Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 231 +-   NH Signs Bill That Rejects Federal Real ID on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:32PM

Posted by Zonk on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:32PM
from the i'm-thinking-we-scrap-the-country-and-start-over dept.
privacy
government
usa
politics
jcatcw writes "New Hampshire is part of a trend to oppose the federal Real ID act. The governor this week signed a bill that forbids state agencies from complying with the controversial federal regulation. The Real ID law, first passed by Congress in 2005, currently requires that all state driver's licenses and other identification cards include a digital photograph and a bar code that can be scanned by electronic readers. Such a federally approved ID card or document would be required for people entering a federal building, nuclear power plant and commercial airplane. The New Hampshire bill, which labeled the Real ID Act as "contrary and repugnant" to the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions, was passed in the state Senate by a 24-0 vote in late May."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NH Signs Bill That Rejects Federal Real ID 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Frist Post... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LVSlushdat (854194) on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:35PM (#19783517)
    YAY New Hampshire!!!! You ROCK!!!!!! Now to get the 40-some states to do the same....
      • If all 50 states pass such laws, yet their representatives in the national legislature won't vote to dismantle the REAL ID act....what happens?

        The Federal Government is nothing without the states, especially when the military (and lots o' national guard units) is stuck cab-deep in the Iraqi sand.

        This will not end well...

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ZedmanAuk (52694)
        The Feds have no power over the issuance of IDs. It is not one of their powers in the US Constitution, and all powers not explicitly reserved for the Federal govt. in that document fall to the states or the people. They can only coerce or bribe the states to comply with the Real ID act by giving money or threatening that their residents would not be able to board planes or go into Federal buildings. I find it unlikely the Feds would be able to enforce this at all. Can you imagine airlines going along wi

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by NickCatal (865805)

              Please show me the part of the constitution which authorizes the collection of income taxes.

              16th Amendment?

      • Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday July 07 2007, @06:22PM (#19783913) Journal
        what power does a state legislation have against a federal one?

        In theory the State power should be at least equal within the State, we have a Federal system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism [wikipedia.org] In reality our States have lost alot of autonomy to the Federal Government because of abuses of the Interstate commerce clause.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_com merce_clause [wikipedia.org] I hope that New Hampshire sticks it out, other States follow, and States Rights gains back some ground. But it didn't work when the Fed wanted a drinking age of 21, and forced States to adopt it, even though it is supposed to be outside the realm of the Federal government. Withholding funding for highways and such is an all too powerful lever the Feds have over the States. New Hampshire might hold out because they are small enough to get away with no Fed support of their highways and they have alot of "Free Staters" who want to secede from the US completely over things like shrinking liberties, and global policing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 555119,00.html [time.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by arminw (717974)
          ......Withholding funding for highways and such is an all too powerful lever .......

          That is also limited by the fact that the money all comes from the citizens of the states to begin with. If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures. That might be pretty tough for a big important state, such as California. Th

          • Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by fyngyrz (762201) * on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:50PM (#19784555) Homepage Journal
            Why not simply forget forcing the states into issuing "approved" IDs and just require a passport for anyone who wants to fly between states?

            Right to travel:

            In U.S. v Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart: "it is a right broadly assertable(sic) against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."(*) The Articles of Confederation defined a right to travel; It may be that the right was presumed to be inherent; if so, the authors of the constitution could also have thought it redundant to make it explicit.

            (*) Despite this assertion, the constitution says very little about the right to travel, other than to ensure that federal legislators have a right to go legislate as per article 1, section 6.

            Once the government starts saying "You can travel only if you meet the following conditions" (passport, ID, money in pocket, good reputation, etc.), they have set up a coercive situation where equality has been sundered. This is one of the key arguments against the underlying premise of RealID, as well as the no-fly list and similar non-judicial restrictions on travel and modes of travel. What you propose, the limitation of travel from state to state requiring a passport (in your concept, just by plane, but generally in any case), is a severe limitation upon the ability to travel.

            And I would sadly note that as recently as just a few decades ago, the very idea was unthinkable; it is even encoded into the art of the day. In Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October", the first officer, bent upon defecting to the US, asks the captain if one could travel "state to state" without papers in the US; the captain assures him that is the case, and the first officer, a product of the Soviet government's implementation of just such restrictions, reacts in pleased wonder.

