The Real Deal On Real I D by Joan Harrold Messner

Family Security Matters ^ | 1 June 2007 | Joan Harrold Messner

[K-oneTexas]

 

Exclusive:  The Real Deal On Real I D
by Joan Harrold MessnerDate: June 1, 2007

 

The ACLU is waging a legal war against Real ID legislation designed to create a safety barrier protecting all law-abiding Americans. FSM Contributing Editor Joan Harrold Messner makes a compelling argument that most Americans agree with the Real ID. How about you?

 

The Real Deal On Real I D

 

By Joan Harrold Messner

 

Terrorists, counterfeiters, murderers, identity thieves, underage drinkers, deadbeat dads, illegal voters, drunk drivers and serial criminal drivers ALL can use multiple driving licenses to escape detection.  A secure system of awarding licenses, such as the REAL ID Act provides, protects you and your children and me and mine.  The proposed state-to-state database for a secure license, which the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License (non-partisan and broad-based, we have no agenda except to make America safer) supports, will be encoded so that privacy will not be at all compromised, as is erroneously promoted by special-interest groups such as the ACLU.   A secure license is just common sense, especially since the 9/11 Commission recommended that we move to this as a direct result of the horrors we experienced that day.  We can’t forget: the terrorists of 9/11 carried over thirty bogus drivers’ licenses among them. 

 

The majority of Americans agree with this common sense idea. Seventy percent [70%] of the respondents to an April UPI-Zogby poll support regulations that make all United States drivers’ licenses meet stringent national standards incorporating state-to-state database compatibility.  Both Zogby Polls and United Press International enjoy widespread and deep confidence and unassailable reputations.  The April poll returned results from 5,932 U.S. residents.

 

Why am I not surprised that a Mr. Stanley of the ACLU "cautions against reading too much" into the results?  It was so amusing to read his recommendation that we rely on our legislators to make this decision on drivers’ licenses.  Never in the history of America have our legislators been more out of touch with what is important to Americans.  Never in the history of this country have our lawmakers so brazenly and deliberately set out to pass legislation that is destined to cause harm to our citizens.  Never in the history of the United States has our citizenry been more disappointed with the people they have sent to Washington.  Commentator and advisor to Presidents, David Gergen, said, "the grim truth is that the political leadership of the country, especially in Washington, is almost dysfunctional in grappling with the big issues..." [U S News & World Report 6/26/06]

 

Following the UPI-Zogby poll the ACLU immediately whipped up a "poll" of their own, questioning less than a thousand people, showing the opposite results.  Who'da guessed it?  No doubt the people contacted were the Hollywood friends of ACLU board members Barbra Streisand and Sara Jessica Parker.  It is always interesting to me to see the "causes" that the ACLU supports: one was their insistence that there be no limits to Internet access [including child pornography] in public libraries.  Is anyone surprised that a Virginia ACLU board member is now facing prison for possessing what the magistrate called "the most perverted, nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she had ever seen? [World Net Daily 5/26/07]

 

Further, despite the misguided opinions of the ACLU, no one can say with any credibility that a secure driving license does not increase the odds of aborting or avoiding more terrorist attacks.  Had the terrorists NOT had driving licenses they would have had to use their passports, which would have further alerted airport security personnel.  A search did reveal that half of them were on the CAPPS watch list. Under the current system, and carrying the old state driver's license, lax local decision-making allowed the killers on the planes. They would not have been able to board the planes on 9/11 if the proposed new identification process had been in place.

 

According to Janice Kephard, one of the original framers of the REAL I D ACT, had those stiff driving regulations been in place in September 2001, Ziad Jarrah, the terrorist who took the cockpit of United Flight 93, would have instead been awaiting deportation. He had been stopped for speeding two days earlier but the police had no database against which to check. They had no way of verifying that Jarrah's license [or the other two fraudulently-obtained American identifiers he carried] was illegitimate and that he had entered the US illegally at least five times.  He drove away with a speeding ticket and two days later he piloted 42 innocent people to their deaths in a Pennsylvania meadow.

