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!

Montana Says No to Real ID, Passes Law to Deny It

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the good-lines-in-the-sand dept.

United States 518

SoCalChris writes "Montana's governor signed a bill yesterday in defiance of the Real ID Act. House Bill 287 [PDF] requires the Montana Motor Vehicle Division to not implement the provisions of the Real ID Act, and to report to the governor any attempts by any agent or agency of the Department of Homeland Security to attempt to implement the bill. Montana is the first state to implement such a law."

cancel ×

518 comments

About Time (4, Insightful)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789135)

Considering how corrupt the federal government has become over the past few decades, I think it's about time individuals and states alike started taking back their rights.

I hope Montana doesn't fold when the feds start pressing them like everyone did over the drinking age.

Re:About Time (-1, Flamebait)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789237)

Yeah, heaven forbid have a unified source of identification in one database. Fight the man.

I guess it doesn't matter when half the population doesn't have an ID to begin with, due to multiplying immigration.

I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there. LET'S all get some DUI's and head over to MONTANA!! WOOOHOOO!!!

Re:About Time (-1, Offtopic)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789263)

Before you flame, I know it doesn't exactly work like that (driver's ID's, not government).. but it's still funny.

Re:About Time (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789491)

I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there.

Wow, you're right! No one would ever get behind the wheel of a vehicle without a proper license! Problem solved.

You're kidding, right? You do know lots of people drive without a license. They're not usually caught until they're in an accident.

Re:About Time (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789749)

Kinda makes you wonder how this social norm of licensing people to drive came about. I wonder if there is anywhere in the world where requiring people to have a license to drive is considered as absurd as americans find the idea of requiring people to have a license to watch tv.

I'd advocate an Internet license, but I'd probably fail :)

Re:About Time (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789517)

Half the people are illegal? Your ass called, it wants its 'facts' back.

If a truck driver gets drunk and kills a few people, revoking his Drivers liscense is the last thing people should be concerned with.
It would be far better to let him work and pay retribution.
No, people like you want to put the person in a place where he can't pay retribution, and will work in the lower tax bracket and pay less taxes.

Finally, and this is MOST important, so try to focus both your brain cells here:

The US is a bunch of individual states, not one big unified country. There is a reason for this, and if you don't know what that is I suggest you make some effort to educate yourself.

Re:About Time (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789745)

Finally, and this is MOST important, so try to focus both your brain cells here:

The US is a bunch of individual states, not one big unified country. There is a reason for this, and if you don't know what that is I suggest you make some effort to educate yourself.


Wow! And all this time I thought the US stood for United States. I guess I should educate myself as well. Did you learn that in community college?

Re:About Time (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789677)

I guess some people don't really care if a truck driver that gets drunk and kills a few people while driving, is allowed to drive in Montana because he hasn't been revoked there. LET'S all get some DUI's and head over to MONTANA!! WOOOHOOO!!!

Uh its pretty easy to check for DUI's out of state without a national ID. They can just make 50 queries against 50 databases for this persons SSN, name and whatever else.

Re:About Time (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789767)

Uh its pretty easy to check for DUI's out of state without a national ID. They can just make 50 queries against 50 databases for this persons SSN, name and whatever else.

OK, then what's wrong with narrowing that down to ONE database? Does making the same job easier somehow take away all of our rights? With that logic, we should take away all the government's computers and make the use a chisel and stone. That should make use uberfree!

Re:About Time (1)

rmac1813 (1090197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789289)

.agrees in full. this sounds like a better way to invade our privacy rather than standardizing identification for americans.

Re:About Time (4, Interesting)

Drew McKinney (1075313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789295)

Or medical cannabis laws in California. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Even if the federal government did get their way with the states, how would the implement this? They want the state government systems to synchronize their records with the national government. Sounds easy to the unwashed masses (Washington Bureaucrats), but in practice this is very, very difficult. I'm sure there are slashdotters on here who can speak to difficulties in linking just local governments to state systems let alone at the NATIONAL level!

