Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It 518
SoCalChris writes "Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."
About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.
Re:About Time (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if the federal government did get their way with the states, how would the implement this? They want the state government systems to synchronize their records with the national government. Sounds easy to the unwashed masses (Washington Bureaucrats), but in practice this is very, very difficult. I'm sure there are slashdotters on here who can speak to difficulties in linking just local governments to state systems let alone at the NATIONAL level!
I was once on a project linking a city government's records (I wont mention what kind) to the state government. Except for the fact that the city was using legacy system X running on X, and the state was on legacy Y running on Y. Oh, and don't forget the Bummsville servers which also need to integrate; and they haven't upgraded they're setup in 8 years and nobody knows how it works anymore.
I PRAY that the feds get they're way and we get to see how much of a mess it is for them to link these disparate, outdated, undocumented systems together.
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you're right! No one would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a proper license! Problem solved.
You're kidding, right? You do know lots of people drive without a license. They're not usually caught until they're in an accident.
License (Score:5, Funny)
Re:License (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in small government is slightly larger than the wretchedly tiny minority of genuinely good people in big government ... but that's like saying that a vegan's feces will have more intact kernels of corn than those of a guy who eats nothing but steak. Either way, you have to go rooting through shit to find out, and neither is really any better than the other. There are easier ways to get corn.
And "individuals"? They are remarkably rare. Anyone who actually thinks about anything beyond who America's next top model will be, is in such a small and inconsequential group of people that nothing they do is capable of having any real impact on anything ... other than to invent new technologies that can be used to make everyone more affluent and less free.
I know, it's hard to accept the reality of this: one of the most fascinating psychological phenomena discovered in the past decade is the fact that nearly all Human behaviour and social understanding is predicted on the assumption that we are in the majority. We assume that whatever we want, whatever we believe, whatever we choose, is what most everyone else will wants/believes/chooses. But if you actually stop to think about anything beyond the most superficial drivel, you have placed yourself in a tiny, tiny minority, and nothing about you or what you think or believe is even remotely representative of your society.
Re:About Time (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a friend from Bangladesh; they have drivers licenses there, but if you had the right connections or enough money, it just wasn't worth getting one. If you got pulled over you just paid the bribe or showed the right person's card and you were set. The bureaucracy and bribes involved in actually procuring a license was supposedly worse than just violating the law and getting away with it after the fact. Sort of a "better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" situation.
This was a while ago and I think they've done a lot of combat corruption there since then, so I'm not necessarily saying that's the case anymore, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were many places where rampant low-level corruption [1] exists where it's the case.
[1] I don't mean "low level" here to mean "not serious," I mean corruption on the actual 'street level,' among the people who actually enforce the law, as opposed to 'high level' corruption among the people who make the laws. Here in the U.S., we don't have that much corruption at low levels -- at least not compared to places like Bangladesh; you probably won't get out of a speeding ticket by slipping the cop a few bucks -- we seem to like our corruption at the upper echelons.
Re:About Time (Score:4, Informative)
The theory of law that allows driver's licenses is that you're actually quite free to drive so much as you want without one. It's the privilege of making use of publicly built and maintained streets and roads which requires a license. The original purpose was to assure the public that other people around them could safely operate their vehicles according to the traffic laws.
Now it's just about getting as much money to the state as possible and another way to punish people for their illegal acts. Failing to pay child support can get a license suspended or revoked in some states, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even the pol
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If a truck driver gets drunk and kills a few people, revoking his Drivers liscense is the last thing people should be concerned with.
It would be far better to let him work and pay retribution.
No, people like you want to put the person in a place where he can't pay retribution, and will work in the lower tax bracket and pay less taxes.
Finally, and this is MOST important, so try to focus both your brain cells here:
The US is a bunch of ind
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
New Hampshire
Arizona
France
Iowa
Iran
The all contain the letter "a" and are populated by weirdos?
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes.
An entity doesn't have to have a "President" to be considered a country; in fact, most countries don't have "Presidents." They have "Prime Ministers" or "Premiers" or "Kings" or "Dictators" or whatever instead. In this case, the supreme executives were called "Governers."
Yes. This should be obvious, since they still do that now!
Ditto.
Yes [wikipedia.org] (scroll down for discussion of individual states' currencies).
They all had, and in fact still technically have, their own militias.
Who did you think they sent to the first and second Continental Congresses? Clowns?
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably allowed by the Interstate Commerce Clause (hereafter referred to as "ICC"), since radio waves often cross state lines. Still, it's a bit of a stretch.
