In spite of the fact that the Constitution was recently read in its entirety (minus a few sections and amendments), for the first time in the history of the House, several senior Republicans must have either been absent or just weren’t paying attention to what they were hearing. (No) Surprise! 

Less than three months after the historic reading, they were back to business as usual — the business of usurping more power from the states and consolidating it in Washington, DC.  House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,  demanding she not extend the May 11 deadline for the states to comply with the federal Real ID Act.

In spite of the hysterical warning contained in their letter, the Obama administration wisely decided to do for a third time what the Bush administration was forced to do the first time when many state governments simply refused to comply with the act’s unconstitutional requirements — extend the deadline again.

Anticipating that the Obama administration would again back down to avoid conflict with the states, the letter asserted that the recent arrest of a terrorist suspect in Texas, “..underscores the importance of the immediate implementation of REAL ID.  Any further extension of REAL ID threatens the security of the United States.  We cannot understand how you could even contemplate a further delay – a delay that places American lives at risk.”

Homeland Hypocrisy
The real but greatly exaggerated danger of terrorism is a tried and true method of scaring Americans into giving the federal government a free pass to circumvent the Constitution. But how ironic that this time, one of the GOP chairmen who sent this letter was none other than Homeland Security Chairman Peter King! If you’ve heard how King spent decades raising money for the US-based Irish Northern Aid Committee (NORAID) and speaking at their events, you’ll understand.

NORAID, the US Justice department long suspected, was merely an arm of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), and both British and American intelligence reports seem to support that suspicion. In a recent article about King and his involvement with NORAID, investigative journalist William N. Grigg brought to many people’s attention what Ed Maloney, well known for his coverage of the PIRA, wrote in the New York Sun back in 2005:

“During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts. At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.”

So the King who demands that Real ID be shoved down our throats to supposedly protect us from Islamist terrorists, is the same King who raised funds for NORAID, which almost certainly went to support another terrorist organization that murdered Americans abroad. The 1983 bombing of Harrods department store in London, was carried out by the PIRA and killed six people and injured 90 others. Among the dead was a 28-year old American named Kenneth Salvesan. And among the injured was another American named Mark McDonald, whose wounds were very severe. Margaret Thatcher wrote to Ronald Reagan immediately after the bombing to demand that he crack down on NORAID, the organization that King supported for so long.

Why States Must Continue to Nullify the Federal Real ID Act
Besides the hypocrisy that usually accompanies homeland security smoke and mirrors, is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to set standards for state driver’s licenses and ID cards. Of course today’s state issued licenses and ID cards didn’t exist when the Constitution was drafted, but both before and after its ratification, the states had the authority to create such documents, since they retained all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution that were not prohibited to them by it (see 10th Amendment). If members of Congress are truly convinced that federal standards for state issued ID cards are necessary for the security of the United States, then they should propose a constitutional amendment. Of course, the vast majority of the people who make up our so called “federal” government have long behaved as if they’d never heard of the Constitution, or what Jefferson called it’s cornerstone — the 10th Amendment.

And what about the enormous costs associated with Real ID? While it’s true these outrageously expensive mandates have again reared their ugly head right at a time when many states face a severe budget crisis (the primary reason given by DHS for the most recent extension). Even if big budget surpluses were the norm among states these days, it would be no excuse for state governments to shirk their duty by submiting to an act of usurpation like Real ID. In spite of the decision many House Republicans have made to indulge in situational constitutionalism (the obnoxious habit of supporting the Constitution only when it is likely to result in a policy outcome one happens to favor), a far greater number of Republicans and Democrats in state governments across the country have chosen a more honorable path — that of state interposition and nullification.

Given that Real ID is both an expensive and unconstitutional act that threatens privacy, freedom and federalism, 25 states over the last several years have, according to the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page:

“..passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been ‘delayed’ numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

James Madison, the chief author of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote in 1798 that when the federal government exercises powers not authorized by the Constitution, the states, “..are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Many state officials have faithfully carried out Madison’s admonition by rendering the Real ID Act null, void and without force within their state’s boundaries.  Now it’s up to us, the people of the several states, to remind them often, between now and the next deadline in January of 2013,  that they need to keep it that way.

The following article is based off a speech given on 09-25-10 at the 25th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, CA.
Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Orlando on 10-10-10 and Chattanooga on 10-23-10. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/tickets/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

I’ve often been told that when you’re giving a speech – if all you get is applause and cheers – and you never piss anyone off – you’re no better than a low-life politician, because you’re not challenging anyone’s conventional mode of thought. Hopefully, I get at least a few eyebrows raised here in my 8-9 short minutes….

So let’s start out with the easy stuff, ok? I’m a tenther. That means I believe that the federal government should exercise only those powers that we the people delegated to it in the constitution – and nothing more. For example, no Obamacare mandates, no bank bailouts, and definitely no federal gun laws – period.

Question. How many people here own a gun, or manufacture or sell guns?

And how many of you are proud felons – meaning, when the government makes rules to restrict your right to keep and bear arms, you simply ignore them because they don’t have the authority to do so?

HEMPCON

I recently went to an event called Hemp Con down in my part of the state – Los Angeles. This is a big event at the LA convention center – with loads of vendors and businesses from every angle you can think of in support of the marijuana industry. There were home security companies to help protect your weed, solar power companies to help you grow your weed, doctors giving out medical marijuana cards to virtually anyone with $80 and an hour of time. There were even delivery services – you can get your marijuana delivered to you 24 hours a day…in 30 minutes or less. The pizza companies have nothing on these guys! It was amazing if you think about it from an economic standpoint – this was capitalism, the free market – working its wonders around an industry.

What’s the point?

Virtually EVERY single one of those businesses was either directly violating federal law, or aiding someone else in doing so because marijuana is illegal, according to the feds – but not the constitution – in all situations. In 2003, Tommy Chong was arrested for merely selling pieces of glass – pipes that could be used to smoke marijuana. And today, 7 years later, we’ve got what seemed to be the WalMart of weed in Downtown Los Angeles. And guess what – no ATF or DEA thugs shut the place down. Business functioned, people did what they wanted to in freedom, and that was that.

FREEDOM TO TRAVEL

Another quick story.

In 2005, the Bush administration got the REAL ID act passed, which was – in the eyes of many – a new form of a national id card. We were warned that if this act wasn’t followed, people wouldn’t be able to travel, enter federal buildings, get on planes, and the like.

Much of my girlfriend’s family lives in Missouri, a state that’s not in compliance with the Real ID act. Her relatives do a little traveling from time to time. They get on airplanes and show their non-compliant Missouri driver’s license. No federal agents stop them and prevent them from boarding a plane.

Well, most state DL’s – including those in Missouri – don’t comply with the Real ID Act. That law is still on the books in DC – it’s never been repealed. It’s never been challenged in court either. But – due to 25 states refusing to comply with the “law” – in much of the country that Real ID act is virtually null and void.

Here in California- the state always seems to be on its knees, begging the feds for something. Well, except on marijuana. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that state medical marijuana laws were illegal. At that time there were 10 states that had such laws. Do you know how many were repealed? Zero. And today, there’s 14 states defying Washington dc, and getting away with it.

Today, we see the Firearms Freedom Act movement growing along these lines – it’s already passed in 8 states. Following that lead, 5 states have passed laws saying no to Obamacare mandates too.

THE LESSON

What’s the lesson? This is the blueprint – when enough people say no to unconstitutional laws, regulations….and mandates….and enough states pass laws to back those people up – there’s not much the federal government can do, but slowly and consistently back off. There’s no tanks rolling into Los Angeles to shut down the dispensaries, and there’s no jack-booted thugs forcing people to get new driver’s licenses in Missouri. This is far from perfect, but it can work, and it is working right now.

So here’s the final question – and the big challenge to you today.

