Sneaky Addition to Iraq War/Tsunami Aid Bill (From GOA)

[Andonius_99]

Thursday, March 3, 2005

It's now time to shift our focus to the U.S. Senate.

You may remember that the House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 418, the National ID card bill. But the bill has been met with a lukewarm reception in the Senate. So House sponsors are now trying to increase the bill's chances by sneaking it onto a politically popular piece of legislation -- the Iraq War/Tsunami relief bill.

H.R. 418 was largely supported in the House because it purports to deal with illegal immigration and terrorism.

Too bad that H.R. 418 does not do what it is supposed to do:

* Illegals will still be able to get a driver's license without proof of citizenship in those states that permit it (about 11).

* Illegals will still be able to pour across our southern border because funding for only three miles of the 1,000 mile border was provided in H.R. 418.

* And terrorists will be able to fly with a driver's license or a passport -- and pilots are still largely unarmed thanks to the refusal of the federal government to comply with two laws enacted by Congress.

H.R. 418 is Bad for Constitutional Government

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, what part of "States" don't they understand? Or, to put it another way, where is it that the Constitution mentions federal control over drivers' licenses?

Yet, a faction of usually pro-freedom representatives in the House seem determined to put the federal government in charge of who may or may not get a driver's license -- perhaps the last major prerogative retained by the states.

This is the same group that is embracing a $2.57 trillion federal budget -- almost three times the level of federal spending only 25 years ago. They have simply lost their way.

Under section 202(b) of H.R. 418 -- slated to be added to the "supplemental appropriations bill" -- the federal government gives itself the authority to determine every feature on your driver's license. Some features are explicitly listed, but these enumerated features are "A MINIMUM." In addition to these, the government can require your fingerprints, your retina scan, your concealed carry status, or any other requirement it chooses -- by executive fiat.

Backdoor Gun Control

Under section 202(c), the government grants itself the power to determine what you need to do to get a driver's license -- and who may or may not get one. Some requirements are listed, but these enumerated requirements are "A MINIMUM."

The government can impose any requirements it chooses by executive fiat. If, under a Hillary Clinton administration, a militia group -- or GOA or NRA -- were determined to be a "terrorist organization," your driver's license would be gone. But that's not all: Under section 203, your personal information could be turned over to a non-secure database accessible to, among others, the corrupt and crime-ridden Mexican police.

And, under section 202(a)(2), the federal government would solely determine "whether a State is meeting the requirements" imposed by that very same federal government!

Spurious Arguments in Favor of H.R. 418

So what are conservative politicians saying about this monstrosity? They say the bill mentions nothing about retina scans. And that's true. Instead, it gives the federal government an unlimited grant of power to determine every feature on your driver's license -- and it demands that you trust the government not to abuse its powers.

Have these people been asleep for the last thirty years? Have they not heard of Ruby Ridge? Or Waco? Or Elian Gonzalez?

How Officials Abuse Records on Honest Citizens

Columnist Paul Craig Roberts has been critical of the unconstitutional growth of federal police power. He found out after having been "randomly" pulled aside for intensive screening at airports that he had been put on the No Fly List. Every time he flies he has to prove he is not a bomber by submitting to intensive screening. And this is what they do to an ex-Marine and ex-cop!

Roberts' case illustrates the kind of abuse that a national data base is already being used for.

Gun owners have long experienced the unconstitutional requirement of proving who they are when they buy a gun. The problem becomes more than theoretical when a buyer's name is the same as a prohibited person. The buyer usually -- even if it takes a few days -- is able to prove who they are. But the records, like the No Fly List, are not permanently corrected. The citizen-suspect must prove his innocence each time he buys a gun or flies.

More Spurious Arguments

In the 9/11 bill last year, Congress included some scary National ID card provisions. Those same Congressmen are arguing that H.R. 418 would limit the scope of those provisions. However, the simple fact is that a LIMITLESS grant of power does not limit anything.

The politicians argue that the problem of illegal immigration is so profound that it overrides the provisions of the Constitution. We agree that the problem is severe. But H.R. 418 would not bar states from issuing drivers' licenses to illegal aliens -- particularly those who have applied for asylum or status adjustment. Instead, it penalizes American citizens, while coddling illegal aliens.

ACTION: Please write your two United States Senators and ask them to reject any effort to add National ID Cards to the Iraq/Tsunami Relief bill.

[Andonius_99]

PING!

[taxcontrol]

There is so much incorrect information here that is comes close to being a hit piece.

The TRUTH is that the federal government will NOT control your state's drivers license. Rather it establishes standards which a state may or may not adopt, but if the state fails to adopt, the Feds will no longer consider that state's drivers license a valid ID.

[Mark in the Old South]

Since when has that fat cow (the Federal Government) stopped when she got her nose in the door without the poop end following close behind?

[Joe Brower]

I . You decide.

[dangus]

>> So House sponsors are now trying to increase the bill's chances by sneaking it onto a politically popular piece of legislation -- the Iraq War/Tsunami relief bill. <<

Sneaky? SNEAKY? Good Lord man, they've been trumpeting it from the roof tops!!!

[dangus]

>> The TRUTH is that the federal government will NOT control your state's drivers license. Rather it establishes standards which a state may or may not adopt, but if the state fails to adopt, the Feds will no longer consider that state's drivers license a valid ID. <<

Yes, excellent point. AND YOU CAN STILL USE IT FOR STATE PURPOSES, such as driving. You only cannot use it for those purposes which fall squarely under the commerce clause: airline travel, interstate banking, etc.

[Gilbo_3]

Kinda like the fed wont cut highway dollars for failure by the state to write enough seat belt tickets ???