Good question -- the Constitution provides for a navy, but armies are supposed to be raised ad-hoc for a maximum of two years. So is the Air Force more like a navy or an army? Or should it have required an Amendment to exist at all?
ICC, probably. Also, it could be construed to be a "post road."
I'd say "unconstitutional;" they were probably (dubiously) justified by the ICC.
The FBI is on thinner ice than the CIA here; I'd say it could maybe be justified by the stuff about punishing "offenses against the law of nations" or the bits about the militia. The FBI I can't justify.
Part of the Navy; it's OK.
It's a stretch, but maybe it could be classified as "militia."
Unconstitutional, no question (again, dubiously justified by the ICC).
To make laws about only those issues that can't be handled by the states.
Yep, that is how it was originally intended to be! The states were supposed to have more (or at least equal) power than the Federal government, and the people (and local goverment) were supposed to have more power than the states. Instead, the Civil War, New Deal, and everything after that created this topsy-turvy situation, which isn't how it's supposed to be at all.
I wish. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is appointed by the Federal goverment (do you see the problem?).
Re:About Time (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?contro
* Eliminated the "general welfare" open door
* Enforced free trade and opposed protectionism
* Prevented Congress from appopriating money for internal improvements intended to facilitate commerce (e.g. pork-barrel public works)
* Gave the President line-item Veto (only 130+ years earlier!)
* Appropriations required two thirds majority
* Eliminated cost-overruns for government contractors
* Eliminated omnibus spending bills - no hidden expenditures
Oh, and before the revisionist history trolls start knee-jerking about slavery, please read the article - in particular, the quote from Abraham Lincoln.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oops, you lost your driving license? Pay the fee and get another (if you pass the driving test).
Don't mix the driving and "REAL ID" issues.
This posting should not be taken as advocating for or against this legislation -- merely pointin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what's so indispensable about it. I don't carry one. Over the past year I have not found a lack of "official photo ID" to have prevented me from doing anything except obtain cell phone service or fly internationally. Domestically I can travel as long as I submit to the upper-colonic treatment...which used to happen to me anyway (why?) so hardly makes my life more difficult.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights? With that logic, we should take away all the government's computers and make the use a chisel and stone. That should make use uberfree!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Citizens of different states have different rights. Some of these rights govern how the government(s) can collect and use information. (For example, information gathered during a police stop.) How do you propose to make one database that protects the rights retained by one state and not by another?
the government's
Ah, here's what you're missing, government in this case is p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If all the data is in one large national database, then breaking into it could leak license data from literally everywhere in the country.
Also, anyone can figure out which addresses likely belong to the federal gov. Finding state databases would be slightly trickier, esp. if it's not your own state.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Illegal Immigrants are caught all the time. (Score:4, Insightful)
This ID card will not help with keeping illegal aliens out of the country because we don't DO anything when they are caught.
It WILL allow the government more control and easier suveilance of all citizens. This I cannot abide.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm moving there (Score:5, Funny)
If this week has taught us anything... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...
If this week has taught us anything, it's that one should always have a backup plan for black-bear-ies.
Re:I'm moving there (Score:5, Funny)
That said, Montana's a beautiful place. Oh, and the Kettlehouse (MT brew) brews the best beer in the world.
We used to joke about people moving to Montana to pay the scenery tax. Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.
I remember an old "PR" campain in MT to discourage Californians from moving in:
"Montana Sucks. Now go home and tell your friends."
Re:I'm moving there (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding, I took a train from Chicago to Portland that went across Montana lengthwise. You could tell you had entered Montana when you couldn't see anything, not even on the horizon. You could tell when you left Montana because you saw things again.
Hell I don't even remember any towns. I saw a couple dead trees but thats about it.
Re: (Score:2)
http://jobs.rightnowtech.com/ [rightnowtech.com]
Good trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good trend (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if we don't bother to unelect them when they abuse us, aren't we really just getting the government we deserve?
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck on fighting it though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When the Republicans took over congress in 1995, one of the things they did was uncouple federal highway funds from the 55 speed limit.
LK
blast from the past (Score:4, Insightful)
Republican (Score:3, Informative)
It makes Bush the same thing as the congressional Republicans who drafted and overwhelmingly voted for the Real ID act.
I'd like to blame Bush and dismiss his presidency as a fluke, but all signs indicate that what we're seeing in the White House represents the direction the Republican party is headed. And that is sad.
Democrats and Republicans (Score:3, Interesting)
At one point, the Democrats were the party that was solidly behind states' rights and the Republicans were all about centralized power.