I was once on a project linking a city government's records (I wont mention what kind) to the state government. Except for the fact that the city was using legacy system X running on X, and the state was on legacy Y running on Y. Oh, and don't forget the Bummsville servers which also need to integrate; and they haven't upgraded they're setup in 8 years and nobody knows how it works anymore.

I PRAY that the feds get they're way and we get to see how much of a mess it is for them to link these disparate, outdated, undocumented systems together.

Re:About Time (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789459)

California and South Carolina still haven't been able to setup databases for child support payments by divorced fathers. What makes people think they can sync their DLs with the feds?

Re:About Time (1)

Tsunayoshi (789351) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789667)

Damn, I wish I had some mod points.

Nice point.

I'm moving there (4, Funny)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789141)

I hope they need Python or Java developers. Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything... (5, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789291)


Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

If this week has taught us anything, it's that one should always have a backup plan for black-bear-ies.

Re:I'm moving there (4, Funny)

pschmied (5648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789321)

As a Montanan who has since moved down south... of the equator to New Zealand, I can say that the job market probably isn't what you want. There are very few employers.

That said, Montana's a beautiful place. Oh, and the Kettlehouse (MT brew) brews the best beer in the world.

We used to joke about people moving to Montana to pay the scenery tax. Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.

I remember an old "PR" campain in MT to discourage Californians from moving in:

"Montana Sucks. Now go home and tell your friends."

California had one to keep montanans away (0, Offtopic)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789631)

"No Fat Chicks"

Re:I'm moving there (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789681)

Can you get reliable broadband (let's say 200kB/50kB down/up minimum) internet access?

Re:I'm moving there (4, Funny)

shaitand (626655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789721)

'Short answer, you're probably not going to get rich there.'

No kidding, I took a train from Chicago to Portland that went across Montana lengthwise. You could tell you had entered Montana when you couldn't see anything, not even on the horizon. You could tell when you left Montana because you saw things again.

Hell I don't even remember any towns. I saw a couple dead trees but thats about it.

Re:I'm moving there (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789665)

I hope they need Python or Java developers. Perhaps black bears could use some custom software to optimize their search for berries...

http://jobs.rightnowtech.com/ [rightnowtech.com]

Good trend (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789145)

Now if they can only bring back the old "reasonable and prudent" daytime speed limits, also in defiance of the federal government...

Re:Good trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789199)

Actually, Montana's state supreme court ruled "Reasonable & Prudent" was unconstitutional, due to its ambiguity. Once it was ruled as unconstitutional, the law was repealed, leave no speed limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Unite d_States#Montana [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good trend (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789215)

The 18-year-old drinking age and some drunken driving limits were also forced on states by saying "pass this law or we'll cut you out of federal highway funds your people paid for in taxes". A total end run around the constitution that the big chief court in Washington had no problem with. I'm sure there's a long list of this abuse someplace.

Re:Good trend (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789473)

You sound like a petulant teenager. The federal government has provisions for states to receive money. If there's an end run around the constitution it's that the money is going there at all; provisions for cutting it off are just fine.

Re:Good trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789799)

And you sound like ad-homiem bent asshole. Irony fully inteded.

Like the Turtles said of 18, "You're old enough to kill but not for votin'" as the voting age was 21. Now at 18, you're not old enough to put alcohol in your body, but it's okay for the government to recklessly allow exposure to Iraqi lead....

Re:Good trend (2, Insightful)

mrbooze (49713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789825)

I'd be willing to bet good money that in the next congressional and senatorial elections after that, the vast majority of the incumbents were re-elected.

So, if we don't bother to unelect them when they abuse us, aren't we really just getting the government we deserve?

Re:Good trend (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789547)

Arizona still has "reasonable and prudent" speeding limits. The posted lines are burden of proof ratings and not hard limits. You can fight a speeding ticket on the idea of reasonable and prudent. You can also get a speeding ticket for going under the speed limit if the speed limit was not reasonable and prudent for something such as weather conditions.

Good luck on fighting it though.

Driving through (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789819)

Montana's outright posting of the speed limit as open-ended though meant you wouldn't have to worry about a ticket driving through if you were going at a reasonable speed. In Arizona I still have to stick to the limit (or around the limit) because I cannot go back to fight a ticket, as easy as it might be to do so...