 

As a mother and a [step]grandmother, a New Yorker and an American, I admit that I am losing patience with the whiners who feel that even an imagined threat to their privacy trumps all other interests of all other Americans. 

 

Please don't misunderstand what I am saying.  I value my privacy too but I feel sure it will not be in danger, and even if it were, it would be acceptable in light of the grave threats to our lives and our country’s wellbeing.  We are, after all, at war. This war was declared before 9/11, but since we paid no attention to it, we became aware of it only after it was too late. Everyone with eyes and ears should be aware of it now.

 

Our lives changed forever on 9/11. We need new rules and we need to be watchful.  Privacy starts out as a blessing but can twist itself into a curse if unrealistic concerns about losing a degree of it, such as those promulgated hysterically by the ACLU, are used to frighten us into paralysis.  We need rules that adjust to the needs of the current society: paralytic fear keeps badly needed new rules from being written and enforced.  The terrorists will strike again...all the experts agree. If necessary I'll give up a bit of privacy if that helps ensure my safety and my life, and polls show that the majority of American people feel that way too. 

 

We in America are being stupefied by (dumbed-down to the point of being inane) television.  We watch celebrities dance, we watch reality shows, and we watch -via cameras in their bedrooms - how other people live.  But we do not watch anything that makes us think. 

 

Yet we must think and remember: Nero fiddled while Rome incinerated.

 

One simple way to protect America from the next conflagration is secure drivers’ licenses. 

 

It's a no-brainer.

 

#  #

 

 FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Joan Harrold Messner

is a member of the Board of Directors of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License.

 

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

 

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

[K-oneTexas]

Although I'm not totally sold ... Once the ACLU is involved maybe it's time to re-evaluate. Just my dislike, I guess, of the ACLU.

[Technogeeb]

Once the ACLU is involved maybe it's time to re-evaluate.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Notice how the article can't even get past the second sentence without the obligatory "do it for the children" propaganda.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants no power to do any such thing as a "national ID". I know the Constitution is dead and words don't mean anything anymore, but could we at least pretend that we still have a Republic? Come on; do it for the children...

[sean327]

I don’t like the idea of a national ID card at all. This will just be one more bite off the ever shrinking chunk of freedom we have left. We already have the resourses and personell to root these people out, our so called elected leaders just lack the cojones to to do it because of political corectness. A national ID is just a bad leaky band-aid that will do nothing but hurt those who are productive law-abiding citizens. Look how great gun control laws have worked!

[K-oneTexas]

I’m against it ... but IMHO the ACLU is not right on any of their stands. Period end of story. Something does needs to be done. Congress needs to get off it collective A** and get their head on straight instead of in a lobbyist A**. Not holding my breath thought on them ever changing.

[philman_36]

The Real Deal On Real I D
A Real Opinion On REAL ID is more like it.
This is my opinion. REAL ID sucks!

[Congressman Billybob]

The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the actual contents of the Real ID Act. Have you even read the Act?

It sets minimum standards that state drivers licenses must meet, in order to be "used for federal identification purposes." You have heard of the Commerce Clause, haven't you? You don't have any doubt that Congress can legislate about airline passengers, Social Security benefits, and other federal programs?

States remain free, if they choose, to issue licenses to illegal aliens. The Act only requires that "non-conforming" licenses be different in color and design from the ones that are issued to Americans and legal aliens. (Also, the termination of a license has to be the same as the termination of the legal alien's right to be in the US.)

Don't get hung up on the ACLU's arguments. They are lying about the contents of the law, which I think you will see when you take time to read the provisions of the Act itself.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "Dick Strain Cashes In His Chips"

[Congressman Billybob]

This is NOT a "national ID card." It is a federal requirement that STATE drivers licenses can be issued only to Americans and to aliens with a legal right to be in the US, and only as long as that right to stay, extends.

And before you say, the feds have no right to impose such requirements, the Act applies only to the use of a state license for "federal identification purposes." The states remain free, if they choose, to issue licenses to illegal aliens -- but those licenses need to be different in color and design from the federally-acceptable licenses to get on a plane, for instance.