            It seems that almost any war showing conditions in Europe will offer a tension-laced scene where someone's papers are demanded — people used to be quick to recognize this as an abuse of power wielded for the sake of establishing and maintaining that power, and for no other reason. Orwell wrote (in 1984): "The purpose of power... is power" — he was cautionary.

            Now we see travel limitations proposed sincerely in the previous post, as if this actually was a good idea. I find this more than a little depressing, and frightening.

            • Re:Frist Post... (Score:4, Informative)

              by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:16PM (#19784737)
              If the constitution is silent on the matter, it's safe to assume that the feds lack that power - all the constitution does is assert what powers the feds have. It's unfortunate that it's been turned on its head to imply that the feds can do anything not explicitly denied - that's our role.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by arminw (717974)
              .......What you propose, the limitation of travel from state to state requiring a passport ......

              Not really. Only if you want to get on an airplane flying from state to state. What's so different about that than requiring a drivers license if you want to drive a car either within a state o from one to another? We've had those for years. In either case the government wants to know who you are. My teenage son had to bring his birth certificate and social security card to the DMV in order to get a driver's lea

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by westlake (615356)
            That is also limited by the fact that the money all comes from the citizens of the states to begin with. If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures

            The most far-reaching agreement made at the Constitutional Convention was that the federal government must have the power to collect taxes - direct taxes on ind

        • Of course, there was considerable abuse of state power that had to be stopped--the Southern states enslaved blacks, denied them civil rights, refused to prosecute as murderers those who lynched them, and every single time the federal government tried to intervene, Southern whites complained about "states rights".

          • Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Informative)

            by MightyMartian (840721) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:55PM (#19784587) Journal

            Of course, there was considerable abuse of state power that had to be stopped--the Southern states enslaved blacks, denied them civil rights, refused to prosecute as murderers those who lynched them, and every single time the federal government tried to intervene, Southern whites complained about "states rights".
            I'm not defending slavery here, but let me just say that technically speaking, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all, but were, in fact, exercising those powers as had been granted them when they had agreed to be bound by the Constitution. In fact, I think most constitutional experts will agree that just about everything Lincoln did once the Civil War started, including the Emancipation Proclamation, was in fact in technical violation of both word and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that Lincoln was right and moral to do so, and even more importantly that the Union won the war, has made us forget that the Constitution was pretty bent up in the act of ending slavery.
                • The war was largely justified by economic means, because even in the North no one was particularly fond of blacks. The motive, even for ending slavery, wasn't moral in nature. Abolitionism existed, but it wasn't the driving force.

                • Now, Justice Thomas of the US Supreme Court alone believes that the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution should basically the force of law, although nearly everyone else thinks the words are merely aspirational. I tend to agree with Justice Thomas on this; there is just something powerful and basic about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

                  In his first drafts of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the DOI, wrote

      • In theory, the federal government's primary power is in national defense and regulating interstate trade, and still most anything that they do is justified in those terms, although often times its a stretch. Those rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the individual states. If the federal side tries to assume those reserved powers, the states can take the federal government to court, which are supposed to judge how well that law adheres to the constitution.

        Of course, sin
      • The most Congress can do is to tie certain kinds of Federal funding to their bill. That's what was done with that other idiotic initiative; No Child Left Behind. In that case, the States bit, but it seems that the days when the States feel any desire to co-operate with Congress on every half-assed idea are gone. I think a lot of state governments are feeling like this is just way to intrusive into their rights, and are done handing over to Congress any more of their powers. I doubt they give that big a

  • Live Free or Die. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The_Steel_General (196801) on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:38PM (#19783543)
    What else can you say but that.

    TSG

    • Re:Live Free or Die. (Score:5, Informative)

      by almeida (98786) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:42PM (#19784931)
      Well, you could say the full quote. Personally, I think the second half is more powerful, but that might just be because I'm so used to seeing the first half.

      "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
      - General John Stark

  • What's going on here? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:38PM (#19783547)
    If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?
    • If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?

      Indeed, a sensible question about how this country is run. I think it's fair to assume you're not American right?

