As technology grows more sophisticated and the government and its corporate allies further refine their methods of keeping tabs on the American people, those of us who treasure privacy increasingly find ourselves engaged in a struggle to maintain our freedoms in the midst of the modern surveillance state.

Just consider the many ways we’re already being monitored and tracked: through our Social Security numbers, bank accounts, purchases and electronic transactions; by way of our correspondence and communications devices – email, phone calls and mobile phones; through chips implanted in our vehicles, identification documents, even our clothing. Data corporations are capturing vast caches of personal information on you so that airports, retailers, police and other government authorities can instantly identify and track you. Add to this the fact that businesses, schools and other facilities are relying more and more on fingerprints and facial recognition to identify us. All the while, banks and other financial institutions must verify the identities of new customers and make such records of customer transactions available to the police and government officials upon request.

In recent years, this information glut has converged into a mandate for a national ID card, which came to a head with Congress’ passage of the REAL ID Act in 2005. REAL ID requires states to issue machine-readable drivers’ licenses containing a wealth of personal data. However, because the REAL ID Act has been opposed by many states due to its cost and implementation, we have yet to be subjected to a nationwide implementation of a national ID card. That may all change depending on what happens with the immigration reform bill now before Congress.

A centerpiece of the immigration bill as proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a requirement that all U.S. workers, citizen and resident alike, be required to obtain and carry biometric Social Security cards (national ID cards under a different name) in order to work within the United States. Attempting to appease critics of a national ID card, Schumer and Graham insist that “no government database would house everyone’s information” and that the “cards would not contain any private information, medical information, or tracking devices.” However, those claims are blatantly false. Indeed, this proposed biometric card is nothing more than an end-run around opposition to a national ID card.

Civil and privacy rights advocates, as well as liberal-, conservative-, and libertarian-leaning organizations, have long raised concerns that a national ID card would enable the government to track citizens and, thus, jeopardize the privacy rights of Americans. President Reagan likened a 1981 proposal to the biblical “mark of the beast,” and President Clinton dismissed a similar plan because it smacked of Big Brother.

Most recently, The Rutherford Institute and the American Civil Liberties Union, along with a host of other organizations, voiced their opposition to the biometric ID card. In a letter to both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, this coalition of groups declared that such a national ID card would “not only violate privacy by helping to consolidate data and facilitate tracking of individuals, it would bring government into the very center of our lives by serving as a government permission slip needed by everyone in order to work. As happened with Social Security cards decades ago, use of such ID cards would quickly spread and be used for other purposes – from travel to voting to gun ownership.” And the national biometric ID card would “require the creation of a bureaucracy that combines the worst elements of the Transportation Security Administration and state Motor Vehicle Departments.”

At a minimum, these proposed cards will contain a memory device that stores distinct – and highly personal – physical or biological information unique to the cardholder such as fingerprints, retina scan information, a mapping of the veins on the top of your hand, and so on. Eventually, other information, such as personal business and financial data, will probably also be stored on these cards. For the cards to be effective, an information storage system and central database, which will be managed by the government and its corporate handlers, will be required. That means a lot of taxpayer dollars will be used to create the ultimate tracking device to be used against American citizens.

As journalist Megan Carpentier reports, “The federal government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and force employees and employers still suffering from a recession to do the same, to create and make accessible to every employer a national database of the fingerprints of all Americans from the time they are 14 years old. And they want to do it in order to keep an estimated 11.9 million unauthorized immigrants – less than 4 percent of the total population of the United States – from accessing the job market.” Under threat of substantial fines by the government and in what promises to be a cumbersome, bureaucratic process, employers will have to purchase ID card scanning devices (or visit their local DMV) in order to scan the cards of every individual they wish to hire before that individual can be employed. What this amounts to, essentially, is a troubling system in which all Americans would have to get clearance from the federal government in order to get a job.

Furthermore, the law’s requirement that machine-readable technology be incorporated into the card opens the door for radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to be placed on the cards. RFID is a tiny, automatic identification system that enables data – in this case the private information of American citizens – to be transmitted by a portable device. This will provide the government with unprecedented access to American citizens’ personal information. In addition, RFID tags emit radio frequency signals that allow the government to track the movement of the cards, as well as the cardholders. In other words, wherever your card goes, so do the government monitors.

When all is said and done, the adoption of a national biometric ID card serves one purpose only: to provide the government with the ultimate control over the American people. As one commentator has remarked, this is a “naked government power grab.”

The time to resist is now. If we don’t, eventually, we will all have to possess one of these cards in order to be a functioning citizen in American society. Failing to have a biometric card will render you a non-person for all intents and purposes. Your whole life will depend on this card – your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on.

