NH Signs Bill That Rejects Federal Real ID

jcatcw writes "New Hampshire is part of a trend to oppose the federal Real ID act. The governor this week signed a bill that forbids state agencies from complying with the controversial federal regulation. The Real ID law, first passed by Congress in 2005, currently requires that all state driver's licenses and other identification cards include a digital photograph and a bar code that can be scanned by electronic readers. Such a federally approved ID card or document would be required for people entering a federal building, nuclear power plant and commercial airplane. The New Hampshire bill, which labeled the Real ID Act as "contrary and repugnant" to the New Hampshire and U.S. Constitutions, was passed in the state Senate by a 24-0 vote in late May."

Frist Post...

[LVSlushdat]

YAY New Hampshire!!!! You ROCK!!!!!! Now to get the 40-some states to do the same....

NH reject Read ID

[falconwolf]

YAY New Hampshire!!!! You ROCK!!!!!! Now to get the 40-some states to do the same....

Agreed!!!

..I love my country, but fear its 'government'.. FAR more than I fear an Islamic terrorist...

Same here. It's government that's the real terrorists.

Falcon

Interesting...

[FatSean]

If all 50 states pass such laws, yet their representatives in the national legislature won't vote to dismantle the REAL ID act....what happens?

The Federal Government is nothing without the states, especially when the military (and lots o' national guard units) is stuck cab-deep in the Iraqi sand.

This will not end well...

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Of course, the last time that things got to that point was when the states decided that they needed to make some small tweaks to the Articles of Confederation, in order to make a more perfect union.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

The question put to the Union during the Civil War was whether or not states could secede. Of course, the whole thing was fundamentally a states right question, and what came out of it was that the states didn't quite have the powers that the Jeffersonian model of the republic had given them. That didn't mean that the states became completely subservient to the federal government, and that's why bills like this one are tied to funding, which Congress hopes will be enough of a carrot for the states not to

Re:

[ZedmanAuk]

The Feds have no power over the issuance of IDs. It is not one of their powers in the US Constitution, and all powers not explicitly reserved for the Federal govt. in that document fall to the states or the people. They can only coerce or bribe the states to comply with the Real ID act by giving money or threatening that their residents would not be able to board planes or go into Federal buildings. I find it unlikely the Feds would be able to enforce this at all. Can you imagine airlines going along wi

Re:

[Planesdragon]

The Feds have no power over the issuance of IDs.

Sure they do. The Original US Constitution explicitly entrusts Congress with (1) regulation of interstate commerce, (2) mediation of differences between the several states, (3) regulation of immigration, and (4) regulation of the militia. It then further REQUIRES Congress to conduct a decadial census, AND allows for the collection of income taxes.

Congress could require that every man, woman, and child be given an ID card, of a certain standard, that no other

Re:

[NickCatal]

Please show me the part of the constitution which authorizes the collection of income taxes.

16th Amendment?

Re:Frist Post...

[Original Replica]

what power does a state legislation have against a federal one?

In theory the State power should be at least equal within the State, we have a Federal system.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism [wikipedia.org] In reality our States have lost alot of autonomy to the Federal Government because of abuses of the Interstate commerce clause.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_com merce_clause [wikipedia.org] I hope that New Hampshire sticks it out, other States follow, and States Rights gains back some ground. But it didn't work when the Fed wanted a drinking age of 21, and forced States to adopt it, even though it is supposed to be outside the realm of the Federal government. Withholding funding for highways and such is an all too powerful lever the Feds have over the States. New Hampshire might hold out because they are small enough to get away with no Fed support of their highways and they have alot of "Free Staters" who want to secede from the US completely over things like shrinking liberties, and global policing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 555119,00.html [time.com]

Re:

[arminw]

......Withholding funding for highways and such is an all too powerful lever .......

That is also limited by the fact that the money all comes from the citizens of the states to begin with. If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures. That might be pretty tough for a big important state, such as California. Th

Re:

[The One and Only]

Why not simply forget forcing the states into issuing "approved" IDs and just require a passport for anyone who wants to fly between states?

Because passports should not be required for travel within a country. A passport is government authorization to travel, combined with the government vouching for the identity and trustworthiness of the traveler. There's no reason to require that for travel within the country someone is already a citizen of.

Re:

[Dachannien]

That is also limited by the fact that the money all comes from the citizens of the states to begin with. If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures. That might be pretty tough for a big important state, such as California. The whole idea of how far the interstate commerce clause can be stretched might have t

Re:Frist Post...

[fyngyrz]

Why not simply forget forcing the states into issuing "approved" IDs and just require a passport for anyone who wants to fly between states?

Right to travel:

In U.S. v Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966): "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." Shapiro v Thompson 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart: "it is a right broadly assertable(sic) against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."(*) The Articles of Confederation defined a right to travel; It may be that the right was presumed to be inherent; if so, the authors of the constitution could also have thought it redundant to make it explicit.

(*) Despite this assertion, the constitution says very little about the right to travel, other than to ensure that federal legislators have a right to go legislate as per article 1, section 6.

Once the government starts saying "You can travel only if you meet the following conditions" (passport, ID, money in pocket, good reputation, etc.), they have set up a coercive situation where equality has been sundered. This is one of the key arguments against the underlying premise of RealID, as well as the no-fly list and similar non-judicial restrictions on travel and modes of travel. What you propose, the limitation of travel from state to state requiring a passport (in your concept, just by plane, but generally in any case), is a severe limitation upon the ability to travel.

And I would sadly note that as recently as just a few decades ago, the very idea was unthinkable; it is even encoded into the art of the day. In Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October", the first officer, bent upon defecting to the US, asks the captain if one could travel "state to state" without papers in the US; the captain assures him that is the case, and the first officer, a product of the Soviet government's implementation of just such restrictions, reacts in pleased wonder.

It seems that almost any war showing conditions in Europe will offer a tension-laced scene where someone's papers are demanded — people used to be quick to recognize this as an abuse of power wielded for the sake of establishing and maintaining that power, and for no other reason. Orwell wrote (in 1984): "The purpose of power... is power" — he was cautionary.

Now we see travel limitations proposed sincerely in the previous post, as if this actually was a good idea. I find this more than a little depressing, and frightening.

Re:Frist Post...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If the constitution is silent on the matter, it's safe to assume that the feds lack that power - all the constitution does is assert what powers the feds have. It's unfortunate that it's been turned on its head to imply that the feds can do anything not explicitly denied - that's our role.

Re:

[cetialphav]

If the constitution is silent on the matter, it's safe to assume that the feds lack that power - all the constitution does is assert what powers the feds have. It's unfortunate that it's been turned on its head to imply that the feds can do anything not explicitly denied - that's our role.

Since the vast majority of flights cross state borders, it pretty clearly gives the federal government to regulate it under the commerce clause of the constitution.

I'm not saying I like the RealID stuff. I think it is a really stupid idea that does nothing to actually improve security. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional or mean that the federal government is overstepping it's authority.

Re:

[arminw]

.......What you propose, the limitation of travel from state to state requiring a passport ......

Not really. Only if you want to get on an airplane flying from state to state. What's so different about that than requiring a drivers license if you want to drive a car either within a state o from one to another? We've had those for years. In either case the government wants to know who you are. My teenage son had to bring his birth certificate and social security card to the DMV in order to get a driver's lea

Re:

[HUADPE]

If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures.

Such a law would be massively unconstitutional, as the Constitution (amended) allows the Feds to collect income tax without state interference. Nice idea, but totally unworkable.

Re:

[cetialphav]

If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures.

Such a law would be massively unconstitutional, as the Constitution (amended) allows the Feds to collect income tax without state interference. Nice idea, but totally unworkable.

There is plenty the federal government could do to enforce this if they needed to. If a state interfered with the tax money coming in, the federal government could economically quarantine the state. Prevent trucks, ships, and planes from entering the state. Prevent business in other states from doing business with anyone in that state. This would be pretty easy to do if it is an isolated state trying to challenge the federal government. The state government would cave very quickly under that pressure.

Re:

[westlake]

That is also limited by the fact that the money all comes from the citizens of the states to begin with. If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures

The most far-reaching agreement made at the Constitutional Convention was that the federal government must have the power to collect taxes - direct taxes on ind

withholding federal taxes.

[falconwolf]

If a state would enact a law that withholds all taxes of every kind collected from its citizens, especially income tax, there is nothing the Feds could do short of taking over that state's government by military force or other draconian measures.

The only way states could withhold income tax from the feds is if they required employers in the state to pay the state instead of the feds. Do that and the feds would go apeshit.

The Feds rightfully regulate commerce and the ID requirements for airplane passen

Re:

[The One and Only]

Of course, there was considerable abuse of state power that had to be stopped--the Southern states enslaved blacks, denied them civil rights, refused to prosecute as murderers those who lynched them, and every single time the federal government tried to intervene, Southern whites complained about "states rights".

Re:Frist Post...

[MightyMartian]

Of course, there was considerable abuse of state power that had to be stopped--the Southern states enslaved blacks, denied them civil rights, refused to prosecute as murderers those who lynched them, and every single time the federal government tried to intervene, Southern whites complained about "states rights".

I'm not defending slavery here, but let me just say that technically speaking, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all, but were, in fact, exercising those powers as had been granted them when they had agreed to be bound by the Constitution. In fact, I think most constitutional experts will agree that just about everything Lincoln did once the Civil War started, including the Emancipation Proclamation, was in fact in technical violation of both word and spirit of the Constitution. The fact that Lincoln was right and moral to do so, and even more importantly that the Union won the war, has made us forget that the Constitution was pretty bent up in the act of ending slavery.

Re:

[The One and Only]

the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all

That's where you and I differ. Enslaving human beings is an abuse of the law, even if the law specifically gives no one the right to interfere with you.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

Who said we disagreed, but if everything were that easy, then there wouldn't have been a Civil War, or at least the North would have had to justify it through the real causes; which were fundamentally economic in nature. The law is what it is. The greatest failure in American politics is the Big Lie that somehow the law and morality are flip sides of the same coin.

Re:

[The One and Only]

The war was largely justified by economic means, because even in the North no one was particularly fond of blacks. The motive, even for ending slavery, wasn't moral in nature. Abolitionism existed, but it wasn't the driving force.

Re:

[cetialphav]

the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all

That's where you and I differ. Enslaving human beings is an abuse of the law, even if the law specifically gives no one the right to interfere with you.

Which law? If there is no law addressing an issue, it can't really be considered illegal. To do something illegal, you have to violate some law. Prior to the civil war, the view was that the federal government could regulate the flow of slaves between states and into the country, but could not mandate what the state did within its borders. You really have to twist the constitution in knots to read the law any other way. That is no accident. The authors of the constitution were well aware of slavery a

USA Constitution and slavery

[falconwolf]

The authors of the constitution were well aware of slavery and simply bypassed the issue. They had the opportunity to make it illegal and did not do it.

That's because some of them were slave owners.

Falcon

Re:

[Venner]

Slavery was commonplace in many, if not most, cultures for the first, oh, 5000 years of civilization, from indentured servitude to wholly-owned human beings. England didn't abolish slavery until the Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833. The USA followed suit in 1863 - a bare 30 years later - with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and subsequent laws. Note that the Emancipation proclamation only terminated slavery in the states at war with the North; there were border states that were loyal to the North which

Declaration of Independece and slavery

[falconwolf]

Now, Justice Thomas of the US Supreme Court alone believes that the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution should basically the force of law, although nearly everyone else thinks the words are merely aspirational. I tend to agree with Justice Thomas on this; there is just something powerful and basic about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

In his first drafts of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the DOI, wrote

Re:

[westlake]

technically speaking, prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, the slave states were not technically abusing their powers at all, but were, in fact, exercising those powers as had been granted them when they had agreed to be bound by the Constitution

what the slave states won in the Constitution was 3/5 representation in Congress for its slave population.

what would prove disastrous to the south in the Dred Scott case was the explosive dictum from the Supreme Court that slavery itself could never be touched.

I t

New Hampshire reject Real ID

[falconwolf]

New Hampshire might hold out because they are small enough to get away with no Fed support of their highways and they have alot of "Free Staters"

Yeap, it's the host for the Free State Project [freestateproject.org].

Falcon

Free State Project

[falconwolf]

How to Stage a Coup, American-Style

Yeap, if I could afford it I'd move to New Hampshire to join the Free State Project [freestateproject.org].

Falcon

Interstate commerce clause, ICC

[falconwolf]

A lot of the abuses of the interstate commerce clause rose up in regards to state oppression of black Americans;

The abuse of the ICC may in part be because of racism but a big part of it stems from when FDR packed the USSC in the 1930s and they supported his New Deal during the Depression.

Falcon

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

No, FDR did not follow through on his court-packing plan. He didn't have to, because the Court gave in to the mere threat of it. Look it up, for God's sake.

Re:

[Nyeerrmm]

In theory, the federal government's primary power is in national defense and regulating interstate trade, and still most anything that they do is justified in those terms, although often times its a stretch. Those rights not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the individual states. If the federal side tries to assume those reserved powers, the states can take the federal government to court, which are supposed to judge how well that law adheres to the constitution.

Of course, sin

Re:

[westlake]

I mean to say, what power does a state legislation have against a federal one? (honest question. I'm not American and don't know how the power hierarchy works)

If the question is physical access to a federal office building or federally-regulated facilities like a nuclear power plant or a commercial airline in interstate commerce, the answer is "no power at all."