    • Re:What's going on here? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sangreal66 (740295) on Saturday July 07 2007, @06:09PM (#19783815)

      If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?
      The house passed it 261-161 and in the Senate was attached to a war funding and tsunami relief bill which of course passed 100-0.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sadler121 (735320)
      Because we fucked up royally when we let senators be elected directly by the people and not by the states. This took away power from the state and gave it to the Fed's. What we need to do is stop electing senators directly and let the states appoint them. The people already have their house, it's called the House of Representatives. Now, more then ever, the states need their voice back.

        • Also, I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing 200 years ago they didn't write 1,000 page bills. Who the hell can read through 10,000 pages a week to search for this crap?

          No, 200 years ago congress didn't write 200 page never mind 1000 page bills. Back then congressional sessions were short, most of congress had to work for a living and couldn't take much tyme off to go to Washington. A few states are still like this, Texas for instance. By law, or constitutional, the Texas legislature can only me

  • [...] other identification cards include a digital photograph and a bar code that can be scanned by electronic readers.

    Wow! a *barcode* and a *digital photo*? these have *got* to be the most unfalsifiable digital features. This is scary secure!

    Seriously though, even if NH legislators were pro Real-ID (which apparently they aren't on moral grounds, thankfully), they had to oppose it just because it's so technologically retarded that it would bring exactly no added security whatsoever.
    • More to the point, its so technologically retarded that it won't add any security AND will cost millions of State money to implement because its not just an incremental upgrade. I'm a NH resident and am very happy to see this signed into law.
      • As someone born and raised in NH, I'm giving 3 cheers to the NH legislature on this one: NH isn't a state that can afford to spend money on such silly ventures as this one (not because everyone's poor, but because the state actually has something close to the Libertarian ideals).

      • Re:They're right twice (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fyngyrz (762201) * on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:03PM (#19784641) Homepage Journal
        If you had a barcode tattooed on your wrist or even tell them your name and number, this would work just as well.

        The optimum locations for physically carried ID were worked out some time ago. Either the forehead (see The NT's "Revelations" section, Hindu "caste" marks, etc), or the left chest (see Germany, ca. 1940's, and the "ID" the Jews had to carry.)

        However, the RealID legislation has murky verbiage that allows for unspecified technology to be used to carry the ID electronically. Odds strongly favor this being RFID or something similar. So no need for it to be on your body, per se; it could be in your body just as easily as it could be on it, or on a card or similar external carrier. And of course, this negates the need to "present" your ID; it'll be read when you're within X distance of any client that wants to know anything in particular about you.

        • Sometimes, when I look around at the "Your papers, Citizen" culture we have become, I hope that this sort of thing actually becomes a law; that the legislature, or the Prez by Executive Decree, will try to push something that will trip every fundy christians "end times" buttons, and we get a new constitutional convention going. our government is corrupted, time to hit the reset switch and reinstall.

  • This is good and all.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Saturday July 07 2007, @05:49PM (#19783639) Journal
    But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID complaince?

    I wonder if that's something that can be done administratively, or has to be legislated into existence.

    • I wonder if that's something that can be done administratively, or has to be legislated into existence.


      The legislature controls taxes and spending. I believe this topic is usually covered in most grade schools.

    • Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday July 07 2007, @06:42PM (#19784057)

      But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID compliance?

      New England pays far more federal taxes than it receives in federal aid. Leaving the union would be a welcome move, as we could stop paying for all the federal welfare to the southern and mid-western states. If you want to read a very amusing (and profanity-laced) rant about this, go see FucktheSouth.com [fuckthesouth.com]. The last few winters, Bush has slashed the federal home heating assistance programs; we've got people old people freezing to death because they can't afford to heat their homes. Meanwhile, you'll note that programs for midwestern corn and livestock farmers are doing quite well...

      You don't understand how pissed off New England has been since 2000. New Hampshire is full of people who *really* don't like anyone telling them what they can/can't do, and they're pretty well armed. Maine's geographically IN Canada anyway, Vermont's voted to impeach Bush more times than I can count. In Massachusetts, residents run the political spectrum, but we're also the ones who started [wikipedia.org] the War of Independence, bitches.

