States May Disobey Drivers License Rules

Newsday ^ | May 10, 2005 | Suzanne Gamboa

[usa1776]

National security? Do you really think that this would have stopped 911? Can the states stop sending money to the feds since the border is till wide open over 3 years after 911?

This war on terror is a phony war and the wide open border proves that beyond any doubt. But let's not let that keep us from passing more laws that interfere with state's rights. Why not standardize marriage licenses, vehicle registration, public education, library cards..no wait. It would be more efficient to stop playing games and just eliminate the states.

[devolve]

The 911 skyjackers had 60-something state driver's licenses - not just from NJ

Some had over 5 different state driver's licenses each

Let's not pretend that NJ is a shining example of honest politicians and bureaucrats

NJ, NY, CT, MD and other states have had DMV employees and supervisors selling driver's licenses for many years - documented and caught often on TV

Documents and IDs of foreigners need to be checked and verified before any state driver's license can be issued

I requested alternatives - you have offered none at all - zero

To play this game you need to open with a logical, workable, bullet-proof alternative

Let's just do away with all ID's and documents of any and all kinds

That seems to be the agenda of quite a few on FR

Anarchists and so-called "Libertarians" often post that they should not be required to have any driver's license at all

Master Charge and VISA can check and shred your credit card in mere seconds

All former and current military have fingerprints and photos still on file with the FBI

Are civilians so special that they can sit back and oppose IDs and documentation yet gripe endlessly when illegal aliens flood across our borders?

[devolve]

bump....

[dljordan]

"Exactly. Motorists in all 50 states DO drive on federally funded and built freeways."

These freeways are funded by the taxpayers not the Feds.

[Ragnorak]

There are two separate issues intertwined here. One is the need for ID for security purposes, the other is the limits of Federal power over the States.

The Federal government has the authority to forbid States from issuing a DL to an illegal alien or even a legal alien. They have this power because they can regulate immigration and naturalization and can set the conditions for non-citizens who come to our country. They can pass laws mandating that ID given to a non-citizens be clearly identifiable. They have a number of options when it comes to non-citizens and ID that do not amount to mandating a uniform document for citizens that are well within the authority of the Federal government.

One of the posts here mentioned Texas mandating fingerprinting for their licenses. I believe California does the same. Personally with all of the people already fingerprinted I've given up on that battle. But this is a perfect example of a privacy issue that States would lose the right to decide for themselves with a Federally mandated standard.

The Federal government could secure the borders, they could immediately deport every illegal alien, they could eliminate judicial review for illegals and simply deport them except for asylum claims, they could limit the native countries for which asylum claims would be heard, they could forbid any federal dollars from going to illegal aliens, they could cut federal aid dollar for dollar to States that use tax money to pay for public services to illegals, they could mandate that only citizens are issued social security numbers and put whatever security measures on those numbers they pleased, and this is just to start.

The Federal government needs to exercise its constitutional authorities to address border security. If they want a national ID, lets debate a national ID. But don't try and create a de facto national ID without a public discussion using extra-constitutional authority under the guise of security when those very security issues only exist because the federal government is intentionally and willfully negligent.

[DLfromthedesert]

I meant half the money for any given program

[muawiyah]

It's still much less than that. The total federal salary payment for any particular year is a minor fraction of the amount spent by the government (exclusive of social security).

It's unfortunate the public doesn't understand that. That's why your local Congress-critter can take a whack at the federal employees salary and fringe-benefit package you you think he's gone a long way toward balancing the budget.

He hasn't!

It's all a lie.

[SALChamps03]

Here's mine: Zero federal highway dollars, federal education dollars, and federal assistance of any kind for any state that refuses to comply. End of problem.

[eno_]

OK, here's my solution:

Here's MY solution. Let's make all civil rights violations by federal officials a capital crime.

If you think Hom3Lam3 "security" could secure anything, you are dangerously stupid.

[eno_]

Master Charge and VISA can check and shred your credit card in mere seconds

All former and current military have fingerprints and photos still on file with the FBI

Are civilians so special that they can sit back and oppose IDs and documentation yet gripe endlessly when illegal aliens flood across our borders?

Yeah, go die for me if you LIKE to live in your cage. I have no reason to fight to secure my chains. Burn the prison, don't defend it.

[eno_]

Here's mine: Zero federal highway dollars, federal education dollars, and federal assistance of any kind for any state that refuses to comply. End of problem.

Read about what Republicans stood for BEFORE the New Deal. Do you think any Republican would have uttered such a statement then?

Does it mean anything to be a Republican if you think that way?

[Ragnorak]

I believe the Republicans used to stand for:

Zero federal highway dollars, federal education dollars, and federal assistance of any kind for any state. End of problem.

[eno_]

Yes. Amazing how many "Republicans" here are nothing better than Democrats that will cost me 0.62% less in taxes.

[GrandEagle]

You must have missed it at the time, eh?!
Interesting smart aleck remark.
You are of course correct. This has nothing to do with requiring a "standardized" drivers license. Perhaps you should read the topic before smarting off?

[muawiyah]

Out of a federally imposed tax.

[muawiyah]

Before the New Deal Republicans stood for protectionism. So did the Democrats.

These guys connived together to pass the Smoot-Hawley tariff to protect American jobs and manufacturers.

The Great Depression resulted.

The Democrats still believe in protectionism. They still think it's 1930 outdoors. They'd bring it all back in a second.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the byline says the piece we are discussing appeared in Newsday. That's owned by the Tribune Group. Newsday among them, several Tribune Group periodicals conspired to cheat the USPS out of revenues and advertisers into paying higher rates by overstating actual circulation.

I tend to discount the legitimacy of any "news" or "analysis" coming from that particular source.

[Grut]

At least in Texas a drivers license not only is a document stating that the person is qualified to operate particular types of motor vehicles with particular restrictions but also a document verifying that the person is who he says he is and lives where he says he lives.

The only identification a DL needs is a picture of the holder so someone can verify that it belongs to the presenter and a reference number so that his driving record can be accessed. Everything else - name, address, thumbprints, whatever - is extraneous. What you are describing as a DL is in fact an ID attached to a DL.

[DLfromthedesert]

It's not the salaries. It's the waste of the money on diddly stuff. The bureaucRATS manage to find uses for our money that is endless.

I think we should just leave the money in the states and let the Feds do defense. Period

[muawiyah]

State bureaucracies replacing federal bureaucracies ~ sure sounds like progress.

I think you'd best rethink that one.