Real-ID Passes U.S. Senate 100-0 1556
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."
Constitution-buster? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10th Amendment (Score:3, Informative)
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
Bullshit Re:Notes about the minority (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Informative)
Hilarious (Score:2, Informative)
Yet oddly enough entry requirements have just been relaxed [commondreams.org] for visitors coming from Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from.
Funny, that.
post-REAL ID: REAL Social Security Card Act (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fix the Game (Score:2, Informative)
Subtle passage, subtle protest (Score:3, Informative)
Well, if the states roll over and issue these things, just toss your new card in the microwave for a few seconds. My guess is the RFID tag won't hold up for long.
"What's that you say, Officer? My card doesn't scan? Well, you don't say. Isn't that funny?"
Doesn't help with the inevitable abuses that aggragation of data will cause, but at least nobody can scan your driver's license from 20 feet away without your consent.
Keeping the ID inside something like a anti-static bag may work as well, which is what they give you with the EZ-Pass/Fastlane toll tags if you want to inhibit scanning without permanently frying your card.
Re:Fix the Game (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. That said, I'd be very much in favor of an amendment to allow for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto [wikipedia.org]
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan declared it unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
Re:Forced to, my ass. (Score:5, Informative)
Gate fees, just for starters (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fix the Game (Score:5, Informative)
Federal law has no such requirements, and I imagine it's a rare Slashdotter who has not had a favorite cause aided by something added to an unrelated bill. (Whether they agree with the method or not is another story.)
Re:This is a very cool development.. (Score:3, Informative)
And you have to submit a fingerprint to the DMV to get your license..
I'm just saying... Now others can know the fun of having all sorts of private info on the only card State Troopers will accept to identify you as you.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:10th Amendment (Score:2, Informative)
BUT Congress has two alternatives: it can either issue its own national ID card (but of course state agencies could completely ignore it), or it can give states money to implement the system (which the states can of course refuse).
Re:Notes about the minority (Score:3, Informative)
I like neither party, and quite frankly, it's a ONE party system these days in national elections. There ARE no "Republikans" or "Demokrats".
Just slimy on-the-take politicians who nurse at the teat of special interests. No one should be surprised by this... we've been voting them into office for decades.
that's what happens when you send lawyers to do your work for you... they end up screwing YOU in the end anyway.
Another Libertarian Vote in 2008.
Missing the real threat (Score:3, Informative)
The whole standardized national ID card is nasty, I agree. It's not the federal government's place to tell the individual states how to handle their drivers' licensing schemes, it's true. But as has been pointed out already, the if the authorities want the information in question, they're gonna get it one way or the other... If nothing else, this'll make it easier for them, which means less time spent on it, which could conceivably mean less taxpayer money spent on digging up the information. Anyway, that's not the point. The worst part about this bill is the fact that it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law he/she wishes with absolutely no judicial review possible. This was discussed in comments a while back here on
In a couple of the 5 versions of this bill (H.R.1268) that are up on Thomas, that section is struck out. I believe that the most recent version is one that has it struck out, but not seeing any dates on the 5 different versions, I can't be certain. Am I correct in assuming that "Public Print," the last one in the list, is the finalized version? If not, then welcome to the police state, folks. If so... well... I'm a tool who just spent entirely too much time typing all this up for nothin'
Re:I feel so sorry for you Americans (Score:1, Informative)
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
And, if you look in the public text version, you will see that this section has been "struck-out".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp
-benjo
Re:Something is fishy (Score:3, Informative)
Disband the union. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:4, Informative)
Debate in Senate Stopped (Score:2, Informative)
Text from site:
To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States Senate.
Re:Standards are a good thing.... (Score:2, Informative)
I know because I see at least a dozen out-of-state drivers licenses a month. Many of them, except for being printed on plastic, look like something I could whip up in half an hour with the GIMP and a decent inkjet printer. How do I know if it's the real deal? The truth is that I don't.
I work as a clerk in a college town. I therefore see out of state ids at the rate of sometimes twelve times per hour. (Actually, much higher some nights.)
I have to wonder which state ID's you think look this bad, since most states do have very nice designs now - by nice, I mean far more secure than they used to be. Off the top of my head, Rhode Island, Alaska, and New Jersey each have licenses which are unexpired of their old "laminated" types, which DO look pretty sad. But most states have all sorts of security features on them.
Most states now have holograms, dual photos, various means of authentication via what numbers go where. You should try your "half hour with GIMP and an inkjet printer" ids at some college town bars - and THEN see how well you do.
