Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards

WebHostingGuy writes "The State of Maine rejected the federally mandated ID cards passed by Congress. In a non-partisan vote the legislature flatly stated that they would not force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It also asked Congress to repeal the law."

Doctrine of Nullification?

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

I think this is similar to how SD created the anti-abortion law. They are deliberately saying no to get the law tested in court.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law. And, to (roughly) quote Larry Lessig, "In America, the way to ask a legal question is to sue somebody". Passing a state law rejecting the Federal one is just the first stepping stone to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is really where this question will be authoritatively answered.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

Honestly, I do not think Maine cares about their highway funds. There are not a lot of US routes through Maine, the only Interstate is I-95, which is tolled for portion where it is the Maine Turnpike. I think there could actually be a potential here for Maine, if they truly do not care about the highway funds. Lower the drinking age back to 18. I am sure a lot of kids in the parts closer to Canada already make trips across the border for alcohol, so why not just keep them in state and keep the money at home. It could also attract college students and other individuals from Boston and NH, who want to get alcohol legally.

Now, to argue the drinking age. Here is why 21 is bad. Is underage drinking a problem? Yes. Is binge drinking a problem? Yes, but one that has been a bit overblown. How to you solve both at once? Lower the age to 16. Here is why. Where do most 16 yr olds live? At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home. By having the drinking age 21, people are well into college before they can legally drink. For many college students, it is their first time away from home for any extended time. Without the parents around, the children will play and drinking becomes an issue. Since it is their first times drinking (and they are "unsupervised") they wound up into trouble situations. I could also use that old (and possible flawed) argument, "At 18 you are old enough to fight and die for this country, but you are not old enough to enjoy a little bit of alcohol." You will find that in the countries where drinking is legal, the countries with drinking ages of 21 are in the minority.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

At home, with their parents who can teach them the importance of drinking responsibly while they are still at home.

The problem is with the parents/parenting to begin with.

Americans are pretty psychotic with respect to things like mistakes, moderation, and honest communication.

Instead of these things, we like harder rules and harder punishments. Things like zero tolerance, mandatory minimums, 3 strike rules, police roadblocks.

There is a saying that goes something like "The firmer grip you use, the faster the the stuff squirts between your fingers". This is what is happening.

I live in one of the most policed conservative states in the US, and it sucks. Trust me, once your "in the system" its next to impossible to get out of it.

Re:Drinking Age

Why 21 is better drinking age than 18? As it is, at least here in Finland, almost everybody have drank alcohol long ago before turning to 18. In other parts of Europe young people also drink alcohol very young, and this haven't flushed the continent under the table. What I have heard, both from European exchange students visiting US and from Americans, is that young people instead of drinking alcohol, because it's so hard to get, blow pot. So one 'bad habit' is traded to another one.

On a note, when one turns to 18, he is adult, he usually moves to own his/her place, he can vote, he can be elected and he can/has to go to a army. So why not give all the rights to 18 year old at the same time when he/she comes fully liable on his/her own life?

Re:Drinking Age

Speaking as someone who was an exchange student in the US (from the UK) the average american student gets to university, goes to a party, has large (for them) amounts of beer for the first time and cann't handle it.

The average brit on the other hand has probably been drinking beer since about the age of 12 (younger if you count shandy) the amounts will have increased over the years, they have probably been really ill once on holiday and after enduring their parents laughing at them and talking very loudly the next morning they tend to have a much better idea when to stop.

I remember one party where I drank 4 frat boys under the table - what was scarey was it was sequential not parallel!! But then the beer there is in 330ml cans and only 3 or 4 percent!! Me I'm a real ale person - 6-8% and in pints (yes it comes in pints) or yards...

Re:Drinking Age

Yup, just sock the brain with enough alcohol to knock out an elephant before its development is complete, and then you wonder how these half-naked fakirs [*] are overtaking your economy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6294409.stm [bbc.co.uk]

[*] before you mod me troll, that was what Sir Winston Churchill called a guy named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

Re:Both Ways

Egads, I've been that American.. :)

Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee lad of 18, a couple friends of mine had met some ladies from Canada on a MUSE (yeah, it was the days of yore). Naturally, we scheduled a road trip to Toronto to physically meet them. We arrived at the hotel, they showed up with some Molson XXX and neglected to mention that its alcohol content was twice what we were used to. Being the young strapping college lad that I was, I immediately embarked on a mission to down four as quickly as I could (i.e., in about 10 minutes).

Half an hour later I was in the bathroom trying to conceal the sounds of my sudden alcohol content revelation.