[Gilbo_3]

so when your state is coerced into following this mess, you will gladly give fingerprints, retinal scans, medical history, financial history, DNA sample,etc to WHATEVER is decided later, to the whole of N American governments, including Mexico & Canida, in return for your priveledge to move about the country in a car ??? NO THANK YOU...

[Gilbo_3]

Wouldnt an AIR TRAVEL LISCENSE be more appropriate ???

[dangus]

>> Wouldnt an AIR TRAVEL LISCENSE be more appropriate ??? <<

I would presume that, in the event the federal government does not accept a state's driver's license as federal identification, a separate federal identification will be forthcoming.

That's all that is happening with this issue: the federal government is putting the states on notice that it will no longer accept state identification for federal purposes if it determines that state identification is inadequate evidence of what the federal government needs to verify when it checks for identification.

There has been no need for a seperate air travel license because, up until this point, other forms of identification sufficed.

[The Old Hoosier]

This is an extremely dishonest piece of propaganda.

[dangus]

>> Kinda like the fed wont cut highway dollars for failure by the state to write enough seat belt tickets ??? <<

So basically, you're arguing that we should vote down a legitimate function of the federal government because there are already illegitimate functions of the federal government? If we did that, the only functions of the federal government would be the illegitimate ones.

[dangus]

>> so when your state is coerced into following this mess, you will gladly give fingerprints, retinal scans, medical history, financial history, DNA sample,etc to WHATEVER is decided later, to the whole of N American governments, including Mexico & Canida, in return for your priveledge to move about the country in a car ??? NO THANK YOU... <<

The federal government does not need legitimate legislation to exist to implement illegitimate legislation. In other words, if the government were to become so illiberal as to take the steps you are concerned about, they would do so whether or not these less illiberal measures exist. THerefore, the passage of these legitimate measures bear no effect on the possibility of more illiberal measures being passed.

[dangus]

... Oh, and 2 other points:

I do not believe that there is, nor could I imagine how it would be logistically possible for there to be, anything in the bill which would allow one state to find another state's less secure licenses illegitimate for driving purposes. An airport in Georgia may find Florida's driver's lisence insufficient to board an airline, but it will not be able to treat as unlicensed someone driving with a Florida license, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Secondly, if the Federal government were to pass legislation requiring states to include DNA samples in their lisences for their lisences to be used as valid federal lisences, the various states would still need to pass separate legislation to do so. Therefore, the federal government cannot exceed what the states are all willing to go along with. Right now, the legislation is gambling that he eleven states which extend driver's licenses to illegal aliens will reconsider those laws. The more onerous the federal regulations, the less certain that bet is.

[Andonius_99]

How so? Don't we already have a National ID, i.e. our social security card? We know that people are already forging SS cards and driver's licenses, so what's to prevent someone from getting a forged version of the new NatID?

Recently, here in CT, illegals were getting driver's licenses by paying off people at the DMV...what's there to prevent someone from paying off an official wherever these new ID's are to be issued?

Besides, our borders are like a seive right now, anyway. Maybe I'm a bit too tin-hatty right now, but I don't think a NatID is going to solve the terrorism problems that our country is presented with at this moment and, if it were, how can abuse (by both illegals and the gub'mint) of the new ID system be prevented?

[Gilbo_3]

Ok, lets slow down a bit and go back to the beginning.

The states WILL do whatever the fed requires, or lose funding that they have become dependent on.

The text of this BS bill leave an open-ended set of 'requirements', which the strongarming WILL force the states to accept or lose $$$.

the only 'legitimate' powers we are talking about is a cloudy interpretation of 'interstate commerce'. IOW flying from state A to state B. All of the legit on top of illegit ramblings dont matter, since the restrictions will be placed on my states liscence to drive IN my state.

It wont matter whether or not 'driving' from one state to another is unrestricted by the states, to the point that if I REFUSE to be subjected to these intrusions, that I would lose my 'PRIVELEDGE' of driving, and therefore my freedom to independently move about a 'free' country. Not to mention, the freedom to work in an area further than a horseback ride from home, where horse allowed on highways.

And for all this intrusion into my privacy, including being subjected to Foreign governments, it would only slightly inconvenience a well financed terrorist bent on attack, as they could acquire documentation as they always have done. And would more than likely create a massive set of lists and databases that governments all too eagerly sell to shady charachters that will increase my chances of identity theft that is harder to fight with all my personal info available, as well as systematic discrimination by insurance companies, employers, financers etc.

All this and we wont enforce our borders, or deport criminals here that are committing crimes every day ???

Also, the basis of this crap is airport security right? thats why I chimed in about an 'air travel' ID. personally, Ive never had the need to travel by air, but 'YOUR PAPERS PLEASE' is all this really is, and I have no desire to be checkpointed whether or not I fly, and whether or not you feel that I'm overreacting to MY privacy being invaded...

[Gilbo_3]

Oh and FWIW, driving w/o a liscense is punishable by incarceration. So who will be more likely to be locked up? Me, who has a job and family and would pay the fine to get out of jail, enriching thestate?

Or felipe, who might sit there and soak up corrections resources, and once freed will disappear along with his fines ???

[The Old Hoosier]

Unless the bill passes, some states will be legally issuing drivers' licenses to illegals, and we will have to let them on planes. If state's won't require minimum standards, then yes, their licenses should be disallowed for federal purposes.

[The Old Hoosier]

9/11 clarified for us that anyone who gets on a plane is suddenly a potential threat to everyone in the USA. It's sad but true. It does not affect just the airline, or any other limited group, but anyone within flying distance. This is clearly a federal issue.

If you don't like national ID standards, don't fly in airplanes.