Do a websearch on the text from my tagline.
*Romanian term limits* were pretty harsh for President and Mrs. Ceausescu. Deservedly so....
Posted on 02/04/2007 11:02:15 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 — Opposition among state officials is turning into an open revolt against a federal law calling for the creation of standardized driver’s licenses nationwide that are meant to be less vulnerable to fraud.
Maine legislators started off the rebellion late last month by passing a nonbinding resolution that rejected the law, called the Real ID Act, which Congress passed in 2005. They said that it would cost the state $185 million to put into place and that instead of making Maine’s residents more secure, it would leave them more vulnerable to identity theft.
Since then, legislatures in five states — Georgia, Montana, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming — have voted in committee or on the floor of one chamber to move similar legislation ahead. The bill adopted in a 99-to-1 vote by the Montana House of Representatives would go furthest, ordering state officials there to ignore the federal law.
Unless the federal law is revised, any state that defies it will risk causing major inconvenience for its residents, as noncompliant licenses will not be accepted as a proof of identification at airports, federal buildings or when applying for federal benefits.
What state officials are hoping is that Congress will repeal or modify the law, or at least provide some of the billions of dollars the states claim it will cost to establish the new licensing system nationwide.
The campaign features an odd mix of liberal Democrats, offended by a measure in the law that would effectively block illegal immigrants from getting federally compliant driver’s licenses, and conservative Republicans, who see the law as an affront to civil liberties and to states’ rights.
“This is a frontal assault on our freedoms,” said State Representative Jim Guest of Missouri, a Republican who said he was working with more than...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Even under a Republican administration, law enforcement is increasingly aimed at harassing the law abiding, rather than cracking down on illegals, drug smugglers, and other criminals. Whether we get "Rudy McRomney" or Hillary Clinton/Hussein Obama as President in 2009, the same pattern will continue. God help us.
Because the IDs do little for security, and much for oppression.
"Papers, please" was long a catch-phrase indicating the worst of government oppression (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, etc.); you want that history repeating here? (no, it won't be different this time.)
Because consolidating (be it explicitly or practically) all IDs into one creates a huge 4th Amendment violation.
On demand and without a search warrant, a random bureaucrat can pull up darn near any info about you, most unrelated to the issue at hand (should you be compelled to reveal your federal retirement plan to drive? reveal your CCW info to vote?).
Because a single point of ID becomes a single point of theft.
Hack up one Real ID card and I'm you.
Because good ID does not remove intent.
The 9/11 hijackers had lots of IDs, all perfectly legit, hiding nothing; all those IDs did was confirm who crashed the planes, doing nothing to prevent the crash.
Because ID is only as good as the data, and data is fallible.
Jokes aside, that Ted Kennedy and Cat Stevens ended up on a "no-fly list" shows the absurdity.
Because if the ID would actually do any good, the would-be perp will simply do something else.
If the lock is secure, break the window.
If the Maginot Line is impassable, go around it.
If boarding the target plane is disallowed, stand at the end of the runway.
If the right paperwork is unavailable, green paperwork usually finds a way.
A standardized national ID does little good for the people, but does great harm to the people.
Ok. Going along with you calling it a "national ID", how do we deal with the problem that, for example, Florida has pretty stringent requirements to prove who you say you are to get a drivers license, as opposed to NC or TN or NY, that give them out to every Tom, Dick and Juan to come along?
Do we just give up, sing Kumbaya and pray that the illegal DUIs from these states just don't happen to meet us head-on in I95 one day?
Problem solved.
The whole point of letting 30 million illegal invaders obtain Social Security benefits is the hope by some- including most in congress- that when the Social Security pyramid scheme finally collapses, most Americans will turn their wrath on the Mexicans instead of congress and the government... with a little helpful finger-pointing and prodding byn the media.
Our *public servents* and their think tanks know full well what happened to Ceausescu in Romania on Christrmas Day of 1989, and the collapse of the Berisha presidency of Albania in March 1997 amid armed civil rebellion when that country's pyramid *retirement lottery* collaposed... following which opposition leader Azem Hajdari was killed.
Interesting thought. I'd always figured they just wanted to collect the taxes knowing they'd most likely never have to pay them out thus punting down the road the inevitable problem of insolvency.
What most folks don't know is that the program is already broke. What they take in this quarter goes right out next quarter. There is no 'trust fund'. There never was.
There never will be.
Can't say as I'd be too broken up seeing some Romanian Term Limits applied sometime in the future. God knows the bastards have earned it.
L
Even better: Montana HB 287 passed 100-0, and has been referred to the MT Senate, where' it's survived first reading and has been referred to the judiciary committee. MT HB 287 Text *here*.
Even better: Montana HB 287 passed 100-0, and has been referred to the MT Senate, where' it's survived first reading and has been referred to the judiciary committee. MT HB 287 Text *here*.
Do a websearch on the text from my tagline.
*Romanian term limits* were pretty harsh for President and Mrs. Ceausescu. Deservedly so....
Take care my friend.
L
It is. The feds define exactly what information will be on it, and how it is accessed. That it is thinly veiled as a "driver's license" doesn't change what it really is - a national ID.
how do we deal with the problem that, for example, Florida has pretty stringent requirements to prove who you say you are to get a drivers license, as opposed to NC or TN or NY, that give them out to every Tom, Dick and Juan to come along?
The Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause satisfies me. Each state implements it as they see fit, and the others respect that.
BTW: if NY's DL process is not stringent, Florida's must be downright impossible. ID for a NY license is just as strict as getting a passport.
What makes you think the "problem" is so severe? and why is getting the right name on a small card going to solve the problem?
Do we just give up, sing Kumbaya and pray that the illegal DUIs from these states just don't happen to meet us head-on in I95 one day?
Care to cite some statistics supporting the notion that NC & TN & NY drivers DUI significantly more than FL drivers? and particularly do so on I95? ...or are you just delivering an ad-hominem?
Another unfunded mandate which needs work ... If you want a national ID, require all citizens to get a valid passport. At least the infrastructure is in place to process this.
I've had more than a few ID cards from the Army, active and reserve components, but I fear the potential for criminal abuse of a national database. Regardless, I'm not happy with illegal votes on Election Day or empowering terrorists with BS ID."
I agree.
But, IMO, the states and the Feds have to put more effort into going after criminals instead of punishing persons who have done nothing wrong.
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.