Re:Something is fishy (Score:1, Informative)
for those interested... (Score:3, Informative)
Correct Me if I'm Wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I'll tell ya: The parent post you refer to made a reasonable and truthful point that Democrats did not originiate, nor do they have a monopoly on, blocking judicial nominees. This is true. The "troll" response post made the outlandish and ignorant claim that Democrats "sure as heck have coined the idea of fillibustering nominations to avoid a vote." That's just a falsehood. The Republicans fillibustered nominations under Clinton, and earlier Democrat presidents, the same as the Dems are doing now. This is just another weapon in the Senate arsenal, and it only peeves those who are on the receiving end. It's a trade off for having the most "deliberative body in the free world" whose mission, as Madison envisioned it, was to guard the interests of the minority from being overrun by pure popularity. A hedge against the more overtly popular House.
$592 Million for new US Embassy? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:4, Informative)
1. creates more government - imposes irrational nationwide standards on all states
2. unfunded - schools can go bankrupt if they can't afford to make the improvements they apparently need
3. states aren't required to comply - or at least, that's what Mr. Bush says, since he thinks states should be able to "determine their own destiny" in regards to schools
4. provides few, if any, clear benefits - schools are entirely blamed for poor performance? students can't possibly be responsible? students are forcibly registered on military recruiters' contact lists unless their parents explicitly ask for them not to be?
The Republican desire for increased regulation (think USA PATRIOT Act, REALID Act) without funding (e.g. not including the war in the 2004-2005 budget? WTF?) is just further proof that the two mainstream parties are slowly, but surely, fusing into one.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where is Real ID? (Score:3, Informative)
----
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Isaac Asimov (Score:2, Informative)
...wrote in his Foundation's edge: "The advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy"
Another Moore's law?
It was an amendement to some "must pass bill" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
So the Supreme Court could hear the case if a State challenges it?
Yeah, they could hear it but the first thing they would need to decide would be if they State had a right to challenge it. The state would need to demonstate harm or that it was entitled to represent the injured parties (and keep in mind that no one else being able to challenge it isn't a good enough reason). In addition you could probably sue the Secretary of Homeland Security (as a public Minister) and THAT is more likely to happen.
In a different vein, if there are no courts to appeal from (inferior courts), would the Supreme Court have original Jurisdiction?
You would think so because that would make sense, but that list there is seen to be complete with respect to original Jurisdiction so nothing can be added to it.
Re:Something is fishy (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you who do not know exactly what this means, in the Book of Revelations, during the Tribulation, the Antichrist's system will impose a compulsory registration and sign of loyalty to the Antichrist, signified by a distinguishing mark or tattoo. Those who do not have the mark cannot buy or sell. However, those who do choose the mark will be alienated from God forever; it is the ultimate act of defiance to God in a period when the choices are stark.
Now, the board members don't assume that the national ID system is the Mark; what they are concerned about is that they don't want the system in place, ready to run, ready to deceive millions into eternal damnation.
Don't assume RR members are dumb; I've seen many well-thought-out posts on Rapture Ready, as well as a few loonies. They are mostly Christian (with a few atheists/agnostics who engage in intelligent debate).
Pennsylvania is screwed (Score:1, Informative)
What a mess.
Re:Constitution-buster? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something is fishy (Score:3, Informative)
In regards to point one: republicans no longer stand for smaller government, and that is woefully become apparent. The rise of neoconservatism [wikipedia.org] has destroyed this basic tenet of the GOP. Because of this I have begun urging my like minded paleoconservative [wikipedia.org] and constitutionalist [wikipedia.org] friends to jump ship for the Constitution Party [wikipedia.org], but that is a difficult jump due to all the 'waisting your vote' crap that people throw around about 3rd parties. Also, the Constitution Party's decidedly Christian stance on morality is troubling to many Secularists and non-Christians even though they do not advocate the dictation of morality at a national level but merely support states in deciding what is abhorrent behavior in the social context.
It's too bad the republicans no longer stand for smaller government, truly the gap between the two parties is shrinking and will soon be gone.
White House stripped accountability for genocide (Score:3, Informative)
Very true (Score:5, Informative)
That lasted just over a year until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1998 as a violation of the presentment clause (Article I, Section 7).
I think there have been some bills in Congress to change the way the rules are so that the 'riders' are related to the bill's topic, but asking Congresscritters to uphold integrity and honesty in passing bills is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. These riders are a major source of their power and they use them all the time for their little-publicized amendments which further their own agenda.
Re:Something is fishy (Score:3, Informative)
He was filibustered by Republicans and Dixiecrats for his progressive rulings on race and due process. I'm sorry, is there a modern distinction between Republicans and the now-defunct Dixiecrats? No. And given the social agenda that underlies current Republican judicial aspirations, this is especially poignant.
There are a number of other judicial nominees filibustered by Republicans, it's just that cloture was voted. Here's [cbsnews.com] a very nice column on the matter. But I'll reproduce the heart of it here. Note especially the closing quote.
--------
Traditionally, the filibuster has not been the only weapon in an opposition party's arsenal. There are other, less visible ways whereby the Senate's rules and traditions empower individual senators to block judicial and other nominations. Between 1996 and 2000, Republicans in control of the Senate developed these techniques to a high art.
Prior to 1996, when the Senate majority and the president were from opposing parties, senators usually deferred to the president with respect to lower-court judicial nominations. With the notable exceptions of the 1968 Fortas nomination and a failed Republican filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994, neither party filibustered the other's judicial nominations, and virtually all nominees received a hearing unless they were sent up after the presidential nominating conventions.
All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.
Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.
When his tactics on the Paez and Marsha Berzon nominations (Berzon was filibustered along with Paez, more than two years after her nomination) were challenged, Smith responded with an impassioned floor speech in defense of the judicial filibuster: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court
Re:Constitution-buster? (Score:2, Informative)
Imagine if the police now could simply call up a HS guy in any state and get them to do anything.
What I am saying is that they will abuse this. I cannot belive anyone in their right mind would ever even consider amending this to a bill.
Re:Damned good idea! (mod parent up!) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Even Worse (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.dcma.mil/ [dcma.mil]
Re:Ever Consider?? (Score:3, Informative)
Lets see... what's happened JUST under the current leadership...
Violated the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missles Treaty
Killed the Biological Warfare Treaty
Killed the Small Arms Limitation Treaty
Killed the Anti-Personnel Land Mine Treaty
Is actively developing space weapons systems in violation of The Outer Space Treaty
Killed the International Criminal Court Treaty after previously signing on
Regularly violates NAFTA
Killed the Kyoto Treaty
For another, our actions tend to be genuinely defensive
Lets see... which countries has the US engaged in overt and covert aggression with in the last 50 years... I couldn't name them all, but they include
China Italy Greece Philippines South Korea Albania Germany Iran Indonesia British Guiana Vietnam Cambodia The Congo Brazil Dominican Republic Cuba Chile East Timor Nicaragua Grenada Libya Panama Iraq El Salvador Haiti Iran Afganistan Lebanon Venezuela Sudan North Korea
Our bonds of honor protect foregn civillians despite the fact that they aren't American
The US is currently holding over 500 people under the bullshit label "Enemy Combatants" in Guantanamo. They are neither given the rights of civilians nor the rights of POWs. They are, however, held indefinately with no legal basis and tortured by US troops with the blessing of the government.
Get with the program. All this rhetoric you Americans like to repeat to yourselves is NOT TRUE. Your country is an agressive fascist state. The world considers you a rogue nation and the #1 threat to world peace. Your leaders are War Criminals according to international law. Your nation is the number one aggressor on earth. Your nation is the number one arms dealer on earth. And your nation exploits everyone else on earth.
Unless something dramatic changes from within your country, the next World War will inevitably be when we all unite to lay low the US Military/Industrial complex. It will likely happen in your lifetime. And your people will be remembered with the same fondness as the Nazis.
Welcome to the real world.
Text of the bill (Score:2, Informative)
(a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use-
(1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of the enactment of this division, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section.
(2) STATE CERTIFICATIONS- The Secretary shall determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary of Transportation. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may prescribe by regulation.
(b) Minimum Document Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following information and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State:
(1) The person's full legal name.
(2) The person's date of birth.
(3) The person's gender.
(4) The person's driver's license or identification card number.
(5) A digital photograph of the person.
(6) The person's address of principle residence.
(7) The person's signature.
(8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
(9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.
(c) Minimum Issuance Standards-
(1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person:
(A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth.
(B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth.
(C) Proof of the person's social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.
(D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence.
(2) SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS-
(A) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall comply with the minimum standards of this paragraph.
(B) EVIDENCE OF LAWFUL STATUS- A State shall require, before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person, valid documentary evidence that the person--
(i) is a citizen of the United States;
(ii) is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent or temporary residence in the United States;
(iii) has conditional permanent resident status in the United States;
(iv) has an approved application for asylum in the United States or has entered into the United States in refugee status;
(v) has a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa status for entry into the United States;
(vi) has a pending application for asylum in the United States;
(vii) has a pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
(viii) has approved deferred action status; or
(ix) has a pending application for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States or conditional permanent resident status in the United States.
(C) TEMPORARY DRIVERS' LICENSES AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS-
(i) IN GENERAL- If a person presents evidence under any of clauses (v) through (ix) of subparagraph (B), the State may only issue a temporary driver's license or temporary identification card to the person.
(ii) EXPIRATION DATE- A temporary driver's license or temporary identification card issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall be valid only during the period of time of the applicant's authorized sta