The next time you begrudgingly follow some federal “law” that restricts your right to keep and bear arms – or the next time you hear about a gun rights case that will be decided in 2, or 4, or 6 years – with the hope that some judge will give you permission to exercise your rights, ask yourself this question:

Do you….gun rights activists….have as much courage as the pot smokers?

For the sake of liberty – I hope you do – because I believe that we the people need to exercise our rights whether they the government wants to give us “permission” to or not!

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

TAC: Rep. Opsommer, thank-you for being with us.

Opsommer: Thank-you for having me.

TAC: The Arizona legislature is being criticized for passing this law because Obama claims it allows the states to overstep their Constitutional bounds. What do you think of that statement?

Opsommer: Well, the Constitution is supposed to be more about federal bounds, and states are supposed to have all power that is not expressly with the federal government. But the statements of the Obama administration are certainly in line with the current way of thinking in Washington, where the federal government has little concern with ignoring the Constitution by trampling on States’ powers, but they’re suddenly now very interested in proper balance at the state and federal level when the shoe is on the other foot. I’d certainly welcome any discussion they want to have on the subject, and this may go to court, but they have to be willing to also talk about their many obvious violations of the 10th Amendment.

TAC: Such as what? As a vice-chair of transportation I know you have been heavily involved with REAL ID.

Opsommer: That would certainly be one example. Despite REAL ID floundering, they are still pushing federal and even international standards onto our state ID cards under different program names, rules, and guises. In Michigan we now have these RFID chips in our Enhanced Drivers Licenses for no reason other than that the bureaucrats at DHS want them in there. They sometimes justify it as having to meet international standards such as the United Nations ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization], or the best practices of AAMVA [American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators], but really it’s not necessary or really defensible in any credible way. You have to remember, even AAMVA is just an international 501c3 with Canadian and Mexican members. AAVMA would likely be the administrator of REAL ID.

TAC: Some people have been concerned that Arizona’s new immigration law might mean that their DMVs would have to comply with REAL ID if the federal government said its use was part of federal immigration policy. Do you share that concern?

Opsommer: It is important for me to say that at this date I have only skimmed various versions of Arizona SB-1070, the person who is going to be introducing it here in Michigan has not finished getting it drafted yet. But it’s my impression that early versions of the AZ bill wanted to prohibit state agencies or local governments from taking up internal bureaucratic policies that might circumvent the transferring of information on illegal immigrants to ICE. But there was then some concern that based on wording the feds could flip it the other way, and use the law to say that the State DMVs would then be handcuffed into going along with whatever REAL ID might ultimately call for regarding the sharing of information on legal citizens, or having to adopt RFID chips or other international standards. But I don’t think they want to share the data of their legal citizens in some haphazard way, and I believe they have addressed that to some degree.

TAC: Addressed that how?

Opsommer: Well, they inserted a clause that said that nothing in SB-1070 could be construed to mean that Arizona had to comply with REAL ID just because they were getting tough on illegal immigration via this law. I mean, that is what we did in Michigan. Our Attorney General [Mike Cox] made it clear that illegal immigrants could not get driver’s licenses, and we were able to make that state law without letting the feds take over our driver’s licenses databases. The feds tried to create this weak link that the only way we could get involved in immigration issues is if we went along with their REAL ID scheme that included more harm than good. We totally bypassed that here and denied licenses to illegal immigrants without getting the feds involved. Arizona is just doing the same thing.

TAC: But Michigan did go along and create Enhanced Driver’s Licenses though, right? The one with the RFID chip?

Opsommer: Unfortunately, Michigan did let itself get bullied into creating what the feds call an EDL (Enhanced Drivers Licenses) with a chip, even though Congress passed no law where you have to have a chip in it in order to have an EDL. There is still a lot of unanswered questions regarding foreign data sharing as well, similar to what I have with the AAMVA Driver’s License Agreement I just mentioned. We’re still trying to fight that after the fact, Arizona is simply being more proactive there. They not only passed a law making the EDLs illegal because of the false RFID mandate, but they then also included that RFID restriction in their anti REAL ID language that they put into SB-1070.

