Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is not correct. You are basing your erroneous conclusion off of debates that occurred during the constitutional convention. As I previously posted, try basing your conclusion off the actual US Constitution, or at the very least the Federalist Papers which were written after the US Constitution was drafted, not some contrived debate that may or may not have occurred and has absolutely no bearing on the subject.
There is no dispute as to the debate that is documented, it was recorded by James Madison and the accuracy of the well published documents have not been disputed by the fellow attendees. Their existance serves as a reference to understanding the intent of the phrase which is obviously ambiguous since you can't seem to understand that it does not speak to granting power to the Congress to define the actual records that a state must keep, only in how it would be viewed by other states. You can see the evolution of the discussion if you read the actual debates instead of sticking your head in the sand and making assumptions about the semantics of the clause.
Quote:
Perhaps you didn't read what you posted, but this section has absolutely nothing to do with driver's licenses or the state's constitutional requirement to meet federal information requirements. Section 102 has to do with ensuring "expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section" at the border. A completely different topic.
Dude, it's in the REAL ID act... which is exactly what is at dispute. It's not the whole reason I disagree with the act, but it's part of it. While others may be up in arms just about the ID requirements, I'm frustrated by both parts of the act.
By TODD LEWAN
Associated Press
Posted: 07/11/2009 09:37:12 AM PDT
Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he'd bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car.
It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker's gold.
Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet.
<snip>
"There's a reason you don't wear your Social Security number across your T-shirt," Albrecht says, "and beaming out your new, national RFID number in a 30-foot radius would be far worse."
This is one of those articles that makes you wonder what happened to common sense. Did it just go out of style or are our government officials too lazy to exercise a little of it? - Bull Winkus
As to the constitutionality of REAL ID, see Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
State issued driver's licenses fall under the category of "public acts", which is why different driver's licenses are not required for every state we drive through. As the US Constitution clearly states, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Which means REAL ID is both legal and constitutional and the states who defy REAL ID are in fact violating the US Constitution.
will agree with to a point, but i dont agree with it as well, as some do not have any ID at all and neither the state nor the central goverment can make them get one.
also, if a state starts to not issue any ID to people, their law would also fall under the full faith and credit clause.
something else, just because one uses the full faith and credit clause, does not always mean that a state has to follow it.
will agree with to a point, but i dont agree with it as well, as some do not have any ID at all and neither the state nor the central goverment can make them get one.
also, if a state starts to not issue any ID to people, their law would also fall under the full faith and credit clause.
State IDs have never been required by law, however, if you want to be able to open a bank account, cash a check, or board a plane, they do require a valid ID.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
something else, just because one uses the full faith and credit clause, does not always mean that a state has to follow it.
All "public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings" of one State must be legally recognized by every other State. There are no exceptions.
Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet.
The same concept could be said about stealing people's information off of their wi-fi. But, yeah... I'll stick with my SmartID.
I am me. I do not care if you know what I am doing because I will do whatever I damn well please whether you or anyone else are watching or not. I define weather I am free. You do not.
If travel requires me to carry an identification card biometrically linked to me I do not have any objection because requiring it to be linked to me negates any use of the stolen card. I am willing to be able to prove I am me to a banker or a law enforcement officer to avoid being mistaken for another person and considered responsible for something I did not do. I am satisfied being responsible for the stuff I do.
If I have to carry a card with an included data base I will keep it in an RF shielded card holder and only allow it to be read by someone I authorized to read the card. This is simple common sense.
The same concept could be said about stealing people's information off of their wi-fi. But, yeah... I'll stick with my SmartID.
And here's the crux of the issue.
The system is already in place. We know it works. Yes, there are some hangups with ID theft, but you'll get that no matter what. I've got no problem with it whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
