Sample of Larry Ellison's new National ID Card

1) First and foremost, how do you resolve the lack of legal authority for Congress to pass such a law? National ID's have been suggested before and dismissed, by Congress, because of the legality. A database would also be forbidden, as it violates the Constitution, quite a few amendments, and various federal statutes.
2) If, by some bizarre legal fluke, this could be made legal and the law of the land, how would this have conclusively prevented 9/11 and would it have done so in a way that isnt already in place? To correctly answer this question, you must take into account the terrorists would be aware of the system and its weaknesses as well as the potential for human error.
3) Assuming this could even be made legal, what benefits would this have for me, a legal citizen of the US? Telling me it would make me more secure or feel better is not a valid answer. Please present concrete real world examples relying on actions and facts not upon emotion.

1 - I haven't resolved the legal authority for Congress to tax me or create a social security system, so how can this be a big hurtle to "protect me". I think there are even a good amount of words about "providing security" that they could use from the 4th (?) amendment that gives them greater credibility here than in many other things they have done with less ...

2 - Well, 5 of th 19 hijackers would have been thwarted (2 illegal visa's, 1 phone passport, and 2 on the FBI most wanted list). Perhaps that might be enough, not knowing what the skills were and such. But assuming not, requiring their passports or national ID to be shown for flight training, any domestic flight, would also have discouraged them greatly as well as given us better intelligence.

Granted we need to know what to do with intelligence and we basically got caught with our pants down thanks to the previous administration, but relying on passported individuals to be checked only once at the point of entry is too "in-secure" for me these days.

No one stated that this alone would be a complete system. But as part of a greater overhaul of our nation's security it would also help us with illegal voting, as well as other "rights" that should be reserved for citizens alone.

3 - I welcome closer scrutiny than the locals get when flying in a foreign land. I accept it as a necessary item for security, my own, as well as helping the local economy not be as burdened by the extra scrutiny that they run the passported travelers through.

If one can appreciate it when it inconveniences them, one can most definitely appreciate it when it doesn't (i.e. in our own country where the "visitor" will be subject to closer scrutiny by security checks being able to distinquish between who is and who is not a citizen.

If making our country safer is "emotional" to you, than we are on separate playing fields. To me, as a regular airline traveler, this is more than "emotion." It is economic, our country is suffering greatly from the reduction in travel - entire industries are closing down, (riverboats, cruise ships, airlines, hotels, etc.), 100's of thousands of layoffs, etc. Is this emotion? Hardly - this is the direct result of people NOT feeling safe.

Tell me again just how a passport is effective without who has been where when being entered into a database, and linked to another database that tells who is allowed where when.
Trust the federal government to not take the next step and use these databases against you just because it doesn't like what you think? After all, they said that your social security ID number wouldn't be used to determine if you're allowed to have a fishing license?

Nah, I don't trust the federal government, either. But I do want them to do their job and secure our country.

Since they have already screwed up the SS system, and made it into an ID system, have them complete the job. Make that SS# more secure and into a photo ID that is as hard to conterfeit as posslbie.

I think I have already stated that if any database is created or enhanced it should be for the NON-card carriers, i.e. those that will not have the "super new photo-id enhanced SS system" that we will now have.

For all the OTHER's we expect a legal passport and then their travels will be recorded in the big bad database in case we need to track them down later ....

Then tell me how assuming that MY MERE PRESENCE justifies any power-mad government agent's request to see my papers and log my presence is reasonable. Silence?

Hardly silence ... unless you consider 400 plus messages here silence, I would hate to see what you consider "noise" ... ;-)

Our "presense" is now just as loggable, if that is your worry. I mean, our name and address and probably a good deal of more data is recorded in the airline computer. Our drivers licenses that we must show before boarding have even more data tied to them ...

Don't know where the "big bad" government you are afraid of can do any more than they already have going on today...

All I am trying to point to is that we need to have a national non-citizen tracking mechanism and I believe having a good means of identifying that I am NOT a non-citizen (i.e. our "super new photo-id enhanced SS system"), then we can track those non-citizens better by scanning, reading, showing, spotting thier passports at every flight.

You want to dialogue on a subject, let's do it ... you want to get sanctimonious and sarcastic, do it with someone else.