Re:

[MightyMartian]

The most Congress can do is to tie certain kinds of Federal funding to their bill. That's what was done with that other idiotic initiative; No Child Left Behind. In that case, the States bit, but it seems that the days when the States feel any desire to co-operate with Congress on every half-assed idea are gone. I think a lot of state governments are feeling like this is just way to intrusive into their rights, and are done handing over to Congress any more of their powers. I doubt they give that big a

But would it matter at all?

[falconwolf]

I mean to say, what power does a state legislation have against a federal one?

As it is now about the only thing it means is that some states hate it. According to the USA Constitution the federal government has no power to dictate an ID or to create one. It's a matter of states rights or the people's rights. With some Supreme Courts rulings since 1934 though the feds can get away with most anything, and I'm afraid the current Supreme Court would allow this, especially with Bush's two nominations, Chie

Re:

[fyngyrz]

Had you been paying attention to the news, you would realize there are fewer than 50 remaining to be so encouraged. :)

Live Free or Die.

[The_Steel_General]

What else can you say but that.

TSG

Re:Live Free or Die.

[almeida]

Well, you could say the full quote. Personally, I think the second half is more powerful, but that might just be because I'm so used to seeing the first half.

"Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."
- General John Stark

What's going on here?

[Frosty Piss]

If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?

Re:

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?

Indeed, a sensible question about how this country is run. I think it's fair to assume you're not American right?

Re:What's going on here?

[sangreal66]

If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?

The house passed it 261-161 and in the Senate was attached to a war funding and tsunami relief bill which of course passed 100-0.

Re:What's up with bill attachment anyway?

[Kandenshi]

You can read about rider bills [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia if you want.

Interestingly enough, the Real ID act is given as an example of a rider =P

Re:

[HUADPE]

The reason it can be done is that as long as it's not in violation of the constitution (and even then, it's just unenforcable), Congress can put any content they want into any bill. The committee chairs in each house have massive discretion to add or remove irrelevant legislation from "must pass" bills. They can be removed by an amendment in the full House or Senate, but that's difficult.

Re:

[Kadin2048]

If so many states now oppose Real ID, how is it that it passed into law in the first place?

Your question makes me believe that you still are under the impression that there is a direct connection between what the public desires and what laws get passed in Washington. I can assure you this is not the case.

Re:

[sadler121]

Because we fucked up royally when we let senators be elected directly by the people and not by the states. This took away power from the state and gave it to the Fed's. What we need to do is stop electing senators directly and let the states appoint them. The people already have their house, it's called the House of Representatives. Now, more then ever, the states need their voice back.

Re:

[gallwapa]

Don't forget that the purpose of having a federal government represented by congress has changed: The idea was to make laws to govern the land, for the benefit of all, while not imposing on the individual citizen's or states lives.

Now, that it has somehow morphed into being sent there to battle for funding for their state/district/pet project, rather than actually trying to pass laws.

Also, I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing 200 years ago they didn't write 1,000 page bills. Who the hell can read

sessons of congress

[falconwolf]

Also, I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing 200 years ago they didn't write 1,000 page bills. Who the hell can read through 10,000 pages a week to search for this crap?

No, 200 years ago congress didn't write 200 page never mind 1000 page bills. Back then congressional sessions were short, most of congress had to work for a living and couldn't take much tyme off to go to Washington. A few states are still like this, Texas for instance. By law, or constitutional, the Texas legislature can only me

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

The federal constitution is brief, because the government they put together was rather limited. State governments are plenary, and have long constitutions. And laws are often of significant length, because they deal with complex issues, carefully.

Saying that all laws should be brief is as foolish as saying that all computer software ought to fit on a floppy disk, along with a copy of the OS. It's possible, but that doesn't make it necessarily good.

They're right twice

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

[...] other identification cards include a digital photograph and a bar code that can be scanned by electronic readers.

Wow! a *barcode* and a *digital photo*? these have *got* to be the most unfalsifiable digital features. This is scary secure!

Seriously though, even if NH legislators were pro Real-ID (which apparently they aren't on moral grounds, thankfully), they had to oppose it just because it's so technologically retarded that it would bring exactly no added security whatsoever.

Re:

[Servo]

More to the point, its so technologically retarded that it won't add any security AND will cost millions of State money to implement because its not just an incremental upgrade. I'm a NH resident and am very happy to see this signed into law.

Re:

[dkleinsc]

As someone born and raised in NH, I'm giving 3 cheers to the NH legislature on this one: NH isn't a state that can afford to spend money on such silly ventures as this one (not because everyone's poor, but because the state actually has something close to the Libertarian ideals).

