Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rebellion Growing as States Challenge a Federal Law to Standardize Driver’s Licenses
NY Times ^ | February 5, 2007 | ERIC LIPTON

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: civilliberties; driverslicenses; nationaldatabase; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: Lurker
I don't care for it either but the flip side is when morons like Spitzer want to make it possible for people to get licenses without SS#s or proof of residency.

Is this one of those instances where we need a federal law to tell states that if citizens want their licenses to count as a form of valid ID then the standards have to be uniform?
21 posted on 02/05/2007 4:52:30 AM PST by misterrob (Jack Bauer/Chuck Norris 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We could go to the tagging method the Gov has in mind for animals. It's suppose to be foolproof. /semi-sarc
22 posted on 02/05/2007 4:55:50 AM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
This is not an issue of ID. It is an issue of State's rights. Do states or the federal government have the say over whether a state has licensing authority over its citizens?

It's a losing game. As far as ID's and travel papers are concerned our open border's have made it necessary that everyone be prepared to identify and prove himself to government on demand.

The good old days when it was none of government's business who you were, where you are going or what you are doing is gone forever.
23 posted on 02/05/2007 5:12:56 AM PST by R.W.Ratikal (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I was against the Real ID from the beginning especially with the more harsher provision of requiring states to join the AAMVA's Driver License Agreement (DLA) which would have required states not only share their databases with other US states but also foreign countries starting with the Mexican States and Canadian Provinces and probably others added later.

All it would take would be a few populous states like CA, NY to rebel and the Real ID Act will fall like house built out of a deck of cards. A broad spectrum of groups ranging from far left to far eight opposed this law. The ACLU was against it as well as Gun Owners of America.

This law needs to go !
24 posted on 02/05/2007 5:31:33 AM PST by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: R.W.Ratikal
As with gun control, the only persons who will be affected by this matter are law abiding citizens. Illegals will not comply, and if they are caught, they will receive a slap on the wrist and maybe a ticket back to Juarez or Matamoras, where they will try again to cross into the U.S. Given the recent Federal prosecutions of Border Patrol agents and a deputy sheriff, few lawmen will risk their careers or freedom in pursuit of illegals.

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.

27 posted on 02/05/2007 5:45:59 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: 4woodenboats
so why fight against better, more secure ID?

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.

29 posted on 02/05/2007 6:09:06 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
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?

30 posted on 02/05/2007 6:54:14 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Celebrate Monocacy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
End Social Security and give us our damned money back.

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.

31 posted on 02/05/2007 7:14:08 AM PST by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: archy
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...

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

32 posted on 02/05/2007 7:19:08 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

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*.

33 posted on 02/05/2007 7:25:31 AM PST by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

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*.

34 posted on 02/05/2007 7:25:54 AM PST by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
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.

Do a websearch on the text from my tagline.

*Romanian term limits* were pretty harsh for President and Mrs. Ceausescu. Deservedly so....


35 posted on 02/05/2007 7:31:09 AM PST by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: archy
I'll do that. Now I'm really off to bed.

Take care my friend.

L

36 posted on 02/05/2007 7:44:53 AM PST by Lurker (Europeans killed 6 million Jews. As a reward they got 40 million Moslems. Karma's a bitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Going along with you calling it a "national ID"

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?

37 posted on 02/05/2007 7:46:09 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


38 posted on 02/05/2007 8:07:00 AM PST by sono (There are only two exit strategies - One is victory, the other defeat - Joe Lieberman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy
I remembered when they were executed - Christmas Day 1989. I just finished college. I remembered the term "Securitate" as well. Hard to believe it was 17 years ago !
39 posted on 02/05/2007 8:34:57 AM PST by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


40 posted on 02/05/2007 9:54:54 AM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson