Mark Sanford Opposes the Real ID

Ikari · 03-24-08, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

You give the federal government money so that they can provide for safe and speedy interstate transportation. Reducing drunk driving (the ostensible reason for this rule) is a directly related concern.

Similarly, you give the federal government money so that they can provide safe and secure borders. Creating a national baseline for ID is a directly related concern.

Reducing drunk driving is the State's concern, not the federal government. It's easier to constrain and control the State government than the federal government, so one would want as much power as possible decentralized into the many States. Driver licenses are also the concern of the State and not the federal government. If the federal government is concerned with safe and secure boarders, then they can start just there...at the national boarders. Not by forcing me into a nationalized ID with RFID capabilities and the possibility to further expand the data basing once implemented.

new coup for you · 03-24-08, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WI Crippler

Oh boy, by the way everybody was talking I thought REAL ID was an implanted chip at the base of your skull that the government could track, via GPS, you to your location at anytime, and could also remotely detonate the chip if you were found to have voted for anybody besides a republican or democrat, refused to pay income taxes, made a donation to the Ron Paul campaign, or were found to be investing in gold futures.

I guess with the facts present, I'm going to have to change my mind.

people have the most insane ideas about RID. It's not a big deal at all. Teh application process is a much bigger deal then the data elements.

It's way more restrictive for illigal immigrants.

TOJ · 03-24-08, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

I think I actually heard my brain cells dying as I read that.

If that shocked you, most of them must have already been dead.

Quote:

"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to ...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

...

The Court has ruled time and again in favor of laws passed by Congress using the rational that almost everything has an affect on inter-state commerce.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

I give money to the federal government so it can perform the tasks I want it to do;

What you, as an individual, want the governement to do is irrelevent; you don't get a say in it with the exception of voting for some politicians that you think might share your priorities.

new coup for you · 03-24-08, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Shhh! Don't use facts! Facts are bad. Remember, if this passes, the pizza man is going to know that you take viagra and be afraid you'll bone him. The governmentz will pwn j00! The ACLU told me so! Fear it, FEAAAAAR....!

(wait, aren't some of the opponents of this based on the fear of what could happen the same people that yell at those in favor of the war on terror of using "fear tactics" to "scare people" into agreeing with by talking about something that may or may not actually happen?)

I was getting pissed off that no one seemed to have read my post, the only post actually including any information about RID.

So thank you, Zyphlin and WI.

Ikari · 03-24-08, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOJ

If that shocked you, most of them must have already been dead.

If I keep reading some of these posts, I fear that may turn out to be true. Though thankfully, enough survive for me to do physics; which in the end is all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOJ

The Court has ruled time and again in favor of laws passed by Congress using the rational that almost everything has an affect on inter-state commerce.

Nothing has been more abused that unterstate commerce, the use of this clause has been used time and time again to expand upon the power and scope of the federal government well beyond that which was intended. The courts stand the same chance as the other branches to become corrupt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TOJ

What you, as an individual, want the governement to do is irrelevent; you don't get a say in it with the exception of voting for some politicians that you think might share your priorities.

What I want as one of We the People is very relevant. The government has no innate power and has no innate authority and has no innate soveriegnty. Everything it wields, it wields because We the People have allowed it to do so. All power, all authority, all soveriegnty lies within We the People and not the government. It is my government, my authority allows it to continue. Should it act against my liberty and freedom, it is my duty to impose restrictions against it; to control it. If it goes so far down the road of tyranny and treason as to not be able to be brought back by normal means, it is my duty as a freeman to overthrow it and begin anew with a govenrment which will protect and proliferate my liberty.

Truth Detector · 03-24-08, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

That one is a no-brainer. It's the 10th Amendment.

I can't wait for your argument using the 10th amendment which tells the Federal Government they cannot mandate a standard for drivers licenses as a form of ID. Please who us what section or language contained in the 10th amendment states the Federal Government cannot mandate standards for State drivers licenses.

I guess instead of forcing States to add these GOOD ideas to their drivers license application process the Federal Government could issue National IDs for those who wish to travel much like a passport. But the notion that this act is violation of the 10th amendment makes me laugh out loud; like most of your arguments do.

new coup for you · 03-24-08, 12:07 PM

I disagree with the argument but arguing against RID from a 10th Amendment perspective is pretty sound.

RightinNYC · 03-24-08, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

Reducing drunk driving is the State's concern, not the federal government.

I know you and I disagree about the general welfare clause, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

It's easier to constrain and control the State government than the federal government, so one would want as much power as possible decentralized into the many States. Driver licenses are also the concern of the State and not the federal government. If the federal government is concerned with safe and secure boarders, then they can start just there...at the national boarders. Not by forcing me into a nationalized ID with RFID capabilities and the possibility to further expand the data basing once implemented.

I think the federal government has an incredibly compelling interest in driver licenses. Say NY started a program whereby anyone could get a license saying anything without any documentation. That would obviously be a significant risk to the entire nation and would warrant federal intervention. Similarly, the federal government has the authority to require states to include basic minimum standards in licenses up to and including the Real ID.

Ikari · 03-24-08, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I know you and I disagree about the general welfare clause, so I'll leave it at that.

fair enough

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I think the federal government has an incredibly compelling interest in driver licenses. Say NY started a program whereby anyone could get a license saying anything without any documentation. That would obviously be a significant risk to the entire nation and would warrant federal intervention. Similarly, the federal government has the authority to require states to include basic minimum standards in licenses up to and including the Real ID.

That sounds like NY's problem and not mine. The federal government was never granted that ability and everything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved by the States and the People...hence the federal government has no authority at required nationalized ID with tracking and remote reading capabilities. I find that to be well well more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be.

RightinNYC · 03-24-08, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

That sounds like NY's problem and not mine. The federal government was never granted that ability and everything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved by the States and the People...hence the federal government has no authority at required nationalized ID with tracking and remote reading capabilities. I find that to be well well more dangerous than any terrorist could ever be.

Except the federal government does have the power not to provide NY with federal funds for its own security if NY refuses to take even the most basic efforts to provide for the security of the other 49 states.

03-24-08, 12:07 PM	#37
new coup for you Upper West Side Jacobin Join Date: Aug 2005 Last Seen: 03-19-10 06:59 PM Location: Philly, "The City that shoves you back!" Posts: 10,627 Thanks: 785 Thanked 2,296 Times in 1,550 Posts Gender:	Re: Mark Sanford Opposes the Real ID I disagree with the argument but arguing against RID from a 10th Amendment perspective is pretty sound.
	__________________ And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode