Driver's License Rules in Intel Law Spark Outrage

CNSNews ^ | Dec 20, 2004 | Jeff Johnson

[dalereed]

When they put chips in the license that can be read from a distance it will be time to wrap your license in lead!

[muawiyah]

The bill was directed at the narrower 9/11 Commission interest in INTELLIGENCE.

Again, "W", who's supposed to be dumb as a board, bested the Dems by taking the entirity of the 9/11 Commission's BS and reducing it to this one, very small issue!

Now, tell me how putting restrictions on state drivers license procedures in a bill reforming the Intelligence Apparatus helps keep out illegal aliens and terrorists?

This sounds like "Boland Amendment" territory where you ended up with a bunch of crazy Democrats running around screaming that a violation of the Boland amendment was a violation of the Constitution and constituted treason.

[JustAnotherOkie]

It's all about identification, not driving, so if the state's standards for licensing are not good, then their driver's licenses should not be accepted as a form of identification by the Feds in airport's and such.

[OKIEDOC]

Somehow our politicians are becoming more like those found in Europe. It's time to put a clamp on immigration and this phony 1960's attitude that we should just give peace a chance.

I don't mind there being standards, asking each state to confirm identification using a document such as a birth certificate. I do mind a national ID card. I also mind that this makes it easier to place the Mark of the Beast on people.

[Bikers4Bush]

"Now, tell me how putting restrictions on state drivers license procedures in a bill reforming the Intelligence Apparatus helps keep out illegal aliens and terrorists?"

It's not supposed to keep them out, it's supposed to keep them from posing as legal citizens.

[djf]

This is the conundrum the states are in. If they for some reason deny an illegal immigrant/terrorist a driver's license, the next thing you know, the state is getting it's butt handed to them in a Federal court.

No matter how justified they are.

[muawiyah]

I am not disagreeing with the ambition, just the vehicle. It would make as much sense setting standards for watermelons in this particular piece of legislation.

I assure you no one in the affected agency would ever be assigned the job of enforcing the law, nor would anyone there wish to do that.

[muawiyah]

Can you cite a case where a federal court has held a state liable in refusing to grant a terrorist a driver's license?

BTW, this piece of legislation is not the place to beat up on judges either. Congress can, at any time, simply change the jurisdiction of any federal court, even if the result is to leave a bunch of nutcase judges unemployed.

This issue is better addressed in Congress in a vehicle designed to address just that issue.

According to Newt Gingrich, Thomas Jefferson once fired half the federal judiciary.

[gubamyster]

ping

[lonewacko_dot_com]

It looks the reporter got out his Loser Rolodex. The ACLU, the communications director of the Libertarian Party (who's also the janitor at their "headquarters"), etc. etc.

[rmlew]

Look up the background for the case Marbury v. Madison

[goldstategop]

Liberals Got Snookered Into Supporting Patriot Act II. Film at 11.

[lainde]

bttt