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

Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It 518

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the good-lines-in-the-sand dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:21PM (#18789135)
    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.
  • by malevolentjelly (1057140) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:23PM (#18789173) Journal
    Isn't this what Republicans used to be like? For state powers and against centralization? What would that make Bush? Fascist?
  • Wow, I love this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rockhome (97505) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:26PM (#18789227) Journal
    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!
  • Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:29PM (#18789267)
    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).
  • YES! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bryan1945 (301828) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:31PM (#18789285) Journal
    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....
  • by V. Mole (9567) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:39PM (#18789365) Homepage
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:41PM (#18789391)

    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:45PM (#18789455)

    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'.

    Not really, because the idea that they "hate us for our freedom" is pure bullshit propaganda. They hate us for continually dicking around in the Middle East, and we are still doing it, and it's getting worse. The fact that we're throwing away our civil liberties is incidental to people like Bin Laden.

  • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:46PM (#18789459) Journal
    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?
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:46PM (#18789461) Journal
    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:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:49PM (#18789491) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:Good for them. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halo8 (445515) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:50PM (#18789507)
    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
  • Re:About Time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:52PM (#18789517) Homepage Journal
    Half the people are illegal? Your ass called, it wants its 'facts' back.

    If a truck driver gets drunk and kills a few people, revoking his Drivers liscense is the last thing people should be concerned with.
    It would be far better to let him work and pay retribution.
    No, people like you want to put the person in a place where he can't pay retribution, and will work in the lower tax bracket and pay less taxes.

    Finally, and this is MOST important, so try to focus both your brain cells here:

    The US is a bunch of individual states, not one big unified country. There is a reason for this, and if you don't know what that is I suggest you make some effort to educate yourself.

  • Re:Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chuckymonkey (1059244) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `notrub.d.selrahc'> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @06:57PM (#18789581) Journal
    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.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:06PM (#18789695) Journal

    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.

    So because I have a child, pay my bills, get laid every night, and don't jump onto the whole "Rove took all my rights" bandwagon, I have no life?
  • by RobinH (124750) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:10PM (#18789739) Homepage
    You lost the same freedoms that non-drinkers lost during prohibition. Just because you're not excercising all your freedoms doesn't mean you haven't lost any. The US government now has the ability to imprison you *without evidence*. 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.

    Now, I'm sure Bush is the most moral person on the planet, so HE would never do that, but you've now opened the door for *some* future administrator to claim that one of his more radical political opponents is a terrorist and that political rival will disappear, effectively becoming a political prisoner, just like Mandela was in South Africa. Only nobody will know where this person even went.

    With that kind of power, it's inevitable that some day the US will become a place where people are afraid to openly criticize their government.
  • Re:About Time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:13PM (#18789767) Journal
    Uh its pretty easy to check for DUI's out of state without a national ID. They can just make 50 queries against 50 databases for this persons SSN, name and whatever else.

    OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights? With that logic, we should take away all the government's computers and make the use a chisel and stone. That should make use uberfree!

  • Lets see (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:13PM (#18789771) Homepage Journal
    Under no government regime would you have a problem if you just ignored what is around you, stayed in you little life and never gave a damn.

    Even under Nazi* rule, you would have been fine.

    Of course the moment there is a glitch, or someone that doesn't like you makes a phone call, then you relize those things you never used may have been a tad important.

    Tlak to annyone who has had some lie to authorities about child abuse. They are guilty until proven innocent. Even if that can prove there own innocents, you are still watched and checked up on.

    Now, how can you prove to me you haven't abused your child?
    That is the same kind of logic the admintration, homeland security, and the people running Gitmo use.

    Along with questions like
    "Will you stop all terrorist acitivties?"
    " I never..."
    "YES OR NO!"
    "no"
    "So you admit you were a terrorist."

    *I am not comparing this situation with the Nazi. Only using the to illistrate that jst because you keep your head down and don't make waves doesn't mean you have any rights.
  • Re:Good trend (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mrbooze (49713) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:19PM (#18789825)
    I'd be willing to bet good money that in the next congressional and senatorial elections after that, the vast majority of the incumbents were re-elected.

    So, if we don't bother to unelect them when they abuse us, aren't we really just getting the government we deserve?
  • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johndierks (784521) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:21PM (#18789853)
    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.
  • Re:governor (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Loligo (12021) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:21PM (#18789855) Homepage
    Didn't figure we had too many Montanans on /. Huh.