What we used to call science fiction is now reality. And whether a national ID card is the mark of the Beast or the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest book The Change Manifesto (Sourcebooks) is now available.

Copyright © 2010 The Rutherford Institute

During its decline from a republic to a democracy, lying Leviathan prattled about being a “government of, by, and for the people.” But the beast increasingly forsakes that pretence as it continues sliding into tyranny.

One instance of the State’s new and brutal honesty came last fall when Congress bailed out billionaires despite our overwhelming opposition. Another around that same time saw the criminals running New York City overturn a law on term-limits that voters had twice upheld. More than ever, government is of, by and for Our Rulers.

And then there’s the Feds’ dogged quest for a national ID card. Four years ago, these bozos tried to turn your driver’s license into just such a monstrosity with their infamous REAL ID Act. This dictate required licenses to include “defined minimum data elements,” most likely biometric identifiers such as fingerprints or retinal scans and RFID tracking chips. It would also make even more of our business contingent on the State’s whims: before we entered a courthouse or opened a bank account, among other activities, we’d have to produce our REAL ID for a bureaucrat’s approval – or rejection.

Congress passed this monumentally anti-constitutional legislation without even debating it, then deputized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement it. Reincarnated Nazi Michael Chertoff was Secretary of DHS; he spent much of his time – and millions of our taxes – trying to ram REAL ID down the nation’s throat.

All our money bought him was the biggest revolt against DC’s diktats since 1861. Departments of Motor Vehicles in many states vehemently objected to overhauling their systems just to please DHS; the governors of those states just as vehemently protested the enormous expense of said overhaul and waxed indignant about REAL ID’s invasions of privacy. If anyone’s gonna tyrannize Montanans or Mainers, by gum, it’ll be their local masters, not Washington’s overlords. Legislatures put teeth in the dissent as states passed resolutions and even laws against complying with REAL ID.

At this point, we might expect Feds who constantly bray about democracy, who eagerly slaughter their own serfs as well as foreign ones for its glory, to throw in the towel on a national ID. Have not the people spoken, indeed, shrieked, that they’ll have nothing to do with this abomination? But Our Rulers never weary in their evil-doing. Nor do they hesitate to show us exactly how stupid they think we are. And so a litter of senators introduced the “Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009″ (PASS ID) last week. Essentially, they stripped the name “REAL ID” off the old bill, slapped a new title on it, and tweaked a few of the details.

Just as they did with REAL ID, the Feds insist that PASS ID is not a national ID – oh, my, no. So what if every American has a uniform card that he must constantly show to government’s goons? That’s not a national ID, you silly citizen, you! If you were as wise as our legislators, you’d realize that both REAL and PASS ID are simply driver’s licenses with “strong security standards.” Or so say politicians who also assure us that they’re bossing this democracy according to the will of the people. True, REAL ID had some “troubling aspects”: it would have forced states to link their databases, which “could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves and the backbone for a national identification database.” But ”PASS ID addresses those privacy … concerns…” Thus do its sponsors hallucinate about the differences between two identical bills while figuring they’ve snowed us yet again.

PASS ID does depart from REAL ID in one important aspect: it bribes the states to cooperate with a whole lot more of our taxes. Remember the indignant governors, grousing about REAL ID’s violation of our rights? Surprise: that no longer troubles them a-tall. Indeed, members of the National Governors Association so pant to push their hot little hands more deeply into our pockets that they now support REAL–er, PASS ID.

PASS ID also thoughtfully eases the burden on DMVs. Bureaucrats there need not curtail their three-hour lunches nor keep their feet on their desks past 3:30 each afternoon as they bring their little fiefdoms into compliance. But you and I will still be jumping through REAL ID’s hoops as we seek to satisfy the DMV numbskull that our birth certificates are authentic and we live where the State’s records say we do. Of course, the approximately 423 documents that substantiate such claims already reside on various government computers, but unless you bring a copy with you for the numbskull, you’ll be walking rather than driving to work. Actually, you may still be walking even if you produce every single paper the numbskull demands: after paying PASS ID’s higher taxes, who’ll have money left for licenses that cost many multiples of their former price?

Naturally, Our Rulers have our best interests at heart as they impose this totalitarianism. They repeatedly cite “the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation to enhance the security of driver’s licenses” as though anyone other than the stooges on Leviathan’s payroll gives said Commission an iota of credibility. Heck, even some of the stooges damn the Commission, especially those it set up as fall guys for the Fed’s role that tragic day.

Our Rulers also aver that PASS ID “helps fight terrorism” despite experts’ frequent refutations. “Going back to 9-11,” says Bruce Schneier, author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World, “every one of those terrorists had an ID. Some of them had forged IDs, some used their real name, and some of them got real IDs with a fake names [sic] by bribing a motor-vehicles clerk.” Nor is this just one man’s opinion. International consensus notes the missing link between ID and security: “Harvey Mattinson, a consultant at the information technology arm of GCHQ [Government Communication Headquarters – ‘one of the three UK Intelligence Agencies’], said that the only real value of identity cards would be to help state bodies share information about people.”

No wonder Leviathan obsesses over ID. “State bodies” not only “share information” about us, they also pin our names to our addresses so that we are easy to find and fine. The State’s usual motive for its crimes – money – explains its lust to identify us, too. Linda Lewis-Pickett, president and CEO of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, “think[s] each state agency has looked at DMVs as revenue generators – ‘Come in and pay taxes and give us money.’” After we pay those taxes, the drivers’ licenses and plates those DMVs dispense generate further revenue when officials track us to a billing address.

There’s a further benefit in matching names with citizens: it controls us and quashes dissent. Few patriots are brave enough to speak out against Leviathan’s evil when its lackeys can respond, “Papers, please.” Perhaps that’s why the Constitution empowers government merely to count citizens but never to identify them – unless they vote in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 7) or run for the presidency (Art. II, Sec. 1). It is rulers, not us, who must identify themselves lest they wreak wickedness against us (Art. I, Sec. 7).

Which brings us to the author of the REAL ID Act, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI). None too happy that we’ve scrapped his legacy, this heavy-handed dunderhead thundered, “Maybe governors [who objected to REAL ID] should have been in the Capitol when we knew a plane was on its way to Washington wanting to kill a few thousand more people.” Sensenbrenner also snarls that PASS ID, REAL ID’s twin even if it lacks his name on its legislation, sends us “right back to where we were on Sept. 10, 2001.”

Would that it did.

Becky Akers [send her mail] writes primarily about the American Revolution.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Regardless of whether you felt REAL ID represented critical improvements in security standards or a federal government ID system outsourced upon the states, Secretary Napolitano recently affirmed that, at least by name, that Title II of the Act was dead:

“By Dec 31st, no state will have issued a REAL ID compliant identification document.  We cannot have national standards for driver’s licenses when the states themselves refuse to participate.”

But, just how dead is it?  As politicians, we see firsthand how often things are simply retooled, renamed and resubmitted.  And in the case of REAL ID, which has its roots in failed attempts to implement AAMVA’s Driver’s License Agreement (DLA), it would not be the first time the concept behind a “one license, one record” national ID card was being repackaged.

The DLA started as a dismal failure with few states coming on board because it allowed for foreign data sharing and would have left AAMVA in charge of the biometric and technological standards of what had previously been a state’s sovereign document.

Because AAMVA is a 501c3 with foreign voting members, the DLA essentially left many important driver licensing decisions in the hands of a non-governmental organization that has virtually no state oversight.  With few initial takers, the DLA was inserted into early versions of REAL ID in an attempt to resurrect it.

Now that it appears REAL ID will be replaced with PASS ID, it will be interesting to see how many vestiges of REAL ID and the DLA will remain. Although initially less prescriptive, PASS ID retains many of the core aspects of REAL ID and still puts DHS in charge of current and future rulemaking processes.

The bill is largely silent on RFID and foreign data sharing, and rather than including language that would formally prohibit such practices, PASS ID neither specifically calls for nor prohibits them. This leaves many to wonder if such controversial issues are simply being kicked down the road to future rule making processes that would take place after the states are already part of the system.

Once a state is PASS ID compliant, in practice it would be very hard for them to drop out even if the rules are subsequently changed.

PASS ID still contains provisions that States be able to verify licenses with each other, although exactly how is not defined.  A pilot verification program is being created, and while PASS ID makes it voluntary for states to participate in the pilot, the law makes it very clear that such a process ultimately can be done only in a manner that is approved by DHS.

Whether or not DHS will give its approval to any process other than the one that comes out of the pilot program is unknown, but I have doubts based on my personal experience with the DHS “Enhanced Drivers License” program in Michigan.

In that case, the State of Washington did the pilot, and the project called for the use of “facilitative technology”.  In practice this ended up meaning not just the use of RFID, but a very specific kind of RFID.  DHS said we could use another technology if they approved it, but it quickly became clear that the only type they would greenlight was the kind used in Washington.

Not using RFID was completely off the table. The flexibility we were initially promised ended up only being the flexibility to either participate or not participate.

