Post by: Manedwolf on January 12, 2008, 06:10:18 AM
Quote
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration hit the brakes Friday on a controversial law requiring Americans to carry tamper-proof driver's licenses, delaying its final implementation by five years, until 2017.
A number of states have balked at the law, objecting to it largely over cost and privacy concerns. But under the administration's new edict, states that continue to fight compliance with the law face a penalty: Their residents will be forbidden from using driver's licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings as of May 11 of this year.
A number of states have balked at the law, objecting to it largely over cost and privacy concerns. But under the administration's new edict, states that continue to fight compliance with the law face a penalty: Their residents will be forbidden from using driver's licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings as of May 11 of this year.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-realid12jan12,1,4276244.story?coll=la-news-a_section
Quote
"Come May 2008, [their] citizens . . . will feel the consequences" of the states' resistance, Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said Friday. To board a plane or enter a federal building, those residents will have to use a passport or other form of accepted identification, he said.
WHAT?!
JBT quashing of state's rights by strongarm punishment. Your state resists, you can no longer move around the country by air travel. The man is a traitor to the Constitution as of this moment...at least to me. He needs to go NOW.
"Feel the consequences?"
Oh, hell yeah, someone is going to "feel the consequences". And it's not going to be us!
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 06:16:23 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 12, 2008, 06:23:22 AM
It is a federal law. There are legal channels to fight and overturn it. In the meantime, the states should obey it. The logic is the same as "sanctuary" cities. People should not just say "fedlaw does not apply to me" and expect no consequences. Let's get real.
No. The states should NOT obey this idiocy. Once you obey it, you think you can get out of it? Once you sign, that's it, they'll close the book and laugh as it's tied up in the courts for years, decades, but in full effect in the meantime.
And mine is not going along. In fact, we passed a law to NOT obey it.
Quote
NH HB 685 - I. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any drivers license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.
State's Rights have to make a stand somewhere. To me, this is it. We'd probably do the same if Obama got into office and got the Dems to ram through his desired federal law prohibiting concealed carry.
As I said, I'm sorry, but you live in California, a state that's rolled over for FedGov all the time. I just can't explain to you why I live here, and not there, what's different about the attitude here...but it's summed up by the state motto. "Live Free or Die". If you don't already know what I mean, I can't explain it to you.
Post by: seeker_two on January 12, 2008, 06:37:03 AM
THAT will get FedGov's attention.....
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 06:46:41 AM
1) It will give too much new power to gov
2) It will generate privacy issues
3) gov is incompetent to handle it
I don't see either of the arguments. If you are paying taxes, are registered for conscription, driving a car, owning a home, having a phone number, having a bank account, using a credit card, etc., your information is already stored in multiple places under less than perfect security. You'd be amazed how much info about you is already available through the White Pages or even google. We live in an information age. I want to hear what is this new capability that the fedgov would acquire through Real ID, which it does not have now.
As far as privacy and incompetence go, the credit card companies seem to have been dealing mostly successfully with that issue. The gov can follow example or just rent their services.
IMO, the overall effect of Real ID would be positive, not negative, because it will solve a bunch of other issues that we have, such as national security, work verification, immigration, identity theft problems.
Post by: Fly320s on January 12, 2008, 07:55:36 AM
And since when am I required to show ID to enter a federal building? What kind of crap is that?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 12, 2008, 07:57:54 AM
Chertoff expects the TSA to enforce this? Ha! What's that boy smoking?
And since when am I required to show ID to enter a federal building? What kind of crap is that?
And since when am I required to show ID to enter a federal building? What kind of crap is that?
It'll be commercial airliners, federal buildings, AND national parks, at last check.
Funny. I thought federal buildings were "ours".
Also, I'd been calling my state reps this morning. They already knew, and most of them were able to come on the phone and talk to me directly about it, not just a staffer. To say that they're shocked and rather outraged as well would be very much an understatement. I'd expect to see a bunch of them appear on Capitol Hill to remark on that threat that we'll "feel the consequences" of state resistance.
When the state law banning compliance with RealID was voted into law, one of the reps stood up on the House floor, a room they've met in since 1816, with the Federal Style decor pretty much unchanged. They made a speech that quoted Patrick Henry, receiving a standing ovation from the entire House.
And now some DHS dork with a suit apparently too tight wants to punish us for that. Wow.
Built in 1816. Apparently, it helps us remember the Constitution.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 02:47:07 PM
Post by: jefnvk on January 12, 2008, 04:20:20 PM
I thought a while back, NY licenses wern't in compliance. Imagine the uproar if all the sudden, a good chunk of NYC couldn't fly.
And, is this gonna cause another passport crunch, when millions of people realize they can't even fly within the country without one?
Post by: mtnbkr on January 12, 2008, 04:39:50 PM
And since when am I required to show ID to enter a federal building? What kind of crap is that?
It depends on the "federal building". There are several in the DC area I have to show ID to gain entry.
Chris
Post by: roo_ster on January 12, 2008, 05:53:54 PM
I am still waiting for a coherent, factual argument against Real ID.
The COTUS does not give such power to the federales. I've read it and can provide a plain text version to those who doubt my reading comprehension.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 12, 2008, 05:58:44 PM
I am still waiting for a coherent, factual argument against Real ID.
The COTUS does not give such power to the federales. I've read it and can provide a plain text version to those who doubt my reading comprehension.
And your opinion should be considered authoritative because?
Please list your credentials, articles published on the subject, papers presented or other legal posiitons you have held so we can know that your opinion on the subject is worth more than that of lawyers working for the gov't.
Post by: WeedWhacker on January 12, 2008, 06:18:19 PM
It's known as "enumerated powers": the federal government has no power except that which has been explicitly granted it via the Constitution. The "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have been stretched past the point of ridiculousness, when a lady in CA breeds, grows, and consumes a substance all in-state and is busted by the feds under the "interstate commerce" clause, and a man builds and keeps a Browning 1919 machine gun within one state, and is thrown in prison for SIX YEARS because he lacks a $200 tax stamp the government will not give him, all under the supposed authority of that same "interstate commerce" clause.
So, since the federal government is given no explicit power to order the many states to collaborate on an internal passport which will be required for air, train, and bus travel, it is illegal and unconstitutional.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 12, 2008, 07:21:38 PM
The COTUS does not give such power to the federales. I've read it and can provide a plain text version to those who doubt my reading comprehension.
That's a good argument. But, I am no specialist in constitutional law.
What I see is that an argument can be made that Real ID is part of national security as well as law-enforcement at the federal level. Since both of those seem accepted prerogatives of the fedgov, then Real ID makes sense along those lines.
Finally, if indeed the Real ID law is unconstitutional, the states should file lawsuits with SCOTUS.
Post by: roo_ster on January 12, 2008, 09:04:32 PM
I am still waiting for a coherent, factual argument against Real ID.
The COTUS does not give such power to the federales. I've read it and can provide a plain text version to those who doubt my reading comprehension.
And your opinion should be considered authoritative because?
Please list your credentials, articles published on the subject, papers presented or other legal posiitons you have held so we can know that your opinion on the subject is worth more than that of lawyers working for the gov't.
CAnnoneer sought, "I am still waiting for a coherent, factual argument against Real ID." I gave him one. To some folks, referring back to the original documents has value. To others, not so much.
Post by: stevelyn on January 13, 2008, 06:10:07 AM
It is a federal law. There are legal channels to fight and overturn it. In the meantime, the states should obey it. The logic is the same as "sanctuary" cities. People should not just say "fedlaw does not apply to me" and expect no consequences. Let's get real.
No. The states should NOT obey this idiocy. Once you obey it, you think you can get out of it? Once you sign, that's it, they'll close the book and laugh as it's tied up in the courts for years, decades, but in full effect in the meantime.
And mine is not going along. In fact, we passed a law to NOT obey it.
Quote
NH HB 685 - I. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in any drivers license program pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005 or in any national identification card system that may follow therefrom.
State's Rights have to make a stand somewhere. To me, this is it. We'd probably do the same if Obama got into office and got the Dems to ram through his desired federal law prohibiting concealed carry.
As I said, I'm sorry, but you live in California, a state that's rolled over for FedGov all the time. I just can't explain to you why I live here, and not there, what's different about the attitude here...but it's summed up by the state motto. "Live Free or Die". If you don't already know what I mean, I can't explain it to you.
And a legislator in my state has pre-filed a bill to tell the fedpukes to pound sand on the REAL ID Act as it an unfunded mandate. Not the ideal reason, but I'll support it. We've already told them to go to Hell and forbid state and municiple agencies from participating in unPATRIOT Act investigations.
Quote
"Live Free Or Die"
Sooooooooo Manedwolf...................How does that explain Obama's big win down there?