You are the one that are not listening and not reading the same constitution that you are trying to play such an expert on.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. >

It would take only the greatest "chicken little" personna to read the above as a block to a national ID, an ID that would be in these times a means to bring us greater security ..

As if you don't have to show your id for everything already, from renting a video to cashing a check .... get a life and learn how to dialogue without throwing stones or talking down to people.

I appreciate your view; but no way. The system can be abused so why start one? I believe it would be nightmare. I have seen illegals with several social security cards in hand. It is frightening picture to think of the many abuses that this kind of thing could cause.

When people say " we already have a national id..." I think, "great, then we don't need a new one"...

The Oracle Co is the greatest DB in the world. This company can do anything. By the way, the software needed to check an ID could be written in Java and anyone could verify the card. Which means anyone with the Internet could be helping keep our citizens safe.

Would you like some milk and cookies with that, Beav?

"retorts" without "reading" are not healthy for conversation .. show me where Fed programs for Social Security, Federal Taxation, national passports are any more constitutional than a national drivers license or ID.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you stipulating that SS and the Fed'l Income Tax are unconstitutional, then by some leap of logic using this to justify further unconstitutional actions?

1 - I haven't resolved the legal authority for Congress to tax me or create a social security system, so how can this be a big hurtle to "protect me". I think there are even a good amount of words about "providing security" that they could use from the 4th (?) amendment that gives them greater credibility here than in many other things they have done with less ...

You can't really believe that the 4th Amendment is in place to empower government to protect citizens. The Bill of Rights are in place to restrict government - not grant it powers or grant citizens freedoms.

1 - if I have 50 different "printing" locations versus one, that means security problems are 50 times as much
2 - if I have 50 different formats for what I am printing but useing as a valid "ID", then I have 50 different formats for the bad guys to choose from instead of one.

Conversely, forgers need to perfect one design instead of 50. Or, forgers need to obtain inside help at only one location.

I haven't moved at all! This whole discussion has been one of "thinking out loud"....

I'm glad you put that in quotes, because the lack of logic on your part is glaring, both on the Constitutional and on the actual effectiveness versus what is both possible and Constitutional.

But the database was never my interest anyway....
The database should be used for non-citizens, NOT citizens

You logically can't be both against a database and for it for non-citizens. For it to be any more effective than the current scheme, you not only have to affirmatively know who is a non-citizen, but also who is a citizen. The only way to do that is to have all 280 million of us citizens in that database as well.

BUT, being able to check passports and check them as often as non-citizens fly can only make the airports safer, and facilitate to getting the economy going again. This can be accomplished by knowning clearly who is and who is not a citizen and a national ID can accomplish that ....

Again, I submit two principles. First, how is a freshly-deputized ticket agent, security guard, or even a full-blown officer going to be able to clearly establish who is and who is not a citizen without linking to a creaky, bloated database that will verify to a degree not even dreamable by simple examination of the ID just who is and who is not a citizen? Second, if you can somehow justify this further search (which ought to be a lot easier than justifying the existence of a national ID as the Constitutionality of the presentation of ID in order to board a plane has not been ruled on in the negative), what further benefit would a national ID bring to this table?

Since they have already screwed up the SS system, and made it into an ID system, have them complete the job.

Ah, the old "they went so far off base, what's the last 10 yards?" excuse. Past excesses, even if ratified by a stacked Supreme Court (bet you didn't know that FDR and the Senatorial DemonRATs had to stuff a bunch of cronies onto the Supreme Court to get them to reconsider the Consitutionality of Social Security) do not justify further excesses.

Our "presense" is now just as loggable, if that is your worry. I mean, our name and address and probably a good deal of more data is recorded in the airline computer.

That information is obtainable by the government only through a court-issued search order that limits what the government can use to what is contained in said search order. What has been proposed necessarily eliminates that, without any justification beyond, "Trust the federal government to not abuse it."

All I am trying to point to is that we need to have a national non-citizen tracking mechanism and I believe having a good means of identifying that I am NOT a non-citizen (i.e. our "super new photo-id enhanced SS system"), then we can track those non-citizens better by scanning, reading, showing, spotting thier passports at every flight.

In order to keep this from being further fragmented for the benefit of those following along, I refer you to my post #432.

Well, 5 of th 19 hijackers would have been thwarted (2 illegal visa's, 1 phone passport, and 2 on the FBI most wanted list).

