Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards 621

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Maine Rejects Federally Mandated ID Cards

Comments Filter:
  • by jleq ( 766550 ) <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @12:07AM (#17763550)
    I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?
  • Domino Theory (Score:2, Informative)

    by Stanislav_J ( 947290 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @12:30AM (#17763824)

    Someone had to be first to stand up to this. (I was betting on New Hampshire, which has been very vocal about their opposition, or Vermont based on their general countercultural eccentricties. But they all share a remnant of that good old Yankee stubborness.) Other states have voiced their concerns, but now that someone had the balls to be first, maybe more states will make their opinions known through their own legislatures.

    Or maybe it means nothing at all, and all the states will eventually kowtow to their federal masters like they always do. Yeah....that's probably the way to bet.

  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:07AM (#17764220) Homepage
    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 don't get it. (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:10AM (#17764260)
    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? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.

    The law goes further than demanding IDs be issued. It prohibits you from opening a bank account unless you have an approved ID. The ID will be required to travel on a plane, collect social security, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

    The federal government already has a list of people it prohibits from flying--even with ID. If you can't do anything without revealing your identity and having it checked against a list of suspects, then you lose constitutional rights such as the right to travel or speak anonymously. Those two liberties are crucial to an effective democracy.

    Where I work there has been recent interest in checking people's names against government watch lists (FBI most wanted, Office of Foreign Asset Control, etc.). One of our customers recently asked us to check the names of all employees against those lists. We have had similar requests to check our clients and the people our clients work with (we're a middle man). These requests didn't suddenly pop up out of nowhere all at the same time. These watch lists are totally worthless from an investigation standpoint, yet someone is clearly pushing this agenda.

  • by HardCase ( 14757 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:26AM (#17764384)
    Also, for what it's worth, Maine hasn't been a commonwealth since they split from Massachusetts in 1820.
  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) * <> on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:39AM (#17764512) Homepage Journal

    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. (Score:3, Informative)

    by aaronl ( 43811 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:42AM (#17764534) Homepage
    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:
    "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    Seeing that the Constitution does not give the Federal the power to issue individually identify and/or track all of the citizens of the country, nor does it give any power that depends on doing so, it is not necessary *or* proper for the Federal to do so.

    Just because a parade of despots decided to take advantage of a gullible populace does not make them right for doing so.
  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)

    by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:45AM (#17764564)
    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 Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    Specifically, the part about providing for the general welfare of the United States.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:45AM (#17764568)

    Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together...

    Because the North won the war.
    Here is a little gem from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America:
    Aritcle I
    Section IX
    20. 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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @01:57AM (#17764680)
    That is exactly why the federal government shouldn't take money from taxpayers to distribute in any form to states. Unfortunately very few Americans think of it that way; even if they do, for some reason they like to think of abstract cases where the fed might help out by being given this power rather than looking at the reality of the results.
  • by joeljkp ( 254783 ) <{joeljkparker} {at} {}> on Friday January 26, 2007 @02:01AM (#17764718)
    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.
  • by Draknor ( 745036 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @02:32AM (#17764986) Homepage
    Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.

    Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for the executive (whose job it is to implement & enforce said laws), to *change* law & potentially cut out whatever comprises have been made to get the law passed.

    For an extreme example, see this outrageous use of letter-by-letter veto power that Gov. Doyle has in Wisconsin. He partially vetoed words & numbers in the budget bill to redirect $400 million from transportation to schools. Link to PDF of Frankenstein Veto []
  • Re:I don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:07AM (#17765806)

    I realize they're a small minority, but this may have a chilling effect on transsexuals.

    Some cops & security personnel throw a fit if you're presenting as a woman but you have an "M" on your ID.

    Right now, there are 50 separate jurisdictions with their own standards for how & when you can get new ID issued with your new gender. Some say you can change it if you're living full-time as a woman (pre-op). Some say you have to have sexual reassignment surgery first. I think there are even some states that say you can't change it. The point is, right now you can shop around and move to a state that's going to make the change easy on you. And, if they say you can't, then you can at least deal with bureaucrats on the state level to get policies changed.

    If the DHS can set the standard for what information is on the card and how states share it electronically, I'll bet they also have the power to dictate the process to get that information changed. And with the current bunch in DC, that's very frightening for those who don't fit into their conservative moral cookie cutter.

    An article in The Advocate [] (NSFW, suggestive ads, exposed flesh, no dangly bits though) from a trans woman covers some of the problems with the current, fractured ID system and touches on how Real ID may make things even worse.

  • by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @05:23AM (#17765880)
    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
  • by Scudsucker ( 17617 ) on Friday January 26, 2007 @09:58AM (#17767604) Homepage Journal
    Those who portrayed themselves as Strong on terror (Republicans) lost miserably.

    How the media keeps implying that the GOP is stronger on defense is beyond me. I want to ask pundits how any of the following shows strength on security:
    • Blowing off outgoing Clinton administration officials who were trying to warn them of Al Queda.
    • Appologizing to communists for a plane crash that their pilot clearly caused (wingers like to forget about this one)
    • Reading My Pet Goat for twenty minutes after the nation has come under attack, rather than calling your two-time Secretary of Defense, your Vice President who is also a former Secretary of Defense, or NORAD, which you should have heard of during your time in the Air Gaurd.
    • Spend years savaging Democrats as being unable to protect the country, and then stay on vacation while a hurricane - that you were warned about in advance - was destroying the Gulf Coast.
    • Let Bin Laddin, who actually attacked us, get away in the Tora Bora mountains so you could invade Iraq, a country that never attacked us.
    • Doesn't think about Bin Laddin anymore.
    • Grab power, shred the Constitution, demand the right to torture and secretly imprison people, launch huge domestic spying programs - and yet are completely bat-shit clueless about the fact the largest ports in the U.S. are about to be taken over by an Arab company.
    Republicans have proved over and over again that they are weak, not strong, on national security. The press needs a complete enima along with the Republican Party.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 26, 2007 @10:15AM (#17767846)
    Well, yes. And that would be why? Because of state's sloppy requirements allowed them to. Hmm. Make the requirements more rigid and uniform and you reduce the problem.

    You unbelievable dipshit.

    The reason why the 9/11 hijackers had legal IDs is because THEY WERE ENTITLED TO THEM! Each one was in the US legally, and each one legally obtained ID, using his own name. ID ensures nothing except a person's identity.

    Having law enforcement figure out that an individual is planning some criminal activity before it takes place is what will prevent another 9/11. And it's quite clear that 9/11 took place in no small part because numerous agencies failed in that task.

No extensible language will be universal. -- T. Cheatham