Re:

[twistedsymphony]

Yup... I'm a NH native as well. Despite the fact that I loath the cold winters time and time again I'm very pleased with the way our state is run. Catching bits and pieces on the radio of local politics in Maine I would say they're run similarly as well. As for MA... well they're pretty much our polar opposite.

While not Libertarian we do keep closer to those ideals than any other state government I know of, and that pleases me greatly.

Re:

[megaditto]

You are right, but you miss the real point of REAL ID:

A single Federal database aggregating all the personal info they could ever want. Hence the barcode is a database key to the record here and does not need to be secure (since you get a record with a picture pulled up and can compare to the person (also gets the weight, eye color, hair color, age and height, and probably fingerprint and DNA samples at some point in the future).

In fact, the plastic ID here is really not even needed. If you had a barcode ta

Re:They're right twice

[fyngyrz]

If you had a barcode tattooed on your wrist or even tell them your name and number, this would work just as well.

The optimum locations for physically carried ID were worked out some time ago. Either the forehead (see The NT's "Revelations" section, Hindu "caste" marks, etc), or the left chest (see Germany, ca. 1940's, and the "ID" the Jews had to carry.)

However, the RealID legislation has murky verbiage that allows for unspecified technology to be used to carry the ID electronically. Odds strongly favor this being RFID or something similar. So no need for it to be on your body, per se; it could be in your body just as easily as it could be on it, or on a card or similar external carrier. And of course, this negates the need to "present" your ID; it'll be read when you're within X distance of any client that wants to know anything in particular about you.

Re:

[paganizer]

Sometimes, when I look around at the "Your papers, Citizen" culture we have become, I hope that this sort of thing actually becomes a law; that the legislature, or the Prez by Executive Decree, will try to push something that will trip every fundy christians "end times" buttons, and we get a new constitutional convention going. our government is corrupted, time to hit the reset switch and reinstall.

This is good and all..

[TubeSteak]

But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID complaince?

I wonder if that's something that can be done administratively, or has to be legislated into existence.

Re:

[pi_rules]

I wonder if that's something that can be done administratively, or has to be legislated into existence.

The legislature controls taxes and spending. I believe this topic is usually covered in most grade schools.

Civility is in decline in the US

[ClosedSource]

"Not anymore. Schools replaced "Civics" with "Social Studies," which is basically a preparatory course in Political Correctness, a long time ago."

Given the wide use of the term RTFM and the popularity of nasty reality shows in recent years, there's little danger of the country being taken over by "politically correct" forces for the foreseeable future.

Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE

[SuperBanana]

But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID compliance?

New England pays far more federal taxes than it receives in federal aid. Leaving the union would be a welcome move, as we could stop paying for all the federal welfare to the southern and mid-western states. If you want to read a very amusing (and profanity-laced) rant about this, go see FucktheSouth.com [fuckthesouth.com]. The last few winters, Bush has slashed the federal home heating assistance programs; we've got people old people freezing to death because they can't afford to heat their homes. Meanwhile, you'll note that programs for midwestern corn and livestock farmers are doing quite well...

You don't understand how pissed off New England has been since 2000. New Hampshire is full of people who *really* don't like anyone telling them what they can/can't do, and they're pretty well armed. Maine's geographically IN Canada anyway, Vermont's voted to impeach Bush more times than I can count. In Massachusetts, residents run the political spectrum, but we're also the ones who started [wikipedia.org] the War of Independence, bitches.

Fuckin' A Right!

[FatSean]

Just about every point in that rant is correct in my opinion.

Obviously, not everyone in the South is a leeching hypocritical moralizing douchebag...but right on...

2nd VT Republic

[ushering05401]

We not only vote on impeachment issues, but secession as well. The Second Vermont Republic information found here: http://www.vermontrepublic.org/ [vermontrepublic.org]

I was all for NE continuing to assist poorer parts of the country until the NE Dairy compact BS. Like they can't subsidize small dairy farms in NE while pumping all those subsidies into the Midwest so grain can rot in the silos? WTF?

Then again, farming in general is a pretty big deal for my family and I.

As for N.H., I generally prefer they stay on their side of

Re:

[ivan256]

Meanwhile, you'll note that programs for midwestern corn and livestock farmers are doing quite well...

We're soon to be paying them twice. We're so gung-ho about switching to ethanol from gasoline that we forgot to stop and think about what New England dairy farmers feed their livestock.

Everybody who lives in the city should be forced to live in a rural area for at least one year of their adult life.