About 2 in the morning, one of my buddies starts shaking me awake. "I think I'm gonna be... BLARGH!!" All over my shirt.

I learned my lesson, though, and was much better prepared for my next trip. ;) (The first night of that trip consisted of 38 draft Labatt Blues, a shared 16 pack of Molson from the beer store, and two shared pitchers of something I don't remember anymore at another bar).

Re:Functional Equivalence

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

"Nice little road system you got here -- be a shame to see it deteriorate!" is functionally equivalent to "Nice little candy store you got here -- be a shame to see something bad happen to it!" Which one is the Mafia, and which is the government?

Old protection racket scheme, you pay for protection or you will need it. The US tested this and found it to work "nicely" for the IRS. If you don't pay them what they decide you owe they will come take it from you. Where did the Mafia get it? Probably from some government or another, perhaps the Vatican. Plenty enough documentation in history that the church sold you salvation, from them. Interestingly enough governmental oppression via taxation and/or church control is what brought most of our predecessors to the US. UK tried to control and milk the colonies via taxation etc..

Originally the federal government was supposed to be funded only by the graces of the states and tariffs and the states' governments controlled who went to the senate and thus their senators would protect the sovereignity of the states from popular demands and federal power seizures. Changing senators to popular elections shifted the balance of power, unfortunately it has taken power not just from the states but from the people. Of course you can also argue that the people have abdicated their power and/or that corporations have bought it away from them. Both in many ways are all too true, just like the public school system was set up to train you to accept and tolerate this kind of behaviour from the government and from corporations. I for one am convinced the major reason entrepreneurship is more prevalent among people who move into the US then those who grew up in within the public school system.

Only way I can see this changing is for those who are able to re-educate themselves to do so and try to influence others to do the same. We need to establish more entrepreneurship, including the family farms and we could use some truth in the newspapers etc too. We need to either retake our political parties or form new ones, from the grass roots level up. Got an elected official on the take? Vote him/her out irregardless if its legal contributions to them or not if they selling their vote they are selling their vote and they need to be voted down. Above all else we need to remind people that we should not rely on the government for everything. The more we ask of government the more power we have to give them to do it and eventually they start to claim they already have the power to add more on.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Common Sense Thomas Paine [ushistory.org]

I would suggest everyone re-read Common S

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

"They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law."

They need to question the constitutionality behind the way the law was passed in the first place. From the article, "A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill."

In other words some sleezy congress-critter appended it to a "must pass" spending bill, and we, the people, didn't get a chance to debate it, or determine if it was in fact "necessary" at all.

Great...

Norway outlaws iTunes, and Maine outlaws RealID.

Now I can't decide WHERE to move! Can sombody outlaw something wicked in a place that doesn't have winter?

Re:

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?

Frankly? Tough. Real ID is just more federal nanny-state stuff hiding behind the skirts of "national security". That Maine has stood up to the feds and refused to be bullied in

Re:Doctrine of Nullification?

This is not an issue of interstate commerce. The federal government does not have the authority to pass this law, the law clearly states that if states don't participate, they lose certain amounts of federal revenue, most likely highway funding. That will be Maine's penalty. There will probably not be a federal lawsuit, and this is not nullification.

1 state down, 49 left

I didn't vote any of them in, but they did the right thing. For once.

The exponentially increasing transportation budget for side roads that get repaved with increasing frequency is another matter entirely. Oh and that whole laptop for children thing. Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Re:

Also, for what it's worth, Maine hasn't been a commonwealth since they split from Massachusetts in 1820.

Amusing

It amuses me that the link "non-partisan vote" in the OP goes to a page whose title is "The Maine Senate Democrats".

I don't get it.

Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".

Re:I don't get it.

what is wrong with a national ID standard

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this.

And don't say "Commerce clause".

Re:

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does

Re:I don't get it.

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
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.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.

Re:

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.

Let's check out one way to read that, by choosing to delegate that power to the people:

The pow

Re:I don't get it.

Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights.

It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.

Re:

How does a national ID standard qualify as "regulating interstate commerce"? Where does it say that only a state can issue ID's? How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause [wikipedia.org]?

Re:

Is the power to issue and regulate ID granted to the Federal by the Constitution? The answer is, obviously NO, IT IS NOT. That means that the Federal is barred from doing so, and that power is reserved to the States.

The passage that you reference reads:
"

Re:I don't get it.

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

technically yes, the marihuana act of 1937 was enacted to stop the influx of the mexican population fro getting in the USA, it did not make weed illegal, just you had to have a stamp and well the government wouldnt give you one (i am lazy wiki it if you care)

If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government which means if one wants something done at the federal level, it needs to be ratified and amended, which is why alcohol prohibition had an AMENDMENT.