Post by: Teknoid on January 13, 2008, 06:22:43 AM
Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If the RealID had been in effect on 9/11, would the hijackers have been able to board the planes? I think people are reading more into this legislation than exists. All of the information contained in this ID is already available, unless you're a monk or a hermit. IMHO a biometric national ID would solve a lot more problems than it causes. Security, voter fraud, illegal immigration, etc. As for needing it to fly, every time I have boarded a plane, I've had to show identification. So, I need a new driver's license? Big deal. Do you have a better idea to accomplish the same goals?
You want a hassle boarding a plane? Try Israel. The last time I left Tel Aviv, I was questioned
for 30 minutes. The luggage was searched, too. Nothing but soiled clothes. I was a middle aged white guy with a US passport and had a letter of introduction from the company I was there to provide training for (Subsidiary of a U.S. corp). How many terrorists fit that profile? Especially with a southern accent!
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 08:14:32 AM
Rabbi,
It's known as "enumerated powers": the federal government has no power except that which has been explicitly granted it via the Constitution. The "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have been stretched past the point of ridiculousness, when a lady in CA breeds, grows, and consumes a substance all in-state and is busted by the feds under the "interstate commerce" clause, and a man builds and keeps a Browning 1919 machine gun within one state, and is thrown in prison for SIX YEARS because he lacks a $200 tax stamp the government will not give him, all under the supposed authority of that same "interstate commerce" clause.
So, since the federal government is given no explicit power to order the many states to collaborate on an internal passport which will be required for air, train, and bus travel, it is illegal and unconstitutional.
The Feds have no power to insist on a 21 drinking age throughout the country. But that's what it is.It's known as "enumerated powers": the federal government has no power except that which has been explicitly granted it via the Constitution. The "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have been stretched past the point of ridiculousness, when a lady in CA breeds, grows, and consumes a substance all in-state and is busted by the feds under the "interstate commerce" clause, and a man builds and keeps a Browning 1919 machine gun within one state, and is thrown in prison for SIX YEARS because he lacks a $200 tax stamp the government will not give him, all under the supposed authority of that same "interstate commerce" clause.
So, since the federal government is given no explicit power to order the many states to collaborate on an internal passport which will be required for air, train, and bus travel, it is illegal and unconstitutional.
The enumerated powers argument is weak at best.
Post by: Matt King on January 13, 2008, 08:23:11 AM
Post by: stephpd on January 13, 2008, 09:15:50 AM
Post by: jefnvk on January 13, 2008, 01:58:45 PM
Quote
If the RealID had been in effect on 9/11, would the hijackers have been able to board the planes?
What did they board the planes with? It was my understanding that they were foreign citizens traveling under foreign passports. In that case, yes, they would have.
Post by: Teknoid on January 13, 2008, 03:43:37 PM
Quote
If the RealID had been in effect on 9/11, would the hijackers have been able to board the planes?
What did they board the planes with? It was my understanding that they were foreign citizens traveling under foreign passports. In that case, yes, they would have.
___________________________________________________________________
Not 'zactly... They had obtained drivers licenses. Most wouldn't have had valid passports, since they were in the country illegally (overstayed visas, etc.)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733525/
The 9/11 Commission says Abdullah had extremist sympathies, helped the two hijackers get drivers licenses
______________________________________________________________________
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a041201license#a041201license
April 12-September 7, 2001: Hijackers Collect Multiple Drivers License Copies
The most famous image of Mohamed Atta came from his Florida drivers license. [Source: 9/11 Commission] At least six hijackers get more than one Florida drivers license. They get the second license simply by filling out change of address forms:
* Waleed Alshehrifirst license May 4, duplicate May 5;
* Marwan Alshehhifirst license, April 12, duplicate in June;
* Ziad Jarrahfirst license May 2, duplicate July 10;
* Ahmed Alhaznawifirst license July 10, duplicate September 7;
* Hamza Alghamdifirst license June 27, two duplicates, the second in August
RealID would prevent this, assuming it's done right. The tech is easy, and it's hard to get around the security.
Post by: RevDisk on January 13, 2008, 06:29:02 PM
RealID would prevent this, assuming it's done right. The tech is easy, and it's hard to get around the security.
No, it couldn't have prevented 9/11. A triffle more difficult, but definitely not by itself. You'd be better off arguing that removing liberties and imposing more difficulties slightly decreases the odds of success, and that is worth it all. That'd be an opinion based argument, which can't really be refuted.
The technology is flawed. And it's easy to get around the security. On the plus side, that keeps me employed so...