        • Re:Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MightyMartian (840721) on Saturday July 07 2007, @09:37PM (#19785269) Journal

          the South keeps values
          This is some sort of joke, right? I mean, we're talking about the heartland of racism, a land still backwards socially, technologically and economically nearly 150 years after the rest of the US was forced to kill most of its useful manhood just to drag it into the modern age. We're talking about the birthplace of one of the most vile, repugnant, bigoted religious movements in modern history (and no, it's not the KKK, but the Southern Baptist Convention, which only recently bothered to apologize for it's disgusting and heinous roots).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bender647 (705126)

      But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID complaince?

      Like they link seat belt law compliance and federal highway funding?

      New Hampshire doesn't care. Apparently they are the only state that has refused to pass a law telling adults they have to buckle up so that they can get their share of the federal money.

  • Nuclear Powerplant? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BlueParrot (965239) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:06PM (#19784659)
    The entire debate aside, why on earth is Nuclear Power plants on that list? I mean, seriously. Isn't that a bit like making a law which requires car companies to put at least one steering wheel on each car? Or to require that all commercial air planes have at least one wing... I mean without this legislation nuclear plant operators would probably just let anyone walk in carrying an explosive belt or whatnot, right ? Seriously, I'd be a lot more worried about a terror attack against a train company than a nuclear power station.

  • Federal Employees and flights (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:36PM (#19784885) Homepage Journal
    While they deserve points for telling the feds to take a leap, what does that do for federal employees that live in their state, or citizens that want to fly ( once you have to have the realID to fly )?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArcherB (796902) *
      I have NO idea why everyone is against this - it is NOT a big deal almost every modern country has good ID cards -

      Funny, all of them are not totalitarian and their populations have rights? Why is everyone so against it here?

      At this point just stick a freaking chip in me please or give me ONE ID card !!!!!

      Which is kinda the point of REAL ID. It can replace your passport, drivers license and possibly SS card. Unfortunately, people are so afraid that Federal agents are suddenly going to burst out of every c

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by shamborfosi (902021)
        I posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by ArcherB (796902) *
          posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.

          That's it? It's expensive and it doesn't work? Why not the same fervor of more expensive, less effective government security programs? Border security for example. The creation of the Internet was expensive and did nothing for security. Are you against that? Federa

      • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

        by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Saturday July 07 2007, @06:43PM (#19784069)
        There are many reasons to be against this sort of thing. Cost has been said already. It's forcing states to pay for this, without funding it federally. Second, this country has been against a national ID card for decades. In fact, Social Security was guaranteed to not be used as a national ID card. The fear is that the government can track your every move with this card, as it will be required by more and more services. Currently, state ID cards are not linked to the government in any meaningful way. Yeah, they can look up your data, but that's about it. With a single, computerized ID system, every time you make a purchase that requires your ID (Cigarettes, alcohol, porn) can be recorded. Every time you get on an airplane, the government knows about it. They can datamine so much information about you, that your privacy is effectively nil.

        Yes, we're already a computerized society, and they can already do a lot of this. That's bad, but the disparate nature of the databases makes doing such searches difficult and expensive, thus relegating it to important suspects. With this information at the governments fingertips, the cop that pulls you over for 'speeding' could see everywhere you've used your ID. Maybe take you downtown for questioning because you happen to go to the same night club as a wanted fugitive. Or maybe he's a bible thumper and wants to "punish" you for some blight against his beliefs on your record.

        Is all that Paranoid? You bet. But the best defense of your privacy is to not allow people to have access to it, regardless of whether it's for the "greater good" or not. You're privacy is not private if the government has access to it, regardless of whether you think you have anything to hide or not.

      • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigstrat2003 (1058574) on Saturday July 07 2007, @06:57PM (#19784197)
        This is the reason I'm opposed to it: the way it was passed. As I recall, Real ID was passed in the senate by tacking it onto a military spending bill. This, to me, reeks of untrustworthiness. Now, one possible reason to pass a law in this fashion is because you're lazy. Another is because you want it to fly under the radar. In either case, this is unacceptable.

        1) Our lawmakers have the responsibility to give a big law like this its own proper attention and debate, even if they don't feel like it.
        2) If you want a law to fly under the radar... that disgusts me. The members of Congress are supposed to be representing us, not trying to get things shoved through under our noses without us noticing!