Don't be sold a bill of goods by ACLU, or any similar, dishonest and misinformed source. I urge you to read the Act for yourself before engaging in any more jeremiads.

John / Billybob

[taxcontrol]

The federal government is not forcing Real ID on anyone. They are simply saying that they will no longer accept certain IDs that do not meet certain requirements to gain access to certain federally controlled systems.

So you don’t have to use a Real ID, you are not required to have one. However, without one, or some other alternative, you will not be allowed to board a plane or gain access to other things.

So, don't have or don't want one? Fine, drive or ride the bus or use your passport for ID.

[xenophiles]

I tried the random sentence test on this piece; it's hard to find a single sentence it it that doesn't contain a false assertion or specious argument.

Here's one that particularly caught my eye:

The proposed state-to-state database for a secure license [...] will be encoded so that privacy will not be at all compromised...

What a relief! No supporting evidence or argument that I can see, no explanation of just how these groups will leap clear of their appalling records of carelessness, indifference and incompetence in all matters relating to privacy, cryptography and data security, just blue skies!

(The whole "we should be for whatever the ACLU is against" argument is not even worth skewering.)

[Secret Agent Man]

This is just bullcrap.

I’m not a fan of the ACLU, never have been. That said, National ID is just not right. We don’t need internal Nazi passports to be presented with a heel-click anytime the feds want to do a spot check.

This whole “I can give up some of my privacy for a little security” mentality is just wrong-headed. We keep giving more and more of our privacy up for the sake of ‘security’. National ID will make my life no more safer, it will make it more difficult. It’ll be a crime NOT to have it on you. I almost always have my license but sometimes I forget it. If I get stopped now and don’t have it they don’t assume I’m a terrorist or begin to treat me like one.

I’m also not a big fan of Federalism.

[Technogeeb]

The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the actual contents of the Real ID Act

In that is true then it is automatically illegal. The federal government only legally has the powers specifically granted it.

You don't have any doubt that Congress can legislate about airline passengers, Social Security benefits, and other federal programs?

Of course I do; short of a constitutional amendment, all those things are illegal.

Don't get hung up on the ACLU's arguments.

I don't care about the ACLU's arguments. If a "real ID" is so important, then it is important enough to pass a constitutional amendment to give the federal government that power so they can do it legally.

[Technogeeb]

So you don’t have to use a Real ID, you are not required to have one. However, without one, or some other alternative, you will not be allowed to board a plane or gain access to other things.

Some of those "other things" are the US Court system. When someone gets a jury summons and then goes to jail because they can't get into a Federal building, try explaining to them that the ID is "optional". For that matter, simply driving isn't an optional activity for those of us in the real world, and it simply isn't feasible for most states to have a two-tier drivers' license system.

[Congressman Billybob]

Apparently, you either have not discovered the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, or haven’t read it with comprehension. It’s about “interstate commerce.” Airplanes cross state boundaries. Got the picture?

The Framers wrote that in 1787. No amendment is necessary. Or, do you think the Framers were untrustworthy souls who wrote a dangerous document? Actually, I like the original document, but you’re free to disagree.

John / Billybob

[xenophiles]

The federal government is not forcing Real ID on anyone. They are simply saying that they will no longer accept certain IDs that do not meet certain requirements to gain access to certain federally controlled systems.

Oh, is that all. They're not forcing it on anyone, it's just that without it you will be denied access to certain things. Like air travel. And maybe bank accounts. What else is "federally controlled"?...

So you don’t have to use a Real ID, you are not required to have one. However, without one, or some other alternative, you will not be allowed to board a plane or gain access to other things.

Other things? Is that supposed to be reassuring? I think you are drawing a distinction without much of a difference.

[RoadGumby]

John/BillyBob,

Usually I agree with evrything you post, but gotta say that I see this as nothing more than a part of the recent efforts to remove our sovereignity.

The SPP, NAU, Amnesty, and these cards to help track us. Conspiracy? Maybe. But just cuz you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.