Since you completely ignored post 406, here is the relevant portion again:

That speaks to enforcement of the current laws, not the piling on of new ones that would only further affect innocent citizens. The INS has full Constitutional authority to go find and deport those with expired visas, and full Constitutional authority to refuse entry to or arrest those claiming to be from non-existant countries or those wanted by any American juristiction. They have full Constitutional authority to verify my citizenship and lack of presence on a "wanted" list prior to my re-entry into the US. Any law-enforcement agency, with reasonable suspicion only (e.g. I look like somebody they want), has the Constitutional authority to ask to verify my identity. ALL of this is possible without an UNCONSTITUTIONAL national ID scheme; it just requires the will to exert Constitutionally-allowed powers on the part of government.

Conversely, forgers need to perfect one design instead of 50. Or, forgers need to obtain inside help at only one location.

????? Do you read what you write? "Conversely", may I ask, why would a terrorist need more than one drivers license? i.e. especially 50? Are you just argueing to argue? sheesh...

"all the noise being made "against" national ID's have yet to make one good point other than basically "I don't want it"."

Here are some points and "I DON'T LIKE THEM"

By Jacob Levich

BUSH'S ORWELLIAN ADDRESS: HAPPY NEW YEAR -- IT'S 1984 Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Bush effectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya.

No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred. The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient. And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.

He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better. By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared.

Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:

WAR IS PEACE A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial.

It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised.

Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.

The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist. It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.

I haven't moved at all! This whole discussion has been one of "thinking out loud"....
I'm glad you put that in quotes, because the lack of logic on your part is glaring,

In your limited "chicken little" way of thinkgin mind only ....

both on the Constitutional and on the actual effectiveness versus what is both possible and Constitutional.
But the database was never my interest anyway....
The database should be used for non-citizens, NOT citizens You logically can't be both against a database and for it for non-citizens.

You logically can if you have followed the thread at all, i.e. the "database" that I am not necessarily for is the "database" that the thread is mostly upset about, the database for the national ID citizen card holders. That is the constitutional question, if there is one .... but trying to think like you tin foil guys gives me a headache so let me go back to your personal confusion ....

For it to be any more effective than the current scheme, you not only have to affirmatively know who is a non-citizen, but also who is a citizen. The only way to do that is to have all 280 million of us citizens in that database as well.

Uh, no, you don't ....

If you have a national ID that is issued to you as a citizen and you are the picture on the ID, and maybe we can even have a signature or thumbprint or both ... all can be matched at the check in without "going to" any database.

Moving on to your next "strawman" ....

BUT, being able to check passports and check them as often as non-citizens fly can only make the airports safer, and facilitate to getting the economy going again. This can be accomplished by knowning clearly who is and who is not a citizen and a national ID can accomplish that ....

Again, I submit two principles. First, how is a freshly-deputized ticket agent, security guard, or even a full-blown officer going to be able to clearly establish who is and who is not a citizen without linking to a creaky, bloated database that will verify to a degree not even dreamable by simple examination of the ID just who is and who is not a citizen?

There is so much illogic in this paragraph and lack of a grasp of the whole problem that we are discussing, I don't know where to start ...

1 - how do they now do it? They check a gov't ID, we are talking about a "better" "standarized" ID only
2 - your assumption that a database needs to be checked for each ID holder is totally devoid of any discussion so far and has no basic in fact here.
3 - "creaky, bloated database "??? I assume you are new to technology? or just biased against it? ;-)
4 - "not even dreamable" - again, the purpose of having an ID, that has a valid picture (visual match), signature (visual), thumbprint (local scan match), and checksum digits, would allow all of these features and many others to be used for verification without having to query any database of citizens. A database CAN be verified as a last resort where questions are raised.

Second, if you can somehow justify this further search (which ought to be a lot easier than justifying the existence of a national ID as the Constitutionality of the presentation of ID in order to board a plane has not been ruled on in the negative), what further benefit would a national ID bring to this table?

Again, you are looking at this whole mess upside down ... go do some travel overseas and see how it works. This isn't really as difficult as you are making it.

Since you completely ignored post 406, here is the relevant portion again:

On the contrary, #413 & 416 were both in response to 406, so I will assume you are just not familiar with the new software and hence that the rest of this message needs no further reply.

Ah, the TIN HAT mantra! I was wondering when 1984 would surface! ;-)