Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

621 comments

Doctrine of Nullification? (3, Informative)

jleq (766550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763550)

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (4, Insightful)

Samuel Dravis (964810) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763596)

I think this is similar to how SD created the anti-abortion law. They are deliberately saying no to get the law tested in court.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (4, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764026)

They are indeed questioning the constitutionality of the law. And, to (roughly) quote Larry Lessig, "In America, the way to ask a legal question is to sue somebody". Passing a state law rejecting the Federal one is just the first stepping stone to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is really where this question will be authoritatively answered.

Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764268)

I am in SD; what is this law you speak of?

Re:Doctrine of Nullification? (3, Interesting)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763918)

I thought we got rid of the Doctrine of Nullification after the civil war?
Frankly? Tough. Real ID is just more federal nanny-state stuff hiding behind the skirts of "national security". That Maine has stood up to the feds and refused to be bullied into further eroding the privacy of it's citizens is a very positive development.

Let's see the other 49 states stand up for themselves, too.

 

Correction... (1)

parasonic (699907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764136)

Who even calls this nullification? I consider it a flat-out rejection.

If this whole thing is true, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you, Maine.

1 state down, 49 left (4, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763560)

I didn't vote any of them in, but they did the right thing. For once.

The exponentially increasing transportation budget for side roads that get repaved with increasing frequency is another matter entirely. Oh and that whole laptop for children thing. Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida, but without the beaches and spring break crowds.

Re:1 state down, 49 left (1)

injunear (840981) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763644)

So Maine doesn't have to accept the fed's ID standards. Then the TSA doesn't have to accept Maine DLs at airports. Who will win?

Re:1 state down, 49 left (2, Insightful)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764060)

Do you really think the TSA would stop all of Maine from flying? The feds rely on the taxpayers for income. Pissing off a state's worth of them is not a good plan.

MS always wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763946)

http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/26/stories/2007012609 111800.htm [hindu.com]

A quote: "Detailed discussions in this context would open new vistas of cooperation by using the funds available under the agreement."

new *vistas* of cooperation ??

interesting.

Re:1 state down, 49 left (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764234)

Yes, I am a Maine resident. Like many young people, I'm out of here as soon as I graduate. Soon Maine will be come a state of elderly crotchety people, just like Florida
Demographically, Maine is already the oldest, whitest state in the nation.

Sorry to see you go, but we'll keep pulling for you, wherever you go.

Re:1 state down, 49 left (2, Informative)

HardCase (14757) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764384)

Also, for what it's worth, Maine hasn't been a commonwealth since they split from Massachusetts in 1820.

Commonwealth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763568)

Maine is a full fledged state. If we wanted to be a commonwealth we wouldn't have separated from Massachusetts.

Re:Commonwealth? (1)

thepriceisright (970431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763634)

God Bless Maine! I'm from MA but have relations from that great state. When i read the article i laughed... That is so much like Maine. Give'em hell boys!

Re:Commonwealth? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763834)

No, no, according to the Hellen Mirren movie, it is "Bleep! bless Maine!".

Amusing (3, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763578)

It amuses me that the link "non-partisan vote" in the OP goes to a page whose title is "The Maine Senate Democrats".

I don't get it. (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763590)

Seriously, someone explain to me what is wrong with a national ID standard... without saying "papers please".

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Samuel Dravis (964810) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763650)

I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause. If they want to track people that go beyond different states, let them mandate a national ID card but make the fed be in charge of it. I don't think that will go over well though.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763696)

I don't think the fed has the authority to say what goes on a state-issued card. I'm not sure how you can get that authority from the commerce clause.

With all the furor it gets here on /., I doubt that it is just because it runs afoul of the commerce clause and it's certainly not a state's rights issue that has everyone all riled up.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763658)

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.

That and, it is like the older anti-freedom groups like the Nazis and the USSR did use extensively.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763730)

Where in the Constitution does it ALLOW federal government to control where people go? "Interstate commerce" would only apply if we brought back slaves, as they were 'commerce'.

