Posted on 05/10/2005 8:11:51 AM PDT by auzerais
States May Disobey Driver's License Rules
By SUZANNE GAMBOA Associated Press Writer May 10, 2005, 8:19 AM EDT
WASHINGTON -- States are threatening to challenge in court and even disobey new orders from Congress to start issuing more uniform driver's licenses and verify the citizenship or legal status of people getting them.
There is concern among some states that they'll get stuck with a large tab to pay for implementing the new rules and that getting a driver's license will become a bigger headache for law-abiding residents.
"Governors are looking at all their options. If more than half of the governors agree we're not going
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Amendment XI
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State,
Your suggestion could be a constitutional problem.
In addition, let's be clear about why we, here in the U.S., were susceptible to a terrorist attack such as the one on Sept 11, 2001.
The main reason is because of the unconstitutional laws enacted by the federal Congress that violate Amendment II.
The federal Congress, by "prohibiting", not "regulating" an enumerated right, private property owners could not ask for the assistance of their customers to help protect their property and fellow customers.
There is no way that Muslim terrorist's would even contemplate hijacking an aircraft if they knew there may be 10, 30, 80, 200 armed citizens on the aircraft, securing it from hijacking.
That is what "free people" do; that is what "private property" oweners do.
My fellow citizens have the blood of 3000 people on their hands, plus the reponsibility of billions of dollars of private property losses because they would not object to Congress' unconstitutional disarming of fellow citizens and have also failed their fellow citizens by not fulfilling their constitutional obligations, as desribed in the Constitution:
Article I, Section 8
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:
Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;
If anything, all those citizens who have support unconstitutional disarmament and the lack of Congressional action to "repel invasions" OWE financial compensation to all of their fellow dead citizens and private property owners.
And now you wish to "TRUST" and or "delegate" your federal government with a new, unenumerated power to take away a right "retained by the people," as promised in Amendment IX, to fight terrorism, after your federal government has already proven with abject failure, that it cannot do it?
EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 17. Reargued Oct. 21, 1941. Decided Nov. 24, 1941.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
"the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground."
It won't be nearly as costly as providing gimmes to illegal aliens. And as to it being a 'bigger headache' for law-abiding residents to get their driver's license, it is well worth it.
It's also a verification of identification - has been for some time.
Federally-Funded Highways? The federal government takes my money, gives it to the state, who builds a highway, and somehow it becomes a federally funded highway. Aren't they all TAXPAYER-FUNDED HIGHWAYS? How about a state not receiving funds does not pay funds either? Seeing as my state (Illinois) gets back .72 on the $1.00, I would take that deal.
Yes just as it's the right of the national government to force 55 mph speed limits, seat belts, and air bags as well right? It's good for us....
Thank you. Therefore there is no reason to have a standardized license edict from the national government as all states recognize each others' already
But do to fellow citizens support of Congressional stupidity "towards our national security," there were 3000 fellow citizens killed and billions of dollars of fellow citizens private property destroyed by the terrorist attack on 9/11.
You ask, "what stupidity are you referring to?"
The "stupidity" of disarming fellow citizens and private property owners unconstitutionally, gave the terrorists the strategic advantage of a successful hijacking of an aircraft.
The terrorist's would never had considered hijacking aircrafts if they had known that there may be 10, 50, 100 armed citizens on-board U.S. aircrafts, prepared to secure and defend those aircrafts from hijackers.
So, the bottom line is citizens are dead, citizen's property has been destroyed, and enumerated rights have been violated ("rights" that many generations of fellow citizens have died for to protect) because of Congressional "stupidity," supported by "stupid" citizens, not by the "niggardly attitude towards our national security" by taxpayers.
One of the provisions should be a problem for every law abiding citizen---if you get a ticket out of state right now for speeding--not dui not reckless driving, just a speeding ticket, and you pay the fine, the citiation may show up on your reccord (but not always), but there is likely NO points assesed. This law will require states to change that. Meaning if i'm on a business trip in Georgia or Louisiana, and I get pulled over for speeding, I won't just have to worry about "will I get a speeding ticket to have to pay?" but also, "oh crap there goes my insurance rates" because it would show up with points on my KY drivers license, something that doesn't happen right now (basically, as long as you can afford the fine, one has a license to speed as long as you're out of state--and I would rather it STAY that way, not penalize further.
Lock the Damn door.
Extreme but there are people out there like this.
Which begs the question, why is it called an Interstate Highway in Hawaii or Alaska?? Do they have ocean-going ferries to connect to I-10 or I-90??
Good.
Congress has no business mandating this.
Congress does have the Constitutional, enumerate power to "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization," but that power is for immigrants who wish to become citizens, not for citizens born in the U.S.
There is no Congressional constitutional, enumerated "power" to control citizenship for a "natural" born citizen.
And yes Congress has a Constitutional, enumerated power to "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," but Congress cannot use that power and violate rights "retained by the people," as stated in Amendment IX and "privileges and immunities," as stated in Amendment XIV.
EDWARDS v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA. No. 17. Reargued Oct. 21, 1941. Decided Nov. 24, 1941.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring.
"...right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground.
It might thus withhold from large segments of our people that mobility which is basic to any guarantee of freedom of opportunity.
The result would be a substantial dilution of the rights of national citizenship, a serious impairment of the principles of equality. Since the state statute here challenged involves such consequences, it runs afoul of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
You really want a de facto National ID card?
The premier case on this issue is New York Vs. United States, 505 US 144, decided by the Supreme Court in 1992. The opinion was in part decided and delivered by O'Connor, and if folks around here knew a bit more about the issues, she would not be subjected to such hatred, she is a strong states rights and gun rights supporter.
"The answer follows from an understanding of the fundamental purpose served by our Government's federal structure. The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op., at 2) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S., at ___ (1991) (slip op., at 4). See The Federalist No. 51, p. 323.
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon Branch approves the encroachment. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 118-137 (1976), for instance, the Court held that the Congress had infringed the President's appointment power, despite the fact that the President himself had manifested his consent to the statute that caused the infringement by signing it into law. See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S., at 842, n. 12. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 944-959 (1983), we held that the legislative veto violated the constitutional requirement that legislation be presented to the President, despite Presidents' approval of hundreds of statutes containing a legislative veto provision. See id., at944-945. The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, the facts of this case raise the possibility that powerful incentives might lead both federal and state officials to view departures from the federal structure to be in their personal interests. Most citizens recognize the need for radioactive waste disposal sites, but few want sites near their homes. As a result, while it would be well within the authority of either federal or state officials to choose where the disposal sites will be, it is likely to be in the political interest of each individual official to avoid being held accountable to the voters for the choice of location. If a federal official is faced with the alternatives of choosing a location or directing the States to do it, the official may well prefer the latter, as a means of shifting responsibility for the eventual decision. If a state official is faced with the same set of alternatives--choosing a location or having Congress direct the choice of a location--the state official may also prefer the latter, as it may permit the avoidance of personal responsibility. The interests of public officials thus may not coincide with the Constitution's intergovernmental allocation of authority. Where state officials purport to submit to the direction of Congress in this manner, federalism is hardly being advanced."
State officials do not appear on any Federal Government manpower list. The federal government CANNOT compel state officials to act in a particular manner.
Precisely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.