Likewise, if the new “voluntary” verification pilot project is treated this same way, in practical terms it will still be a mandate for a state that wishes to participate in PASS ID. Going full circle, many feel this pilot will ultimately be similar to the AAMVA Drivers License Agreement.

The pilot therefore needs to run its course before states can determine what exactly they would be agreeing to.  I also have concerns that participation in PASS ID might be linked to federal road dollars, as we continue to see legislation being introduced that links expanded car seat use, ignition interlock devices and texting bans as conditions for receiving these taxdollars. Federal road dollars have quickly gone from being a carrot to a stick.

The deadlines for REAL ID are quickly approaching, and it will be interesting to see if DHS offers automatic waivers as they have in the past or if they will attempt to use the deadlines to push PASS ID quickly through the legislative process, even before the pilot project is completed.

This will ultimately be a good indicator for the states on whether DHS wants to truly be a partner this time around or if PASS ID is simply another iteration in attempting to pass some version of the AAMVA DLA.

State Rep. Paul Opsommer [send him email] was elected to a second term in the Michigan House of Representatives in November 2008.  He represents the residents of Clinton and Gratiot counties.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

As a constituent who cares deeply about privacy and national security, I urge you to oppose implementation of the REAL ID Act and support its immediate repeal.

The creation of a national identification card is not a power delegated to Congress under Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, and violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which states, “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.”

National identification systems are prone to abuse at every step of their creation and use.  The REAL ID Act would establish an enormous national database of ID holders, where even a small percentage of errors would cause major social disruption.

The ID would function as an internal passport that would be shown before accessing planes, opening bank accounts, and entering federal buildings, but its uses will inevitably expand to assist a wide variety of surveillance activities.

REAL ID doesn’t just cost me my privacy – the states and individual taxpayers will be ones who ultimately have to bear the over $23 billion burden of implementing this law.  The federal government cannot force such burdensome, invasive mandates on the states.

The REAL ID Act would divert resources from security measures that could actually work.  Most of the systems needed to implement the law do not exist yet.  Meanwhile, IDs do little to stop those who haven’t already been identified as threats, and wrongdoers will still be able to create fake documents.

The Department of Homeland Security’s recently released draft regulations do nothing to fix the fundamental flaws with REAL ID.  State legislatures around the country are already recognizing these flaws and rejecting the law’s implementation.  Two bills in Congress, S.717 and H.R.1117, would correct this illegal policy – repealing REAL ID entirely.

A materially constructive reply is expected.

Your constituent,

Douglas D. Strother

There’s a lesson in the Aesopian tale of the man who wanted to cook a frog. When he tossed the amphibian into a pot of boiling water, it leapt out to safety. The thwarted cook then changed tactics. He placed the frog in cold water… and slowly brought up the heat.

In much the same way, American freedom is slowly being cooked away. When I was growing up, “Papers, please!” was once the bark of Communist soldiers patrolling state lines. It’s set now to become an American staple. Slipped insidiously into an $81 billion bill for “supporting troops” and “tsunami relief” was a tiny law – The Real ID Act of 2005 – which creates a de facto National ID card for Americans and requires it to be in place by 2008 (the Feds are now “allowing” an extension through 2009 for States that request it). Every driver’s license will be required to include “physical security features” and “a common machine readable technology.” The cultists who support this National ID card say that it’s all voluntary.

And it is. You can refuse to comply, in which case you won’t be able to open a bank account, enter a federal building, ride a plane or train, etc. Yes, quite voluntary. A nice card, containing all sorts of sensitive information about you, which can be scanned everywhere you go.

“This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are,” railed Missouri state Representative James Guest, a Republican. “This does nothing to stop terrorism.”

One of only eight Republicans to oppose the measure, Representative Ron Paul of Texas added, “Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens.”

Today we face a thriving identity-theft market. National ID will be like adding chum to a sea of sharks; a veritable African diamond war for the digital age. Everyone’s value will be melted down to cold equations which will be stolen, which will be seen by people who have no business seeing it, and which will make it very hard to get your life back when this happens to you.

Let’s forget the cost to the states, which has been estimated at more than $14 billion. The ID card will, making use of RFID technology already discussed in another essay of mine, be able to show where you are at all times. Information ranging from mailing address to DNA can be encoded into this little spy.

Supporters of the card say it will help prevent terrorism. Not only do they fail at giving real examples of how this card can magically do this, they completely turn tail from the scores of problems – and yes, security problems – that this card will create.

For starters: The National ID card will eventually be forged. To whom do you protest when this happens? Roughly 20 percent of identity papers, cards, and documents are lost each year; what do you do when your digital self is misplaced? How do we hold the government, FBI, NSA, and president accountable for how they use this information? What magic firewall or force-field will be put into place to prevent hacking? And oh yeah… what happens when the database crashes?