Who said anything about telling people where they can and can't go? Why would an ID prevent you from going somewhere? Is there some secret clause in this law that states that once you receive this new ID, you must get permission before traveling over state lines? My Social Security card has never prevented me from going anywhere.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763904)

The law specifies that this new ID would need to be used when boarding an airplane, opening a bank account, or taking several other actions.

Given that in travel via air is frequently the only practical way of getting around, requiring positive ID (and validation of said ID against a database, as the TSA is wont to do) before folks are allowed to fly is indeed a very significant step towards internal passports.

Not that this wasn't an issue previously; John Gilmore's attempts to fly anonymously (and tribulations doing the same) are quite well-documented.

Re:I don't get it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763660)

You just answered your own question, so you obviously understand the reasoning.

Re:I don't get it. (3, Insightful)

AJWM (19027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763664)

what is wrong with a national ID standard

Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this.

And don't say "Commerce clause".

Re:I don't get it. (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763768)


Please point out the section of the Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to require this


I'll show you as soon as you show me where in the Constitution it authorizes HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and everything else our gov't does that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Insightful)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763858)

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763944)

Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.

Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights. Does it limit free speech? Does it search your house? Does it take away your guns or limit the freedom of the press? Does it keep you from worshiping the God of your choice or your right to petition your government? What right is violated here? Amendment X?

So are you telling me that Congress can not pass laws? Why do we keep sending those slackers to Washington for? I thought that was their job! Shows what I know!

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

Re:I don't get it. (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764032)

Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights.

It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764056)

Does that mean that weed is really legal?
Yes.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764220)

Does that mean that weed is really legal?

technically yes, the marihuana act of 1937 was enacted to stop the influx of the mexican population fro getting in the USA, it did not make weed illegal, just you had to have a stamp and well the government wouldnt give you one (i am lazy wiki it if you care)

If a power is not listed in the Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal government which means if one wants something done at the federal level, it needs to be ratified and amended, which is why alcohol prohibition had an AMENDMENT.

When Nixon created the DEA congress said no because...its UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Unless the PEOPLE wanted this origination, than it would need to be amended, which of course would never happen. Long story short Nixon told congress where to stick it and TA'DA we have this stupid orginisation which ruins lives and polices the world. (again im lazy google it)

So to answer the question, the Ganjadude says UNLESS STATE LAW STATES that marijuana is illegal, (which most do) than its not.

you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically

our president is an ex coke head yet he spends more cash locking up people for the same, what a crock

end rant

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763896)

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763974)

The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:

        Amendment X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


You mean Congress is not allowed to pass laws? What is their job exactly?

Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard! May I recommend starting with the IRS.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764048)

Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!

I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.

May I recommend starting with the IRS.

You may, but it would be stupid to do so:

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764128)

I completely agree with your interpretation of Amendment X (it's pretty straightforward, really), but I should point out there's a strong case to be made that Amendmend XVI was not legally passed. The crux of the argument is that a lot of states were forbidden by their state constitution from approving any federal amendment that would increase the power of the federal government, so those "yea" votes should not have counted.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764206)

Interesting; I didn't know that. Of course, from the Federal Government's perspective, the state constitutions are irrelevant and it's the states' responsibility to control their representatives. By the way, was Georgia one of those states?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764282)

I understood there was some precedent for throwing out illegal votes in those case. Here's a page I found describing that point of view, I haven't read it yet myself.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notrat ified.htm [givemeliberty.org]

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764322)

Interesting. By the way, what about this bit of the Constitution (which I had forgotten about when I wrote my previous post)?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Re:I don't get it. (1)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764150)

I might be wrong, but I think it helps to start with Article I: Section 8, which layed out Congress' powers, and which Amendment XVI was written to refine (I think).

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764258)

Right, and which of those clauses authorizes the creation of a compulsory national ID card?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764386)

Down fido. None of them do. I was agreeing with you and adding more information.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763900)

Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.

Actually, with regards to the Federal Government, it is forbidden. See The 10th Amendment [usconstitution.net] .