Yeah, it’s just a little card. But remember, the SSN was NOT to be used for ID purposes, and yet today it is a defacto National ID Number. Remember, the set belt laws were NOT going to be used to pull you over, and yet today, it is Clickit or Ticket. It bears saying, Slippery Slope.

[untrained skeptic]

Notice how the article can't even get past the second sentence without the obligatory "do it for the children" propaganda.

I can't blame you on that account. I agree with Real Id but still find this author's arguments unconvincing.

The we are at war and our lives changed forever on 9/11 crap is just emotional hype.

Such changes to our laws aren't going to go away even if the war on terror would end.

My argument for Real Id is simple. If we have a genuine need for Government issued IDs, then they should be useful ones that are hard to forge our get under false pretenses.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants no power to do any such thing as a "national ID".

Well, let's take a look at section 8. The last line is:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So what is included in the "forgoing Powers?

It grants the government authority to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization".

If you are going to have uniform rules about Naturalization, and have different rules for naturalized citizens than for others, you might need a way to identify people.

Actually it's difficult to enforce laws unless you catch people in the act and punish them immediately unless you have a good way of telling who someone is.

How do you expect our federal government to enforce our immigration laws if once someone has snuck past the border they don't have any good means to tell if someone belongs in the US or is there illegally?

The fact that they don't appear to be putting much effort towards enforcing those laws is a serious, but separate issue.

My point is that there are powers granted to the federal government that require them to identify people, and therefore they have the authority to require identification within the scope of those powers.

What the Real Id act is place requirements on State Ids if they are going to be used as a valid form of identification by the federal government. If the states choose not to make their state Ids match those requirements, then their state Ids won't be valid forms of Id for federal purposes. The residents of that state would then need to attain a passport to have a valid Id for those purposes.

The constitutional authority for what they did is there.

However, simply not being unconstitutional isn't exactly a compelling argument either.

The real question is does our government have a valid reason to require us to provide identification, and does this identification meet those needs, but not infringe on our rights more than is necessary?

I think our federal government does have a valid need to demand proof of legal status to enforce our immigration laws, though I do firmly believe that we need to limit when and under what circumstances the can demand that we provide such identification.

If they have probable cause to believe the person just snuck across the border, they need to be able to demand identification.

I will agree with you that there are a lot of government programs and services for which I see no authority in the constitution. However, if our courts are going to allow those programs to exist, the government needs to be able to verify that those taking part in them or receiving benefits from them are eligible.

The states also have various reasons to require identification and the constitutional authority of the states is considerably more broad.

The states don't necessarily need to know if people are in the country legally for the purposes of their state Ids, but it would seem like a good idea to not be granting drivers licenses to people who are here illegally. Since the States handle voting and citizenship is required to vote for federal office, there is also a genuine need for the states to know if people are here legally and are citizens (though some in the government prefer to let hinder enforcing such laws).

We have a valid need for Ids, and if we have such a need it is ingenuine to argue that they should not be tamper proof and have solid procedures for attaining such an Id.

I can understand arguments about what information should be stored on such an Id and who that information should be shared with, but most of the people complaining about Real Id on those grounds either don't know what they are talking about, or are arguing about how it might possibly be expanded in the future rather that what Real Id actually requires.

Give me a reason why Real Id should not be implemented based on what it actually does and how it is actually being used, and I'll listen. However I'm tire of hearing people object to it based on hype and B.S.

[Technogeeb]

Apparently, you either have not discovered the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, or haven’t read it with comprehension.

No, I simply don't agree with the leftist FDR interpretation of the commerce clause. For that matter, neither did the founders; nor do some of the more sane members of the current US Supreme Court.

The Framers wrote that in 1787. No amendment is necessary.

Nonsense. When more rational minds prevailed, it was commonly acknowledged that even something as minor as prohibiting the sale of alcohol (something that most definitely moves in "interstate commerce") required a Constitutional amendment.

Actually, I like the original document

Only your left-wing misinterpretation of it. The authors of the Constitution were quite clear in their writings that your pet programs like "Social Security" weren't authorized.