More States Rebel Against Real ID Act 295
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."
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
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:Big deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
And states do it to municipalities (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big deal. (Score:1, Interesting)
Aside from all the legalities, do you think that having a unified ID across the states is a bad idea?
I'm just saying that rather than fighting it, it should have been something that was done a long time ago.
Everybody is missing the states rights issue (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Interesting)
They're sure as hell not going to throw all that extra power away.
Re:What it boils down to (Score:2, Interesting)
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 administration) and that there isn't "enough" federal money to meet the mandate (no duh - it was never intended to be 100% funding).
My opinion is that the local school districts, having failed students for over 40 years, have decided to go into survival mode and are throwing out whatever arguments they can to keep from having to change their bloated bureaucracies and airy-fairy "learning strategies". There are good arguments to be had, but the "unfunded mandate" one is a red herring - the funding was there BEFORE the mandate came into effect.
And thinking the locals and states are pristine islands of goodness faced with a sea of federal bureaucracy and corruption is flat out naive - the feds have nothing on the states, and especially school districts, when it comes to flat out, cash in hand corruption (although they are catching up - I'm looking at you, Jefferson)
Oklahoma (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:What it boils down to (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 Federal budget comes from we the taxpayers, and I don't see why my local taxes need to be driven up just so Washington can stroke its ego.
I can hardly wait for Civil war 2.0 (Score:1, Interesting)
What a time to be alive!
Fuck the real ID.
Re:And states do it to municipalities (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 $100M this way".
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.
Re:Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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 blaming politicians rather than the system they now use to gain power is treating the symptoms rather than the disease.
"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."
What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course.
"So, they can legislate all the social programs, etc. you want. Local officials locally responsible."
You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs. Contentious political issues can end a political career, and a federal legislator with exponentially larger constituencies can take more political risks on such issues than a state legislator, for whom a few votes can make or break an election. State legislatures and officers only challenge Congress when it is politically expedient for them, and wouldn't stick their necks out to jealously guard their constitutional powers if it means siding with terrorists or pedophiles.
And besides, in the specific case of social programs, while the constitutional methods of federal control may be questionable or odious, the benefits and overall cost savings through the economies of scale should be obvious. Even if what you or I propose were to come about, there is certainly no guarantee that the various programs you seem to be against would be ceased rather than reformed through more legitimate means.
"States have successfully legislated uniform reforms (Uniform Commercial Code, for example); but this is not absolute uniformity."
The political risk of enacting the Uniform Commercial Code was negligible at its worst. Disaffected civil libertarians can more easily make their influence felt in state legislative elections, making it more difficult for the states to make such legislation than it would be for federal politicians. Politics that need not be legitimately founded in constitutional concerns can and do get in the way of what is truly "necessary and proper" and there is no guarantee that such concerted, independent efforts could bring about just and effective government. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about the Constitution to begin with, as the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed.
Re:And states do it to municipalities (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 appoint legislation-friendly justices directly precipitated the abdication I refer to. What the 17th did was allow lobby interests to directly bribe 100 Senators rather than the 100s of state legislators. And, while you're blaming conservative political views on my perspective, an extremely progressive law professor of mine openly admited that the New Deal was another "re-writing of the Constitution." While a harbinger of future excesses, distancing the Senate from the legislature does nothing to my argument about the Court failing to check Congress.
"What you propose is a reactive solution, requiring constant challenges from outside agents against the federal government in federal courts against particular legislative acts. Of course, it's more politically expedient than a proactive course."
So, while attacking a solution, you fail to provide a counter. The solution must be reactive as the condition already exists. A proactive course would have been to prevent the incursion before it occurred. Perhaps by proactive you suggest that Congress itself govern itself. This is a laudable ambition, but ambitious men in Congress are too focused on maintaining power than of returning it to the People, or the states respectively. What should be ironic to you is that one, whom you claim espouses conservative views, would prefer to legislate through the Court; a tactic more commonly used by those with progressive views. A Conservative point-of-view would prefer Congress act sua sponte, or perhaps agitate for a new amendment to curb Congress.
"You presume that the states don't want federal control over such social programs."
You assume I presume. My whole point was that there should be local accountability for social programs. Our government, perhaps more now than before, has become one of passing the buck. Each power point blames another for the state of things and the People are lethargic.
Economic benefits of federalizing social programs is beside the point. Congress lacks legitimate Constitutional authority to legislate social programs. State legislatures inherited absolute legislative authority from Parliament, not Congress. States are given absolute legislative control with caveats (e.g. no war declaration or money coining). Congress is only given legislative control of a few areas where a bunch of men in wigs thought minimally necessary to keep the states together and function as a group. And, I submit to you that a uniform code for social programs would convey many of the same benefits.
I cite the UCC as but one of several uniform codes. There are others which have met with lessor success. Even the UCC is handled with variation among the states. Granted, there was minimal political cost by the premise that banks across the U.S. should agree to follow roughly the same rules. That's just sound (interstate) business. Others, such as the Model Penal Code, have met with less apparent success.
I'm not saying that a uniform code is without political consequences. You're comments seemingly fail to grasp my core points. First, Congress has usurped its authority and none have checked it. Second, that political consequences should be felt at the local level. You're explaining _why_ Congress has gotten away with it. I do not address the obvious reality of motive.
I would respond by saying that your comments underscore the anti-democratic nature of social legislation passed by Congress. If these programs were asserted at the local level, it may well have been political suicide