TAC: Why did Arizona do that?

Opsommer: They were cognizant of the fact that the very same folks in Washington who won’t close or protect our borders are also the same ones who want to do all these things with our licenses that are common in China in regards to tracking citizens. These are the same people who wanted to rely only on a virtual fence instead of real barriers. These are the same folks who waste a lot of our DHS budget on bells and whistles that ignore our real security concerns because they want to keep some technology company donors happy. Getting back to AAMVA, there was also concern that if the feds adopted the foreign data sharing policies of the Drivers License Agreement that the would then have to share data with their counterparts in Mexico and Canada, even if that was against state law. I think it was a good step for them to include the provisions.

TAC: Do you think those provisions are enough?

Opsommer: Well, its certainly a good start for now, but things are also changing quickly. You have to remember that it’s not what you call one of these national ID programs that matters. Whether it’s REAL ID, the Drivers License Agreement, PASS ID, or Enhanced Drivers Licenses, you have to focus on what those programs might do rather than what they are called. I’m guessing eventually you’ll see the legislators in AZ addressing these other programs as they are rolled out, or banning root level policies that they don’t want foisted upon their citizenry no matter what the license gets called, especially when it comes to the international sharing of the data of their lawful persons. I don’t know too many state legislators who want to do that, and we don’t want to cut off our nose to spite our face. Who wants to see a drug-lord in Mexico who has infiltrated their government being able to access our DMVs?

TAC: Why is the federal government so intent then on turning driver’s licenses into national or even international ID cards that merely come in 50 different state flavors? Do they really think they are fooling anyone? Couldn’t the feds just do this on their own and create a national ID card directly?

Opsommer: They certainly could, and I think whether or not this country sees a true national ID card that everyone has to carry will soon be a big debate. I mean, for example, they could just require that everyone has to get a federal passport, even to fly from one state to another, or to buy a firearm, or whatever. But from a federal perspective, it would take a lot of work and money for them to expand the federal passport system that way, and then the folks in Congress would have to be at the frontlines of that debate with the American people. Many people in America don’t have a valid passport right now, and the majority of them that do only carry it on them a couple days a year.

I think they would much prefer to just take over the state’s licensing infrastructure and just outsource it onto us as a way to duck some federal privacy restrictions they can work around by having us do their work for them. The states would be the ones taking the heat, and they could try to hide from it to some extent. I mean the way they are acting now, it’s like they don’t even want people to get federal passports anymore, they would rather we turn our driver’s licenses into passports that must then meet international standards and kill two birds with one stone. For example, they are right now artificially raising passport fees yet again, and it still takes way longer to get them than it should, it is like they are intentionally driving away the business. That is the only reason anyone is getting EDLs in Michigan, it is because they have made the alternative so intentionally bad. So when it comes to immigration policy and ID cards Washington wants to have the very best of both worlds.

TAC: Meaning?

Opsommer: Meaning that in areas where they like the status quo, like an immigration policy with porous borders, they want to make it hard for the states to do anything, like what we are seeing with them fighting Arizona. But in cases where they want to outsource things onto the states because it’s easier for them they then have little trouble trampling on the 10th Amendment. Washington is going to find that it can’t have it both ways, that there is a proper role for both the federal and state levels of government, and it shouldn’t shift just because of who wants what at the time.

TAC: Rep. Opsommer, thank-you for your time.

Opsommer: Thank-you.

Paul Opsommer is a State Representative in Michigan’s 93rd District.

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.

On the heels of a successful state-level resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act, activists and state legislators alike are focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist new federal programs.

The latest? Health Care.

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly-forgotten American political tradition of nullification as a way to reject any potential national health care program that may be coming from Washington.

The most recent effort comes from Florida State Senator Carey Baker and State Representative Scott Plakon, who this week filed a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (HJR37) as a means to prevent Floridians from being affected by any Federal Health Care Legislation.  If approved by the legislature, Florida residents could be voting on it as early as 2010.