Post by: Manedwolf on January 13, 2008, 10:18:22 PM
RealID would prevent this, assuming it's done right. The tech is easy, and it's hard to get around the security.
No, it couldn't have prevented 9/11. A triffle more difficult, but definitely not by itself. You'd be better off arguing that removing liberties and imposing more difficulties slightly decreases the odds of success, and that is worth it all. That'd be an opinion based argument, which can't really be refuted.
The technology is flawed. And it's easy to get around the security. On the plus side, that keeps me employed so...
The analogy I would use is...GUN LAWS. No matter how many safety checks and laws they pass, no matter how much paperwork, Mistah Gangstah still has no problem getting his stolen, serials-filed gat from the neighborhood dealer/fence.
In fact, the only people harassed by big government gun laws are the harmless and law-abiding. Same with ID. Those who have malicious intent or just want to cheat can do an end run around this system without even slowing down. That, and centralizing ID as such just makes it even easier for ID thieves. One-stop hacking in an outdated, lowest-bidder system.
And, in the end, all it will do is punish innocent people when their ID gets screwed up and it takes months, if ever, to get it fixed. And it's completely unacceptable for the federal government to punish states, threatening with such frighteningly authoritarian language. That sounded something like what a British colonial general would say in the mid 18th century.
"You will comply, or your citizens' movement will be limited." ...WTF?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 14, 2008, 08:27:43 AM
Those who have malicious intent or just want to cheat can do an end run around this system without even slowing down. That, and centralizing ID as such just makes it even easier for ID thieves. One-stop hacking in an outdated, lowest-bidder system.
So why do we bother with law enforcement of any kind then? By your logic, criminals will always get the upper hand.
Such a standpoint is simply naive. Yeah, there will always be somebody to slip through, but many more will be stopped. Because not all criminals are the James Bond of the criminal world. Same reason why you brush your teeth and use Scope or Listerine - you can't kill all bacteria, but you can kill enough to ensure good dental health.
As far as the inefficiencies or security breaches go, work to make gov more efficient. Demand it from the politicians. Join up and try to reform the system from within.
Post by: Paddy on January 14, 2008, 09:20:07 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on January 14, 2008, 11:37:23 AM
Those who have malicious intent or just want to cheat can do an end run around this system without even slowing down. That, and centralizing ID as such just makes it even easier for ID thieves. One-stop hacking in an outdated, lowest-bidder system.
So why do we bother with law enforcement of any kind then? By your logic, criminals will always get the upper hand.
Such a standpoint is simply naive. Yeah, there will always be somebody to slip through, but many more will be stopped. Because not all criminals are the James Bond of the criminal world. Same reason why you brush your teeth and use Scope or Listerine - you can't kill all bacteria, but you can kill enough to ensure good dental health.
As far as the inefficiencies or security breaches go, work to make gov more efficient. Demand it from the politicians. Join up and try to reform the system from within.
I guess you don't realize that making the central government smaller and pushing more powers to the state and local level is probably the best way to make govt more efficient and responsive.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 14, 2008, 12:39:52 PM
I am not going to start a flame war on who is more naive. All I am going to say is that this gov is still amenable to activism on the part of Joe Schmoe, a fresh example being the continual failure of amnesty bills last year. Amnesty did not happen because enough people phoned or faxed enough politicians to scare them. If they had not, the politicians would have gone ahead under the pressure from their elitist leaderships. And that is all there is to it - a balance of terror between fear from above and fear from below. If the pressure from below subsides, the politician will go down pressing on the common folk.
So, all the doom-and-gloom crowd that says everything is lost are just being wrong. Moreover, by failure to participate in the political process and to use all available legal tools at their disposal, they certainly leave the gov in the hands of the other side - incompetent bureaucrats and two-bit statists. Then at best what they are doing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This attitude seems to be far too common on a number of issues and does not help matters at all.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 14, 2008, 01:00:28 PM
My only beef with Real ID is that I think the Feds can ID people just fine now. If you don't want illegals getting driver's licenses, that sort of federal law could be very short and to the point and cost states very little. Even a yes/no citizen identifier would probably be easy. I guess I am naturally suspicious of any new federal laws/mandates. I think that is a healthy attitude.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 05:30:46 AM
Post by: LAK on January 16, 2008, 03:00:23 AM
Chertoff was just another strongarm change agent from the getgo. Don't forget who put him there.
So what's next - a "no drive list"?
------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Tallpine on January 18, 2008, 10:59:20 AM
Quote
I want to hear what is this new capability that the fedgov would acquire through Real ID, which it does not have now.