Re:

[Khaed]

The Midwest feeds the nation, the South keeps values

South has a fair amount of food growing, too. Not to mention two major ports, and when the expansions are complete, the 2nd biggest oil refinery in the US -- in other words, making your gasoline. You can also see that the "poor" states tend to give more:

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/gen erosity.php?year=2004 [cataloguef...thropy.org]

New Hampshire is ranked 50th based on how much they have versus how much they give. I'm actually kind of surprised; given the peopl

Re:Taxes paid by NE Benefits Received by NE

[MightyMartian]

the South keeps values

This is some sort of joke, right? I mean, we're talking about the heartland of racism, a land still backwards socially, technologically and economically nearly 150 years after the rest of the US was forced to kill most of its useful manhood just to drag it into the modern age. We're talking about the birthplace of one of the most vile, repugnant, bigoted religious movements in modern history (and no, it's not the KKK, but the Southern Baptist Convention, which only recently bothered to apologize for it's disgusting and heinous roots).

Re:

[Rich0]

The issue of organizations apologizing for their roots is a complex one. Sure, it isn't a bad idea in terms of just being nice - especially if you don't agree with the position of your predecessors. However, you need to be careful about holding people today accountable for things that organizations they belonged to did 100 years ago. Should American's today apologize to the Indians for displacing their land? If so, which ones? Should an immigrant who got their citizenship last Tuesday apologize? Shoul

Re:

[The One and Only]

Right, liberal Republicans. Mitt Romney pretending to be conservative (hell, even pretending to be moderate) is a new development that only came about when he tried running for office outside Massachusetts.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Considering that the Federal funds originate in the states, that is not much of an issue. A state can declare that it will collect all taxes itself and will pass it on to the Federal government, then take its sweet time to do so - passing it on I mean. Many states that appear to be net receivers of Federal subsidies aren't really, they only appear to be so, since goods that flow through are not accounted for. The few states that really are net receivers of dole are of course in a weak position, but could

Re:

[ChrisMaple]

States can declare anything they want to, but do you think that many companies -- particularly those with federal contracts or a presence in multiple states -- will actually stop sending tax money directly to the feds? I wish they would, but in my opinion few corporate executives have both the proper political inclination and the spine to stand up to threats from the feds.

Re:

[bender647]

But at what point will the Federal Government try to link federal funds & REAL ID complaince?

Like they link seat belt law compliance and federal highway funding?

New Hampshire doesn't care. Apparently they are the only state that has refused to pass a law telling adults they have to buckle up so that they can get their share of the federal money.

Re:

[Agripa]

I do not have a reference to the court case but I remember reading that federal funds may only be linked to state laws insofar as they have a direct connection with the regulated activity. Federal highway funds for instance may be linked to drunk driving laws, seatbelt laws, and speed limits but may not be linked to activities that do not involve driving.

Like many others in this discussion, I agree that the federal government has misused the interstate commerce clause and the tenth amendment.

Fine. But my Dad needs help with Medicare

[westlake]

The Real ID law...requires that all state driver's licenses and other identification cards include a digital photograph and a bar code that can be scanned by electronic readers. Such a federally approved ID card or document would be required for people entering a federal building, nuclear power plant and commercial airplane.

These are the complaints I see coming:

"Dad needs help in applying for Social Security and Medicare. My wife has plans to visit her mother in New York. I have contracts to service feder

Re:

[flyingfsck]

The fact of the matter is that the Feds will have to accept the state ID - whatever it is - the way it always has. A Federal ID simply drives up costs, duplicates computer facilities, creates even more unnecessary Federal jobs and erodes the constitutional powers of the states further. A standardized ID doesn't improve anything, since the present system is already working.

Re:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You miss grandparents point. The Feds will not issue a Federal ID, your alternative. Rather, they will refuse to accept NH ID's until they comply with the Real ID act. So, they just screw over NH citizens while they elect a government that refuses to comply.

I do wish New Hampshire luck. If anyone is stubborn enough, it's them.

Re:

[westlake]

You miss grandparents point. The Feds will not issue a Federal ID, your alternative.

The feds may issue an ID --- which will immediately become the standard for proof of age, ID and citizenship. The next best thing to carrying a U.S. Passport.

Open your wallet. How many cards and badges are you carrying now? How many could you shred if you were carrying a single card meeting the federal standard? All this legislation does is lower the value of any ID issued by New Hampshire.

Civil war fears are subsiding?

[flyingfsck]

It seems that the state fear of the federal government is finally subsiding. I am surprised that it took more than 150 years for the states to start taking back the constitutional powers that were theirs all along. One small step for an Amercan, one big leap for Statekind...

Nuclear Powerplant?

[BlueParrot]

The entire debate aside, why on earth is Nuclear Power plants on that list? I mean, seriously. Isn't that a bit like making a law which requires car companies to put at least one steering wheel on each car? Or to require that all commercial air planes have at least one wing... I mean without this legislation nuclear plant operators would probably just let anyone walk in carrying an explosive belt or whatnot, right ? Seriously, I'd be a lot more worried about a terror attack against a train company than a nuclear power station.

Federal Employees and flights

[nurb432]

While they deserve points for telling the feds to take a leap, what does that do for federal employees that live in their state, or citizens that want to fly ( once you have to have the realID to fly )?

Re:Federal Employees and flights

[MightyMartian]

I think NH is relying upon a sufficient number of other states refusing involvement that the whole program just sort of falls apart.

Re:

[ArcherB]

I have NO idea why everyone is against this - it is NOT a big deal almost every modern country has good ID cards -

Funny, all of them are not totalitarian and their populations have rights? Why is everyone so against it here?

At this point just stick a freaking chip in me please or give me ONE ID card !!!!!

Which is kinda the point of REAL ID. It can replace your passport, drivers license and possibly SS card. Unfortunately, people are so afraid that Federal agents are suddenly going to burst out of every c

Re:

[shamborfosi]

I posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.

Re:

[ArcherB]

posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.

That's it? It's expensive and it doesn't work? Why not the same fervor of more expensive, less effective government security programs? Border security for example. The creation of the Internet was expensive and did nothing for security. Are you against that? Federa

Re:

[Vancorps]

I can't decide, is your reply serious?

There is a ton of outrage over border security right now and Internet technologies that came out of DARPA sure as hell made the military a lot more efficient while lots of the infrastructure was built by universities and private organizations expanding on the research that came out of DARPA.

ACH is not even close to a single point of failure, you're referring to a whole network. Is the Internet a single point of failure for any organization? The whole Internet can go

Re:give me a break

[man_of_mr_e]

There are many reasons to be against this sort of thing. Cost has been said already. It's forcing states to pay for this, without funding it federally. Second, this country has been against a national ID card for decades. In fact, Social Security was guaranteed to not be used as a national ID card. The fear is that the government can track your every move with this card, as it will be required by more and more services. Currently, state ID cards are not linked to the government in any meaningful way. Yeah, they can look up your data, but that's about it. With a single, computerized ID system, every time you make a purchase that requires your ID (Cigarettes, alcohol, porn) can be recorded. Every time you get on an airplane, the government knows about it. They can datamine so much information about you, that your privacy is effectively nil.

Yes, we're already a computerized society, and they can already do a lot of this. That's bad, but the disparate nature of the databases makes doing such searches difficult and expensive, thus relegating it to important suspects. With this information at the governments fingertips, the cop that pulls you over for 'speeding' could see everywhere you've used your ID. Maybe take you downtown for questioning because you happen to go to the same night club as a wanted fugitive. Or maybe he's a bible thumper and wants to "punish" you for some blight against his beliefs on your record.

Is all that Paranoid? You bet. But the best defense of your privacy is to not allow people to have access to it, regardless of whether it's for the "greater good" or not. You're privacy is not private if the government has access to it, regardless of whether you think you have anything to hide or not.

Re:

[zrq]

... this country has been against a national ID card for decades ...

Just checking, is this the same place that has decided that anyone who wants to visit has to supply a full set of fingerprints and retina scan before they let you in ?

Re:

[grommit]

Replace my passport huh? How do you propose that other countries would stamp my Real ID? I wouldn't be too keen on having it defaced.

Re:give me a break

[bigstrat2003]

This is the reason I'm opposed to it: the way it was passed. As I recall, Real ID was passed in the senate by tacking it onto a military spending bill. This, to me, reeks of untrustworthiness. Now, one possible reason to pass a law in this fashion is because you're lazy. Another is because you want it to fly under the radar. In either case, this is unacceptable.

1) Our lawmakers have the responsibility to give a big law like this its own proper attention and debate, even if they don't feel like it.
2) If you want a law to fly under the radar... that disgusts me. The members of Congress are supposed to be representing us, not trying to get things shoved through under our noses without us noticing!

In either case, tacking the bill onto something unrelated was unacceptable. These are the only two reasons for doing so I can think of at the moment, so unless someone can come up with a good reason for piggybacking Real ID, I oppose the damn law because it was passed in an unethical fashion. I might even have supported the idea if it had been given its own spotlight, as it deserved, but it comes across to me very shady, as if our lawmakers are trying to hide things from us. That's not cool.

Re:

[jsebrech]

As I recall, Real ID was passed in the senate by tacking it onto a military spending bill.

To be fair, almost nothing that has even the slightest level of controversy gets passed anymore without being attached to a military spending or a hurricane aid bill.