Re:Good trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789635)

In Colorado, we rejected the national motorcycle helmet laws (not because they are a bad idea, but because the Feds had no business making the law).

Do you trust Bush? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789147)

That will show Bush! Wanting to track everyone!

VTECH JUST KICKED IN YO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789163)

nevar forger

This is good. (0, Troll)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789165)

Any fights against Bush's efforts for centralization of authority have to be good, right?

I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Course not in 'Nam.

States Rights vs Federal Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789167)

I cannot say who will win that battle, but Montana is fully within their rights to do that. IIRC my 8th grade political science studies, the Federal cannot force the States to perform any action they do not want to do unless it is part of the US Constitution (although they love to think they can). See the Drinking Age deal.. how long was it 18 in Wisconsin before the Fed's cut the the budget to their roads for "non-compliance"?

Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789489)

The Feds won that battle a long time ago by a.) allowing pretty much anything under an outrageously broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and b.) threatening to pull federal highway and other unrelated funds from states if they did not comply with random laws covering a broad range of topics.

Seems to me if the feds can threaten to pull funds that a state's taxpayers paid into if the state doesn't follow some totally unrelated regulation, the state should have the ability to opt out of paying into those types of funds on behalf of its taxpayers. So, if the feds pull highway funding, the states should be allowed to withhold the portion of federal taxes its citizens pay that would normally go to the federal highway budget and have the taxpayers pay that money directly to the state's highway fund instead.

Also, I'd like a unicorn.

Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789575)

Yur right, and in fact if many states just told the feds to shove it, the feds would loose all power over that state.
Yes, the highways may suffer, big deal.
It would not supirse me that if a state followed it up, they wouldn't have to pay those taxes to the feds.

I'm not anti-tax* but the feds using there power in this way just galls me.

*Another time.

History. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789719)

A great number of states once told the Federal government where they might stick their legislation.

The result was a very long and bloody war, resulting in the defeat of those states. Granted, the South gave a damned good fight, only succumbing to the North 'zerging for the win'... ...But back then, there were no cruise missiles, strategic bombers, et cetera.

In a country where we're so afraid that we're banning fingernail clippers from airplanes and crying over a ridiculously low number of casualties in Iraq, there's not going to be any sort of real civil war without which something truly astonishing happens.

Rights being eroded isn't truly astonishing, it's been going on since 1865.

Re:States Rights vs Federal Rights (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789697)

Citizens should never have to pay federal taxes, period. The federal government has exactly 50 citizens that should be responsible for paying taxes. Each state should be collecting from it's sub-units (counties, parrishes, municipalities, et al) or citizens. But that will never happen, unfortunately. It would require the feds to give up control that they've already usurped.

Good luck on the unicorn.

Hooray for Nullification! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789169)

Fuck you Lincoln!

blast from the past (4, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789173)

Isn't this what Republicans used to be like? For state powers and against centralization? What would that make Bush? Fascist?

Re:blast from the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789643)

Yes, indeed it would.

Not a Fascist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789725)

Just a lying, hypocritical, unprincipled politician.

Classic Montana (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789179)

Yet another reason America's crackpots choose Montana.

I wonder what small cabin in the woods real estate is going for in Montana these days.

Lesson for the world (4, Interesting)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789185)

If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

Re:Lesson for the world (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789455)

As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

Not really, because the idea that they "hate us for our freedom" is pure bullshit propaganda. They hate us for continually dicking around in the Middle East, and we are still doing it, and it's getting worse. The fact that we're throwing away our civil liberties is incidental to people like Bin Laden.

Re:Lesson for the world (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789461)

If only people and their elected respresentatives in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other US states were as feisty about their privacy, then the real thrust of the 9/11 attacks would be rendered null and void. As it is, bin Laden (if alive) and his crew must be guffawing about how they've destroyed so much of that 'decadent infidel regime' in the west that also goes by the name of 'freedom'.

I don't get your statement. I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing so I can be an angry citizen like yourself.

Thank you.