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763670)

What's wrong with that argument? I, for one, am going to fight tooth and nail for every piece of information a government that thinks it's okay to illegally wiretap me wants.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Interesting)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763684)

Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it. Kinda like a trademark, jurisdiction in a case law precedent system like ours is 'use it or lose it'.

With the Interstate Highway System, the feds provided money to states that wanted it and they could make very good cases for national defense.

With social security, the federal government issues the numbers and the cards. It's wholly a federal matter.

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763796)

Nothing, except the federal government doesn't have the authority to enforce the law. The state of Maine refuses to comply not because they disagree with the law, but because they don't recognize the authority of the federal legislature to create such a law, nor of the executive to enforce it.

What authority do they have to force me to pay for Social Security and have a card for that? What authority does the state of Maine have to set the standards for ID's?

Still that doesn't answer my question. All the people here that bash the idea of a national ID can't be on the Maine legislature.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764068)

What authority do they have to set a national speed limit?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

paitre (32242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764280)

In the above two cases -

National speed limit could POSSIBLY be seen as an extension of the Commerce clause, with the Interstate Highway System also POSSIBLY seen as an extension of the same. Not saying that I agree with that particular interpretation of the Constitution, but...

Social Security, as a program, is almost indefensibly unconstitutional, but SCOTUS refuses to hear cases suing on any sort of constitutionality claim. Same goes for the disputed passage of the Amendment legalizing the income tax.

As for Maine's "authority", it is directly derived from the 9th and 10th Amendments. We really ought to require 4 years of Civics in High School so that we can properly educate the younger generations (damn, I can't believe I'm actually saying this, being only 30 myself...) in what their Rights and Responsibilities are, AND what the limits -REALLY- are supposed to be on the Federal government/Congress/SCOTUS/etc. If the Constitution doesn't say that the Feds CAN do something, then legally, they CANNOT do it (hence why SS and Medicare are both extra-constitutional - they usurp the power and authority of the states, as does much of the President's cabinet, in my opinion).

Of course, a lot of the bullshit that's gotten through Congress likely wouldn't have had the 17th Amendment never been passed. GREAT intention, actually, but it's led to the government being beholden FAR more to the squeaky rabble than it would be if the Senate were still controlled by the country's statehouses.

Note - IANAL, but this is basic civics here.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764354)

What authority do they have to set a national speed limit?
Absolutely none. And currently there isn't one.

There was one for about 20 years, but it was again enforced by the Commerce Clause. It was enforced by withholding highway funds to states which didn't comply.

Fuel savings due to the national speed limit, and lowering of highway fatalities were minimal.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764366)

Social Security is authorized by the 16th Constitutional Amendment (taxes on income).

States require an ID for the privilege of using state services such as state and municipal roads. A driver's license is a license to drive on state-owned roads. You can drive whatever you want however you want on your own property. If you buy the land and construct for a road from LA to New York you can drive 700 mph on it if you want. As it stands now the government owns the roads. If you want to use the roads, you must agree to the rules they have set forth. Don't like it? Don't drive.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763990)

This law is instructing all states to comply with an arbitrary standard. They can't compel the states to do that. They must dangle money as a request.

Shades of 55 mph. That was the approach the federal government took in enforcing that standard. In that case Texas was the first state to say bite me. The states had more power when it was a confederation but they still have a lot of power. I wish they'd nail the Supreme Court for modifying the Constitution through interpretation. That's squarely a state power not a Supreme Court power. Interpretation doesn't empower them to rethink the Constitution to suit their tastes. The federal government has been robbing state powers for years. Time for them to stand up to the feds.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764238)

It's not really quite just that. The interstate system was created based upon a broad interpretation of the "commerce clause" of the constitution. That is, congress shall have the power to regulate interstate commerce or some stuff like that.

Driver's licenses and other forms of ID are state-issued. The transportation system within a state is largely governed by the state. Even interstates aren't controlled by the US government in this respect, though I do believe federal money is used to maintain those roads. The state specifies the speed limit, patrols it, etc. You don't see the FBI lying in wait behind a groove of trees, but you do see state troopers.

A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.