Having all this information available on a database will result in a Golden Age for identity-theft, surveillance, and blackmail. It will make our lives less secure. And there’s something very suspicious in putting a system in place under the guise of “protecting us from terrorists” when all that system really does is staple a lab-tag onto American citizens.

Fortunately, a real civil war is heating up over this — though to what extent that protest will go remains to be seen. The current presidency is notoriously in support of gigantic government (yet another symptom of how the alleged “conservative party” has devolved like political Morlocks.)

Maine was the first state to rebel, passing a resolution to outright refuse implementation of the Real ID Act. Following this trailblazing defiance came Idaho, and a recent storm of protest from Arizona, Hawaii, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. For anyone keeping score, this is a coalition of states not often seen on the same side of an issue.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise. Historically, Americans have rejected any effort at mandating a National ID card. Sneaking this into law was the coward’s way of circumventing public debate; slipping it under our skin might be next. Or perhaps we’ll have a nice tattoo on our right hands and foreheads? Citizen John Valjean, 24601!

The debate will heat up in the next few months. Exactly how hot it’ll get is up to us.

The Aesopian frog, meanwhile, is cooking.

Brian Trent [send him email] is a professional essayist, screenwriter, and novelist; he is the author of “Remembering Hypatia” and the forthcoming “Never Grow Old: the Novel of Gilgamesh.” Brian is a contributor to American Chronicle and The Humanist Magazine. Visit his website at www.rememberinghypatia.com.

Why this Conservative Tennessean Opposes REAL ID

1. REAL ID is a de facto national identification card. At least Lamar Alexander, in recent comments, was honest enough to admit this. Has America sacrificed so much for freedom only to create a “papers please” society?

2. REAL ID does an end-run around the 4h Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It is unreasonable to give the central government the power (potential) to track individuals in real-time. If the government needs to search a citizen, let it get a search warrant. We should not have to be monitered. Is not this the essence of freedom? REAL ID, and its future additions, will make life subject to the good-will of the government in a software maze of “red light, green light.” This is not freedom.

3. REAL ID reduces God-given rights of the individual to a string of digits, subject to the good-will of software and/or bureaucrats. It makes Americans get “permission” to live and move in the basic functions of society: banking and travel. The permission we need to do this (and more) is God-given. We shouldn’t have to ask permission to be functioning citizens within our own country.

4. REAL ID may require biometrics at the state level or at the federal level. Why should Americans be “booked” like criminals even if they’ve committed no crime?

5. REAL ID compiles much personal information into one place. With the ease of internet access, this information is vulnerable to anyone on the globe with the ability hack.

6. REAL ID is a move towards the centalization of more power. In an age of terror, the country should operate on a philosophy of de-centralizing as much of our lives as possible–so that if an attack handicaps one part of the country, the rest of the country can still function.

7. The burden of proof lies on promoters of REAL ID. Show us exactly HOW this significantly new and immense power to the government is NOT a threat to freedom. FREEDOMS ARE LOST IN THEORY/PHILOSOPHY LONG BEFORE THEY’RE LOST IN PRACTICE. Conservatives are threatening freedom and promoting “big government” with the REAL ID Act.

8. We should be moving away from an identification society. This kind of atmosphere promotes suspicion and fear. Are Americans innocent until proven guilty or are we suspicious until properly identified?

9. Programs like REAL ID never remain static. The private sector will seek to use this identification system as well. One bad application will lead to others. How can we remain an “open” society with this kind of philosophy?

10. Some folks say we already have a national id–Social Security. But if REAL ID is only a lateral move, why are we doing it? We are doing it because it is indeed an increase in the government’s ability to track its citizens. If we’re on the wrong road, the soonest way to progress is to turn around.

We don’t have to do anything stupid. Just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should.”

Tennessee [and all of America] should Just Say NO to REAL ID.

by John Rush, who grew up in central Kansas and went to a small college in Florida to study for the ministry. John has pastored a church in Hailey, ID, and has served as a Christian School administrator in Newport, TN. He is currently pastoring Liberty Church of Cosby in Cosby, TN. John is a conservative republican who believes that people ought to love all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. He welcomes feedback through his blog at http://realidwatch.blogspot.com.

The New Hampshire Legislature took a baby step Tuesday toward rejecting what they say amounts to the creation of a national ID card.

The House Transportation Committee voted unanimously to recommend barring the state from complying with the federal REAL ID Act, which sets standards for driver’s licenses. The full House next considers the bill.

