Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It

SoCalChris writes "Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."

About Time

[Pantero Blanco (792776)]

Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.

I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.

Re:About Time

[Drew McKinney (1075313)]

Or medical cannabis laws in California. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Even if the federal government did get their way with the states, how would the implement this? They want the state government systems to synchronize their records with the national government. Sounds easy to the unwashed masses (Washington Bureaucrats), but in practice this is very, very difficult. I'm sure there are slashdotters on here who can speak to difficulties in linking just local governments to state systems let alone at the NATIONAL level!

I was once on a project linking a city government's records (I wont mention what kind) to the state government. Except for the fact that the city was using legacy system X running on X, and the state was on legacy Y running on Y. Oh, and don't forget the Bummsville servers which also need to integrate; and they haven't upgraded they're setup in 8 years and nobody knows how it works anymore.

I PRAY that the feds get they're way and we get to see how much of a mess it is for them to link these disparate, outdated, undocumented systems together.

Re:About Time

[Pharmboy (216950)]

California and South Carolina still haven't been able to setup databases for child support payments by divorced fathers. What makes people think they can sync their DLs with the feds?

Re:About Time

[rossz (67331)]

Since the overwhelming majority of fathers behind in their payments is because of inability to pay, a database isn't going to make a damn bit of difference. Child support (and alimony) are pretty much set in stone and a change in the man's employment situation doesn't matter. If he suddenly finds him self unemployed or under-employed, as I'm sure happened to many slashdotters when the the dot com boost finally went belly up, he still has to pay the original amount. The court enforced amount is partially based on the man's earning capability (to prevent assholes from quiting good jobs just to screw their ex-wives), but the courts are blind to massive changes in the economy.

Re:About Time

[truthsearch (249536)]

I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there.

Wow, you're right! No one would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a proper license! Problem solved.

You're kidding, right? You do know lots of people drive without a license. They're not usually caught until they're in an accident.

License

[Mark_MF-WN (678030)]

Hey, there's an easy answer for that one. Put an RFID tag into every license plate (or into the tags, since those need to be replaced all the time anyway). Then put RFID scanners into every traffic light, every intersection, periodically in streetlights, etc. Anytime a car passes without a valid RFID-tagged license plate, the scanner automically signals the nearest police car, photographs the car, activates the vehicles "disable" code, detonates the land mines, deploys the hunter-killer bot, or whatever else the state feels is an appropriate response. And if the vehicle DOES have a valid RFID tag, then it's a simple matter to verify whether or not the owner has an approved license. It doesn't help much if the driver of the vehicle isn't the owner, but that's what the RFID tags that were jammed into everyone's skulls were for. Seriously though -- RFID license plates and traffic light camera/RFID-scanner set-ups are basically a foregone conclusion at this point. They're inevitable.

Re:License

[Mark_MF-WN (678030)]

Well, let's see: local government is full of people who are functionally indistinguishable from people in big government, except that they are either too pathetic to make it into big government, or are still working their way up.

Sure, the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in small government is slightly larger than the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in big government ... but that's like saying that a vegan's feces will have more intact kernels of corn than those of a guy who eats nothing but steak. Either way, you have to go rooting through shit to find out, and neither is really any better than the other. There are easier ways to get corn.

And "individuals"? They are remarkably rare. Anyone who actually thinks about anything beyond who America's next top model will be, is in such a small and inconsequential group of people that nothing they do is capable of having any real impact on anything ... other than to invent new technologies that can be used to make everyone more affluent and less free.

I know, it's hard to accept the reality of this: one of the most fascinating psychological phenomena discovered in the past decade is the fact that nearly all Human behaviour and social understanding is predicted on the assumption that we are in the majority. We assume that whatever we want, whatever we believe, whatever we choose, is what most everyone else will wants/believes/chooses. But if you actually stop to think about anything beyond the most superficial drivel, you have placed yourself in a tiny, tiny minority, and nothing about you or what you think or believe is even remotely representative of your society.

Re:About Time

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Kinda makes you wonder how this social norm of licensing people to drive came about. I wonder if there is anywhere in the world where requiring people to have a license to drive is considered as absurd as americans find the idea of requiring people to have a license to watch tv.

I have a friend from Bangladesh; they have drivers licenses there, but if you had the right connections or enough money, it just wasn't worth getting one. If you got pulled over you just paid the bribe or showed the right person's card and you were set. The bureaucracy and bribes involved in actually procuring a license was supposedly worse than just violating the law and getting away with it after the fact. Sort of a "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" situation.

This was a while ago and I think they've done a lot of combat corruption there since then, so I'm not necessarily saying that's the case anymore, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were many places where rampant low-level corruption [1] exists where it's the case.

[1] I don't mean "low level" here to mean "not serious," I mean corruption on the actual 'street level,' among the people who actually enforce the law, as opposed to 'high level' corruption among the people who make the laws. Here in the U.S., we don't have that much corruption at low levels -- at least not compared to places like Bangladesh; you probably won't get out of a speeding ticket by slipping the cop a few bucks -- we seem to like our corruption at the upper echelons.

Re:About Time

[mr_mischief (456295)]

If you've never driven in L.A., Chicago, or Atlanta, I invite you to try before you put down the idea of licensing drivers. And remember, those are mostly people who are licensed weaving in and out around you.

The theory of law that allows driver's licenses is that you're actually quite free to drive so much as you want without one. It's the privilege of making use of publicly built and maintained streets and roads which requires a license. The original purpose was to assure the public that other people around them could safely operate their vehicles according to the traffic laws.

Now it's just about getting as much money to the state as possible and another way to punish people for their illegal acts. Failing to pay child support can get a license suspended or revoked in some states, for example.

Re:About Time

[The AtomicPunk (450829)]

Quite possibly ... they got a lot of things RIGHT in their revision of the Constitution.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =353 [mises.org]

* Eliminated the "general welfare" open door
* Enforced free trade and opposed protectionism
* Prevented Congress from appopriating money for internal improvements intended to facilitate commerce (e.g. pork-barrel public works)
* Gave the President line-item Veto (only 130+ years earlier!)
* Appropriations required two thirds majority
* Eliminated cost-overruns for government contractors
* Eliminated omnibus spending bills - no hidden expenditures

Oh, and before the revisionist history trolls start knee-jerking about slavery, please read the article - in particular, the quote from Abraham Lincoln.

Re:About Time

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Where does the Constitution allow for the FCC? Is the FCC unconstitutional?

Probably allowed by the Interstate Commerce Clause (hereafter referred to as "ICC"), since radio waves often cross state lines. Still, it's a bit of a stretch.

How about the Air Force?

Good question -- the Constitution provides for a navy, but armies are supposed to be raised ad-hoc for a maximum of two years. So is the Air Force more like a navy or an army? Or should it have required an Amendment to exist at all?

The national highway system...

ICC, probably. Also, it could be construed to be a "post road."

...HUD, CDC...

I'd say "unconstitutional;" they were probably (dubiously) justified by the ICC.

...CIA, FBI...

The FBI is on thinner ice than the CIA here; I'd say it could maybe be justified by the stuff about punishing "offenses against the law of nations" or the bits about the militia. The FBI I can't justify.

...the Marine Core...

Part of the Navy; it's OK.

...FEMA...

It's a stretch, but maybe it could be classified as "militia."

...social security...

Unconstitutional, no question (again, dubiously justified by the ICC).

OK, let me try it another way: If congress is only allowed to make laws that are specifically, (read: already) spelled out in the Constitution, why do we even have a congress at all?

To make laws about only those issues that can't be handled by the states.

Seems like don't really have much purpose.

Yep, that is how it was originally intended to be! The states were supposed to have more (or at least equal) power than the Federal government, and the people (and local goverment) were supposed to have more power than the states. Instead, the Civil War, New Deal, and everything after that created this topsy-turvy situation, which isn't how it's supposed to be at all.

Can we have the courts rule all these things out of existence?

I wish. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is appointed by the Federal goverment (do you see the problem?).

Re:About Time

[mrchaotica (681592)]

There are probably others. But at least from July 4, 1776 until November 15, 1777 there is no doubt that there were 13 independent states in what is now the eastern USA.

Really?

Yes.

Can you tell me who the President of any of the countries was?

An entity doesn't have to have a "President" to be considered a country; in fact, most countries don't have "Presidents." They have "Prime Ministers" or "Premiers" or "Kings" or "Dictators" or whatever instead. In this case, the supreme executives were called "Governers."

Did these governments tax

Yes. This should be obvious, since they still do that now!

hold elections

Ditto.

print currency

Yes [wikipedia.org] (scroll down for discussion of individual states' currencies).

raise an army

They all had, and in fact still technically have, their own militias.

send and receive ambassadors

Who did you think they sent to the first and second Continental Congresses? Clowns?

create treaties or any of the other things that "states" do?

Yes.

Illegal Immigrants are caught all the time.

[FatSean (18753)]

It's just that nothing happens to them. Often they are released back into the community. Even if you dumped them over the border, they come back.

This ID card will not help with keeping illegal aliens out of the country because we don't DO anything when they are caught.

It WILL allow the government more control and easier suveilance of all citizens. This I cannot abide.

I'm moving there

[drgonzo59 (747139)]

I hope they need Python or Java developers. Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything...

[sczimme (603413)]

Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything, it's that one should always have a backup plan for black-bear-ies.

Re:I'm moving there

[pschmied (5648)]

As a Montanan who has since moved down south... of the equator to New Zealand, I can say that the job market probably isn't what you want. There are very few employers.

That said, Montana's a beautiful place. Oh, and the Kettlehouse (MT brew) brews the best beer in the world.

We used to joke about people moving to Montana to pay the scenery tax. Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.

I remember an old "PR" campain in MT to discourage Californians from moving in:

"Montana Sucks. Now go home and tell your friends."

Re:I'm moving there

[shaitand (626655)]

'Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.'

No kidding, I took a train from Chicago to Portland that went across Montana lengthwise. You could tell you had entered Montana when you couldn't see anything, not even on the horizon. You could tell when you left Montana because you saw things again.

Hell I don't even remember any towns. I saw a couple dead trees but thats about it.

Good trend

[SuperKendall (25149)]

Now if they can only bring back the old "reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits, also in defiance of the federal government...

Re:Good trend

[by Anonymous Coward]

The 18-year-old drinking age and some drunken driving limits were also forced on states by saying "pass this law or we'll cut you out of federal highway funds your people paid for in taxes". A total end run around the constitution that the big chief court in Washington had no problem with. I'm sure there's a long list of this abuse someplace.

blast from the past

[malevolentjelly (1057140)]

Isn't this what Republicans used to be like? For state powers and against centralization? What would that make Bush? Fascist?

Lesson for the world

[heretic108 (454817)]

If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

Re:Lesson for the world

[ArcherB (796902)]

If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.

Thank you.

ArcherB

Re:Lesson for the world

[Knuckles (8964)]

I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing

A life.

Re:Lesson for the world

[paeanblack (191171)]

The administration (not just this one but any one in the future) can call up the CIA/FBI, tell them that they have reason to believe you are a terrorist and you will be put in jail with no access to a lawyer, no phone call, no trial, nothing. You will stay there indefinitely.

All that has changed is the label:

Before terrorists, it was desegregationists.
Before desegregationists, it was communists.
Before communists, it was anarchists.
Before anarchists, it was unionists.
Before unionists, it was feminists
Before feminists, it was secessionists
Before secessionists, it was abolitionists
Before abolitionists, it was transcendentalists.
Before transcendentalists, it was restorationists.
Before restorationists, it was monarchists.

Before you worry about losing your rights, stop for a moment and ask if you ever really had them in the first place. The world changes much more slowly than it appears.

Re:Lesson for the world

[cicho (45472)]

The whole point of requiring an ID is to institute laws that will prevent you from doing certain things without the ID. That' and to make sure that when you do those things, the government can know about it.

And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.

This is historic!

[by Anonymous Coward]

This is the first time in Montana history that our illustrious MVD had to be ordered NOT to perform something work related.

Good for them.

[apathy maybe (922212)]

I'm not in the USA, so my comments are general. I'll get that out of the way first.