HJR37 would deny the ability of any new law to impose demands, restrictions or penalties on health care choices on Floridians. Versions of proposed federal health care reform legislation have included insurance coverage mandates, and certain penalties on employers who fail to provide employee health insurance.

It states, in part:

(1) A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system

(2) A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

A similar measure, called the Health Care Freedom Act, has already passed in Arizona, and residents of that state will have the opportunity to vote on it in 2010.  Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that more than ten other states may see such proposals introduced in the coming session.

Some say that a federal program would raise serious constitutional concerns.  They cite the Tenth Amendment as limiting the Federal Government to those powers delegated to it by the People in the Constitution.

Nullification

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes to the fugitive slave law of 1850.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

Supporters of modern nullification efforts look to the successful rebellion by states against the Bush-era Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional.  Well-over a dozen other states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice. And in June of this year, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Supporters see this as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.  Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same – resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

The REAL ID Act may be on the verge of receiving its final coffin nails. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is pushing a replacement bill that poses many of the same threats as REAL ID. The history of REAL ID should inspire friends of freedom to once again vigorously oppose any and every federal grab for their personal information.

The feds had sought legislation to create national ID cards in the 1990s but were rebuffed by a Republican Congress. But, after 9/11, “everything changed” — at least in Washington. Regardless of the reasons why the CIA and FBI failed to stop the hijackers, the solution was far more snooping and the potential creation of hundreds of millions of dossiers on American citizens. Almost overnight, it became widely accepted that the government must have unlimited powers to search anywhere and everywhere for enemies of freedom. The worse the government’s failure to protect Americans, the further it permitted itself to intrude.

There was scant opposition when the House of Representatives initially considered REAL ID in early 2005. The Senate unanimously approved the bill, attached as a rider to an appropriations bill for military spending. Rep. Ron Paul was practically the lone Republican sounding the alarm. At the time the bill passed, he warned, “This REAL ID Act establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical characteristics.”

REAL ID provided a blank check for the feds to demand more information at any time in the future. The new law granted “open-ended authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to require biometric information on IDs in the future. This means your harmless looking driver’s license could contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology,” as congressman Paul warned.

Back in 2005, it was not fashionable in Washington to be afraid of federal surveillance. Luckily, in the subsequent years, civil liberties activists have raised Cain around the nation. More than half of all the state legislatures have passed resolutions or laws restricting REAL ID’s bite in their state. But in order to understand what the feds may try next, it is important to consider how REAL ID was sold, how it was expanded, and why it remains a threat.

At the time REAL ID was being promoted, advocates of federal surveillance claimed that national identification cards were necessary to make Americans safe. In reality, national ID cards would do far more to control than to protect Americans. Savvy foreign terrorists could find ways to evade the requirements for such cards — the same way that they easily evaded ludicrous airport security systems on September 11, 2001.

REAL ID was intended to greatly increase federal levers over the movement and lives of Americans. In 2008, Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff announced that Americans who lived in states who had not revised their drivers licenses to meet REAL ID mandates could be banned from boarding an airplane within the United States. Since the Transportation Security Administration was part of Chertoff’s fiefdom, he could snap his fingers and the TSA would block anyone who did not present the proper papers from catching a flight. (Chertoff’s attempt to bludgeon state legislatures into submission backfired).

If the feds had been upfront about claiming a prerogative to arbitrarily ban any American from air travel at the time the bill was initially considered, far more people would have protested before REAL ID became law. But this is typical of the “camel’s nose in the tent” style of surveillance.

REAL ID was also used to railroad through a vast expansion of the definition of terrorism. As Rep. Paul noted, the law “re-defines ‘terrorism’ in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.”

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) complained that REAL ID “defined the term ‘terrorist activity’ so broadly that it basically covers anyone who has ever used a firearm.” REAL ID’s expansion of the definition of terrorist activity is especially perilous considering the hostility that some congressmen have towards gun owners.