ArcherB

Re:Lesson for the world (4, Funny)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789675)

I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing

A life.

Re:Lesson for the world (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789695)

I get up in the morning, feed my child, take a shower, go to work, go home, do my wife, go to bed. The same as I did before the government took away all my rights. Please tell me what I'm missing


A life.

So because I have a child, pay my bills, get laid every night, and don't jump onto the whole "Rove took all my rights" bandwagon, I have no life?

Re:Lesson for the world (2, Insightful)

RobinH (124750) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789739)

You lost the same freedoms that non-drinkers lost during prohibition. Just because you're not excercising all your freedoms doesn't mean you haven't lost any. The US government now has the ability to imprison you *without evidence*. The administration (not just this one but any one in the future) can call up the CIA/FBI, tell them that they have reason to believe you are a terrorist and you will be put in jail with no access to a lawyer, no phone call, no trial, nothing. You will stay there indefinitely.

Now, I'm sure Bush is the most moral person on the planet, so HE would never do that, but you've now opened the door for *some* future administrator to claim that one of his more radical political opponents is a terrorist and that political rival will disappear, effectively becoming a political prisoner, just like Mandela was in South Africa. Only nobody will know where this person even went.

With that kind of power, it's inevitable that some day the US will become a place where people are afraid to openly criticize their government.

Lets see (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789771)

Under no government regime would you have a problem if you just ignored what is around you, stayed in you little life and never gave a damn.

Even under Nazi* rule, you would have been fine.

Of course the moment there is a glitch, or someone that doesn't like you makes a phone call, then you relize those things you never used may have been a tad important.

Tlak to annyone who has had some lie to authorities about child abuse. They are guilty until proven innocent. Even if that can prove there own innocents, you are still watched and checked up on.

Now, how can you prove to me you haven't abused your child?
That is the same kind of logic the admintration, homeland security, and the people running Gitmo use.

Along with questions like
"Will you stop all terrorist acitivties?"
" I never..."
"YES OR NO!"
"no"
"So you admit you were a terrorist."

*I am not comparing this situation with the Nazi. Only using the to illistrate that jst because you keep your head down and don't make waves doesn't mean you have any rights.

Re:Lesson for the world (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789601)

You're absolutely right--OBL is probably off in a cave somewhere cackling maniacally as we speak because President Bush wanted a national ID card. Yes, what fools we've been...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like your post is claiming that OBL wanted the 9/11 attacks to bring about national ID cards, to show us? I don't get it...what am I missing here?

This is historic! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789187)

This is the first time in Montana history that our illustrious MVD had to be ordered NOT to perform something work related.

Way to go Montana! (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789191)

Let's hope other states follow their lead.

Good for them. (5, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789221)

I'm not in the USA, so my comments are general. I'll get that out of the way first.

The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian). There are inevitably going to be problems with control to the data (who has access?), it isn't going to stop fake ID's and it paves the way for people to give up more and more information to a central state.

The benefits are simple, the state gets a large access which it can then use (and most of the time misuse). It will be inevitably linked to other databases, and then the state can do what the East German state did.

It knows when you broke the law, and if you do something it doesn't like, it pulls you in and charges you with whatever it likes. After all, who hasn't broken some law or another?

This comment from the BillingsGazette, shows some other possible uses for the government.

"We also don't think that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., ought to tell us that if we're going to get on a plane we have to carry their card, so when it's scanned through they know where you went, when you got there and when you came home," said Schweitzer, a Democrat.
(And isn't Montana the state with the highest level of gun ownership or something? Someone should shoot the federal agents, that would teach the fuckers.)

Re:Good for them. (5, Insightful)

halo8 (445515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789507)

who hasn't broken some law or another?

Thats the key phrase, right there.
who hasn't broken some law or another?

For those people that dont care about CCTV and Orwellian ideas that they have in Britain because they dont think of themselvs as a criminal, Think Again.