Actually at first there was the Democratic-Republican party [ameslab.gov] which Thomas Jefferson was a member of. Back then the other major party was the Federalist Party [grolier.com], then some of it's members became members of theWhig Party [wikipedia.org] and others joined the Democratic Party.
Falcon
Lesson for the world (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.
Not really, because the idea that they "hate us for our freedom" is pure bullshit propaganda. They hate us for continually dicking around in the Middle East, and we are still doing it, and it's getting worse. The fact that we're throwing away our civil liberties is incidental to people like Bin Laden.
Re:Lesson for the world (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.
Thank you.
ArcherB
Re:Lesson for the world (Score:5, Funny)
A life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, a non-drinker during prohibition lost the "right" to drink. Can you tell me what a federal ID will prevent me from doing?
As to the rest of your post, I don't see how a national ID standard gives the Feds any more power than they have now.
Re:Lesson for the world (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they want to know about it, you may ask yourself what they are going to do with this knowledge.
Re:Lesson for the world (Score:4, Interesting)
All that has changed is the label:
Before terrorists, it was desegregationists.
Before desegregationists, it was communists.
Before communists, it was anarchists.
Before anarchists, it was unionists.
Before unionists, it was feminists
Before feminists, it was secessionists
Before secessionists, it was abolitionists
Before abolitionists, it was transcendentalists.
Before transcendentalists, it was restorationists.
Before restorationists, it was monarchists.
Before you worry about losing your rights, stop for a moment and ask if you ever really had them in the first place. The world changes much more slowly than it appears.
Lets see (Score:3, Insightful)
Even under Nazi* rule, you would have been fine.
Of course the moment there is a glitch, or someone that doesn't like you makes a phone call, then you relize those things you never used may have been a tad important.
Tlak to annyone who has had some lie to authorities about child abuse. They are guilty until proven innocent. Even if that can prove there own innocents, you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good morning friend!
We noticed a number of oddities in our records and were hoping you might like to demonstrate your patriotism with an explanation of yesterday's infractions:
1) Your daily alotment of water is 379.35 gallons (US). It appears t
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like your post is claiming that OBL wanted the 9/11 attacks to bring about national ID cards, to show us? I don't get it...what am I missing here?
This is historic! (Score:4, Funny)
Way to go Montana! (Score:2)
Good for them. (Score:5, Interesting)
The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian). There are inevitably going to be problems with control to the data (who has access?), it isn't going to stop fake ID's and it paves the way for people to give up more and more information to a central state.
The benefits are simple, the state gets a large access which it can then use (and most of the time misuse). It will be inevitably linked to other databases, and then the state can do what the East German state did.
It knows when you broke the law, and if you do something it doesn't like, it pulls you in and charges you with whatever it likes. After all, who hasn't broken some law or another?
This comment from the BillingsGazette, shows some other possible uses for the government.
Re:Good for them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the key phrase, right there.
who hasn't broken some law or another?
For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again.
In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime
Books and CD's have been banned in schools
Trans Fat is illegal in some cities
And it works both ways, Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right.
What if gun were banned?
Missed Child Payments
what if using a racial slur was a criminal offense
Getting angry and making a threat.
Vengeful Neighbours
Banning certain music or concerts dances clothes
its goes on and on and on
Sadly, its not to hard to imagine.
Once the goverment gots you, the GOT you, your in the system.
good luck trying to fly
good luck renewing your license (Driving, Hunting, Practicing whatever...)
good luck getting a job or a mortgage
Never mind those ones... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I am sure that Nazi Germany, the USSR for much of its history had a national card. Papers please. Oh, and Greece has a national ID card that you must produce on request ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ID#Countries _with_compulsory_identity_cards [wikipedia.org] ). Though I'm sure that only poor people get harassed about it, when driving around in your limo you won't have to worry. And despite all the elaborate security functions, I'm sure it is easy to pay to get another ID card. France re
Wow, I love this (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They are for their constituents interests on this one.
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.
Kudos to you Montana. As Stephen Colbert migh say, You've got balls!
Re:Wow, I love this (Score:4, Insightful)
states rights (Score:3, Insightful)
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.
Montana has pretty much always stood up for states rights. The one tyme I can think of they didn't was when they raised the legal age for drinking to 21.
I'm glad to see another state stand up against the Real ID Act. But as Vermont's logo is "Do not tread on me" I'm supprised they didn't pass such a law first.
