

          by falconwolf (725481)

          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.

          Falcon
      • by Dausha (546002) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @12:48PM (#19479273) Homepage
        "Unfunded mandates"

        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.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Guppy06 (410832)
          "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
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dausha (546002)
            "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
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Gorm the DBA (581373)
        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 $

    • by Plugh (27537) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:41AM (#19478337) Homepage
      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]

      • by dougmc (70836)

        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.

        For the record, this sort of ranking doesn't require any sort of critical mass -- just a few people (or just one) to rate representatives, and a web page to put your results.

        I'm not saying I disagree with the free state concept at all -- I love it, actually -- but merely ranking representatives, that can be done by anybody in any state.

        • by Plugh (27537)
          Well, there were over 1,300 bills considered by the NH State legislature last year. What is "a few" volunteers? We had 50 people read all of those bills and rate them on a standardized liberty score. We then had people attending the public hearings of the highest-impact bills, and basically acting as pro-liberty advocates (or "unpaid volunteer lobbyists", if you like) The next step of course is to get tens of thousands of copies of the Report Card printed and have them placed by nearly every polling place
      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        "In New Hampshire, target of the Free State Project [freestateproject.org], it is not just about money."

        While I applaud this move...I don't find NH to truly be the freedom state. I've got a friend up there, not far from the Boston border. I can't believe all the freedom inhibiting laws they have. NO happy hour (can do 2 for 1 drinks), no smoking in any restaurants OR even bars. The cops seem out to nab you for just about anything...muffler or motorcycle slightly less that totally silent..ticket.

        I will g

        • by Plugh (27537) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @01:27PM (#19479903) Homepage
          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].

          • by Plugh (27537) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @01:33PM (#19479995) Homepage
            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.

    • 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

    • by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:56AM (#19478517) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • by ivan256 (17499)
        This was passed 100-0 in the senate. While this confirms what you're saying, it shouldn't be implied that this was solely a Republican thing.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by R2.0 (532027)
      Although I agree in principle, one of your examples is dead wrong. No Child Left Behind is NOT an unfunded mandate. The Feds supplied a shitload of money to states, under the condition that they meet certain standards, which teh states themselves got to set. The states took the money, and are now bitching that they have to comply with the conditions.

      There may be plenty of problems with NCLB - complaints I've heard include that it encourages "teaching to the test" (solution - get a better school administr
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billosaur (927319) *

        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.

    • by pla (258480) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @12:46PM (#19479243) Journal
      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).
    • by xENoLocO (773565) *
      Papers, sir? Can I see your papers?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I went looking for information regarding the Illinois stance.

      WHEREAS, Real ID would provide little security benefit and
      still leave identification systems open to insider fraud,
      counterfeit documentation, and database failures; therefore,
      be it

      RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
      NINETY-FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, THE
      SENATE CONCURRING HEREIN, that the Illinois General Assembly
      supports the government of the United States in its campaign
      against terrorism and affirms the commitment
  • Airlines (Score:2, Informative)

    by ktappe (747125)

    these actions could eventually lead to drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes
    Which the airline industry, because it usually gets what it wants, will probably keep from happening.
    • Re:Airlines (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wytcld (179112) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:35AM (#19478251) Homepage
      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.
      • by natet (158905)
        Perhaps you've forgotten the fact that all US Passports will eventually (within the next few years) contain an RFID chip, so you'll already be tracked wherever you go with that.
    • by tclark (140640)
      Is there actually a standard for what sort of ID's an airline will accept? I seem to remember a newspaper story in which the reporter printed up her own official-looking id and used it to fly without difficulty.
  • by N3WBI3 (595976) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:14AM (#19478003) Homepage
    Enough of the federal government spitting on the 10th amendment in the name of the WOT...
    • Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Aqua_boy17 (962670) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:37AM (#19478291)
      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.
      • by garcia (6573)
        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.
        • by cayenne8 (626475)
          "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."

          We're also old enough to remember when many states had the legal drinking age a 18....but, were blackmailed into raising to 21 due to highway fund witholding....

      • Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:55AM (#19478511) Homepage
        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.
        • Problem with that theory as applied to this. (It's a variation of "The Prisoner's Dilema") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma [wikipedia.org]

          Obviously the Ideal scenario for both criminals is neither talks, but if they don't talk and the other does, they get the slammer forever and a day. The logical result is for the criminal to talk (state to accept the "federal Funding" deal) Because that way they know they get at least a lighter sentence, and have no chance of maximum time.
          • by magarity (164372)
            Problem with that theory as applied to this. (It's a variation of "The Prisoner's Dilema")

            Not really since the prisoner's dilemma requires that neither be allowed to talk to each other. In the world of state vs federal politics, the state governors meet annually and nothing at all prevents them from issuing a joint resolution to do x in response to the federal government demanding y. Well, all of them would have to successfully sell strategy x to all of their respective state legislatures but tha
        • by Artifakt (700173)
          This is the exact same Game theory scenario that caused almost all states to start awarding their electors to the electoral college in winner take all blocks. The first few states that did it saw a short term advantage, as they were courted by the national party more than similarly sized states that didn't. Then everyone, with a very few exceptions, jumped on the bandwagon and that same everybody ended up back with the same relative political significance as when they started.
          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Smight (1099639)
            I think now the smart move as a state would be to switch back to representative electoral college. Especially if your are a stronghold state for some party. That way giving a little face time to a state you can't win in might still result in some votes; ignoring a stronghold state could cost the you also.
      • I suspect that the airlines will shortly require Passports to travel with. They will allow for one of the licenses to work as well, but more than 50 states implement the license, then almost certainly, they will again use tax dollars as a wedge. After all, if it is not going to 49 states, then it can go to their state.
      • 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.
        • Well, that was exactly my point in bringing up passports. Citizens can and do have the ability to opt out.

