A number of states have balked at the law, objecting to it largely over cost and privacy concerns. But under the administration's new edict, states that continue to fight compliance with the law face a penalty: Their residents will be forbidden from using driver's licenses to board airplanes or enter federal buildings as of May 11 of this year.
Congress passed the Real ID law in 2005 to address security flaws spotlighted by the 2001 terrorist attacks. But 17 states, including Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, have passed legislation calling for its repeal or opposing its implementation.
"Come May 2008, [their] citizens . . . will feel the consequences" of the states' resistance, Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke said Friday. To board a plane or enter a federal building, those residents will have to use a passport or other form of accepted identification, he said.
This is just flat out unacceptable. I mean, seriously? "Their citizens' will feel the consequence of the states' resistance"? The Department of Homeland Security might as well just say "We are not amused. Resistance is futile." What is the point of even having states if we don't allow them the power to govern as they desire? I seem to remember a little phrase is the U.S. Constitution saying this:
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 10th Freaking Amendment! The founders felt that this point was so important, they included it in the Bill of Rights. How can the federal government have such a blatant disregard for our rights? How can the citizens of this country be so damn unaware? This amendment was put in for a reason.
It's a shame that any debate concerning "States Rights" (really the 10th Amendment, in my opinion) is inevitably tainted by the Civil War. People on all sides of the political spectrum become nervous when the phrase is brought up, if not downright angry. Among the few, worn our arguments you'll hear, the most common is usually along the lines of "If we respected States Rights, we'd still have slavery." Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Slavery really should have been outlawed from the onset of the Revolution. Unfortunately, it was viewed by much of the population as both socially acceptable and necessary to sustain economic growth. A proper interpretation of the Constitution would never have allowed slavery, so it was really a lapse in judgment that was to blame, not some fundamental problem with States Rights.
The reason we have States, and even local governments, is representation. People are more appropriately represented at lower levels of government. They also have more freedom to move around and change their condition and the laws affecting it when local and state governments have more say than the federal government. The founders realized that the problem with a "one size fits all" strong, centralized, government was the inherent lack of representation for the individual. The stronger the powers of the federal government, the more people would be alienated or at least negatively affected by any decision. And this is only common sense. The United States is a large place filled with many different people and cultural customs. To suggest that the fed knows what policy is best for all (with the exception of our basic rights and protections) is insulting. It's simply too few people making life-changing decisions for too many.
Perhaps the only thing worse than the breach of the Constitution is the implications for privacy and the abuse thereof. Not only does the requirement of every citizen to carry a national ID transform the average police officer into a federal agent. It also means that people who want to abuse the system now have an easier time developing a "one method screws all" system of exploitation. And among the potential aspects of our lives to be exploited will be (but not limited to) our finger prints, social security number, health records, criminal records in all 50 states, etc. Apparently, certain members of congress even want to include RF micro-transmitters in the IDs so they can be read from a certain radius by anyone with a scanner. What if a criminal were to get their hands on a scanner?
I don't care how much easier the ID will make it to keep the lookout for suspected terrorists. The fact is, September 11th could have been avoided if we'd just relied and acted on the intelligence we had at the time. Increases in federal power only lead to more increases down the road. Honestly, what's next? A bar code on your wrist? To deny a citizen the ability to board a plane or even walk into a federal building, just because their respective state doesn't wish to comply to unjust standards is abhorrent.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
1 comment:
Yea me and the Real ID act don't really get along too well. The costs far exceed the benefits both
monetarily and socially. I think the state governors should hold a convention and vote on a 50-state boycott... Hey, I can dream, right?
Btw your post reminds me of the drinking age, which is also technically up to the state to decide, but Big Bro decided that states that made it under 21 wouldn't receive funding for highways. I guess it's almost fair since Federal government is removing a benefit rather than exacting a penalty. Still though, sometimes power matters more than money, and the states gave up a lot of power for a few extra bucks. Well, that's my rant. Damn, I haven't visited a political blog in a long time.
Post a Comment