In Singapore chewing gum and spitting are crimes
Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime
Books and CD's have been banned in schools
Trans Fat is illegal in some cities

And it works both ways, Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right.
What if gun were banned?
Missed Child Payments
what if using a racial slur was a criminal offense
Getting angry and making a threat.
Vengeful Neighbours
Banning certain music or concerts dances clothes
its goes on and on and on

Sadly, its not to hard to imagine.

Once the goverment gots you, the GOT you, your in the system.
good luck trying to fly
good luck renewing your license (Driving, Hunting, Practicing whatever...)
good luck getting a job or a mortgage

Re:Good for them. (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789599)

Speeding is a crime, not using your turn signals is a crime

That's nothing. In South Korea (the supposedly free part) you have to show cause to own a motor-vehicle. You need a permit from the government.

Re:Good for them. (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789811)

The linking of databases, such as required by Real ID has a large number of problems and few benefits (unless you are a totalitarian).

So are all countries with a single ID standard totalitarian? Can you provide a list of countries who went totalitarian as a result of a nationalized ID standard and database? Actually, one will do.

Wow, I love this (4, Insightful)

rockhome (97505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789227)

I am a huge fan of the Montana state legislature right. To unanimously pass that kind of legislation says two things :

1. They are for their constituents interests on this one.
2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

Kudos to you Montana. As Stephen Colbert migh say, You've got balls!

Re:Wow, I love this (3, Insightful)

V. Mole (9567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789365)

While I'm glad they did this, I'd guess it has very little to do with concern for constituents and mostly to do with the cost of implementing it. Can you say "unfunded mandate"? I knew you could.

states rights (2, Insightful)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789391)

2. They are standing up for State's rights and not handing over ever more power to the federal government.

Montana has pretty much always stood up for states rights. The one tyme I can think of they didn't was when they raised the legal age for drinking to 21.

I'm glad to see another state stand up against the Real ID Act. But as Vermont's logo is "Do not tread on me" I'm supprised they didn't pass such a law first.

Falcon

Constitution (5, Insightful)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789267)

US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard. It aberrant to subject 149 million people to a preference of 151 million. It's time to delegate most decisions to state level, where they would be hopefully passed on to local governments to honor the spirit of constitution (that was written when the whole US population was smaller than some metropolitan areas now).

Re:Constitution (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789501)

Now some may understand what "The south will rise again" really means. (Hint: It has nothing to do with particular geographical location or racism)

Re:Constitution (3, Informative)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789535)

US constitution never envisioned federal government regulating every small detail of our lives, be it a form of ID used or smoking pot in the privacy of one's backyard.

The author of the "Declaration Of Independence", Thomas Jefferson, woud be rolling in his grave if he knew the federal government outlawed hemp, aka marijuana and pot. He grew hemp on his farm and once said there should be a law requiring farmers to grow it. He didn't propose a law though because he knew such a law would be a restriction on the rights of farmers. The only reason hemp was made illegal was because it posed a threat to some rich and powerful people, amoung them DuPont, William Randolph Hearst, Rockfeller, and Rothschild.

Falcon

Re:Constitution (4, Insightful)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789581)

Exactly, more laws mean that average Joe cannot get through the day without breaking a couple of them. For example, everyone goes on and on about drugs and the cartels that support them, the crime that surrounds them and whatnot. Make the worst ones legal and suddenly there is no incentive for the any of that, the drug lords won't make money and the violence of drug dealing and underground smuggling suddenly just disappears. Here's another interesting concept of the drugs too, with a lot of the worst ones the addicts will quickly kill themselves off since they can get as much as they want. I know what the next comment is going to be "think of the children!", how about "BE A FUCKING PARENT AND KNOW WHAT YOUR KIDS ARE DOING,WHERE THEY ARE AND WHO THEIR FRIENDS ARE!". People that want to do drugs are going to find a way and eventually go away. Look at the percentage of the populace that smokes these days, it's getting lower and more and more teenagers that I talk to think it's a disgusting habit. Anyway, this kind of thing with the card is bullshit. It's just another program that means nothing, does nothing, makes it easier to break the law, and lines the legislators pockets with money from whoever gets the contracts for it.