Re:

[bendodge]

Totalitarian governments methodically consolidate power (Castro, Putin, ect). A universal identity card and the accompanying database is a wonderful tool for a power-hungry politician (think of Bloomberg and then BATFE trace data).

Re:

[ArcherB]

Totalitarian governments methodically consolidate power (Castro, Putin, ect).

I understand your concern, but is the LACK of a national ID the only thing keeping the Feds from tracking me? Granted, this card could be used as a tool to collect data, but no more or less than my existing state ID card. There is no difference except that it might make it a bit easier. Then again, you could say that about any tool, such as computers, and federal buildings, and federal cars for government employees, and every ot

Re:

[keytoe]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with the technical improvements with the IDs. It's the the centralized database, requiring it for travel and other obscenely intrusive bits that people oppose. Of course, a lot of people rally around the 'unfunded mandate' banner simply because it's easier to influence the general public with money-related arguments.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I think many people do not like the idea of their government collecting vast amounts of data on them to be stored and mined at the whim of federal officials, with little or no meaningful oversight, and barring be able to prevent the Federal government from doing that, at least making them bloody well work at it, with a vast array of state and federal agencies with mountains of paperwork. The Founding Fathers wanted a government founded on liberty and with strict limits on its powers. I doubt very much tha

Re:

[pete-classic]

Here's a reason. Can you point out where the Union government gets the authority to do such a thing? Okay, now can you do it without a tortured and grossly overly general interpretation of the interstate commerce clause? Have you read the 10th amendment?

-Peter

Re:

[ArcherB]

Can you point out where the Union government gets the authority to do such a thing?

That's an excellent point. Can you point out where the Interstate system is authorized by the Constitution? How about NASA or the Federal Park system? Did the founding fathers set up the IRS, the CIA, the FBI or DARPA? Can you tell me which amendment authorizes every single federally funded scientific research grant? Finally, where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can not pass laws that are not already in t

Re:give me a break

[ChrisMaple]

I am against this because every step toward tyranny is just that: a step toward tyranny. Each step, no matter how small, must be opposed.

It is no consolation to say "I know we're slaves now, but we took a long time to get there."

You have no idea

[tentimestwenty]

I bet you have no idea how many databases, private and public know your driver's license number and can cross-reference tons of other information. Just because you haven't had any privacy problems yet, it doesn't mean your information is actually private or not being used for market research.

Re:

[parasonic]

Provincial driver's licenses have been like that for quite a few years now in Canada. It has had no effect whatsoever on my freedom or privacy.

Owning a car is another matter altogether however, there is no end to the ways that the state and its corrupt law enforcement officers can harass you if you own a car.

Step 1: Mandate barcode and digital ID
Step 2: Mandate federal database of such info
Step 3: Mandate ISO7816 smartcard chip to be placed in every ID (can't be accessed wirelessly!)
Step 4: Require all fede

Canadian Government != U.S. Government

[Kadin2048]

Two points: First, the physical changes to the drivers' licenses were only the tip of the Real ID iceberg; the bigger part of it was a big database that would contain all the same information as what's stored on the cards, and probably a lot more. This is where the increase in security came from (at least, according to the system's proponents). Instead of just examining the ID, someone at a terminal with access to the Giant Federal Database 'o Fun could swipe your card and see your photo and other information pop up on screen. So in order to "forge" an ID card and use it to get into a Federal Building, you'd not only have to create the physical card, but you'd also have to hack into the database and update the information there.

Obviously, this database thing does not go over well with a lot of people. The Federal government has a piss-poor history of IT and information security. The whole place, at least on the civilan/unclassified side, leaks like a sieve and loses computers and data at a terrifying rate. The last thing most people want is to be put into a national 'one stop shop' for stalking, ID theft, unwanted "investigation," data mining, etc.

Second: Although Canada and the U.S. are alike in many ways, they're not the same. Attitudes, particularly in regards to government, are quite different. What people find acceptable in Canada -- and what may actually work in Canada -- are not necessarily the same things that will work in the U.S. If you, as a Canadian, say that you have a similar Giant Central Database, and your government uses it responsibly and the whole thing doesn't devolve into a Brazil [imdb.com]ian bureaucratic nightmare, I'll take your word for it. However, that gives me no faith at all that a similar system wouldn't be an absolute terror, were it implemented here. Maybe you have more responsible leaders. Maybe we're paranoid. Maybe the water in D.C. is contaiminated with Brain Slug larvae. Who knows; but I don't trust my government further than I can throw it, and nothing I've seen recently has encouraged me to re-evaluate that decision.