When Nixon created the DEA congress said no because...its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unless the PEOPLE wanted this origination, than it would need to be amended, which of course would never happen. Long story short Nixon told congress where to stick it and TA'DA we have this stupid orginisation which ruins lives and polices the world. (again im lazy google it)

So to answer the question, the Ganjadude says UNLESS STATE LAW STATES that marijuana is illegal, (which most do) than its not.

you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically

our president is an ex coke head yet he spends more cash locking up people for the same, what a crock

end rant

Re:

I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

I believe it would be this:

Section 8. The Cong

Re:I don't get it.

Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it. Kinda like a trademark, jurisdiction in a case law precedent system like ours is 'use it or lose it'.

With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.

With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

Re:I don't get it.

Of course, a lot of the bullshit that's gotten through Congress likely wouldn't have had the 17th Amendment never been passed.

Especially in conjunction with the 16th.

The original structure was elegantly designed to limit federal expansion. Before the 16th and 17th:

• The federal budget was approved by the House and Senate, but...
• the funds had to be collected from the states, whose...
• state legislatures had to squeeze the money from their constituents and...
• also appointed and could replace the US Senators, who...
• approved the federal budget.

Obviously, the Senate was very resistant to any expansion of the budget which would require their bosses (the state legislatures) to raise taxes.

The 16th and 17th were passed because this very deliberate limitation was seen as a problem. So it was corrected by removing the influence of the state legislatures over the US Senate and by giving the federal government the power to tax the citizens of the states directly. Obviously, this pretty much gutted the power of the states.

Re:I don't get it.

What more reason do you need?

We're supposed to be an independent people distrustful of government. The people who founded this country overthrew their own government for fuck's sake.

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.

The standard should be "Why should we?".

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.

Re:I don't get it.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

So what? Enough with the FUD. I do not count the spectre of terrorism to be a valid reason, nor do I see this tiny bit of security a justification for the feds to violate the constitution again.

I don't want to be callous, but frankly, people are far too worried about terrorism. If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list. I think you are probably more likely to drown in a 12oz glass of fruit juice than you are to die in a terrorist act.

The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans. That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball. Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree. They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.

Re:

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty. How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states?

Re:I don't get it.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

Ummm, you do know that the sep. 11 hijackers had real genuine ID in their own names, right?

They don't need fake ID.

Drivers licenses are not for identification

Drivers licenses are not for identification, they are used for control and information gathering.

That should be reason enough for you. If you don't believe me, have your driver's license stolen (mine was), and try to get the stolen license invalidated. It's practicaly impossible to do, even if you have a police report in hand.

The problem is that everywhere a driver's license is used does not phone home to verify that the driver's license is in fact not stolen; so anyone who looks roughly like the picture on the front of the license (a biometric identification device intended to prevent fradulent use, BTW) can use the license to identify themselves as you, and there's no cross-check that they are in fact NOT you. This is roughly the same as if you did not do a reverse DNS check followed by a forward lookup on a contacting IP address to verify that the machine contacting you is in the domain which the claim to be from. Your SMTP server might as well be an open relay.

My personal experience ended up with them doing effectively nothing but charging me $25. I suggested that they place a sign on their desk that said "This Side Towards Enemy", since their processes were clearly not directed at the criminal(s) who stole my license.

-

As to privacy, when they swipe your license in a reader to allow you to purchase cold medicine in most large drugstore chains these days, they are in technical violation of the Patriot Act Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(A)(iv)(I)(bb), in not taking a written signature for the log book, and they are in violation of HIPPA.

The HIPPA violation is collection of more information than they are authorized by law to collect (name, address, and amount purchased); instead, they collect the entire three stripes of the license, which includes all the information in the AMMVA mandated standard ANSI D320-2003, which also includes type of license, whether or not you are a senior citizen, your age, sex, birthdate, identification number, expiration date of the license, endorsements, hair color, eye color, height, weight, restictions (handicaps relevent to driving), and the issue date.

The HIPPA violation, depending on whether the information is controlled according to HIPPA standards, could also constitute a second violation of the Patriot Act, Section 711, 21 USC 830(e)(1)(C)(ii): "prohibit accessing, using, or sharing information in the logbooks for any purpose other than to ensure compliance with this title or to facilitate a product recall to protect public health and safety" -- in other words, they better be damn careful about their information systems attached to their cach registers.

Think about that the next time someone asks you about a national ID card, or you have a cold and consider buying Sudafed.