Anyway, true Republicans would be appalled at a national ID. States rights, remember? It's probably why Maine passed this resolution practically unanimously. Democrats are the ones who should be endorsing it.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

paitre (32242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764326)

[quote]A better analogy would be the drinking age. It is federally mandated that the drinking age be 21. However, this mandate is actually meaningless, since it's not one of the powers given to the federal government. It's a power reserved for the states. The only reason why 48 of the states enforce it is because it's tied to some transportation fund.[/quote]

It's specifically tied to the federal highway funds, same as the speed limit thing (although it's nationally 65 now, for the most part, from what I've seen).

Regardless, it's yet another usurpation of state power and authority by the feds. I'm waiting for New Hampshire to do the same thing (and kinda saddened that they weren't first).

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17763698)

Its Digital ID cards meaning its probably going to end up RF ID'ed , your girlfriend/wife would know exactly where you are if shes in the mood for an argument. Not thats its going to be that easy , but questionable. Sundru

Re:I don't get it. (2, Insightful)

adamstew (909658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763700)

I believe the biggest issue that people have with it is that the national ID standard requires people to bring in their original birth certificate, and a social security card. Those will get scanned in and uploaded to a federal database.

Re:I don't get it. (5, Insightful)

tyler.willard (944724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763712)

What more reason do you need?

We're supposed to be an independent people distrustful of government. The people who founded this country overthrew their own government for fuck's sake.

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.

The standard should be "Why should we?".

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.

Re:I don't get it. (1, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763846)

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.
How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

The standard should be "Why should we?".
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Re:I don't get it. (2, Insightful)

tyler.willard (944724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764024)

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

You've answered your own question. Those examples are merely indicative that we've gone too far already. How does it limit you? The simple fact you can't conduct your personal affairs privately and without authorization.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment. Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry.

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

Speed limits are anonymous. The seatbelt thing is also ridiculous, you should not be compelled to be cautious.

Lastly, cowardice is the natural enemy of liberty. Living in a free society is a dangerous proposition. If you don't accept that fine, say so.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764308)

Bullshit. We're supposed to believe that the enemies you allude to have vast resources and total commitment.

I don't know about their resources, but I don't doubt their commitment for a second! Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.

Such pedestrian measures as standardized ID is not going to be an effective protection. The only people that this sort of ID affects are the citizenry.
Like searching people at airports? It's not meant to stop all terrorism, but it will help. I see we will disagree on terrorism forever, so let's move on...

Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.

Re:I don't get it. (5, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764112)

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

So what? Enough with the FUD. I do not count the spectre of terrorism to be a valid reason, nor do I see this tiny bit of security a justification for the feds to violate the constitution again.

I don't want to be callous, but frankly, people are far too worried about terrorism. If you take a list of what causes people to die and how many people actually die from it, terrorism is waaaaay down the list. I think you are probably more likely to drown in a 12oz glass of fruit juice than you are to die in a terrorist act.

The "9/11" terrorists could have been caught without PATRIOT, without mandatory ID requirements or any of the other shenanigans. That incident happened because dozens of agencies simply dropped the ball. Nothing has been done since that actually fixes the problem to the slightest degree. They are all actions done under the guise of fixing them but are simply misdirections to make people think something is being done.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

guibaby (192136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764244)

I agree...But I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it. I think a little extra future vigilance would serve our safety much more than all of the encroachments on our privacy and potentially our liberty.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764404)

I think the "dropped the ball" comment might be a case of the Monday morning quarterback. It might be that they did not see it coming because they weren't looking for it.

Or it might be the "dropped the ball" comment is a polite way of saying the agencies involved were headed by a bunch of politically appointed cronies who were not in the least bit qualified to do the jobs they were appointed to.

Re:I don't get it. (3, Interesting)

guibaby (192136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764114)

"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty. How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

I hate put on my pointy hat, but in this day and age anything that takes away one shred of my privacy, I don't want to do. It could also be argued that privacy=liberty.