FalconRe: (Score:3)
They're too busy pissing off all the anti-gun folks with their almost complete lack of gun laws.
Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard.
The author of the "Declaration Of Independence", Thomas Jefferson, woud be rolling in his grave if he knew the federal government outlawed hemp, aka marijuana and pot. He grew hemp on his farm and once said there should be a law requiring farmers to grow it. He didn't propose a law though because he knew such a law would be a restriction on the rights of farmers. The only reason hemp was made illegal was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people, amoung them DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, Rockfeller, and Rothschild.
FalconBut it is not a good substitute for nylon (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know, have you done any research on using hemp instead of nylon?
As a climber I'd hate to carry a wet hemp rope
The cords of the parachute that saved expres Bush Sr, when he bailed out over the Pacific when his plane was shotdown were probably made from hemp. The US government went so far as to make a movie, "Hemp for Victory" [archive.org], to encourage farmers to grow hemp during the Second World War partially because of the need for ropes. Now I've never carried hemp cord so I can't say how heavy it wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For airbags, the quality control is extremely tight. The specification for the monomer salt is a variability of +/- 0.03 of a pH which is about as close as you can possible measure. There's no way you can get that kind of consistency from a natural product.
Re:Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there are things that could work as preventing the use of national ID's
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4 [usconstitution.net]
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10 [usconstitution.net]
But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.
YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
All this does is make life harder on regular people. Just like gun laws- when the current laws are not being upheld, lets make more! Just uphold the current laws on getting a driver's license. At least in Pennsylvania, you have to provide a birth certificate and another form of ID. If the states' held up this standard in the first place, you wouldn't have to implement a secondary layer. Pass a law making the states to uphold their current standards.
Blah, I hate government in general. Sorry, just had to pay taxes....
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to go off topic, but I had to address this point. It's unlikely that you just had to pay taxes. What likely happened is that you filled out a form telling the IRS how much extra money they stole from your paycheck.
Federal witholding is such a scam. Taxes should NEVER be withheld. When you never see the money, you don't ever think of the taxes as your money, so you are not vigilant to changes in taxes, nor do you care much how they are spent.
Thats completely ign
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought Maine http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6153532.html [com.com] already did this with Idaho and Washington following closely behind? Or have those laws not been enacted yet?
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/29426prs20070418.
governor (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Judy Martz was a tool: Mrs. "My husband never hit me, but then I never gave him reason to."
Hey, how about you Montanans also get a ballot initiative to institute instant runoff voting (IRV)? I'm an expat, but I still vote in MT elections... I'd support it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only our "libertarian" government would quit kowtowing to the influx of Californian cash, maybe we really CAN keep this state free...
We didn't get to vote on the open container law. We didn't get to vote on the smoking ban. They were pushed through by legislators catering to the new citizens in the Yellowstone Club. Just love it when people leave their state because they don't like what it's turning into, and the first thing they do when they get some
Re: (Score:2)
One of the last great bastions of Freedom in USA (Score:2)
Good work Citizens.
Re:One of the last great bastions of Freedom in US (Score:2, Funny)
Freedom (Score:5, Funny)
No one hates your freedom like we do... Uh, oops, I mean, like the terrorists do. Everybody knows it's the terrorists who hate your freedom. And of course only the terrorists can take your freedom away... Uh, um, no, not exactly, they can't... In fact only we can take your freedom away... er... You shouldn't question these things... Now be a good patriot and lie down and let us step on you for your protection.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You almost had it.
You see, the terrorists are seeking to steal Americans' freedom, because they have none of their own. In order to prevent this, the US Government is taking all your freedom and locking it away, so that the terrorists can't get to it. Currently you've still got lots of freedoms lying around in the open, but the government is even now working to lock down those too. Pretty soon America won't have any freedom at all, and the terrorists will have to give up and find another free country to
In other news ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Montana: Spark of Civil War (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That game was eerily on-target about "terrorists" and the rhetoric thrown about in the world political climate since 9/11. I'd also like to point out that Deus Ex was voted "Game of the Year" by several gaming magazines for the year 2000. Kudos to Warren Spector and his te
Seventeenth Amendment Repeal, anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Federal government has the upper hand (Score:4, Interesting)
And good luck getting back into the country when you head up to Alberta for cheap prescription drugs. You may be required to show a passport or other photo ID to re-enter the country across the Canadian border (and a passport is required when traveling by air), and since DHS is in charge of that, they can take one look at your Montana driver's license and turn you away.
