Okay, NOW Chertoff has gone over the line... resisting states no-fly by May.

[Manedwolf]

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.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-realid12jan12,1,4276244.story?coll=la-news-a_section

"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!

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

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.

[seeker_two]

Fine.....then any airline that requires it be prohibited from operating in any airport that receives state funding---like ALL of them.....

THAT will get FedGov's attention..... 

[CAnnoneer]

I cannot find the thread on Real ID, but IIRC, the anti argument went like:
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.

[Fly320s]

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?

[Manedwolf]

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?

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.

[CAnnoneer]

I am still waiting for a coherent, factual argument against Real ID.

[jefnvk]

What states are affected?

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?

[mtnbkr]

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

[roo_ster]

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.

[The Rabbi]

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.

[WeedWhacker]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[stevelyn]

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.

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.

"Live Free Or Die"

Sooooooooo Manedwolf...................How does that explain Obama's big win down there?

[Teknoid]

If this is under the guise of "national Security", perhaps it is covered under the Constitution.

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!

[The Rabbi]

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.
The enumerated powers argument is weak at best.

[Matt King]

Let me get this straight: Does this mean that if your state isn't in the process of complying with the "Real ID Act" you won't be able to fly?

[stephpd]

Looks to me as just another of many intrusions on states rights by the Fed. Federal government does it more and more as time goes by.Can't stop politicians from writing laws. That's what they do. Just the two party system run amuck. Each side just adds more intrusions on our lives. They both have agendas and take turns robbing us. Won't be happy until they can take all your money and can control all aspects of your life. 

[jefnvk]

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.

[Teknoid]

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.

[RevDisk]

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... 

[Manedwolf]

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?

[CAnnoneer]

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.