        In either case, tacking the bill onto something unrelated was unacceptable. These are the only two reasons for doing so I can think of at the moment, so unless someone can come up with a good reason for piggybacking Real ID, I oppose the damn law because it was passed in an unethical fashion. I might even have supported the idea if it had been given its own spotlight, as it deserved, but it comes across to me very shady, as if our lawmakers are trying to hide things from us. That's not cool.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jsebrech (525647)
          As I recall, Real ID was passed in the senate by tacking it onto a military spending bill.

          To be fair, almost nothing that has even the slightest level of controversy gets passed anymore without being attached to a military spending or a hurricane aid bill.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by keytoe (91531)
        I don't think anyone really has a problem with the technical improvements with the IDs. It's the the centralized database, requiring it for travel and other obscenely intrusive bits that people oppose. Of course, a lot of people rally around the 'unfunded mandate' banner simply because it's easier to influence the general public with money-related arguments.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArcherB (796902) *
          Totalitarian governments methodically consolidate power (Castro, Putin, ect).

          I understand your concern, but is the LACK of a national ID the only thing keeping the Feds from tracking me? Granted, this card could be used as a tool to collect data, but no more or less than my existing state ID card. There is no difference except that it might make it a bit easier. Then again, you could say that about any tool, such as computers, and federal buildings, and federal cars for government employees, and every ot

    • Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChrisMaple (607946) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:42PM (#19784501)
      I am against this because every step toward tyranny is just that: a step toward tyranny. Each step, no matter how small, must be opposed.

      It is no consolation to say "I know we're slaves now, but we took a long time to get there."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by flyingfsck (986395)
      The fact of the matter is that the Feds will have to accept the state ID - whatever it is - the way it always has. A Federal ID simply drives up costs, duplicates computer facilities, creates even more unnecessary Federal jobs and erodes the constitutional powers of the states further. A standardized ID doesn't improve anything, since the present system is already working.

      • You miss grandparents point. The Feds will not issue a Federal ID, your alternative. Rather, they will refuse to accept NH ID's until they comply with the Real ID act. So, they just screw over NH citizens while they elect a government that refuses to comply.

        I do wish New Hampshire luck. If anyone is stubborn enough, it's them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by westlake (615356)
          You miss grandparents point. The Feds will not issue a Federal ID, your alternative.

          The feds may issue an ID --- which will immediately become the standard for proof of age, ID and citizenship. The next best thing to carrying a U.S. Passport.

          Open your wallet. How many cards and badges are you carrying now? How many could you shred if you were carrying a single card meeting the federal standard? All this legislation does is lower the value of any ID issued by New Hampshire.

    • Two points: First, the physical changes to the drivers' licenses were only the tip of the Real ID iceberg; the bigger part of it was a big database that would contain all the same information as what's stored on the cards, and probably a lot more. This is where the increase in security came from (at least, according to the system's proponents). Instead of just examining the ID, someone at a terminal with access to the Giant Federal Database 'o Fun could swipe your card and see your photo and other information pop up on screen. So in order to "forge" an ID card and use it to get into a Federal Building, you'd not only have to create the physical card, but you'd also have to hack into the database and update the information there.

      Obviously, this database thing does not go over well with a lot of people. The Federal government has a piss-poor history of IT and information security. The whole place, at least on the civilan/unclassified side, leaks like a sieve and loses computers and data at a terrifying rate. The last thing most people want is to be put into a national 'one stop shop' for stalking, ID theft, unwanted "investigation," data mining, etc.

      Second: Although Canada and the U.S. are alike in many ways, they're not the same. Attitudes, particularly in regards to government, are quite different. What people find acceptable in Canada -- and what may actually work in Canada -- are not necessarily the same things that will work in the U.S. If you, as a Canadian, say that you have a similar Giant Central Database, and your government uses it responsibly and the whole thing doesn't devolve into a Brazil [imdb.com]ian bureaucratic nightmare, I'll take your word for it. However, that gives me no faith at all that a similar system wouldn't be an absolute terror, were it implemented here. Maybe you have more responsible leaders. Maybe we're paranoid. Maybe the water in D.C. is contaiminated with Brain Slug larvae. Who knows; but I don't trust my government further than I can throw it, and nothing I've seen recently has encouraged me to re-evaluate that decision.
Search
It is not for me to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence. -- The Earl of Birkenhead

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.