Posted on 03/02/2003 6:52:16 PM PST by chance33_98
WKRN, Tennessee
Driver's license finger scan being considered
Public safety officials see a proposal requiring driver's license applicants to submit to a new kind of fingerprinting as a way to combat fraud, but civil libertarians have concerns.
The state Legislature is considering Senate Bill 423, under which a person's finger would be scanned. The scan will identify up to 40 unique points on the finger, said David Beatty, project director of the Department of Public Safety program.
Beatty called the it ``touch signature,'' but the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma wonders who will have access to that information.
``It is a privacy issue, and we would have great concerns about what it would lead to,'' said Joann Bell, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma.
``There's a possibility under homeland security that the driver's license could become part of a national ID.''
Beatty disagreed, but said the driver's license has become accepted identification nationwide.
``The importance of the person holding the license and the person pictured on the license being the same is paramount. Society has dictated that,'' Beatty said.
The finger scan program would ensure the person who passes a driving test is the same person who goes to the tag agent to get a license, he said.
It also will ensure the person who goes to a tag agent to replace a lost driver's license is legitimate, Beatty said.
With the proposed new system, tag agents will be able to electronically check the license with the Public Safety Department to ensure the appropriate person receives the license.
Oklahoma issues four-year driver's licenses so it would take four years for all licenses in the state to be issued using a finger scan.
As of Dec. 31, 2.3 million people had driver's licenses and another 230,000 who don't drive had ID cards, Beatty said.
Senate Bill 423 is before the Senate and likely will be considered next week, said Sen. Robert M. Kerr, D-Altus, its author.
If the legislation becomes law, Oklahoma would join eight other states with a finger-imaging system: Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.
The Commerce Clause would be a good one for starters. How about the 14th Amendment as well, establishing that you are who you say you are, and assuring all you come into contact with that you are entitled to that panoply of rights you retain?
It isn't difficult if you have common sense to realize that applying an 18th century mindset to 21st century lifestyles and economics cannot work. The Constitution was broadly written and applied for a reason - to accomodate the natural inclination of society to change over time.
I could easily come up with a program to completely close down the borders (of course, that would also include seaborne access), but you'd have to dramatically increase the defense budget by about 300% to do it. Are you willing to pay that? And of course, that plan wouldn't begin to deal with the bad guys who are already here, or even routine issues of identity theft or people who change identities so they can go on the lam.
How insightful.
The Commerce Clause would be a good one for starters.
I hoped you would say something like that. The Commerce Clause was meant for things like keeping states from charging tariffs on each other. It was never meant to be carte blanche for the fed to do all kinds of non-enumerated and unconstitutional things.
While strongly denied by New Deal socialists like yourself, our government was meant to have only limited enumerated powers. That means all non-enumerated powers are strictly prohibited. This was further reinforced by the 10th Amendment, though I doubt you care.
FDR changed all that, much to your liking I suppose. Sounds like he's a big hero of yours, since much of your vision of government would be impossible without his < gag > achievements.
It's plain as day that you are no conservative. You are a big government, small d democrat, typical of the kind that has infested the conservative movement. Think not? I submit as exhibit one, your own words:
It isn't difficult if you have common sense to realize that applying an 18th century mindset to 21st century lifestyles and economics cannot work. The Constitution was broadly written and applied for a reason - to accomodate the natural inclination of society to change over time.
Straight from the mouth of Algore. This is the "living Constitution" theory, verbatim. The Constitution has an amendment process, that is how it is supposed to adapt to changes in society.
There is no enumerated power for the fed to issue a national ID. And it is only through painful torturing and twisting of the clear language of the Constitution that one could be claimed. Regardless, I'd like to see you try to twist and squirm how exactly the Commerce Clause delegates a power to issue national ID. Please be more specific: How exactly does a national ID facilitate commerce? This should be amusing.
That one's a non-starter, since I'm stuck with the actual text that everyone else can read and am not privy to whatever it is that comes through the Penumbral Emanation Spectacles[tm].
How about the 14th Amendment as well, establishing that you are who you say you are
Have you informed JimRob that FR handles are un-Constitutional?
It isn't difficult if you have common sense to realize that applying an 18th century mindset to 21st century lifestyles and economics cannot work.
The Location bar says "www.freerepublic.com", but the content is straight out of the DUmpster.
As has already been pointed out to you, the mechanism through which the Constitution adapts to changing circumstances is the amendment process, not the "process" of simply making stuff up to suit the latest whim.