-- Terry

One does the crime, all must pay

Requiring a National ID "to fight terrorism" is like punishing everyone for the offense of one. Many corporations are like that, the military is like that, and too many governments are adopting that practise. One person (or a small number) does something wrong, and suddenly there are procedures made that everyone must follow "to prevent the acts" of the few (look at the airports).
How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?
In the USA, States need to fight for the States' Rights as Maine just did, and as Wisconsin did by outlawing mandatory chipping of people.
This "pervasive" form of governing, or ruling, seems to becoming more and more "invasive". Some would argue, "...if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?" , of which my argument is, "I am a good civilian, so leave me alone."
Of course, all of my comments are IMHO.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay

"...that would require not pissing people off so badly..."

And, if your mere existence as a non-Muslim is sufficient to piss them off enough to blow you and themselves up, your response is what? To simply convert to avoid being the pisser? M'thinks not. They already want to kill me just because of what I do or don't believe. So, give me a plan -- an intelligent one -- that allows me to remain me and deal with those people.

A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail

If Congress refuses to significantly change the Real ID Act, then rebellion is the way to make it fail. The Act is built on a flimsy deck of cards. If a few of the most populated states like CA, NY, IL, MI, TX decide to blow it off. The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.

It needs to be completely repealed. It was passed without discussion, without debate. It became law as a "rider" on a must-pass piece of legislation. With the Democrat Congress, its demise is more likely. We should contact Contact Congress [visi.com] and ask the law be repealed completely concerning the driver's license provisions.

Bills getting attached to odd

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)? Seriously, besides saving time and being lazy, I fail to see why military spending and tsunami relief would be put into one bill. But bills like this happen all the time-- and usually it's much worse. I don't understand why there are no restrictions/oversight in place to monitor the grouping of bills.

10.1

it's like this..

28 guys want military spending
31 guys want tsunami relifer
only 2 guys want both.

that means, lump them together, get 57 votes

Re:Bills getting attached to odd

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

That would make a nice ammendment to our Constitution, wouldn't it?

It would indeed. Congress would never go for it, but luckily, they don't have to. If thirty-three states go for it, it's a proposed amendment, with or without Congress' blessing.

I think I'll e-mail my Governor.

Goddamn straight

This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it. I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake. Not that I, ahem, would know anything about that.
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.

Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks [eweek.com].
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that [westvalley.edu] before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas [techdirt.com]. I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?

I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.

Re:Goddamn straight

Umm, it's not a substitute for the driver's license, it is the driver's license. With the added bonus that as long as you keep it you don't need yet another card.

Except that this isn't always a bonus. Since the one card may come with various abilities you may rarely, even never, want to use. An analogy would be would be is it better to carry one "master key" to every door you might possibly want to open any time in your life or a bunch of keys for the doors you regularly use.

The driver's license is supposed to identify the user anyway, so it only makes sense to make it a real ID.

All the "identity" it needs is to prove that the holder is the holder for a fairly restricted set of activities. i.e. those related to driving a vehicle on public roads.

bullies

my daughter said something quite profound about a year ago: "Standing up to bullies is easy, you just stomp on their toes".

It is profound for several reasons. You shouldn't fight the bully head on, they are bigger and (in this case) control the White house and the Army.

But you make it hurt, a lot (you "stomp"), but you do it below the vision of most people watching.

You stand right up to the bully, to their face and make them face you. Most bullies are craven and will crumble at the first sign of real resistance.

Bush Psychology -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml [truthout.org]

This is just the first step in a long, painful road to recovery for this nation.

Congress can win this very easily

Remember when the 55mph speed limit was not the law, but a suggestion, and all states complied? Any state that didn't go along was denied federal highway funds. Same could happen here.

Personally I have no problem with congress appointing non-government experts to define minimum security standards for important documents. But congress is treating RealID as a security end in itself.

People dont care for privacy. Really!

It is slashdot. So most people are mouthing off against the ID cards and intrusive govt, lack of privacy and States' rights and all that. Step in to the real world, you will find people who:

1. Frequent shopper cards from grocery stores so that they get 25cents off a loaf of bread. In return they let their grocery shop+pharmacy uniquely brand them with a number and track all their purchases, from birth control pills to diapers.

2. Use credit cards even after they send them a year end profile of expenses, making it a no secret how much data they collect and retain

3. are least bothered by the extensive data collection by their banks and their "partners" who pelt them with "new and exciting products".

Come on guys. The private sector is a bigger threat to your privacy and well being than US Govt is. You have some semblance of control over US govt, whereas you have none over the private sector. The interests of US Govt coincides with the interests of people lot more than the interests of private sector overlapping the interests of people.

But if you want mod points and build your karma, you have to blast the govt.