Re:Constitution (2, Informative)

G00F (241765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789729)

The cosntitutiomn was ment as a way to presever our rights as humand, and limit what can be taken away. Howe3ver, none of that matters anymore since the Constitution is just goddamned piece of paper [capitolhillblue.com]

there are things that could work as preventing the use of national ID's
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am4 [usconstitution.net]
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10 [usconstitution.net]

But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.

Re:Constitution (1)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789847)

The cosntitutiomn was ment as a way to presever our rights as humand... But then any lawer and paid by the government judge will make swish chease of even the most simplest of rights.
Much like you're making "swish chease" out of the English language. I think I lose a few I.Q. points each time I read your post.

YES! (3, Insightful)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789285)

Thank you Montana! This will probably ending up going to the Supreme Court, and I hope Montana wins. The requirements for the "Real ID" are ridiculous. I don't even know where my birth certificate is! I've had a valid state driver's license for 17 years- suddenly I need to prove again that I was born? I've had a valid SSN (and card) for 20-some years- I now need to re-prove my national id (c'mon, you know it is)? Utility bills- am I joining a library? Hell, will I need 3 references, a DNA sample, resume, and a documentary (on DVD of course) of my life next?

All this does is make life harder on regular people. Just like gun laws- when the current laws are not being upheld, lets make more! Just uphold the current laws on getting a driver's license. At least in Pennsylvania, you have to provide a birth certificate and another form of ID. If the states' held up this standard in the first place, you wouldn't have to implement a secondary layer. Pass a law making the states to uphold their current standards.

Blah, I hate government in general. Sorry, just had to pay taxes....

Re:YES! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789477)

Heh, somewhat offtopic, but I'd love to see the bureaucratic reaction to "no birth certificate..."

I don't have it.

Well, without a birth certificate, you clearly must not have been born.

But I'm standing right here.

Without notarized proof of birth, you cannot have been born, therefore you must be dead. Oh! That might make things easier. Death certificate please...

Re:YES! (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789569)

Sorry, just had to pay taxes....
Sorry to go off topic, but I had to address this point. It's unlikely that you just had to pay taxes. What likely happened is that you filled out a form telling the IRS how much extra money they stole from your paycheck.

Federal witholding is such a scam. Taxes should NEVER be withheld. When you never see the money, you don't ever think of the taxes as your money, so you are not vigilant to changes in taxes, nor do you care much how they are spent.

Thats completely ignoring that if you were allowed to pay instead of having it stolen, the resulting investment capital available would be excellent for the economy.

Huh? (2, Interesting)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789297)

First state?

I thought Maine http://news.com.com/2100-7348_3-6153532.html [com.com] already did this with Idaho and Washington following closely behind? Or have those laws not been enacted yet?

First state? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789685)

Maine didn't pass a law rejecting the Real ID act. As the CNet news article [com.com] you provided the link to said, Maine passed a resolution not a law not to force their citizens "to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards".

Falcon

Re:Huh? (3, Insightful)

johndierks (784521) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789853)

Depends on what time the bills were signed, as today Washington state Governor Christine Gregiore also signed into law a bill that rejects real ID.

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/29426prs20070418.h tml [aclu.org]

The measure will prohibit state implementation of the REAL ID Act, unless the federal government fully funds it and provides stronger protections for the privacy of Washington drivers. The measure (SB 5087) passed both chambers of the legislature with bipartisan support, including an overwhelming 95-2 vote in the House. Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) was the bill's prime sponsor, and Senators Dan Swecker (R-Rochester) and Ed Murray (D-Seattle) were cosponsors.

governor (2, Interesting)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789301)

I'm from Montana, and all I can say is: I am very, very glad that Schweitzer is governer now. Judy Martz, our previous governor(governess?) would have gone along with the REAL ID act, just to be compliant with our wise and noble leader in DC.

Re:governor (2, Interesting)

pschmied (5648) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789375)

Yeah, and maybe with two democratic senators, MT will back it up too.

Judy Martz was a tool: Mrs. "My husband never hit me, but then I never gave him reason to." ...or the fact that she was a *self professed* lapdog of industry.