...
IMO, the overall effect of Real ID would be positive, not negative, because it will solve a bunch of other issues that we have, such as national security, work verification, immigration, identity theft problems.
...
IMO, the overall effect of Real ID would be positive, not negative, because it will solve a bunch of other issues that we have, such as national security, work verification, immigration, identity theft problems.
You contradicted yourself
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2008, 11:07:00 AM
You contradicted yourself
Not really. If you drive a beatup lemon, replacing it with a good car does not give you any new fundamental capability. Both get you from point A to point B. The latter however can do it better, generally cheaper, and far less painfully.
Even without a Real ID, the gov can already find out who a particular person is if it applies itself hard enough. Real ID would just make it easier.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 11:08:34 AM
You contradicted yourself
Not really. If you drive a beatup lemon, replacing it with a good car does not give you any new fundamental capability. Both get you from point A to point B. The latter however can do it better, generally cheaper, and far less painfully.
Even without a Real ID, the gov can already find out who a particular person is if it applies itself hard enough. Real ID would just make it easier.
Ah yes, that's Talking Point 2. "They already have access to all this information, so what's the big deal?"
Talking Point 1 is "If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be bothered by this."
And Chertoff just told people who object to this and all-observing internet scrutiny to "grow up". I've never really wanted to just haul off and punch a government official in the face till now. He deserves a good sock to the jaw for that, and then to have a copy of the Bill of Rights stapled to his nicely ironed lapel.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 18, 2008, 02:15:18 PM
Come on, Herr Bush supports the idea. Its to make us safer. We should support it.
I thought we were winning the war of terror, so why would we need this kind of stuff? I seem to remember Herr Bush saying that we are fighting them over there so we do not have to fight them over here. So they are not going to come here because we are fighting them over there, right? Hence there exists no need for the government to enact RealID.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2008, 02:52:58 PM
My guess would be that deep inside you you have escapist fantasies about duking it out with Big Bad Uncle Sam, with the small arsenal you have in the closet. So, you feel that if Real ID were to be instituted, it would make it harder for you to dodge the fedstapo. Well, I am sorry but the reality is that even now you cannot dodge it for any appreciable amount of time, if you've got the feds properly motivated to get you. So, if indeed that is your secret motivation, then perhapst Chertoff's advice is not that far-fetched.
By the way, do you know that "chert" in Russian means "devil"? "Chertoff" can roughly be translated as "of the devil". Just an amusing tidbit.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2008, 03:03:05 PM
Ah yes, that's Talking Point 2. "They already have access to all this information, so what's the big deal?"
Yes, indeed. And your rational answer is...?
Quote
Talking Point 1 is "If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be bothered by this."
What would be a legitimate reason for you to want to hide your identity?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 18, 2008, 04:15:14 PM
Ah yes, that's Talking Point 2. "They already have access to all this information, so what's the big deal?"
Yes, indeed. And your rational answer is...?
Quote
Talking Point 1 is "If you don't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be bothered by this."
What would be a legitimate reason for you to want to hide your identity?
I'm not even going to bother to try anymore.
You live in California, a fallen land, one under the boot heel and happy about it.
Enjoy yourself.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 18, 2008, 05:08:31 PM
I'm not even going to bother to try anymore. You live in California, a fallen land, one under the boot heel and happy about it.
There we go again for the umpteenth time - what is wrong with my arguments is... (drumb beats)... that I live in California.
Post by: Tallpine on January 19, 2008, 07:27:12 AM
Quote
I think some of you guys should take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and ask yourselves candidly why it is really that you oppose the ID.
I just oppose it because I oppose everything the fed.gov does
Seriously though - they are threatening to not allow anyone to cross state lines without their new "papers" and you have to ask why we oppose it
Do they let you do that...? Drive from state to state, no papers?
No papers.
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2008, 03:16:29 AM
Quote
What would be a legitimate reason for you to want to hide your identity?
Someones has not read the small print. RealID will not just be your "identity" - it will be your whole life - financial, medical etc, etc, etc.
Post by: seeker_two on January 20, 2008, 03:17:59 AM
By the way, do you know that "chert" in Russian means "devil"? "Chertoff" can roughly be translated as "of the devil". Just an amusing tidbit.
....and that alone should be enough of a hint about the guy......
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 20, 2008, 03:48:30 AM
My drivers license went from expensive, $60 to real expensive, $160 and my paying that money is not going to stop Osama from stealing a truck full of fuel or toxic chemicals and driving it through a school.