The standard should be "Why should we?". Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

I don't buy this argument. Given enough time and resources ANY document can be faked. And with a single ID standard, in order to update the protection scheme, I have to update 300,000,000 or so IDs

And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason. Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

I think you are mistaken here as well. The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764132)

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)

You're still trying to ask "why not?" That's the wrong question!

The correct question to ask is "what good would it do?" Since the answer is "none whatsoever," the government has no business doing it!

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.

That's a shitty reason. You realize that people with valid IDs could just as easily be terrorists too, don't you?

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?

The difference is that in the case of traffic laws, the benefit is real. In the case of IDs, "keeping people safe" is an excuse to keep people from realizing that the actual reason is to infringe people's right of privacy.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764256)

How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.
It's not about what *you* can do, it's about what the government, and the corporations and other private interests, can do, or will be made easier, by the card.

Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
Fuck you and your racist, fear-mongering bullshit. "Abu Mohammed" can no longer hijack a plane, and if he wants to fly, he could just get an ID and fly anyway. No ID is required to blow yourself up in a shopping mall (which has not happened in the US, and I highly doubt any government agency in the US has stopped such a plot, since that would be virtually impossible).

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
A national ID card will not keep me safe *WHATSOEVER*. It does the exact *opposite*, in fact. It makes it easier for those in power (government and corporate) to gather information on me, and such easy access to information will only strengthen their power.

You still haven't answered the question. Why *should* we accept such a card? What good will it do?

Re:I don't get it. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764260)

How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today.

The law goes further than demanding IDs be issued. It prohibits you from opening a bank account unless you have an approved ID. The ID will be required to travel on a plane, collect social security, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

The federal government already has a list of people it prohibits from flying--even with ID. If you can't do anything without revealing your identity and having it checked against a list of suspects, then you lose constitutional rights such as the right to travel or speak anonymously. Those two liberties are crucial to an effective democracy.

Where I work there has been recent interest in checking people's names against government watch lists (FBI most wanted, Office of Foreign Asset Control, etc.). One of our customers recently asked us to check the names of all employees against those lists. We have had similar requests to check our clients and the people our clients work with (we're a middle man). These requests didn't suddenly pop up out of nowhere all at the same time. These watch lists are totally worthless from an investigation standpoint, yet someone is clearly pushing this agenda.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764306)

Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
When did drinking and driving become a Federal offense?

Re:I don't get it. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763852)

...without saying "papers please".

The implication that it would lead to NAZI-style oppression is what's wrong with a national ID standard, and it's a legitimate argument. Trying to dismiss it out of hand does not change that!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764040)

Might as well ask people to explain why facism is a bad idea without bringing up Hitler or Mussolini...

Re:I don't get it. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764100)

What does it gain us? My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them). A national id tends to embrace forgetting the difference, and it makes me nervous, for admittedly vague reasons.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764348)

My personal issue is that it further confuses the notion of identity; I'm me because I say so, not because my id says so. That my id says who I am means that to the extent that you trust that particular form of id(it could be fake), the body that issued it believes me to be the person on the id(I could have tricked them)

Great! How 'bout I say I'm you and crawl into bed with your wife tonight. After all, I'm you... I mean me because I say so, right? Maybe I'll go get a few credit cards in your... er.. my name and get that big-screen I've been eye-balling. That house you're living in... it's mine. See my name, right there on the mortgage. What? You say that's your name? Fine, it's my word against yours, we'll split the profit. Now get off my wife and lawn and take my kids with you, whoever you are!

Alrighty... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764224)

without saying "papers please".

Instead, I'll say: Achtung! Geben Sie mir Ihre Papiere, schnell!

Notice that I didn't say "please" (Bitte)

Money over privacy? (2, Interesting)

adamstew (909658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763638)

The article made it sound like that all the legislature cared about was the money it would cost to implement the national ID, and that they didn't care about any of the privacy issues.

Re:Money over privacy? (2, Interesting)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763798)

The article made it sound like that all the legislature cared about was the money it would cost to implement the national ID, and that they didn't care about any of the privacy issues.
Living here in Maine, let me assure you that privacy was discussed just as much as money. All your personal information; name, address, social security number, FINGERPRINT, all consolidated in one card and entered into a handy database for some shmuck to put on his government-supplied laptop to be stolen at Arby's.

No, thanks. You're welcome, America. The rest of you get busy.

The bitch is I JUST submitted this story before I found it here on the front page.

High five, Maine. (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763654)

I, for one, welcome our new lobster-eating overlords. We've been long overdue for a state legislature to stand up to the security-crazed national congress and tell them to shove their citizen surveillance programs back through the orifice that produced them. It's great to see the federalist division of power in action.

One does the crime, all must pay (4, Interesting)

Soloact (805735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763714)

Requiring a National ID "to fight terrorism" is like punishing everyone for the offense of one. Many corporations are like that, the military is like that, and too many governments are adopting that practise. One person (or a small number) does something wrong, and suddenly there are procedures made that everyone must follow "to prevent the acts" of the few (look at the airports).
How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?
In the USA, States need to fight for the States' Rights as Maine just did, and as Wisconsin did by outlawing mandatory chipping of people.
This "pervasive" form of governing, or ruling, seems to becoming more and more "invasive". Some would argue, "...if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of?" , of which my argument is, "I am a good civilian, so leave me alone."
Of course, all of my comments are IMHO.

Re:One does the crime, all must pay (1)

SpectreHiro (961765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764342)

How about punishing those who commit the offenses in such a way as to eliminate the desire of those, who would follow them, to commit the offense?

Although I agree with your sentiment, I wonder how exactly one punishes someone willing to die for their cause. Nothing frightens the establishment more than a suicidal attacker, since there's no way to deter them. Imprisonment? Torture? Death? For a suicidal attacker, these are already accepted as the price of their act.

This is why I tend to think that there can be no effective solution for terrorism. An attacker who plans to die while attacking you is prepared to surmount any hurdle, no matter how high. Sometimes I'm idealistic enough to think that we might be able to prevent terrorism, but that would require not pissing people off so badly that they're willing to die just to hurt us. So far, that's not an option that our society's been willing to consider.

A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail (5, Interesting)

COredneck (598733) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763772)

If Congress refuses to significantly change the Real ID Act, then rebellion is the way to make it fail. The Act is built on a flimsy deck of cards. If a few of the most populated states like CA, NY, IL, MI, TX decide to blow it off. The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.

It needs to be completely repealed. It was passed without discussion, without debate. It became law as a "rider" on a must-pass piece of legislation. With the Democrat Congress, its demise is more likely. We should contact Contact Congress [visi.com] and ask the law be repealed completely concerning the driver's license provisions.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail (1)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764124)

Congress won't repealit because it will be used against the congressmen in upcoming elections. They portrayed as weak on terror. Only thing we can hope for is that is that congress doesn't fund the program which kills it. Or even better, its goes to court and found unconstitutional.

Re:A Way to get the Real ID Act to Fail (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764214)

The Federal Gov't would be in a bind. On one hand, if they enforce it, it will kill the airline industry. On the other hand, if they don't enforce it, they are disobeying the law that Congress passed.
Remember around 2002ish when John Ashcroft decided to prosecute GreenPeace for violating some 1872 maritime law? That law had only ever been used twice, the last time in 1890.

Suffice it to say that there are 200+ years worth of detritus in the books that are not enforced.

Bills getting attached to odd (3, Interesting)

Nutty_Irishman (729030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763774)

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)
Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)? Seriously, besides saving time and being lazy, I fail to see why military spending and tsunami relief would be put into one bill. But bills like this happen all the time-- and usually it's much worse. I don't understand why there are no restrictions/oversight in place to monitor the grouping of bills.

10.1 (3, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763838)

it's like this..

28 guys want military spending
31 guys want tsunami relifer
only 2 guys want both.

that means, lump them together, get 57 votes

Re:Bills getting attached to odd (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763984)

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)?

How about "because politicians suck" instead?

No, really: this unrelated crap gets tagged on because politicans have no morals, and they want to push their agendas even when they're against the will of the people (not to mention the rest of the politicians). So, they tack stuff onto the bills at the last minute so that the issues don't have to be voted on, and the rest of the politicians don't call them on it because they're all doing the same damn thing themselves.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd (1)

harmanjd (414263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764106)

Which is why there is continued mumbling about a 'line item veto' which would allow the President to veto riders on a bill which don't really belong and which wouldn't pass congress on their own. The main reason it never happens is because the Congress wants to keep the ability for 'pork' on bills (why don't they just call it spam?) so that they can get funding or whatever for their particular neck of the woods that the rest of the nation really doesn't care about.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd (1)

Pikoro (844299) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764198)

It is because there is no provision for line item vetoing of these things.

Think about it. A bill either gets passed into a law or it doesnt't.

There is no way to pick and choose what parts of the bill are passed, hence why presidents keep asking for line item veto powers. This would allow them to remove this extra crap from bills in which they do not belong.

Say they are going to pass through a major bill on redoing the entire national highway system to allow automatic driving cars and congress is under alot of pressure to pass the bill into law. Along comes some congressman who says "Hey, this is great! This bill is guaranteed to pass through both houses with minimal fuss. Why don't I tack this extra paragraph on that will channel funds to my pet project!".

The congressman knows that nobody in thier right mind would not pass the bill just because of this one paragraph is in it. Related or not. So, the bill turns into law, the guy's pet project gets it's funds, and everybody's happy except for the tax payers who just sent 5 million dollars to the guy's brother's company.

Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.

The problem with the current administration is that line item veto, if allowed, would most likley be used to veto the parts of bills that would limit his power to "fight terrorists" so it's a 2 way street.

Re:Bills getting attached to odd (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764264)

Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)?
There are a couple things that can cause it. Basically they can group whatever they want. In this case they probably were going to pass a bill with the Real ID stuff anyways and they slapped it into the tsunami relief bill to lessen the political uproar it would cause otherwise.

Other times it's a give and take sort of thing where person 1 wants X and person 2 wants Y so they agree to put both on a bill and sign it.

Maine is not a commonwealth (1)

natpoor (142801) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763802)

I am pretty sure that Maine is not a commonwealth [wikipedia.org] , but this is Slashdot so who fact-checks?

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth (3, Funny)

Compulawyer (318018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763866)

Actually it is. Maine was the northern part of Massachusetts (which is a Commonwealth). Massachusetts doesn't recognize that Maine broke away and considers Portland and Kennebunkport to merely be suburbs of Boston.

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth (1)

boston2251 (1033620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764074)

Bravo on you for knowing that..I just had a hardcore history class flashback..being from Boston...goodonya..

Re:Maine is not a commonwealth (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764324)

Does Massachusetts prosecute tax evaders (ie: those that pay taxes in Maine, and not Massachusetts)? If not, I'd submit that even if Massachusetts has never officially recognized Maine as a separate state, it has done so de facto.

Also, do Massachusetts textbooks list Maine as a separate state? Does the government of Massachusetts have any official dealings with Maine? Etc.?

All of which, of course, has no bearing on whether Maine actually *is* a separate state. Does Maine consider itself a separate state? Does the US Government (yes, it does). Do the other 48 states? Even if Massachusetts actually believes Maine is still part of Massachusetts, the GP is right, Maine is a state, not a commonwealth, as such status is not for Massachusetts to decide on behalf of Maine.

Federalism (1)

CompressedAir (682597) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763808)

About time someone struck a blow for federalism. Good for Maine.

Re:Federalism (1)

aldheorte (162967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764378)

You mean ANTI-federalism.

Domino Theory (2, Informative)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763824)

Someone had to be first to stand up to this. (I was betting on New Hampshire, which has been very vocal about their opposition, or Vermont based on their general countercultural eccentricties. But they all share a remnant of that good old Yankee stubborness.) Other states have voiced their concerns, but now that someone had the balls to be first, maybe more states will make their opinions known through their own legislatures.


Or maybe it means nothing at all, and all the states will eventually kowtow to their federal masters like they always do. Yeah....that's probably the way to bet.