    Now if only our "libertarian" government would quit kowtowing to the influx of Californian cash, maybe we really CAN keep this state free...

    We didn't get to vote on the open container law. We didn't get to vote on the smoking ban. They were pushed through by legislators catering to the new citizens in the Yellowstone Club. Just love it when people leave their state because they don't like what it's turning into, and the first thing they do when they get somewhere else is push to make it more like what they left.

      -l
  • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TartlessMango (949792) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:25PM (#18789921)
    The Washington state legislature submitted SB 5087 to the governor to be signed at 9am this morning, saying that we would not implement the Real ID Act unless the feds paid for it in full (which they won't), and unless they can prove that it won't be a burden on the state infrastructure or on the people of the state (which they can't). Also it says that the attorney general of Washington state has the right to challenge the Real ID Act on legal and constitutional grounds.

    I assume it was signed, though it hasn't been announced yet.

    Full text here:

    http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bil ls/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5087-S.PL.pdf [wa.gov]

  • Re:About Time (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:29PM (#18789969)
    California has 4 separate organizations for handling welfare (child support being a part of that) throughout the state: ISAWS, LEADER, C-IV, and CalWIN. Each organization handles a different group of counties, but handles all aspects for those counties. So when you say California, are you saying all four organizations are unable to handle "child support payments by divorced fathers", or are you referring to your specific county?

    Sorry for posting anon, but just covering my ass.
  • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rossz (67331) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:40PM (#18790115) Homepage Journal
    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:Good for them. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SL Baur (19540) <steve@xemacs.org> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:41PM (#18790117) Homepage Journal

    In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
    Those laws were repealed several years ago, though your main point is valid.
  • Re:About Time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thunderstruck (210399) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:47PM (#18790199)
    OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights?

    Citizens of different states have different rights. Some of these rights govern how the government(s) can collect and use information. (For example, information gathered during a police stop.) How do you propose to make one database that protects the rights retained by one state and not by another?

    the government's

    Ah, here's what you're missing, government in this case is plural. If you live in a united State, you live under two separate and distinct governments, one State and one federal. Driver's licenses fall into the state category. You give some personal information and a few dollars to your state, and your state allows me to drive a car on the roads. Because your vote is stronger in your own state than in federal elections, you also have a lot more control over how that information gets used. With a shared database, you would give up this level of control over your personal information.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:51PM (#18790263) Journal
    You lost the same freedoms that non-drinkers lost during prohibition.

    Well, a non-drinker during prohibition lost the "right" to drink. Can you tell me what a federal ID will prevent me from doing?

    As to the rest of your post, I don't see how a national ID standard gives the Feds any more power than they have now.
  • Ben Franklin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by androidt (1090233) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:25PM (#18790689)
    Benjamin Franklin said it best way back in 1775: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Feb. 17th, 1775 I was born in MT have lived here all my life. Today I am very proud of my state.
  • Re:About Time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dragonslicer (991472) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:31PM (#18790765)
    I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but you might want to check the last part of that sentence.
  • Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)

    by k1e0x (1040314) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:52PM (#18791085) Homepage
    Truth is we don't have an immigration problem.. we have a welfare problem.

    What are we scared of? Why not allow anyone to come into this country? It will make us so much stronger of a nation. Immigrants wont always be poor if we give them the freedom to be successful.

    Besides this we have no reason to be tracking our people in a free nation. ID just does not prevent crime. We do not live in Soviet Amerika yet.
  • by falconwolf (725481) <falconsoaring_2000@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:09PM (#18791279)

    How do you know, have you done any research on using hemp instead of nylon?

    As a climber I'd hate to carry a wet hemp rope

    The cords of the parachute that saved expres Bush Sr, when he bailed out over the Pacific when his plane was shotdown were probably made from hemp. The US government went so far as to make a movie, "Hemp for Victory" [archive.org], to encourage farmers to grow hemp during the Second World War partially because of the need for ropes. Now I've never carried hemp cord so I can't say how heavy it would be dry or soaked, but the gov decided it was worth it to grow hemp. Admittedly though nylon cord is light, while I've done a little climbing and would like to do more, I used to repel a lot. Off of clifts mostly but some out of helicopters.

    and as a driver I'd hate to have a celluloid air bag in my car.

    How do you know air bags made from hemp wouldn't be able to do the job? Or is there some other problem?

