Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0

Posted by timothy on Tue May 10, 2005 09:26 PM
from the shock-shock-horror dept.
jeffkjo1 writes "The U.S. Senate has passed the $82 billion Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill (approved by the House last week), which includes the Real ID act driver's license reform (previously reported here.) The National Governors Association has indicated at the possibility of a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Real ID provisions, which would create national driver's license standards, and a federal database of information from all 50 states."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Slashback: Real-ID, PriceRitePhoto, RIM 75 comments
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including a possible iBill framejob, the first steps towards defying the Real ID act, Peter Quinn continues his support for Open Source, Judge flunks lawsuit against spammers, WinXP on a Mac, round 2, Juniper drops message board suit, Vint Cerf answers questions on TLDs, PriceRitePhoto gets relisted, and RIM goes on the offensive for patent reform -- Read on for details.
[+] Administration Wants To Scale Back Real ID Law 317 comments
The Washington Post is running a story on the Obama Administration's attempt to get a scaled-back version of Bush's Real ID program passed and implemented. We've been discussing the Real ID program from its earliest days up through the states' resistance to its "unfunded mandate." "Yielding to a rebellion by states that refused to pay for it, the Obama administration is moving to scale back a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was designed to tighten security requirements for driver's licenses... Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants to repeal and replace the controversial, $4 billion domestic security initiative known as Real ID... The new proposal, called Pass ID, would be cheaper, less rigorous, and partly funded by federal grants, according to draft legislation that Napolitano's Senate allies plan to introduce as early as tomorrow. ...the Bush administration struggled to implement the 2005 [Real ID] law, delaying the program repeatedly as states called it an unfunded mandate and privacy advocates warned it would create a de facto national ID."
This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Something is fishy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) * on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:27PM (#12494990) Homepage Journal
    You know, I remember when they had an Election in Iraq right before the U.S. invaded. I think the vote was 100% for Saddam Hussien. The problem with that is that in almost any real democratic process there are always two or more sides
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:30PM (#12495009)
      And in any real Democratic process there's always occasions when everyone can agree too. Having a Democracy doesn't mean that people have to always take the opposite side just to be opposing.

      Not that I'm saying this time was a good time for it (though I honestly can't see a big deal with the ID), I'm just seeing your logic as faulty.
      • by suso (153703) * on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:45PM (#12495137) Homepage Journal
        Its not about logic, its about the phenomenonal result of how democracy works. When the numbers are small, like just 100 people voting, then its a lot easier to have a 100% majority, but when the number of voters is 24 million (in the case of Iraq), then a real 100% majority is just plain impossible, unless you "exclude" people, etc. Which is what people speculate happened (ie, violent intimidation). But from all the congress vote results I remember, there is rarely a 100% majority, especially on something so controversial.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:56PM (#12495235)
        You know what really ruffles my underwear? The fact that this was basically attached to legislation that would grant more money for the soldiers (for the war, let's be honest), and the fact that this just creates another layer of fucking bureaucracy bullshit, and will cost untold millons of dollars that could go to better places.

        We're going the way of the fucking Romans.
  • Fix the Game (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mbrod (19122) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:28PM (#12494996) Homepage Journal
    They really need to make it so they cannot attach measures like this to bills that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
    • Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Vellmont (569020) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:34PM (#12495045)
      We did that in Minnesota recently, and just recently a conceal and carry handgun bill was thrown out by the courts because it was attatched to unrelated legislation.

      I don't really care about the conceal and carry law either way, but I was glad to see unrelated amendments banned from legislation.
    • by the_skywise (189793) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:42PM (#12495109)
      In the state legislature in Indiana it's against the rules to attach riders to bills that have nothing to do with the bill itself.

      In this last legislative session, this got to be a real problem because political maneuvers blocked 100s of bills from being introduced, allowing only several dozen bills through.

      Following the rules, the bills should've died. Instead they were attached to the existing bills through "creative interpretation".

      Some bills couldn't get handled this way no matter how much bending of the wording they could do. In those cases, they stripped the entire language of the bill out and replaced it with the language of the more important bill. (For instance, Bill xxx "Raise the speed limit from 65 to 70" was gutted and became a bill to enact Daylight Savings Time... but was still titled the "speed limit bill".

      So as you see, it doesn't matter what restrictions are put on the process. Politicians will get their way.

    • Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cainam (10838) <rcsheets@acm. o r g> on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:44PM (#12495129) Homepage
      You should join DownsizeDC.org [downsizedc.org] in their attempt to pass the "Read the Bills Act of 2005" [downsizedc.org]. The Act would make it law for all bills to actually be read by each legislator, which could cut down considerably on unrelated riders. In any event, it has to be a good thing for lawmakers to have read the laws they're voting on!
      • by tomhudson (43916) <hudson AT videotron DOT ca> on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:52PM (#12495202) Journal
        so I guess its time to invest in some sort of a RFID sheilding technology.
        No, time to invest in some RFID sniffing/spoofing technology. This will make it easier for you to live off other people' money, just like politicians do.

        Me, I'm going to boycott RealID, just like RealAudio and RealMedia (sorry - couldn't resist)...

  • by odano (735445) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:30PM (#12495011)
    I was watching this debated on CSPAN, and a lot of senators in the minority were not happy about voting for this, but of course they cannot have a vote against emergency military funding on their record, so they were forced to.

    If you want to see the real masterminds of this bill, it is the majority party, who according to a few of the minority democrats are abusing their power by passing a bill without having the chance to debate it on the floor of the senate.
    • but of course they cannot have a vote against emergency military funding on their record, so they were forced to.

      Ah ... just like they were "forced" to vote in favor of the Iraq war, only to oppose it come election time? Fine leadership style.

      I've come to expect dracononian legislation from the Republikans, but the Democrats should be ashamed. Not so much as a whimper. Spineless, gutless wonders.

      Another Green vote in 2008 ...

      • by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:49PM (#12495180)
        You no longer have a representative government

        Ah, you mean, like, where the people that get elected by the voters are actually shipped to North Korea, and replaced by cyborgs or something?

        Or by "you" you actually mean yourself, and mean that you're not feeling represented because you couldn't persuade enough other people to support your preferred representative(s). Perhaps you didn't invest enough time? Maybe your position or message don't resonate with typical people? Certainly you put a lot of your own time and effort into educating people, right?
      • by Uruk (4907) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:57PM (#12495247)
        The politicians get stuck on the horns of a dilemma, possibly due to uninformed voters.

        Scenario: Congress creates a bill called the "fluffy bunny petting act of 2005, providing (amongst other things) for free cold fusion generated power and eternal global peace"

        Sen Dick Shaftus, (R-TX) decides that this is his opportunity, and attaches a rider - "Infant Mulching Federal Subsidies for the Rich".

        Principled politician, Molly Naivitus (D-MA) votes against the bill, desparate to prevent the mulching of infants in her state.

        Republicans campaign against Naivitus in Massachussets, outraged that she would vote against petting fluffy bunnies and eternal global peace!

        Voters, spun by soundbites and browbeaten by O'Reilly, vote Naivitus out of office.

        Future Senators take note, and convince themselves that the main purpose of the bill is probably enough, and some of those infants might have deserved it anyway.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:31PM (#12495015)
    Once in our lives, it would be great if a bill was introduced without riders, without hidden proposed laws that are enacted once the main bill passes.

    Oh that's right. Those clean bills already happens when Congress votes itself a big, fat payraise for screwing over the citizens of the country.
    Nevermind.
  • by fuchsiawonder (574579) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:32PM (#12495030)
    I'm so thankful this is going to come to pass. Finally, I don't have to hunt through multiple databases to swipe all of the pertinent information about someone. It's all collected in one place for easy access. Thanks, DC!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:34PM (#12495043)
    You do the representative democracy thing, you protest legislation you FAX your senators and representatives like crazy and they don't even listen!! They didn't even attempt to remove the RealID rider!

    Then the Democrats say they were against this "under-the-table" budget push.

    Really? 100-0.

    Where's Kerry's "I'm all for immigration" leadership now? 100-0.

    Where's Kos? He's been spewing filibuster stories, but not one major post about the RealID

    And the Democrats wonder why they're losing elections. Hint, if you're going to act like a Republican... people might as well just VOTE Republican.
  • Damn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Schemat1c (464768) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:34PM (#12495044) Homepage
    This is all Lincolns fault!
  • 10th Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Flounder (42112) * on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:35PM (#12495050)
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    A national ID is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, any authority to issue official IDs falls to the states. Granted, this hasn't stopped the federal government from taking over education, hate speech legislation, search and seizure, etc. And will the Supreme Court rule on the side of the Constitution? They haven't in recent years, why should they now?

  • Constitution-buster? (Score:5, Informative)

    by quax (19371) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:35PM (#12495053)
    There is a provision in the bill that sets the gruesome precedence that it is in the power of Congress to prohibit juridical review. Since the latter is a cornerstone of the American republic this is a very big deal. You can learn more about it here [arstechnica.com].
  • I'm glad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Albinofrenchy (844079) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:35PM (#12495054)
    And here is why: This will piss people off. Not just /.ers, but anyone with a mild taste for freedom. And if it pisses enough people off, this hole in democracy will be patched up forever. If a senator tacks on federally paid monuments for his hometown; that is corruption but no one will go up in arms.

    But challenge our freedom? Time to stop this crap once and for all. Now, if I'm wrong and the people show themselves so docile they would have thier freedoms raped... God help us all.
  • Some weren't so bad:

    "121. S.AMDT.430 to H.R.1268 To prohibit the use of funds by any Federal agency to produce a prepackaged news story without including in such story a clear notification for the audience that the story was prepared or funded by a Federal agency."
    • by ravenspear (756059) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:38PM (#12495075)
      While I wouldn't disagree with that, I think the argument against it here is that given the past actions and power grabs by the US federal govt, measures like this could likely be used to extend that power further.

      It's not the measure itself, but the method behind it. Since 9/11 there has been an enormous extension of authority on the part federal police and intelligence officials. There seems to be an attitude in Washington that they need to assume control over all critical information pertaining to anyone in the country to combat terrorism.

      This is not only demonstrably unnecessary, but may serve to create a menace even worse than the terrorists of today in the long run if we are not careful.
    • Re:Oh my (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Tuesday May 10 2005, @09:45PM (#12495147)
      I cannot believe with so many people raising awareness and complaints to this issue our elected officals

      Maybe your idea of "so many" is a little off, and maybe "awareness and complaints" don't alter the actual facts:

      1) There's nothing in state motor vehicle licensing databases that a federal investigator can't get to anyway

      2) A consistent set of standards by which people (notably, of course, immigrants - legal or not) need to prove who they are before they get an item as enabling (in terms of access, banking, and so on) as a driver's license is.... well, not crazy, or draconian, or anything other than reasonable.

      That's it... I quit voting

      That'll fix it! Or, really, it gives you even more room to whine, I guess. How about making a more persuasive case that we should let some states issue official IDs (which are then honored in other states) without worrying about who the person actually is? Tough sell? Yes, it is... and is why you don't see our representatives acting like it's an inherently bad idea to smooth out the discrepancies in the process. Streamlining and further validating the process will save money, lives, and time. The downside would be... let's see, a situation where it's harder for liars to get mainstream IDs?