And the danger is compounded because some Homeland Security Department officials have already labeled individuals who invoke the Constitution or support candidates like Ron Paul as radicals and extremists. This past April, a Homeland Security report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” defined as “right wing extremism” groups and individuals who are “mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” Thus, anyone who firmly believes in the Tenth Amendment could be classified as a threat to public safety. Once the groundwork is laid, the feds could exploit REAL ID to block people to travel to political protests. (The federal No Fly list was exploited in a similar fashion in 2002 to block Wisconsin nuns from traveling to an antiwar protest in Washington).

Now, Obama’s Homeland Security chief, Janet Napolitano, is urging Congress to enact what is portrayed as “REAL ID-Lite” — the PASS Act (Providing for Additional Security in States’ Identification Act of 2009).

But this bill contains many of the same risks as the REAL ID. And Napolitano is promoting requiring state drivers’ licenses to contain RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips with unique numbers for each individual. Katherine Albrecht, author of the bestseller Spychips, warns that this scheme could make it easy for the government to identify anyone who attends a gun show or an antiwar rally. Albrecht asks: “What happens to all those people when a government operator carrying a reading device makes a circuit of the event? They could download all those unique ID numbers and link them.” And it would be a small step from this to putting all the names on watch lists.

But PASS ID sounds more innocuous than REAL ID. However, from another perspective, it sounds reminiscent of high school – when students had to get a hall pass from their teacher before being permitted to step out of the classroom.

Many REAL ID advocates insisted that there was no risk of the government using the new law as a launching pad to go further into people’s lives. But the experience with other federal surveillance efforts proves that things can get far more worse than even paranoids suspect. In the 1980s, when cell phones became popular, many people saw them as a way for people to enjoy a new freedom and mobility. But, in 1999, the Federal Communications Commission bowed to FBI demands and required that all new cellular telephones be de facto homing devices. Cell phones must now include components that allow law enforcement to determine the precise location of any caller using the device. As Electronic Design magazine noted, “Unlike the location feature being created for 911 emergency services, this capability will apply to all calls and users won’t be able to turn it off.”

There was no reason to pass Real ID, and there is no reason to enact a replacement after state legislatures shot REAL ID to pieces. Nothing has happened since 2005 to make the government more trustworthy or to make liberty less valuable. It is vital that we never permit our rulers to treat all Americans like criminal suspects all the time. The government’s incompetence at protecting Americans must not be converted into a political entitlement to destroy all privacy.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, 2006), The Bush Betrayal (Palgrave, 2004), Terrorism and Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), Freedom in Chains (St. Martin’s 1999), Lost Rights (St. Martin’s 1994), and other books. His website is at JimBovard.com

Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty – Republished here with permission from the author.

Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014).  This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots.

Real ID as the Blueprint?

While some constitutional experts are skeptical of the effect that such legislation could have, supporters can point to the successful campaign to oppose the Real ID Act.

In early 2007, Maine and then Utah passed resolutions refusing to implement the federal Real ID act on grounds that the law was unconstitutional.  Well-over a dozen more states followed suit in passing legislation opposing Real ID.

Instead of attempting to force the law to implementation, the federal government delayed implementation not once, but twice, and additional states  got on board with legally-binding legislation refusing Real ID implementation.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration, recognizing the insurmountable task of enforcing a law in the face of such broad resistance, announced that it was looking to “repeal and replace” the controversial law.

Nullification

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective’, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Nullification has a long and interesting history in American politics, and originates in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds, to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Historian Thomas E. Woods looks at nullification as a constitutional “check,” and a way to prevent one government from having the power to rule on the limits of its own authority:

“The main point that nullification aims to address is that a government allowed to determine the scope of its own powers cannot remain limited for long. This is a lesson we should have learned by now. Moreover, since piecemeal solutions to reducing federal power have accomplished nothing, we can hardly afford to dismiss out of hand the idea of nullification, a remedy that is at once creative and intelligent, and recommended by some of the greatest political thinkers in American history.”

Resistance Left, Right and Center?

Groups across the political spectrum have focused their efforts on this same principle – calling on state governments to not just say no to the federal government, but to actively resist federal laws and actions.