    Falcon
  • Re:Good for them. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by apathy maybe (922212) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:10PM (#18791299) Homepage Journal
    Did I say that?

    Though I am sure that Nazi Germany, the USSR for much of its history had a national card. Papers please. Oh, and Greece has a national ID card that you must produce on request ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ID#Countries _with_compulsory_identity_cards [wikipedia.org] ). Though I'm sure that only poor people get harassed about it, when driving around in your limo you won't have to worry. And despite all the elaborate security functions, I'm sure it is easy to pay to get another ID card. France requires you to provide sufficient ID, and Wikipedia explains how the ID checks are common, mainly in poor areas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ID#France [wikipedia.org] ). And then we have South Africa with its old pass laws ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_Law [wikipedia.org] ).

    My point is not that a place will become totalitarian, simply that it becomes a heck of a lot easier. The benefits are mainly for those who would increase the power of the state.
  • Re:About Time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:13PM (#18791331) Homepage Journal
    Seems to me that people drive poorly with or without a license.. I personally put it down to the "don't break the rules" mentality instead of a "drive safely" mentality. It's amazing the arguments that you hear when people are pleading with a judge not to take their license away. They often claim they simply can't function in society without a motor vehicle.
  • by SpeedBump0619 (324581) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:27PM (#18791483)
    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.

    Good morning friend!

    We noticed a number of oddities in our records and were hoping you might like to demonstrate your patriotism with an explanation of yesterday's infractions:

    1) Your daily alotment of water is 379.35 gallons (US). It appears that you have attempted to do 2 loads of laundry and flush your toilet 5 times, in addition to your standard morning usage. Since your grace quantity is 25 gallons, we must inform you that you have now garnered 7.35 misdemeanor points on your RealID.

    2) Food sensors indicate that your Child ingested nearly 53 grams of processed sugars yesterday. As you are well aware such dangerous levels of sucrose can lead to hyperactivity and possible injury, not to mention severe oral hygene problems and a pronounced increase in the likelihood of obesity. We have passed our records on to your local child services coordinator. We hope that with the proper supervision you will be better able to manage the health and patriotism of your child. Since this is your second offense, we are required to inform you that any further infractions will lead to a temporary revocation of your "parent" status. Also, 12.1 misdemeanor points have been added to your RealID total.

    3) It has come to our attention that your intimate relations with your wife do not conform with the three prescribed forms. Please see publication 14T-S for a full description of the acceptable forms. Please be aware that continued violation of this statute will lead to a full review of your marriage license. Since this is a first offense, and the position in question was judged to have been "in transitition", no misdemeanor points have been assigned. In the future it would be wise to decouple before attempting to roll over.

    Of course, due to the nature and severity of these infractions, these matters cannot be reviewed by the open court system, as they might incite further acts of indecency and treason. If you feel you have been wrongly implicated and seek judicial review of these convictions, please present yourself at your nearest processing station on the 15th of the month. If cleared you will be released no later than the 25th of the following month.

    And remember, only terrorists and traitors have anything to hide!
  • by cicho (45472) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @10:35PM (#18792317) Homepage
    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.

  • Re:About Time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The AtomicPunk (450829) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @11:28PM (#18792939)
    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:License (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @12:56AM (#18793677)
    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.

  • by Scudsucker (17617) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @01:58AM (#18794063) Homepage Journal
    The GOP is for states rights when it suits their interests, and against them when it suits their interests. Just as they aren't really against "big government", they're against social spending - bring on the military spending and the corporate pork projects. Or how they talk about keeping government out of people's lives, and then turn around and ban gay marriage. Democrats are the same way, of course - but they haven't spent the last few decades being two faced hypocrites about it.
  • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday April 19, 2007 @03:08AM (#18794517)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrchaotica (681592) * on Thursday April 19, 2007 @03:19AM (#18794573)

    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.

  • Re:About Time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @04:38AM (#18794979) Homepage Journal
    If all the data is in 50 databases, one per state, then breaking into one database just leaks license data from one state.
    If all the data is in one large national database, then breaking into it could leak license data from literally everywhere in the country.
    Also, anyone can figure out which addresses likely belong to the federal gov. Finding state databases would be slightly trickier, esp. if it's not your own state.
  • by FatSean (18753) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:41AM (#18795269) Homepage Journal
    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.

All constants are variables.

Working...