Hey, how about you Montanans also get a ballot initiative to institute instant runoff voting (IRV)? I'm an expat, but I still vote in MT elections... I'd support it. :-)

Re:governor (1)

ILoveMT (1090221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789401)

I 2nd that! Thank god for Schweitzer, he is so much better then Judy. If it wasn't for him, I'd be moving, well thinking about it anyway.

Re:governor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789493)

One thing you fellow Montanan's might want to realize is that our fine state is leading the country in bipartisanship. To have this pass unanimously means that Democrats and Republicans worked together for the good of the people. I'm a Republican and I voted for Schweitzer because I felt he would be good for the people of Montana, not because of a silly letter (R, D) beside his name.

Live FREE in Montana or DIE a miserable death in California.

Re:governor (1)

ILoveMT (1090221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789583)

Well he is good for Montana, a welcome change. He also looked much better the Bob Brown, who I'm sure may have been a good governor, but he is no Schweitzer in my opinion. I'm glad our legislature was able to get something done together this session.

Re:governor (1)

PresidentEnder (849024) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789639)

That's because the vast majority of our legislature is actually Libertarian and just doesn't want the stigma associanted with that.

Re:governor (1)

Rev Jim (AKA Metal F (1004571) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789645)

I'm another Montanan here on /. that voted for Schweitzer. Glad to see this make national news, I hope more states will follow this example, not just this but a bevy of issues better left to state/local goverment. I have a sneaky feeling though that the Feds will deny us tax revenue to persuade us otherwise, like the speed limit thing, or the Supreme court will just overrule us like on the medicinal marijuana law. The game is rigged.

Re:governor (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789761)

I'm from Montana, and all I can say is: I am very, very glad that Schweitzer is governer now. Judy Martz, our previous governor(governess?) would have gone along with the REAL ID act, just to be compliant with our wise and noble leader in DC.

We have a wise and noble leader in DC? Why doesn't this leader try to talk some sense into President Bush?

One of the last great bastions of Freedom in USA (1)

ScrewTivo (458228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789349)

Just wish it wasn't so damn cold.
Good work Citizens.

Re:One of the last great bastions of Freedom in US (2, Funny)

Glowing Fish (155236) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789653)

It isn't always too cold. Sometimes it is too hot.

Freedom (4, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789363)

FTA:

[...] said Schweitzer, a Democrat. "This is still a free country and there are no freer people than the people that we have in Montana."
Well, that's precisely the problem! That's exactly the problem that we're solving here.

No one hates your freedom like we do... Uh, oops, I mean, like the terrorists do. Everybody knows it's the terrorists who hate your freedom. And of course only the terrorists can take your freedom away... Uh, um, no, not exactly, they can't... In fact only we can take your freedom away... er... You shouldn't question these things... Now be a good patriot and lie down and let us step on you for your protection.

Really that big of a problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789379)

How does this help protect information regarding personal travel? Airlines already have information on who you are, where you are going and when you come back. That information is already monitored and can be acquired by homeland security.

Why not just require passports instead of driver's licenses? Save a lot of money and oversight of a new ID standard.

Re:Really that big of a problem? (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789647)

Why not just require passports instead of driver's licenses?
Passports? No way! Only police states require that their own citizens carry around passports. We can't have that. The US is no police state! That's why it has to be ID cards instead.

In other news ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789389)

In other news .. the entire state of Montana has been declared an "Enemy Combatant". Plans are under way to use the national guard to secure and build GitmoII around the entire state.

Re:In other news ... (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789499)

Don't worry they're ready. [militiaofmontana.com]

Re:In other news ... (1)

Synic (14430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789741)

Expect their government leaders to disappear if they successfully fight this in the Supreme Court (which they won't) and the law gets repealed by the newly appointed Republic governor.

Also, militias aren't ready for the carpet bombing of everyone in Montana.

You can see from the Children of Men movie that terrorists with limited resources can only hold out so long against tanks and superior resources. Unless there was some supply chain to Montana from another state or country of ammunition, supplies, fighters, etc their struggle would last a day or two.