The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian). There are inevitably going to be problems with control to the data (who has access?), it isn't going to stop fake ID's and it paves the way for people to give up more and more information to a central state.

The benefits are simple, the state gets a large access which it can then use (and most of the time misuse). It will be inevitably linked to other databases, and then the state can do what the East German state did.

It knows when you broke the law, and if you do something it doesn't like, it pulls you in and charges you with whatever it likes. After all, who hasn't broken some law or another?

This comment from the BillingsGazette, shows some other possible uses for the government.

"We also don't think that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., ought to tell us that if we're going to get on a plane we have to carry their card, so when it's scanned through they know where you went, when you got there and when you came home," said Schweitzer, a Democrat.

(And isn't Montana the state with the highest level of gun ownership or something? Someone should shoot the federal agents, that would teach the fuckers.)

Re:Good for them.

[halo8 (445515)]

who hasn't broken some law or another?

Thats the key phrase, right there.
who hasn't broken some law or another?

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again.

In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime
Books and CD's have been banned in schools
Trans Fat is illegal in some cities

And it works both ways, Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right.
What if gun were banned?
Missed Child Payments
what if using a racial slur was a criminal offense
Getting angry and making a threat.
Vengeful Neighbours
Banning certain music or concerts dances clothes
its goes on and on and on

Sadly, its not to hard to imagine.

Once the goverment gots you, the GOT you, your in the system.
good luck trying to fly
good luck renewing your license (Driving, Hunting, Practicing whatever...)
good luck getting a job or a mortgage

Never mind those ones...

[real gumby (11516)]

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again....[list of example laws]

How would you even know, if the law you were violating were a secret law [papersplease.org]?

Wow, I love this

[rockhome (97505)]

I am a huge fan of the Montana state legislature right. To unanimously pass that kind of legislation says two things :

1. They are for their constituents interests on this one.
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

Kudos to you Montana. As Stephen Colbert migh say, You've got balls!

Re:Wow, I love this

[V. Mole (9567)]

While I'm glad they did this, I'd guess it has very little to do with concern for constituents and mostly to do with the cost of implementing it. Can you say "unfunded mandate"? I knew you could.

states rights

[falconwolf (725481)]

2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

Montana has pretty much always stood up for states rights. The one tyme I can think of they didn't was when they raised the legal age for drinking to 21.

I'm glad to see another state stand up against the Real ID Act. But as Vermont's logo is "Do not tread on me" I'm supprised they didn't pass such a law first.

Falcon

Constitution

[iamacat (583406)]

US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard. It aberrant to subject 149 million people to a preference of 151 million. It's time to delegate most decisions to state level, where they would be hopefully passed on to local governments to honor the spirit of constitution (that was written when the whole US population was smaller than some metropolitan areas now).

Re:Constitution

[falconwolf (725481)]

US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard.

The author of the "Declaration Of Independence", Thomas Jefferson, woud be rolling in his grave if he knew the federal government outlawed hemp, aka marijuana and pot. He grew hemp on his farm and once said there should be a law requiring farmers to grow it. He didn't propose a law though because he knew such a law would be a restriction on the rights of farmers. The only reason hemp was made illegal was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people, amoung them DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, Rockfeller, and Rothschild.

Falcon

Re:Constitution

[chuckymonkey (1059244)]

Exactly, more laws mean that average Joe cannot get through the day without breaking a couple of them. For example, everyone goes on and on about drugs and the cartels that support them, the crime that surrounds them and whatnot. Make the worst ones legal and suddenly there is no incentive for the any of that, the drug lords won't make money and the violence of drug dealing and underground smuggling suddenly just disappears. Here's another interesting concept of the drugs too, with a lot of the worst ones the addicts will quickly kill themselves off since they can get as much as they want. I know what the next comment is going to be "think of the children!", how about "BE A FUCKING PARENT AND KNOW WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING,WHERE THEY ARE AND WHO THEIR FRIENDS ARE!". People that want to do drugs are going to find a way and eventually go away. Look at the percentage of the populace that smokes these days, it's getting lower and more and more teenagers that I talk to think it's a disgusting habit. Anyway, this kind of thing with the card is bullshit. It's just another program that means nothing, does nothing, makes it easier to break the law, and lines the legislators pockets with money from whoever gets the contracts for it.

YES!

[bryan1945 (301828)]

Thank you Montana! This will probably ending up going to the Supreme Court, and I hope Montana wins. The requirements for the "Real ID" are ridiculous. I don't even know where my birth certificate is! I've had a valid state driver's license for 17 years- suddenly I need to prove again that I was born? I've had a valid SSN (and card) for 20-some years- I now need to re-prove my national id (c'mon, you know it is)? Utility bills- am I joining a library? Hell, will I need 3 references, a DNA sample, resume, and a documentary (on DVD of course) of my life next?

All this does is make life harder on regular people. Just like gun laws- when the current laws are not being upheld, lets make more! Just uphold the current laws on getting a driver's license. At least in Pennsylvania, you have to provide a birth certificate and another form of ID. If the states' held up this standard in the first place, you wouldn't have to implement a secondary layer. Pass a law making the states to uphold their current standards.

Blah, I hate government in general. Sorry, just had to pay taxes....

Huh?

[bobcat7677 (561727)]

First state?

I thought Maine http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6153532.html [com.com] already did this with Idaho and Washington following closely behind? Or have those laws not been enacted yet?

Re:Huh?

[johndierks (784521)]

Depends on what time the bills were signed, as today Washington state Governor Christine Gregiore also signed into law a bill that rejects real ID.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/29426prs20070418.h tml [aclu.org]

The measure will prohibit state implementation of the REAL ID Act, unless the federal government fully funds it and provides stronger protections for the privacy of Washington drivers. The measure (SB 5087) passed both chambers of the legislature with bipartisan support, including an overwhelming 95-2 vote in the House. Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) was the bill's prime sponsor, and Senators Dan Swecker (R-Rochester) and Ed Murray (D-Seattle) were cosponsors.

governor

[PresidentEnder (849024)]

I'm from Montana, and all I can say is: I am very, very glad that Schweitzer is governer now. Judy Martz, our previous governor(governess?) would have gone along with the REAL ID act, just to be compliant with our wise and noble leader in DC.

Re:

[pschmied (5648)]

Yeah, and maybe with two democratic senators, MT will back it up too.

Judy Martz was a tool: Mrs. "My husband never hit me, but then I never gave him reason to." ...or the fact that she was a *self professed* lapdog of industry.

Hey, how about you Montanans also get a ballot initiative to institute instant runoff voting (IRV)? I'm an expat, but I still vote in MT elections... I'd support it. :-)

Freedom

[QuickFox (311231)]

FTA:

[...] said Schweitzer, a Democrat. "This is still a free country and there are no freer people than the people that we have in Montana."

Well, that's precisely the problem! That's exactly the problem that we're solving here.

No one hates your freedom like we do... Uh, oops, I mean, like the terrorists do. Everybody knows it's the terrorists who hate your freedom. And of course only the terrorists can take your freedom away... Uh, um, no, not exactly, they can't... In fact only we can take your freedom away... er... You shouldn't question these things... Now be a good patriot and lie down and let us step on you for your protection.

In other news ...

[by Anonymous Coward]

In other news .. the entire state of Montana has been declared an "Enemy Combatant". Plans are under way to use the national guard to secure and build GitmoII around the entire state.

Seventeenth Amendment Repeal, anybody?

[sehlat (180760)]

The original constitution provided for the House to be elected directly by the people of their state, and for Senators to be elected or appointed by the state legislatures. What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life. It also meant that a lot of the things we see coming out of Washington, including such "unfunded mandates" as the Real ID act, which imposes enormous costs on the states that the Federal government doesn't pay for, can't be remedied by the legislatures who have to vote the money for these things recalling them.

Federal government has the upper hand

[Dachannien (617929)]

By enacting this legislation, Montana has denied its residents access to any federal programs that require the presentation of government-issued photo identification. One notable example is your passport: a photo ID is required to get a passport. No skin off the nose of the feds - in fact, it's less work for them to round-file all the passport applications from Montana once the ID requirements roll around.

And good luck getting back into the country when you head up to Alberta for cheap prescription drugs. You may be required to show a passport or other photo ID to re-enter the country across the Canadian border (and a passport is required when traveling by air), and since DHS is in charge of that, they can take one look at your Montana driver's license and turn you away.

Been There, Done That

[chill (34294)]

Montana did not ratify Prohibition, nor did Montana law enforcement enforce Prohibition within Montana's borders.

The Montana Constitution includes the following clause: Section 33. Importation of armed persons. No armed person or persons or armed body of men shall be brought into this state for the preservation of the peace, or the suppression of domestic violence, except upon the application of the legislature, or of the governor when the legislature cannot be convened.

This has been used, in the recent past, to limit federal law enforcement incursions into the state, a fact which has been credited with being responsible for the group known as the Montana Freeman being arrested (by the Montana police, who wished to prevent another Waco-type incident), without a shot being fired. This means that Montana does not feel that the feds have the unlimited right to do as they please in Montana, or to Montanans.

A resolution has been passed by the Montana legislature requiring federal law enforcement that wishes to do anything in Montana to act through the appropriate local sheriff. The intention is to eventually give this the force of law. This tends to signify Montana's sovereignty as a state, as well as its willingness to stand up to the feds.

And, for a passport, you do not NEED a photo ID if you can get a citizen to whom you are well known to vouch for you. You'll also need some other paperwork, but you CAN get thru without a driver's license.

This battle is long lost...

[mi (197448)]

Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).

Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).

The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...

May, as well, have "Real ID"...

History of This

[David Greene (463)]

Real ID was passed back as part of an "essential" Iraq funding package. As such it had no separate committee hearings. And at the time, guess who controlled Congress?

Many states are opposed to this not due to privacy concerns but simply because it's another unfunded federal mandate. Minnesota estimates it will cost the state $31 million over five years. Total national costs have ballooned to something like $17 billion. Congress allocated all of $40 million to pay for it.

I know it would take some work for me to produce a certified birth certificate or passport to get a license.

It will be interesting to see what happens when boarding restrictions, etc. go into effect. If this law isn't killed outright at the federal level, I believe it will be effectively ignored in many situations.

More info and an opinion piece:

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1110277.html [startribune.com] http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1119732.html [startribune.com]

No one seems to have noticed.....

[tx_kanuck (667833)]

Lets say, just for the sake of this argument, that I am from Montana. Lets also say that I don't have a passport. If I am not allowed to enter Federal Buildings without a RealID compliant drivers license or passport, wouldn't that mean that I am now forbidden to enter Federal Court? So now I cannot sue anyone in Federal Court. When the State court and Federal Court share a building, I cannot even go to State Court. And the best part? Since the passport office is a federal building, I can't even go to the passport office to get a RealID compliant ID card. Oh yeah, I can't even meet with the IRS to go over my taxes. I just became a non-person. Of course, that assumes a strict reading of the law, and IANAL.

That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.

Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights

[eln (21727)]

The Feds won that battle a long time ago by a.) allowing pretty much anything under an outrageously broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and b.) threatening to pull federal highway and other unrelated funds from states if they did not comply with random laws covering a broad range of topics.

Seems to me if the feds can threaten to pull funds that a state's taxpayers paid into if the state doesn't follow some totally unrelated regulation, the state should have the ability to opt out of paying into those types of funds on behalf of its taxpayers. So, if the feds pull highway funding, the states should be allowed to withhold the portion of federal taxes its citizens pay that would normally go to the federal highway budget and have the taxpayers pay that money directly to the state's highway fund instead.

Also, I'd like a unicorn.

History.

[by Anonymous Coward]

A great number of states once told the Federal government where they might stick their legislation.

The result was a very long and bloody war, resulting in the defeat of those states. Granted, the South gave a damned good fight, only succumbing to the North 'zerging for the win'... ...But back then, there were no cruise missiles, strategic bombers, et cetera.

In a country where we're so afraid that we're banning fingernail clippers from airplanes and crying over a ridiculously low number of casualties in Iraq, there's not going to be any sort of real civil war without which something truly astonishing happens.

Rights being eroded isn't truly astonishing, it's been going on since 1865.