REAL ID, Passed in 2005 and due to take effect in 2008-9, turns your driver’s license into a de-facto national ID card. This is yet another step towards a totalitarian police state in America.

The Act mandates that all driver’s licenses carry the same information, no matter what state issues them. The states must also “provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.” In other words, your information will be in a national database that puts everything at the Feds’ fingertips.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is given the power to require “biometric” information on these licenses/ID’s in the future. This means that what appears to be a harmless-looking driver’s license could eventually contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology. We don’t know just what right now because REAL ID keeps this power open-ended. DHS will tell us…someday.

All this is supposed to help us fight terrorism, somehow, because the nineteen 9-11 hijackers had driver’s licenses. In order to be “safe” you’ll soon be required to have the proper “papers.”

Any refusal to comply by the States will mean that their residents will lose the ability to get on a plane, receive social security, and potentially, to get a bank account or a job. So, the feds are doing little more than blackmailing them into compliance and submission.

Wait a minute! That doesn’t sound legal, does it? First, a little constitutional background.

The US Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant.” This means that the Federal Government can only exercise powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution – nothing more. This is where the Tenth Amendment comes into play – reaffirming positive grant:

“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.”

Pretty simple, right? Right. If a power isn’t delegated to the U.S. government by the Constitution, then that power belongs to the States or the People. It seems that the only people who could possibly confuse this one sentence are politicians, lawyers, and federal judges.

It’s worth repeating. If a power isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution, the feds can’t do it. Period.

As New Hampshire representative Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said:

“We have to uphold the constitution,” he said. “We will not be blackmailed by the federal government.”

Sherman, you’ve hit the nail on the head! Obviously he’s read the Constitution. There’s not a single thing mentioned about ID’s, or licenses, or driving, or funding the states, or anything of the like. What does that mean? You’ve got it – it’s unconstitutional (against the law!) for the federal government to get involved in these things.

But, you might say, the Constitution is outdated! There were no driver’s licenses when the constitution was written – there were no cars! Right. There were no such things. But that doesn’t mean the law is “outdated” or bad.

In fact, the idea of strictly limiting the federal government is as good of an idea today as it was two centuries ago. Why? All you need to do is pay attention to what’s going on in our country right now. If you don’t keep the government in check, as many of the founders warned, governments will always grow and grow into a despotic beast.

Today, the government is larger than ever. Has that correlated with a better adherence to the law? Not at all.

Size of government notwithstanding, REAL ID is still unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if the politicians think that it’s absolutely necessary. It doesn’t matter if they think the Constitution is outdated. None of it matters. The Law is the Law. The only legal way to approach this is through a Constitutional Amendment, and not by ignoring or violating the Constitution.

If the politicians were so confident that this program was necessary, and that We the People would approve of it, they would have presented it as a constitutional amendment. Instead, debate was light, and the bill was added to another, which passed 100-0 in the Senate.

It seems that abiding by the Constitution is pretty rare. Instead, addendums, riders, and backroom deals are the way of politics in Washington.

Think about that. Do you want to live in a society where the government has to follow the rules, or do you want to live in a society where politicians follow only the laws that they like?

Federal standards for identification are not authorized by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter whether they’re enforced through “laws” or economic “incentives” to the States. The politicians, by trying to force this on us without amending the Constitution to allow it, are showing utter contempt for states’ rights and the principles of the Tenth Amendment.

Bottom line: REAL ID violates the Constitution.

Legislators in New Hampshire (and elsewhere) should be applauded for their courageous opposition to this unconstitutional nightmare.

Long live the resistance!

Recently, I watched Lou Dobbs, and his handmaiden, Kitty Pilgrim, get all hot, bothered, and appalled by the Maine state legislature voting overwhelmingly to refuse to enforce any provisions of the REAL ID act, an unfunded mandate passed by Congress in 2005, and which is supposed to go into force in May of next year.

REAL ID is the complex workaround to Congress’ failure to sell a national ID card outright, to a frightened public, in the wake of 9/11. Instead they now insist the states individually comply with precise federal standards (standards yet to be fully developed by the Dept. of Homeland Security) for driver licensing. These will probably include the requirement that residents produce birth certificates upon renewal, plus the collection of biometric data. Then, that state DMV database has to able to be accessed not only by the feds, but all the other states. This is supposed to help us fight terrorism, somehow, because the 19 hijackers had driver’s licenses.

States like Maine protested that not only was this law an unwarranted intrusion on the privacy rights of their residents, but it was a de facto national ID card in its own right, yet another foot in the door towards a totalitarian police state. The costs of implementation would be too high, projected to be in the tens of millions in each state, and would have to be passed on to the citizens somehow.

As usual, there was no federal “carrot” with such legislation, only a “stick.” The stick, in this case, was that residents of states who failed to comply would either have to show a passport in order to fly, or they simply would not fly. This reminder was delivered, again, on Dobb’s show, by a sneering angry sycophant from DHS.

But this is standard operating procedure. The feds levy high taxes on the residents of the states, make sweeping, unfunded policy edicts, then enforce them by warning the state governments that failure to comply fully will result in those states not getting their own residents’ tax dollars returned to them (minus a cut) in the form of various subsidies.

But take heart – history has shown us that resistance is not futile. From 1973 to 1988 we were saddled by a particularly egregious and corrupting federal edict demanding that speed limits on highways be reduced to 55mph, ostensibly as a fuel-saving initiative. It was corrupt in that it was a total failure – non-compliance was legion, especially in western states with lots of wide-open spaces, low traffic, and too few cops. Car companies that produced vehicles with better gas mileage did more to save fuel than any federal speed law. But the stick remained: failure to enforce the “double-nickel” would result in a loss of federal highway funding.

In early 1987, then Arizona governor Evan Mecham, no stranger to controversy, had finally had enough, and told Washington they could keep their highway funding – he was raising the limits on all AZ roads to 65mph, and he didn’t care what Washington thought about it. Then, as now, feds and media talking heads alike were appalled by the audacity of a lowly state governor standing up for the rights of his state residents against the needs of the federal government. But his action enabled other states – and their residents – to stand up and cry “enough is enough!”

By 1988, 55 was history – Congress bumped it to 65. A few years later, it was bumped again to 75 in Midwest and Western rural areas, and allowed states far greater leeway to set standards that they believed worked best for them. In the late 90’s, Montana went so far as to revive their original “reasonable and prudent” rule for daytime travel – which essentially meant, “whatever speed you felt was safe under the circumstances.” (That was a bit of a rush, believe me, to go 115 mph on a dry, straight, open road, and cops wouldn’t bat an eye – sadly, a federal judge later put a stop to that one.)

Therefore, it’s possible, despite all the posturing by the national-security jackboots in the Congress and DHS, that Maine’s action may have opened the door for other states to follow suit. Similar bills are pending right now in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington state. The question remains whether that door will ultimately become a floodgate.

Thomas Andrew Olson [send him mail] is a technology consultant, writer and speaker in New York City.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Maine’s state legislature “RESOLVED” almost unanimously last week that it will “refuse… to implement the REAL ID Act….” As if that weren’t enough, it “implores the United States Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act…”

What?

Go ahead and re-read it. Took me a few tries, too. Such stunningly good news knocks one’s comprehension for a loop. It’s like sunshine at midnight: so freak a treat that one can only blink and gibber. When was the last time we had news this good? Heck, when was the last time we had good news, period, from the political world?

The REAL ID Act, for those of you lacking the time and stomach to analyze Leviathan’s droppings, might better be titled “Papers, Please.” Passed in 2005, due to take effect in 2008, it finishes the job of turning Amerika into a police state by making driver’s licenses into national ID cards.

The Act requires all licenses to carry the same information, whether they’re issued in Alaska, Florida, or somewhere in between. Those who concede that free people should ask Their Rulers’ permission before driving cars they own on roads they pay for probably won’t object to providing their name, address, date of birth, gender, a “digital photograph,” and their signature – the usual data that good citizens are conditioned to yield without thinking.

But then comes this explosive little mandate: the license must also include “a common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements.” Who gets to “define” those “elements”? The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), of course, the busybodies who brought us airport screeners and the infamous No-Fly List. Ergo, look for our new and improved licenses to feature fingerprints and a microchip that tracks our movements. And, while the DHS is at it, why not include our financial transactions (banks already report these anyway since the Feds claim to recognize a terrorist by his moneybags), medical history (hey, keeping tabs on the psychotics protects the rest of us), and the “passenger name records (PNR’s)” airlines compile. The states must also “provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.” In other words, a national database puts everything at the Feds’ fingertips.

A nightmare, right? But it gets worse. Try obtaining or renewing a driver’s license under REAL ID. You’ll have to show four documents, everything from a birth certificate to a Social Security card. Only Felix Unger and welfare mamas keep stuff like that around. Then there’s the pleasure of paying for this: REAL ID is now priced at $11 billion, over 100 times its original $100 million estimate. Those numbers will continue climbing as more details are settled, more glitches detected. Expect to pay hundreds of dollars for your new ID – and higher state taxes, too.

The Feds will force us to flash our licenses each time we interact with them – when we board a plane (ha! There’s news!), enter a federal building (hmmm. Even jurors?), file legal papers, or collect any sort of government payout. Even folks who don’t drive will need a license lest they become legal pariahs. And economic ones, too, as the mania spreads. How else will retailers prove they’re patriotic Americans, doing their part to catch terrorists, if they don’t scrutinize our papers at every transaction? It won’t be long until supermarkets ID us before selling so much as a loaf of bread. Imagine the quandary of the poor sap whose license is lost or stolen. And what about those whose licenses are suspended for speeding, drunk driving… or, one fine day, for political dissent…?

Our Rulers claim REAL ID is another tactic in the War on (Non-Governmental) Terror. But only Leviathan and its cheerleaders in the Mainstream Media believe that papers protect us. Such naïveté makes experts in security laugh. They realize that knowing the name of your attacker may add a personal touch to your interaction but does zilch to keep you safe. That’s why God made guns and target practice, barbed wire, mace and self-defense classes, window alarms, bullet-proof doors, and common sense: those things actually protect us, all without asking the assailant’s name first.

Expensive, ineffective, totalitarian: no wonder Maine’s legislature rejected REAL ID. We might ask why they chose this particular expensive, ineffective, totalitarian measure out of the boatload dumped on us the last few years, but let’s not quibble. Nor is Maine alone. New Mexico’s House Majority Floor Leader introduced a memorial denouncing REAL ID. A Republican state representative in Montana sponsored a bill that “nullifies” REAL ID while her Democratic colleague’s competing legislation “opposes” it. The Republican uttered words seldom heard anywhere, at any time, in politics: “She would have no problem, she said, if [the Democrat’s] bill passed and not hers. ‘It’s that important,’ she said.” Similar legislation is pending in Washington State, Georgia, and Massachusetts.

Back in Maine, Senate Majority Leader Libby Mitchell believes that “…it is our job as state Legislators to protect the people…from just this sort of dangerous federal mandate.” Bravissimo! Better late than never.

Becky Akers [send her mail] writes primarily about the American Revolution.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Legislators in Maine have refused to implement the Real ID Act and are calling on Congress to repeal it.

The Maine Senate and House of Representatives passed a joint resolution Thursday demanding the repeal of the law and announcing they were the first state lawmakers in the country to do so. The resolution states that the Real ID Act of 2005 would place an unfair financial burden on states, threatens privacy, and leaves citizens vulnerable to identity theft. It also states that the law, scheduled to take effect next year, fails to accomplish its mission of improving security.

The first thing to note is that Real ID, in practice, federalizes the driver’s license, which, under the limitations of the Tenth Amendment, has been a province of the states. It’s been this way since 1908 – when Rhode Island passed the first law in regards to driver’s licenses.

Without a doubt, REAL ID turns state departments of motor vehicles into delegates of the federal government. Making national “standards” for driver’s licenses creates a national ID system – nothing more and nothing less. Having your home state put its name on it is little more than an inconsequential smoke screen.

The REAL ID establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of information about American citizens – information that is highly personal – including physical characteristice, residence, social security number, date of birth and name.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security, a dubious federal office at best, is given the open-ended power to require biometric information on these licenses/ID’s in the future.

Remember, it’s not the the abuse of power that’s of the greatest concern, it’s the power to abuse! Once an open-ended power to do something sometime “in the future” is given – it’s nearly assured that some politician will eventually come along and abuse it to their advantage. The power to require biometric information on a federalized identification card leaves many dangerous possibilities open.

While the individual states are not technically forced to accept these standards, any refusal to comply will mean that their residents will lose the ability to get on a plane, receive social security, and potentially, to get a job.

So instead of creating a direct mandate on the states, the feds are blackmailing them into compliance and submission. Only in government is such activity legal. If you were openly engaging in blackmail, you’d probably be hauled off to jail in handcuffs. But that doesn’t happen to the politicians who make up the federal government.

The saddest part about the REAL ID act is that the Constitution was written to prohibit the federal government from exercising such power – direct, or implied. The long-forgotten 10th Amendment is clear. It states that powers not explicitly delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or to the people.

Federal standards for drivers’ licenses – whether enforced through “law” or economic “incentives” (bribery) – show utter contempt for states’ rights and the principles of the Tenth Amendment.

Bottom line: REAL ID violates the 10th Amendment, which severely limits federal power. For now, though, REAL ID resistance must continue. As Maine Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Mitchell stated:

“The federal government may be willing to burden us with the high costs of a program that will do nothing to make us safer, but it is our job as state legislators to protect the people of Maine from just this sort of dangerous federal mandate. I am proud that this state has led the way in taking a stand against Real ID.”

More people and more states must stand up to the federal government and say no!