          For states however, that's not always the case. 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. While I don't necessarily like this, I do understand the state's right to require it and feel that, for the most part, this law protects me more tha
          • id required (Score:3, Insightful)

            by falconwolf (725481)

            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)

        by bender647 (705126)
        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.
      • by JimBobJoe (2758)
        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.

        That might occur, but this is actually a touch harder. As I've understood things, there still needs to be some relationship between the blackmailing and the item for which the government is doing it. The 55mph speed limit was a requirement on government highways that the federal government pays for. The raised drinking age was to prevent drunk dr
    • by pilgrim23 (716938)
      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"
    • by natet (158905)
      Just to set the facts straight, the bill this was attached to was an immigration reform bill, not a War On Terror (WOT) bill.

      I'm of two minds on the RealID act. On the one hand, there are some serious privacy concerns that need to be addressed. IIRC, RFID is also mandated for the cards, which I really don't like. However, unlike many of the supposed security measures that have been implemented lately, there are actually some tangible benefits to this system. Better information sharing between states, ha
      • by N3WBI3 (595976)
        They may have attached it to immigration for precedural purposes but it is no secret why they support this bill. Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 418 - REAL ID Act of 2005: "The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 418, to strengthen the ability of the United States to protect against terrorist entry into and activities within the United States. In particular, the legislation tightens procedures for non-citizen entry into and presence in the United States, facilitates the buildin
      • Just curious - why are you all hot to track sex offenders? They aren't all that likely to reoffend.
  • by rucs_hack (784150) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:20AM (#19478093)
    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.
    • by Blakey Rat (99501)
      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
      • by rucs_hack (784150)
        I'm guessing you haven't read much early American pulp SF. The ideal human (white, attractive, fanatically obedient to the state) was very much the order of the day in the fiction of that era.

        My point is that only people like that would accept the kind of controls being placed on the American population without a fight.

        deposed may not be the right word, but hell, since elections appear to be just as easily won in the courtroom as in the counting room, I wonder how wrong I am.
  • by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday June 12, 2007 @11:37AM (#19478283) Journal
    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.
    • by Stalin (13415)
      Precedent: an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

      In this case, see:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
      • More recently, several states, such as my home state of Maine, passed laws that essentially made marijuana a prescription drug. It's nice to see states that are willing to go against the federal government and do what they believe is best for their residents.
  • 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
  • "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"

    Yeah, cause entire states are not going to be able to buy plane tickets or enter federal buildings. I see that happening... I mean after all it's not like the airline industry has any lobbyists in Washington, and it's not as though the federal government will notice if suddenly all their employees in a given state stop s
  • Oklahoma (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ian McBeth (862517)
    I am from Oklahoma.

    One of the reasons we don't want to spend all the $$ to comply with RealID, is that
    we just completely redid our driver's licenses in the last 4 years, at a significant cost.
    The new ones are much harder to fake, and have both index finger's prints electronically bar coded on them.
    Our ID's have plenty of info about us now, no more is necessary.

    The Fed, just needs to mind its own broken fences, instead of telling us how to keep ours from falling.
  • Thoughts.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stanislav_J (947290)

    So the feds are going to tell a few million residents of these states that suddenly as of such and such a date they can no longer fly? Sure, like that's going to happen. We're already at or near the tipping point on this -- if even a few more states say "no thanks" it could hopefully sabotage the whole thing. This could turn into a major federal power vs. states rights battle -- after all, licensing is a function traditionally assigned to the state level.

    Realistically, though, I think sooner or later the

  • The privacy concerns or the fact the the US Government has no right to issue us all "papers". This should be handled at the state level, like it is now.
  • ...drivers licenses issued in these states to not be accepted as official identification when boarding airplanes...

    Or rather, commercial airplanes. I don't believe such rules apply to private or chartered planes, such as in which them rich peoples fly...

  • I'm quite proud of my home state for rebelling on this. Washington D.C. is lost to the American people as an instrument for sensible government. The state houses are the only avenue left to us if simply by virtue of being within a day's drive, and of our legislators as being mostly people with day jobs who aren't trapped in a beltway bubble.

    I once turned the tide for a crucial state reform bill by grabbing four friends and handing out flyers for 3 hours in front of supermarkets in certain legislators' dis
  • yes, without a country. if they have no ID, they can't do business with the feds.

    at which point those states can withhold taxes and national cooperation and "go private," which message the bushers can probably understand. they wouldn't catch on if those states "seceded from the Union." but going private, they'd probably get awards.

    if anybody from the US was allowed across the borders to present the awards.

    it's all totally ridiculous. going to the brink of national bankruptcy to force states out. we onc

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...