• Firearms Freedom Acts have passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and under the force of law, call on those governments to refuse federal regulation of firearms made and kept in those respective states.
• Bring the Guard Home is a campaign of mostly antiwar activists that are calling on governors to assert constitutional authority over their state’s guard – and refuse to deploy troops for any reason other than authorized by the constitution
• Medical Marijuana Laws - have passed in multiple states around the country and are directly opposed to federal drug laws that see marijuana as illegal under all circumstances.
• Real ID legislation has passed in approximately 2 dozen states requiring state governments to refuse implementation of the 2005 law.
• Health Care Freedom Acts are being actively pursued in six states (including Arizona), and would resist proposed national health care legislation on a number of levels.

Yielding to a rebellion by states that refused to pay for it, the Obama administration is moving to scale back a federal law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that was designed to tighten security requirements for driver’s licenses, Homeland Security Department and congressional officials said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants to repeal and replace the controversial, $4 billion domestic security initiative known as Real ID, which calls for placing more secure licenses in the hands of 245 million Americans by 2017. The new proposal, called Pass ID, would be cheaper, less rigorous and partly funded by federal grants, according to draft legislation that Napolitano’s Senate allies plan to introduce as early as tomorrow.

The rebranding effort follows months of talks with the National Governors Association and poses political risk for Obama as well as Napolitano, a former NGA chairwoman who wants to soothe strained relations with the states without appearing to retreat on a recommendation by the 9/11 Commission.

Commissioners called for federal standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates, noting, “For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.” Eighteen of 19 terrorist hijackers obtained state IDs, some of them fraudulently, easing their movements inside the country.

But the Bush administration struggled to implement the 2005 law, delaying the program repeatedly as states called it an unfunded mandate and privacy advocates warned it would create a de facto national ID.

As governor of Arizona, Napolitano called Real ID “feel-good” legislation not worth the cost, and she signed a state law last year opting out of the plan. As secretary, she said a substitute would “accomplish some of the same goals.”

Eleven states have refused to participate in Real ID despite a Dec. 31 federal deadline.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Editor’s Note: As can be seen here, Real ID is a great example of how state-level activism to resist unconstitutional federal laws is an effective – and peaceful – method.  A small number of states simply saying no has the power to force the federal government to get rid of a program.  Consdier this as new regulations come into effect for Health, Gun Rights, nationalizing the Guard and more.

Want to help put the final nail in the coffin of Real ID? Take action over at DownsizeDC.org:

The REAL ID Act is a bad law passed under false pretenses. It was rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was added to a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq. The Senate didn’t want it, and the American people don’t want it either. But the Republican majority leadership in Congress imposed it on us, and so now we have to fight to get it repealed.

The REAL ID Act creates a centralized federal database of personal information about all Americans. Decisions about the exact nature and scope of this program will be made by unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Branch. It seems inevitable that biometric information and electronic tracking tags will be included at some point. No one intends a bad use for this system today, but it is inevitable that it will be used in bad ways in the future.

We are promised increased personal security in return for laying this new “foundation stone” for the creation of a future police state. But those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither, and will have neither.

Many good arguments can be made against REAL ID, but they all reduce to one overpowering truth. The more information government has the less it seems to know. The more power government has the less it seems able to accomplish. Big Government doesn’t work. The federal government needs to do less in order to accomplish more. Small government is focused government. We need smaller government, not a massive new federal identification system. Please ask Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act.

Something called the PASS Act is being crafted to revive the Real ID concept, under a new name, and companies like L-1 Identity Solutions, which stands to benefit, are almost certainly lobbying hard to make it happen. We must lobby just as intensely in the other direction.

Please send your Congressional employees a message asking them once again to repeal the REAL ID Act.

Use your personal comments to ALSO ask them to…

* Stop the DHS from promoting enhanced drivers licenses
* Make the State Department lower the cost of passports
* Reject all the new forms of REAL ID, such as the PASS Act

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION