Enumerated Powers and National I.D. Cards

Mercurial Times ^ | November 16, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

[A.J.Armitage]

.

[Sabertooth]

growl!

[gjenkins]

“If you think it's a bad idea to have an identity card, persuade your fellow citizens.”

SPLAT! Individual rights are like a bug on the windshield of a speeding Porsch.

[Protagoras]

Well stated, thanks for the bump.

[harpseal]

btt

[Maelstrom]

That bug bites...
I pray that this assault on individual liberties will we repealed and retracted at the earliest opportunity. The message just isn't getting through to Congress, so I've begun trying to educate my fellow man. Radio call-ins, editorials...but it's such a long row to hoe given the loss of so many civil liberties without so much as a whimper from the public.

IT seems that most people, being content to live with all the rights guaranteed a SERF under feudalism, don't understand any loss of those rights up to that point as a loss of freedom. (And you can quote me on that)

[NittanyLion]

Bump for future reference.

[stanz]

We already have National I.D. cards- - -they're called Social Security Cards.

[spunkets]

It's not about a card. It's about a file. The National ID creates a central, all inclusive file, for each individual in a central database.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

One of Scalia’s major themes, and one which he has right, is that not everything bad is unconstitutional.

Thanks for the bump, but I disagree with you here. The argument is made by the citation from Scalia. This may or may not be bad policy, but even though Scalia appears to agree that it is bad, as he said that has no weight at all on the question of whether or not it is Constitutional. Policy questions are not up to the courts, but instead are for the legislative and executive branches of government, and the people, not the courts.

On the question of Constitutional justification for the legislation, I am not a lawyer, but from the viewpoint of policy, I consider that it is certainly arguable that the cards might be of benefit to the national defense (even if only by making cases against terrorists easier to prosecute). This being the case the authority for this would be included in the Power to Make War.

[Ben Chad]

Someone please educate me. What freedoms that I presently enjoy will be taken away by a NID card? As a cell phone user and a credit card user, I'm extremely easy to track but I have not noticed anyone tracking me except for marketeers. My driver's license in Texas now has my thumbprint associated with it. I'd love to trade all the plastic crap in my wallet with a single, universal smart card that only I can use to make purchases or vouch for my identity. What am I missing?

[A.J.Armitage]

Change the tenses and the argument works just as well for Social Security.

[stanz]

Yep.

[NittanyLion]

What freedoms that I presently enjoy will be taken away by a NID card? As a cell phone user and a credit card user, I'm extremely easy to track but I have not noticed anyone tracking me except for marketeers. My driver's license in Texas now has my thumbprint associated with it. I'd love to trade all the plastic crap in my wallet with a single, universal smart card that only I can use to make purchases or vouch for my identity. What am I missing?

All the examples you've listed are privileges. You do not need to have a credit card, cell phone, or to drive a car. A NID would literally be a license for existence. That's the major difference in my book.

Two other points: this proposed NID would do nothing to actually help the situation, and as this article illustrates the federal government's role is not to issue ID cards.

[A.J.Armitage]

Our government has made war for over 200 years without a national ID card and only lost once, and that loss had no conceivable link to not having ID cards, so under no interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause recognizable to any of the Founders, even Hamilton, could you make it fit.

[Benson_Carter]

"This is the genius of the Founders: they prohibited a great many abuses by not granting the power to commit them."

great article, but this point hits home. How much better of a nation would we be if the "general welfare" clause hadn't been raped and pillaged?

"This is the United States Constitution. Here is what the government can legally do and how they can legally do it. Everything else is up to the States or the People!"

Only too bad they don't hammer this point home in PUBLIK SKOOL!!!

[Dr. Frank fan]

Someone please educate me. What freedoms that I presently enjoy will be taken away by a NID card?

The freedom to exist without having a NID card, for one. (Sorry, was that one just too obvious that you missed it?)

As a cell phone user and a credit card user, I'm extremely easy to track but I have not noticed anyone tracking me except for marketeers.

They know that if they do something to truly offend you, then you will just cancel your cell phone and/or credit card.

What if the government uses your NID card to try to track whether you have guns, and then (later) to take them away? How will you "cancel"?

I guess you haven't thought about that.

My driver's license in Texas now has my thumbprint associated with it.

Same with mine in California. And I'm none too happy about it; if I had my druthers, that policy would be abolished.

You can't use one misguided policy to justify another. Did you think you could?

I'd love to trade all the plastic crap in my wallet with a single, universal smart card that only I can use to make purchases or vouch for my identity.

Go for it. I won't stop ya.

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that just because you, personally wouldn't mind doing something doesn't mean it is therefore justified to force all your countrymen to do the same thing. In short you are missing the fact that the world does not revolve around you and your personal preferences.

It's a common mistake.

P.S. I notice you made no attempt whatsoever to actually argue that forcing everyone to carry a NID card would help stop terrorism. Which (I thought) was the whole justification for it. But the fact is, it wouldn't help stop terrorism, so I'm not surprised that you made no attempt to argue to the contrary. It was a wise move on your part.

[Maelstrom]

Please read my #7. I anticipated people like you.