Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses 389

Posted by Hemos
from the get-together-right-now dept.
berberine writes "A revolt against a national driver's license, begun in Maine last month, is quickly spreading to other states. The Maine Legislature on Jan. 26 overwhelmingly passed a resolution objecting to the Real ID Act of 2005. The federal law sets a national standard for driver's licenses and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. Within a week of Maine's action, lawmakers in Georgia, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington state also balked at Real ID. They are expected soon to pass laws or adopt resolutions declining to participate in the federal identification network. Maine's rejection was recently discussed on slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More States Challenging National Driver's Licenses

Comments Filter:
  • by east coast (590680) on Monday February 05, 2007 @09:57AM (#17888820)
    There hasn't been a national speed limit [wikipedia.org] for over a decade now.
  • by Cainam (10838) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:15AM (#17889000) Homepage
    If you live in the US, you can voice your opposition to the REAL ID Act by sending your senators and representative a message using the handy form at http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=30 [downsizedc.org]
  • by OldeTimeGeek (725417) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:40AM (#17889240)
    It's a money thing.

    According to a report [ncsl.org] from the National Conference of State Legislatures, it'll cost states 11 billion dollars to comply with the Real ID act. There was no money put aside in the bill for states to comply, just a mandate to do so. California is looking to spend between 500 and 700 million dollars alone.

    I'm not saying that the fine people from the states that are holding back are less than honest - some of them probably feel that privacy is important. But when your state's already facing a budget deficit - as most are - yet another unfunded Federal mandate is going to get a less than warm reception.

  • highway funding (Score:4, Informative)

    by JimBobJoe (2758) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .traehtfiws.> on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:41AM (#17889258)
    For what it's worth, the original slashdot discussion had a lot of people incorrectly assuming that Maine was giving up highway funding in order to reject the REAL ID Act.

    The REAL ID Act doesn't affect funding at all, and promises no money to states in order to meet REAL ID Act requirements.

    Maine's decision only means that Maine licenses after the deadline will not be REAL ID Act compliant and will not be accepted for identification by the Department of Homeland Security (which, for all practical purposes, means a slight change on how one travels by air.)

    Having said that, the REAL ID Act also allows for mixed issuance systems--where a state would issue both Real ID Act compliant license documents, and non-compliant documents, with the requirement that the non-compliant documents indicate their non-compliance.

  • by korbin_dallas (783372) on Monday February 05, 2007 @10:43AM (#17889282) Journal
    So go ahead point out to us, the Slashdot crowd, exactly which article and paragraph in the Constitution of the United States of America, in plain English, where the Federal Goverment has the authority to require an ID?

    Remember, unless EXPLICITLY stated in the Constitution of the United States of America a power granted to the Federal Governement, then its a STATES or the PEOPLES right. And Maine and the other States BETTER stand up for their rights, or we are all sunk.

    Neither security of individuals, nor IDs are listed in said Document.

  • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:13AM (#17889604) Homepage Journal
    You might want to read this guy's story about being an illegal in Prague [blogspot.com]. Some brief quotes:

    My employer didn't even know my last name (and spelled my first name in phonetic Czech), I had no listing, no cell phone, no junk mail. I was officially off the grid. ...
    Eventually I went home, and then returned in good financial standing a year later. I worked about a year, and then ran my own business as an illegal alien. Eventually, I got my papers, but it was no easy task. ...
    Now the point is that the Czechs didn't care that I was already in the country. In fact, I had to show that I had already made connections and had resources. If I had been arrested at some point, I would have been out of the running. If I was a criminal at home, they didn't want me.
  • by Manchot (847225) on Monday February 05, 2007 @11:32AM (#17889854)
    To be fair, even though Missouri and Kansas are neighbors geographically, they are worlds apart politically. Kansas is a decidedly red state, while Missouri is perhaps the swingiest of swing states. (See the Wikipedia page on the Missouri bellwether [wikipedia.org].) The major difference is that while Kansas is almost completely rural, Missouri has its own urban east and west "coasts": St. Louis and Kansas City. As it turns out, the population distribution happens to closely mirror that of the nation as a whole, and as a result, Missouri has "picked" the winner of every presidential election since 1900, with the exception of 1956. So, though it supported the Republicans in 2002 and 2004, it supported the Democrats in 2006, while supporting the "liberal" stem cell and minimum wage measures that were on the ballot, mirroring the country as a whole.

    And, of course, there's the strange fact that unlike the rest of the Midwest, the St. Louis area tends to say "soda" instead of "pop," as this map [popvssoda.com] shows.
  • by jimicus (737525) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:02PM (#17890276)

    "You have a government certified ID card which we are assured cannot be counterfeited, so your little claim about identity theft must be false, all those charges must have been by you, so pay up or go to jail."
    A variant on this argument is being used by banks for Chip & Pin card transactions in Europe; viz. you dispute a transaction, the bank replies with "the transaction was completed with a PIN, therefore you are either lying or you were careless with your PIN. Either way we're not responsible; go away":

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/m oney/2005/12/14/cmliz14.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

    That's the "nice" case. The "not so nice" case is that you continue to complain until the bank finally gets fed up and reports you to the police for fraud. I've read a report of this happening at least once, but I can't find any evidence as search results get buried in instances of people being arrested for big organised crime card fraud.
  • Re:Giving up privacy (Score:3, Informative)

    by chihowa (366380) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:07PM (#17890336)
    It says that the states get the power to issue drivers licenses in the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
  • by dcw3 (649211) on Monday February 05, 2007 @12:21PM (#17890532) Journal
    Actually the best way to go off the grid is to expat to another country. If your destination is a place with a non-Roman alphabet, I doubt any databases will be able to link your name to anything without human intervention. Provided that you don't make the $80,000 required to be eligible for US taxes, you'll be able to sign contracts, use credit cards, etc. without the US or its corporations finding anything out. As far as the multinationals are concerned, 'you' are two different people.

    Even if you make less than the $82,400 that the Foreign Earned Income exclusion allows for, you're still required to file the forms. This doesn't take you "off the grid". The concept is that you owe the taxes, and are filing for exclusion from them by submitting your form 2555. For more info see:
    http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/ article/0,,id=97324,00.html [irs.gov]
  • Re:got it (Score:3, Informative)

    by jZnat (793348) * on Monday February 05, 2007 @01:08PM (#17891250) Homepage Journal
    Well, for one, my state's legislature better represents me and my neighbours than the assholes in DC. I can hold my local legislature far more accountable as I can actually get enough people to care enough to vote out the assholes since the only people who really vote in local elections are those who give a damn about politics anyhow. Hell, it's far more possible for someone like me (without shitloads of money for campaign ads) to be elected into the legislature, so there's far less bribery that goes on. Also, our [Illinois] constitution clears up a lot of shit the US constitution still hasn't touched (like rider bills for instance).
  • by Bishop923 (109840) on Monday February 05, 2007 @02:54PM (#17893186)
    I doubt it, I recently moved from Maryland to Wyoming (I hate people and Maryland has way-too-fucking many of them) and -none- of the states between here and there had a speed limit below 65 mph, States like South Dakota & Wyoming allow up to 75 mph. If you know Wyoming roads, even this is a loose restriction, there is so much road and such a low population density that outside the larger towns there are few, if any, cops to enforce the speed-limit in the first place.

"Success covers a multitude of blunders." -- George Bernard Shaw

Working...