   

Goddamn straight (3, Insightful)

ShimmyShimmy (692324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763876)

This Federal ID idea is definitely rediculous. I'm glad someone is actively opposing it. I suppose it is good they are trying to push states to actually have good ID cards. Some of them (West Virginia, New Jersey until recently) are rediculously easy to fake. Not that I, ahem, would know anything about that.
But let's not give them too much credit. This is obviously another step toward removing already eroding privacy rights in this country. And of course the convenient excuse "war on terror" will be stamped all over this.

Let's get a run-down of what this will actually mean to the average consumer.
~ By "common machine readable technology", I'm assuming they mean RFID, which we all know has its drawbacks [eweek.com] .
~ I doubt this will end up being a substitute for a Driver's License. What if you lose driving privilages and have to turn in your ID? Do you have to get a new "non-driver" card just to go to the bank? Bull shit. Inevitably, this will have to be carried around in addition to a driver's license. Great, another unnecessary card to carry in my wallet. Why don't they just make us all wear collars around our necks. Not like nobody's ever thought of that [westvalley.edu] before.
~ It will obviously be scanned at every point of use. I forsee an amendment in the near future extending this to train/bus travel as well.
~ Inevitably, this will be part of a big government database. We all know those are generally bad ideas [techdirt.com] . I wouldn't be surprised if they link this up to your EZ-Pass so they can see where your car is going too. Remember (FTA) this is an $83 billion project. It is going to be BIG. ~ What if you lose this thing? It's bad enough getting the state to replace an ID... who do I complain to now? The FBI? Dept of Homeland Security?

I don't even want to think about this anymore. Go Maine.

It won't last. Maine needs the $$$'s. (2, Interesting)

jk379 (734476) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763924)

The law doesn't have a way to force Maine to comply as that's a states rights issues.

What I predict will happen is that the Federal government will start by holding back the money that they would disperse to the state for highway dollars just like they have done for other measures. (The ones that come to mind is seat-belt and drunk driving laws but I know that there are others.). If holding back Federal highway funds they will find other funds not to give the state.

One for the State(s) (1)

adambha (1048538) | more than 7 years ago | (#17763986)

With an increasingly Orwellian federal government I am excited to see individual states standing up to 'Big Brother' for a change.

The only true 'power' over the states the federal government has is primarily due to interpretation of the Commerce Clause [wikipedia.org] which arguably defies the legislative intent of the original drafters of the Constitution in the first place.

coming soon in 2010... (1)

Nitroadict (1005509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764030)

"dude, can you hook me up with a fake REAL ID?"
"I'm not letting you drink, 18 year old younger brother."
"No, I need one so I can move out and spawn."

Yay for Maine. REAL ID is (in the dictionary sense) typical of the political "repacking the old in something new" bull$hit crowd.

federalism + meh = history repeating itself...

bullies (5, Insightful)

drDugan (219551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764036)

my daughter said something quite profound about a year ago: "Standing up to bullies is easy, you just stomp on their toes".

It is profound for several reasons. You shouldn't fight the bully head on, they are bigger and (in this case) control the White house and the Army.

But you make it hurt, a lot (you "stomp"), but you do it below the vision of most people watching.

You stand right up to the bully, to their face and make them face you. Most bullies are craven and will crumble at the first sign of real resistance.

Bush Psychology -- http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml [truthout.org]

This is just the first step in a long, painful road to recovery for this nation.

Re:bullies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764082)

That's deep until you realize that stomping on somebody's toes just means they're going to punch you in the face even harder.

Congress can win this very easily (2, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764078)

Remember when the 55mph speed limit was not the law, but a suggestion, and all states complied? Any state that didn't go along was denied federal highway funds. Same could happen here.


Personally I have no problem with congress appointing non-government experts to define minimum security standards for important documents. But congress is treating RealID as a security end in itself.

talk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17764368)

I hope they have the balls to prohibit the Feds from inforcing it within the their borders.

I for one... (1, Troll)

rlanctot (310750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17764424)

welcome our crab-eating chowder overlords!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...