NH Signs Bill That Rejects Federal Real ID 231
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."
Frist Post... (Score:3, Interesting)
NH reject Read ID (Score:2)
YAY New Hampshire!!!! You ROCK!!!!!! Now to get the 40-some states to do the same....
Agreed!!!
..I love my country, but fear its 'government'.. FAR more than I fear an Islamic terrorist...
Same here. It's government that's the real terrorists.
FalconInteresting... (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they do. The Original US Constitution explicitly entrusts Congress with (1) regulation of interstate commerce, (2) mediation of differences between the several states, (3) regulation of immigration, and (4) regulation of the militia. It then further REQUIRES Congress to conduct a decadial census, AND allows for the collection of income taxes.
Congress could require that every man, woman, and child be given an ID card, of a certain standard, that no other
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
16th Amendment?
Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Informative)
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_co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Because passports should not be required for travel within a country. A passport is government authorization to travel, combined with the government vouching for the identity and trustworthiness of the traveler. There's no reason to require that for travel within the country someone is already a citizen of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Since the vast majority of flights cross state borders, it pretty clearly gives the federal government to regulate it under the commerce clause of the constitution.
I'm not saying I like the RealID stuff. I think it is a really stupid idea that does nothing to actually improve security. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional or mean that the federal government is overstepping it's authority.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2)
Such a law would be massively unconstitutional, as the Constitution (amended) allows the Feds to collect income tax without state interference. Nice idea, but totally unworkable.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Such a law would be massively unconstitutional, as the Constitution (amended) allows the Feds to collect income tax without state interference. Nice idea, but totally unworkable.
There is plenty the federal government could do to enforce this if they needed to. If a state interfered with the tax money coming in, the federal government could economically quarantine the state. Prevent trucks, ships, and planes from entering the state. Prevent business in other states from doing business with anyone in that state. This would be pretty easy to do if it is an isolated state trying to challenge the federal government. The state government would cave very quickly under that pressure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
withholding federal taxes. (Score:2)
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 only way states could withhold income tax from the feds is if they required employers in the state to pay the state instead of the feds. Do that and the feds would go apeshit.
The Feds rightfully regulate commerce and the ID requirements for airplane passen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Frist Post... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's where you and I differ. Enslaving human beings is an abuse of the law, even if the law specifically gives no one the right to interfere with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all
That's where you and I differ. Enslaving human beings is an abuse of the law, even if the law specifically gives no one the right to interfere with you.
Which law? If there is no law addressing an issue, it can't really be considered illegal. To do something illegal, you have to violate some law. Prior to the civil war, the view was that the federal government could regulate the flow of slaves between states and into the country, but could not mandate what the state did within its borders. You really have to twist the constitution in knots to read the law any other way. That is no accident. The authors of the constitution were well aware of slavery a
USA Constitution and slavery (Score:2)
The authors of the constitution were well aware of slavery and simply bypassed the issue. They had the opportunity to make it illegal and did not do it.
That's because some of them were slave owners.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Declaration of Independece and slavery (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
what the slave states won in the Constitution was 3/5 representation in Congress for its slave population.
what would prove disastrous to the south in the Dred Scott case was the explosive dictum from the Supreme Court that slavery itself could never be touched.
I t
New Hampshire reject Real ID (Score:2)
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"
Yeap, it's the host for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org].
FalconFree State Project (Score:2)
How to Stage a Coup, American-Style
Yeap, if I could afford it I'd move to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project [freestateproject.org].
FalconInterstate commerce clause, ICC (Score:2)
A lot of the abuses of the interstate commerce clause rose up in regards to state oppression of black Americans;
The abuse of the ICC may in part be because of racism but a big part of it stems from when FDR packed the USSC in the 1930s and they supported his New Deal during the Depression.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, sin
Re: (Score:2)
If the question is physical access to a federal office building or federally-regulated facilities like a nuclear power plant or a commercial airline in interstate commerce, the answer is "no power at all."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But would it matter at all? (Score:2)
I mean to say, what power does a state legislation have against a federal one?
As it is now about the only thing it means is that some states hate it. According to the USA Constitution the federal government has no power to dictate an ID or to create one. It's a matter of states rights or the people's rights. With some Supreme Courts rulings since 1934 though the feds can get away with most anything, and I'm afraid the current Supreme Court would allow this, especially with Bush's two nominations, Chie
Re: (Score:2)
Had you been paying attention to the news, you would realize there are fewer than 50 remaining to be so encouraged. :)
Live Free or Die. (Score:5, Insightful)
TSG
Re:Live Free or Die. (Score:5, Informative)
"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
- General John Stark
What's going on here? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Re:What's up with bill attachment anyway? (Score:4, Informative)
Interestingly enough, the Real ID act is given as an example of a rider =P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your question makes me believe that you still are under the impression that there is a direct connection between what the public desires and what laws get passed in Washington. I can assure you this is not the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, that it has somehow morphed into being sent there to battle for funding for their state/district/pet project, rather than actually trying to pass laws.
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
sessons of congress (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Saying that all laws should be brief is as foolish as saying that all computer software ought to fit on a floppy disk, along with a copy of the OS. It's possible, but that doesn't make it necessarily good.
They're right twice (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While not Libertarian we do keep closer to those ideals than any other state government I know of, and that pleases me greatly.
Re: (Score:2)
A single Federal database aggregating all the personal info they could ever want. Hence the barcode is a database key to the record here and does not need to be secure (since you get a record with a picture pulled up and can compare to the person (also gets the weight, eye color, hair color, age and height, and probably fingerprint and DNA samples at some point in the future).
In fact, the plastic ID here is really not even needed. If you had a barcode ta
Re:They're right twice (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
This is good and all.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if that's something that can be done administratively, or has to be legislated into existence.
Re: (Score:2)
The legislature controls taxes and spending. I believe this topic is usually covered in most grade schools.
Civility is in decline in the US (Score:2)
Given the wide use of the term RTFM and the popularity of nasty reality shows in recent years, there's little danger of the country being taken over by "politically correct" forces for the foreseeable future.
Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Fuckin' A Right! (Score:2)
Obviously, not everyone in the South is a leeching hypocritical moralizing douchebag...but right on...
2nd VT Republic (Score:2)
I was all for NE continuing to assist poorer parts of the country until the NE Dairy compact BS. Like they can't subsidize small dairy farms in NE while pumping all those subsidies into the Midwest so grain can rot in the silos? WTF?
Then again, farming in general is a pretty big deal for my family and I.
As for N.H., I generally prefer they stay on their side of
Re: (Score:2)
We're soon to be paying them twice. We're so gung-ho about switching to ethanol from gasoline that we forgot to stop and think about what New England dairy farmers feed their livestock.
Everybody who lives in the city should be forced to live in a rural area for at least one year of their adult life.
Re: (Score:2)
South has a fair amount of food growing, too. Not to mention two major ports, and when the expansions are complete, the 2nd biggest oil refinery in the US -- in other words, making your gasoline. You can also see that the "poor" states tend to give more:
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/gen erosity.php?year=2004 [cataloguef...thropy.org]
New Hampshire is ranked 50th based on how much they have versus how much they give. I'm actually kind of surprised; given the peopl
Re:Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Like many others in this discussion, I agree that the federal government has misused the interstate commerce clause and the tenth amendment.
Fine. But my Dad needs help with Medicare (Score:2)
These are the complaints I see coming:
"Dad needs help in applying for Social Security and Medicare. My wife has plans to visit her mother in New York. I have contracts to service feder
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Civil war fears are subsiding? (Score:2)
Nuclear Powerplant? (Score:4, Insightful)
Federal Employees and flights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Federal Employees and flights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I can't decide, is your reply serious?
There is a ton of outrage over border security right now and Internet technologies that came out of DARPA sure as hell made the military a lot more efficient while lots of the infrastructure was built by universities and private organizations expanding on the research that came out of DARPA.
ACH is not even close to a single point of failure, you're referring to a whole network. Is the Internet a single point of failure for any organization? The whole Internet can go
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
That's an excellent point. Can you point out where the Interstate system is authorized by the Constitution? How about NASA or the Federal Park system? Did the founding fathers set up the IRS, the CIA, the FBI or DARPA? Can you tell me which amendment authorizes every single federally funded scientific research grant? Finally, where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can not pass laws that are not already in t
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
It is no consolation to say "I know we're slaves now, but we took a long time to get there."
You have no idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Mandate barcode and digital ID
Step 2: Mandate federal database of such info
Step 3: Mandate ISO7816 smartcard chip to be placed in every ID (can't be accessed wirelessly!)
Step 4: Require all fede
Canadian Government != U.S. Government (Score:5, Interesting)
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.