Mark Sanford Opposes the Real ID

danarhea · 03-22-08, 10:55 PM

With the Federal government hell bent on making America a police state, who is to stand up to them? How about a red state Governor? Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, plans to sue the Federal government for forcing states to comply with an unconstitutional law.

Give 'em hell, Mark.

Article is here.

new coup for you · 03-22-08, 11:26 PM

people have so many rediculous ideas about RID. All it is is a body of minimum requirements that all states must conform to. They'll continue to be administered by your local governments, not by the Federal government. It's not a national ID. It's not the beginning of an American 1984. It's not going to cause the Rapture.

It's one of the few reasonable anti-terrorism activities the Bush administration has engaged in

Curious George · 03-23-08, 03:08 AM

When I saw the title of this thread I was like... "Somebody thinks this is news?" LOL. Thanks for the article.

aegyptos · 03-23-08, 06:39 AM

I look forward to Real ID becoming reality.

missypea · 03-23-08, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

With the Federal government hell bent on making America a police state, who is to stand up to them? How about a red state Governor? Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, plans to sue the Federal government for forcing states to comply with an unconstitutional law.

Give 'em hell, Mark.

Article is here.

He's not alone:

State Rebellion against De Facto National ID Card Spreads

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON - As part of a growing state rebellion, Gov. Christine Gregoire today signed a bill rejecting REAL ID, a new federal identification system that would create a de facto national ID card. Legislatures in four other states – Maine, Idaho, Arkansas and Montana – also have adopted measures opposing REAL ID, and lawmakers in more than 20 other states are considering similar action.

American Civil Liberties Union : Washington Governor Signs Bill Rejecting REAL ID

chevydriver1123 · 03-23-08, 10:24 AM

Big kudos to the Governors who oppose this 1984 crap.

AndrewC · 03-23-08, 12:53 PM

Should an American tax payer be required to get permission from the federal government to travel, utilize federal services or facilities, get a job, open a bank account or other financial services? REAL ID is big step towards that goal. Basically, instead of creating a new national ID card. They are going to use state ID cards to accomplish the same objective. It does not matter that states will issue the ID. If the purpose is to serve as a national proof of identity.

Requiring Americans to provide proof of identity and status to do common daily activities is a problem. Storing massive amounts of information about law abiding Americans is a problem. Granting federal, state, local, foreign and private entities access to this information is a problem.

An article about so-called fusion centers is linked below. These are information clearinghouses for domestic intelligence. Some say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Others say they are ripe for abuse.

Feds Tout New Domestic Intelligence Centers | Threat Level from Wired.com

Quote:

The dominant catchphrase from the officials was that the centers need to focus on "all threats, all hazards." That means that the fusion centers would be working on immigration, radicalization, demographic changes, hurricanes, biological and chemical threats, as well as common criminal activity. Officials say the centers must look at even the most mundane crimes, since they can be used to fund terrorism.

By way of example, Los Angeles police chief Bratton cites the investigation of a string of gas station stick-ups in L.A. in 2005. The robbery investigation led to the prosecution of militant Muslim convicts who were planning attacks on synagogues. That, Bratton said, illustrates why these intelligence centers need to be analyzing run-of-the-mill crimes.

"Information that might seem innocuous may have some connection to terrorism," Bratton said.

But critics say that "all hazards, all threats" approach sounds suspiciously like the government is building a distributed domestic intelligence service that could easily begin keeping tabs on Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. The scope also seems at odds with the federal government's Information Sharing Environment guidelines, which say these centers are supposed to focus on terrorism.

California's Anti-Terrorism Information Center admitted to spying on anti-war groups in 2003. And Denver's police department built their own secret spy files on Quakers and 200 other organizations.

new coup for you · 03-23-08, 12:56 PM

here's the "massive body of data":

* The person's full legal name.
* The person's date of birth.
* The person's gender.
* The person's driver's license or identification card number.
* A digital photograph of the person.
* The person's address of principle residence.
* The person's signature.
* Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.
* A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.

* In order to receive any grant or other type of financial assistance available under this legislation, States would be required to participate in the interstate compact known as the "Driver License Agreement." This agreement would provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other States.
* The State motor vehicle database would have to contain, at a minimum:
o All data fields printed on drivers' licenses and identification cards issued by the State.
o Motor vehicle drivers' histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses.

House Passes H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act of 2005

Truth Detector · 03-23-08, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danarhea

With the Federal government hell bent on making America a police state, who is to stand up to them? How about a red state Governor? Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, plans to sue the Federal government for forcing states to comply with an unconstitutional law.

Give 'em hell, Mark.

Article is here.

The march of the FALSE premises continues. I would like anyone on the forum to explain to me how America is to become a "police State" by implementing these requirements?

It's obvious that the author here doesn't comprehend the definition of a Police State and is under the FALSE impression we are becoming one, so I ask one of the more intellectually honest members to help me understand how this patently FALSE premise has any credibility.

DHS | REAL ID Final Rule: Questions & Answers

"states must upgrade the security of their license systems, to include a check for lawful status of all applicants, to ensure that illegal aliens cannot obtain REAL ID licenses. Some states are expected to be compliant well before that time. Compliance will be needed for access into a federal facility, boarding commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants. Federal agencies will continue to accept licenses for official purposes from residents of states that comply with the law."

Gee, we wouldn't want to ensure that applicants are not illegal immigrants would we? DUH.

AndrewC · 03-23-08, 05:01 PM

Whether America is or is becoming a police state isn't the issue. The issue is do we want to live in a country where you have to show identification and therefore receive approval to do daily activities. Are we a nation of people or just numbers in a database and a tax return? In a free society people have rights and don't have to ask permission to exercise them.

Is America a Police State?
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002

Quote:

America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.

But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.

In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.