Montana: Spark of Civil War (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789433)

Am I completely crazy, or was there a movie/short series a while back (perhaps quite a while back!) where a modern civil war broke out in the USA, and the trigger point was somewhere in... Montana? Can anybody give me a reference? What the hell am I remembering here?

Re:Montana: Spark of Civil War (1)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789467)

Maybe you're thinking of the Montana Freemen [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Montana: Spark of Civil War (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789651)

In the game Deus Ex, there was a group called the "NSF" or Northwest Secessionist Forces, where several northwestern states, Montana included, tried to remove themselves from a tyrannical US federal government. Unsuccessfully, I might add.

That game was eerily on-target about "terrorists" and the rhetoric thrown about in the world political climate since 9/11. I'd also like to point out that Deus Ex was voted "Game of the Year" by several gaming magazines for the year 2000. Kudos to Warren Spector and his team.

Seventeenth Amendment Repeal, anybody? (5, Interesting)

sehlat (180760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789521)

The original constitution provided for the House to be elected directly by the people of their state, and for Senators to be elected or appointed by the state legislatures. What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life. It also meant that a lot of the things we see coming out of Washington, including such "unfunded mandates" as the Real ID act, which imposes enormous costs on the states that the Federal government doesn't pay for, can't be remedied by the legislatures who have to vote the money for these things recalling them.

Re:Seventeenth Amendment Repeal, anybody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789779)

Yeah the "original" Constitution was sooooo much better. This new-fangled document we have is trash, I tell you!

Seriously though, there's a really goddamn good reason for the 17th:

1. Tying the election of Senators to state legislature was absolutely stupid. That's what the House is for - it functions on the interest of its constituency. If the Senate was the same way, that's what we call "mob rule". And the House has short term-limits exactly in order to force them to maintain constituent interests.
2. If this is "coming out of Washington", that means it PASSED the legislature. So blame your senators and representatives, not the feds. They're responsible for these unfunded mandates.

And if anyone else talks about how beautiful it is that Montana has struck down those asshole feds to protect our privacy, please get with the program. This is about States' rights and federalism, not privacy. RTFA for proof of that.

Oblig (0)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789541)

This didn't happen online.

Federal government has the upper hand (3, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789615)

By enacting this legislation, Montana has denied its residents access to any federal programs that require the presentation of government-issued photo identification. One notable example is your passport: a photo ID is required to get a passport. No skin off the nose of the feds - in fact, it's less work for them to round-file all the passport applications from Montana once the ID requirements roll around.

And good luck getting back into the country when you head up to Alberta for cheap prescription drugs. You may be required to show a passport or other photo ID to re-enter the country across the Canadian border (and a passport is required when traveling by air), and since DHS is in charge of that, they can take one look at your Montana driver's license and turn you away.

States' rights! (0)

ilyag (572316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789633)

Wow, states' rights are back. I imagine Civil War II is ahead...

But really, I think that the federal government will just tie the Real ID to some form of funding, and all states will happily agree to that, much like in the case of the drinking age.

Re:States' rights! (1)

Synic (14430) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789757)

Don't get too excited. Federal laws overrule local ones. Just look at the federal transportation boot-strapped drug laws.

Montana is Big Balls Country (1, Funny)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789713)

I, for one, welcome our new floss plucking pygmy pony overlords. Too bad it won't last.

This battle is long lost... (3, Interesting)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789723)

Although Montana's valiant stand is commendable, the battle over "Real ID" is long lost. The current license databases are reachable by police from other States already, and even the security guards undergo training to recognize drivers licenses (of States and of many countries).

Passport is already a "Real ID" and may soon become required to obtain access to any Federal building (such as the one blown up by Timothy McVeigh).

The only (rational) argument against "Real ID" is that such single database can be abused. Well, guess what, a collection of easily accessible databases with a unified interface is just as easily abused — and we already have it. A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car — in 1997...

May, as well, have "Real ID"...

Wow, montana ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18789759)

Isnt this some mid-midwestern state which are supposed to be a little/extreme conservative and hence should have not made a stand against privacy-damaging concerns ?

Maine was first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18789827)

Maine was the first state to pass this kind of law, not Montana.
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...