Been There, Done That (Score:4, Interesting)
The Montana Constitution includes the following clause: Section 33. Importation of armed persons. No armed person or persons or armed body of men shall be brought into this state for the preservation of the peace, or the suppression of domestic violence, except upon the application of the legislature, or of the governor when the legislature cannot be convened.
This has been used, in the recent past, to limit federal law enforcement incursions into the state, a fact which has been credited with being responsible for the group known as the Montana Freeman being arrested (by the Montana police, who wished to prevent another Waco-type incident), without a shot being fired. This means that Montana does not feel that the feds have the unlimited right to do as they please in Montana, or to Montanans.
A resolution has been passed by the Montana legislature requiring federal law enforcement that wishes to do anything in Montana to act through the appropriate local sheriff. The intention is to eventually give this the force of law. This tends to signify Montana's sovereignty as a state, as well as its willingness to stand up to the feds.
And, for a passport, you do not NEED a photo ID if you can get a citizen to whom you are well known to vouch for you. You'll also need some other paperwork, but you CAN get thru without a driver's license.
Re:We'll see what the Supreme COurt says about tha (Score:3, Interesting)
But you're probably right that the law will get repealed before a court challenge gets very far. That's really the point of some states moving to oppose the law, to get it repealed, but it does involve calling the bluff of Congress, which could prove very damaging to the residents of those states if the bluff fails.
This battle is long lost... (Score:4, Interesting)
Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).
Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).
The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...
May, as well, have "Real ID"...
History of This (Score:4, Informative)
Real ID was passed back as part of an "essential" Iraq funding package. As such it had no separate committee hearings. And at the time, guess who controlled Congress?
Many states are opposed to this not due to privacy concerns but simply because it's another unfunded federal mandate. Minnesota estimates it will cost the state $31 million over five years. Total national costs have ballooned to something like $17 billion. Congress allocated all of $40 million to pay for it.
I know it would take some work for me to produce a certified birth certificate or passport to get a license.
It will be interesting to see what happens when boarding restrictions, etc. go into effect. If this law isn't killed outright at the federal level, I believe it will be effectively ignored in many situations.
More info and an opinion piece:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1110277.html [startribune.com] http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1119732.html [startribune.com]No one seems to have noticed..... (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, as soon as someone tried to enforce me not entering a Federal Court building, the judge would toss that law out. Hopefully.
Ben Franklin (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I am from the South, but ... (Score:3)
As a Native Montanan (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting, isn't it, that a general rebellion against federal overreach seems to be brewing. In 2006 a number of states across the West passed medical marijuana laws only to have Bush claim they couldn't do that. Yes, a guy from the "state's rights" party claiming that states don't have the authority to regulate that which the Constitution clearly says they do.
Then you have the various states and municipalities across the country now passing pollution laws that are stricter than federal regulations because "someone has to do something about climate change."
Wonder if the un-funded mandate of No Child Left Behind has added any fuel to the fire...
In any case, I sincerely hope the states do get together and whack D.C. on the nose. The centralization of power in this country is out of control and anti-thetical to effective representative government.
Constitutional Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
We need an Amendment that defines "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" in a way that matches both the original intent of the words as well as plain commmon sense, instead of letting it mean the radical thing that the courts redefined it to mean.
It's absolutely ludicrous that the various states' rejection of Real ID, federal decisions about what doctors are allowed to prescribe, etc, is somehow viewed as defiant or objectionable. It's simple democracy, and it's not cool that our distant rulers in DC are working against that.
Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me if the feds can threaten to pull funds that a state's taxpayers paid into if the state doesn't follow some totally unrelated regulation, the state should have the ability to opt out of paying into those types of funds on behalf of its taxpayers. So, if the feds pull highway funding, the states should be allowed to withhold the portion of federal taxes its citizens pay that would normally go to the federal highway budget and have the taxpayers pay that money directly to the state's highway fund instead.
Also, I'd like a unicorn.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the highways may suffer, big deal.
It would not supirse me that if a state followed it up, they wouldn't have to pay those taxes to the feds.
I'm not anti-tax* but the feds using there power in this way just galls me.
*Another time.
History. (Score:4, Interesting)
The result was a very long and bloody war, resulting in the defeat of those states. Granted, the South gave a damned good fight, only succumbing to the North 'zerging for the win'...
In a country where we're so afraid that we're banning fingernail clippers from airplanes and crying over a ridiculously low number of casualties in Iraq, there's not going to be any sort of real civil war without which something truly astonishing happens.
Rights being eroded isn't truly astonishing, it's been going on since 1865.
Re: (Score:2)