And thank you, Ms. McClain, for that delightful bit of ersatz channeling of the Founding Fathers.
Of course, as you sit here in a nation that is materially comfortable and internationally powerful, you can thank those people throughout our history that had a greater vision and understanding than yours - because otherwise, you'd be stuck in a country without electricity and goat carts for roads, and you would be paying taxes to some European overlord while complaining in whispers so as to avoid sanction.
Channeling? No. No crystal balls or voodoo is involved. To find out what the Founders intended, I use this ingenious method called reading:
"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."
-George Washington
otherwise, you'd be stuck in a country without electricity and goat carts for roads, and you would be paying taxes to some European overlord while complaining in whispers so as to avoid sanction.
?????????? What does this have to do with national ID, or even the concept of enumerated powers? It appears you can't address the issue, so you resort to some inane ramblings about how government invented electricity (was that one of Algore's inventions?)
Let me repeat the question: How exactly does the Commerce Clause grant the fed the power to establish national ID?
I know you gys never like to hear this, but disliking a law or policy doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.
And your Washington quote, used like you did, was lame, but I guess to the other members of the circle jerk, its pretty exciting.
BS. Interstate commerce is in no way inhibited by a lack of a national ID. It's been occurring for over 200 years without it.
and inasmuch as immigration is a solely federal power, along with citizenship via the 14th
Amendment 14: Section 1:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I missed the part about national ID there. Could you point it out?
disliking a law or policy doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.
I know that, and that isn't the issue. The issue is all non-enumerated powers are prohibited, and therefore unconstitutional. National ID is non-enumerated, therefore it is unconstitutional as well as a bad idea.
And your Washington quote, used like you did, was lame,
It is a quote from the Man himself directly opposed to the "living Constitution" theory that you and Algore think gives power to the fed to establish national ID.
And your response? "lame". Wow, all the insight and eloquence of a junior high gossip. That certainly trumps Washington's words. LOL
Once again: How exactly does the Commerce Clause grant the fed the power to establish national ID?
By definition, the standards of indentification used in an act of commerce are those set by the parties involved. One person will extend me credit on a handshake. Another would want my life story before accepting a personal check. I do business with them, or not, accordingly.
In any case, your living-constitution notions in this area are clearly disproven by the explicit recitation of Congress' power
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measuresIf your argument had any validity whatsoever, the Commerce Clause would already give Congress the power to set standards for money, weights, and measures -- since those things clearly are essential to any act of commerce.
immigration is a solely federal power
The government can require would-be immigrants to show a card as they cross the border. The government can require would-be immigrants to create a card while hopping across the border and whistling "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", if it likes. None of this has any bearing on what may be required of citizens living within the country.
disliking a law or policy doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional
No, it is conflict with, or lack of support within, the text of the Constitution that makes a law or policy un-Constitutional.
And your Washington quote, used like you did, was lame
I've heard of various schools of philosophical argument, but the "Surfer Dude" school is new to me.
It's becoming evident that you might as well repeat the question in Old High Sanskrit, for all the good it does.
That's funny, a whole bunch of your taliban brothers have been denying that all over this site for years. You guys ought to get your talking points straight.
Please reference the authorisation granted to the federal government for such activities.
Good luck.
No, it works like this:
Power is inherent to the People. People through their elected representatives give some powers to the state in the form of a contract called the Constitution. Powers not granted by the Constitution are not held by the state. If this poses a problem and further powers are needed, a constitutional amendment is required. Washington's quote points this out, but doesn't mandate it. The Constitution itself does that.
Once the Constitution was ratified, the state is bound, ad infinitum, by its restraints. The mere passage of time is not the established method for amending the Constitution. It doesn't go bad like an old jar of mayo in the back of your fridge.
Enter, you. You don't like this pesky Constitution and its bothersome restraints on Big Brother. Why, how can we have ourselves a glorious police state with something like that? So you, FDR, Algore and other assorted conspirators decide to simply ignore the document. To you, political power isn't inherent in the People. The People can't be trusted to hold such a thing. So you stack the courts with those like you, take a few choice clauses in the Constitution like the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause and twist them into carte blanche to do whatever you like. And just like that, the structure of our government is fundamentally altered, and the Republic degrades into a democracy.
That's fine, but you should know you're posting to the wrong board The very reason FR exists is to restore the damage you and yours have done. Did you think we wouldn't recognize your ilk? We're going to be all over you when you come in here with such nonsense. Get used to it.
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.