Posted on 02/08/2008 10:57:25 AM PST by BGHater
Editor's note: A May deadline looms as just one flash point in a political showdown between Homeland Security and states that oppose Real ID demands. This is the third in a four-part series examining the confrontation.
No television, no wedding or family photographs, and definitely no image of herself on her driver's license: That was the devout Christian life that Nebraska resident Frances Quaring was trying to lead.
Which is why, after the state of Nebraska rejected her request for a license-without-a-photograph in the mid-1980s, Quaring sued the state in a landmark case that ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court. She won, with the justices agreeing that preserving her freedom of religion outweighed the state's interest in requiring an ID photograph.
More than two decades after the Quaring case, approximately a dozen states now offer religious exceptions when issuing driver's licenses. But because of a federal law called the Real ID Act that takes effect on May 11, residents of those states who have pictureless licenses could expect problems flying on commercial airliners and entering federal buildings, including some Social Security and Veterans Affairs offices.
The new rules could affect thousands of Americans in states including Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Minnesota, Kansas, Arkansas, and Indiana. Religious groups including some Amish, Old Order Mennonites, Muslims, members of Native American faiths, and fundamentalist Christians object to identification cards bearing their photographs--or, in some cases, even showing their unshrouded faces in public.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has criticized Real ID on numerous grounds, says it has received complaints about the law's rigidity toward religious groups and is "exploring all options," including a legal challenge to the law.
Starting May 11, the Real ID Act is expected to cause hassles for anyone with a pictureless license. Also affected are residents of a separate list of states--shown on this map--who may have trouble when flying on commercial airliners or entering federal buildings. Click a state below to see what it has told us about whether its driver's licenses will meet Real ID requirements.
Alabama plans to ask for an extension. "At this point, one option that's being considered is a 'hybrid' approach to Real ID in Alabama, by which the state would offer compliant and noncompliant driver licenses and ID cards. We do plan to ask for an extension."
--Dorris Teague, Public Information/Education Unit, Alabama Department of Public Safety
"Alaska does indeed intend to request an extension to meet the requirements of Real ID. We haven't submitted our extension request yet, but we fully intend to do so in the very near future."
--Whitney Brewster, spokeswoman, Alaska Division of Motor Vehicles
Arizona says that Homeland Security has said the state will "automatically get an extension" because of an existing plan to revamp its licenses, according to Jeanine L'Ecuyer, spokeswoman for Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. That means its driver's licenses and state ID cards will be treated as Real ID-compliant until December 31, 2009.
But L'Ecuyer added that final compliance is still an open question: "Will Arizona do Real ID? Maybe is the honest answer to that question."
"We have asked for the first extension, but in the extension letter, we say we are not committed to implementing Real ID. We just need time to look at it and evaluate it."
--Mike Munns, assistant revenue commissioner for Arkansas
California reiterated in January 2008 that it has no problems complying with Real ID. Its statement did, however, mention "privacy and funding issues, which continue to be a concern for California."
"We requested and received the extension until 2009, and we expect to be fully on the road to implementing Real ID satisfactorily by that point to get another extension in the future if we need to."
--Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revenue
Connecticut has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We are still studying the issue. (Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Robert Ward) remains supportive of the concept, but no firm decisions have been made."
--Bill Seymour, spokesman for the motor vehicle commissioner.
Delaware has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The DMV director and secretary are going to give a briefing to the governor next month, February. Because we've got until the end of March to decide...After they have this meeting with the governor is when we're going to make our official choice."
--Mike Williams, spokesman, Delaware Department of Transportation
Florida has not announced whether it will or will not request an extension. "Thanks to the leadership of our governor, cabinet, and legislature, Florida already provides our citizens a secure and safe driver license and identification card, and we are well postured to incorporate any changes that may be required. We applaud the federal government on their efforts to protect all of our citizens with the implementation of this act."
--Ann Nucatola, public information director, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles
Georgia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. The legislature has approved legislation authorizing the governor to reject Real ID if federal regulations do not "adequately safeguard and restrict use of the information in order to protect the privacy rights" of Georgia residents. "Our legislature has to make that determination within the next few months."
--Susan Sports, public information officer, Georgia Department of Driver Services
Hawaii has filed for and received an extension. "We are moving forward on reviewing the rules and coordinating with the county DMVs to see how the rules can be implemented and coordinated."
--Russell Pang, chief of Media Relations for Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle
"We've asked for an extension, but we still have serious concerns and reservations about it and its future here is to be determined."
--Jon Hanian, spokesman for Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter
"We have every intention to file for an extension."
--Henry Haupt, spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White
"We do intend to comply, and we have filed for and received an extension. Over the past couple of years, we've done some security enhancements to our own system that we were going to do regardless of how Real ID rolled out."
--Dennis Rosebrough, spokesman, Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles
"Yes, Iowa will be implementing Real ID and we will be requesting the first extension."
--Dena Gray-Fisher, spokeswoman, Iowa Department of Transportation
"Kansas has obtained authorization for the extension, which gets us out to the end of 2009 and affords us the opportunity to see where we are, negotiate a few different things with our vendor and others. It gives us a little breathing room."
--Carmen Alldritt, director of the division of vehicles, Kansas Department of Revenue
"A Real ID would be an entirely new document. The current KY license would not meet the new standard...Kentucky has asked for the extension."
--Mark Brown, spokesman, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
State officials have not responded to repeated requests for information about Real ID compliance. One bill in the state legislature asks Congress to repeal Real ID, while a response to a DMV survey says that "We believe that Louisiana will meet standards."
Will not comply. "There is currently no effort being undertaken within the state to roll back the public law preventing the secretary from moving in the direction of Real ID. It is a situation where Mainers may face some inconvenience at airports come May 11."
--Don Cookson, spokesman for Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap
Maryland requested a deadline extension. "We're still going through 300 pages of federal guidelines. We're currently evaluating those guidelines and then we'll develop a program that is Real ID-compliant."
--Jack Cahalan, spokesman, Maryland Department of Transportation
"Massachusetts did apply for the waiver and received it. We are basically telling (drivers who call us) that we've gotten the exemption, which means that you are going to show your valid driver's license to get on an airplane just as you have in the past until December 2009."
--Ann Dufresne, spokeswoman, Massachusetts Department of Motor Vehicles.
After December 2009, states can apply for a second extension, but will receive it only if they're taking affirmative steps to comply.
Michigan has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "At this point, we have not requested a waiver. We're still trying to work out some of the details."
--Kelly Chesney, spokeswoman for Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lyn Land. The state's Web site says: "There are still many unknowns...Michigan law changes will be necessary."
"We did receive a letter from Homeland Security and it said that our extension had been granted, so that would mean that our documents, our driver's licenses, and ID cards, are compliant until December 31, 2009."
--Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokeswoman
No response to repeated inquiries.
No response to repeated inquiries. The state Web site says: "January 11, 2008 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the final rule establishing minimum security standards for state-issued driver licenses and identification cards. The rule is 284 pages in length. The Missouri Department of Revenue is in the process of reviewing the rules to determine the impact to Missouri."
Montana's legislature has flatly rejected Real ID in a bill that the governor has signed into law. Gov. Brian Schwitzer has called on his colleagues in other states this month to join Montana in opposition to this "major threat to the privacy, constitutional rights, and pocketbooks of ordinary Montanans." Lynn Solomon, a spokeswoman for the Montana attorney general's office, told us: "Right now we're not even sure that the existing Montana law allows us to ask for the extension. We're just sort of sitting tight."
"Nebraska has requested and has been granted an initial extension. That extension does not require you to technically commit to Real ID compliance--it says we need some time, and that's what we said, we need some time. Whether or not Nebraska is ultimately going to be compliant is really for the most part right now in the hands of the legislature."
--Beverly Neth, director, Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles
Nevada has applied for a deadline extension. "Certainly this is something that the governor supports and believes is important, although he believes in some respects it is an unfunded mandate and that the federal government should assist the states with the funding," Melissa Subbotin, spokeswoman for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, told us.
New Hampshire last year enacted a law that prohibits the state from changing its driver's license and identification card laws to comply with Real ID. It doesn't appear that is going to change. "As it stands now, the only action that has been taken is legislation to keep us out of it. There would be no way that the state could pass amending legislation or undo that within that time frame; it's just not going to happen. I don't see that anything could be done in the intervening time to change it," Jim Van Dongen, spokesman for the New Hampshire Department of Safety, told us.
New Jersey has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. Mike Horan, a spokesman for the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, said there are a number of factors that the state is considering, including cost and wait times at the DMV. "Are the Real ID requirements going to add 15 minutes more to a person's wait? Are we going to need a new computer system to manage the requirements? We're in a bit of a fiscal crisis like many states across the country. That's a major concern--there are so many things that are in need of money."
New Mexico has applied for the first deadline extension from the Department of Homeland Security. "We have not made a final decision on whether we are going to implement Real ID or not," said David Harwell, a spokesman for the state department of taxation and revenue, which issues driver's licenses. "We are in the process of studying all of the regulations that were issued by Secretary (Michael) Chertoff several weeks ago."
New York has already received an "unsolicited extension" from the Department of Homeland Security as part of a recent agreement to change its driver license policies, said Jennifer Givner, deputy press secretary for Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
North Carolina said it will request an extension if it's necessary for state residents to travel after May 11, but has not yet done so. "We're feeling that we are on track to follow along the Real ID plan as it is right now. We don't see any situation at this point where our citizens' driver's licenses would be in jeopardy and keeping them out of federal buildings or off of airplanes...Basically we feel like we're in a good place."
--Marge Howell, spokeswoman, North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles
North Dakota has applied for a deadline extension. "Our application is stating that we'd like the extension and we would still like to reserve the opportunity to investigate committing to full implementation," said Linda Butts, deputy director of driver and vehicle services, North Dakota Department of Transportation. "The other thing that's muddying the water is that so many of these rules are long-term and seem to continue to mutate and change a little bit, so that's another thing I think all states are looking at is the cost of implementation. Are these truly going to be the rules in 2015? Will the rules today be the rules that are implemented five, seven years down the road?"
Ohio said this month that it has applied for an extension and was the first state to receive one.
Oklahoma's legislature has approved legislation saying that Real ID "is inimical to the security and well-being of the people of Oklahoma" and, therefore, "the state of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act." Paul Sund, spokesman for Oklahoma governor's office, told us: "I'm not aware of any repeal efforts, but our legislature does not convene until February 4."
Oregon has requested and received an extension. In the longer term, however, the state may not comply. "Oregon hasn't made a decision for or against compliance with Real ID. But since the final federal rules were released January 10, our legislature is likely to put that on its 2009 agenda."
--David House, spokesman for the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Pennsylvania has requested and received an extension. In the longer term, however, the state may not comply. "We're undergoing a comprehensive review of those regulations right now to look at some potential options, the cost that would be involved and also the impact to the citizens of Pennsylvania. Being granted this initial extension just allows us more time to do that and allows the citizens of the commonwealth to continue using their state driver's licenses and IDs through December 31, 2009."
--Danielle Klinger, spokeswoman, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Rhode Island has applied for and received the first deadline extension from DHS, according to state DMV spokeswoman Gina Zanni. "Our governor supports the Real ID initiative," Zanni told us. "We have applied for part of the grant money that has been made available...we'd sure like some money."
South Carolina has enacted legislation saying the state "shall not participate in the implementation of the federal Real ID Act." Beth Parks, spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, told us: "Yes, it is true that South Carolina is a nonparticipatory state for Real ID. The South Carolina legislature is the only entity that can change that position. We are comparing the new regulations to the proposed regulations and our previous cost estimates. Once we have completed our review, we will provide information to South Carolina lawmakers and answer any questions they may have."
"We've applied for an extension and received one, but we have not committed to Real ID yet," said Mitch Krebs, press secretary for South Dakota Gov. Michael Rounds.
"The Department of Safety is conducting a detailed review of the final rules in order to fully evaluate the impact Real ID implementation will have on the citizens of the state of Tennessee. While we anticipate filing an extension, no official request has been signed as of this date. Keep in mind, an extension request is not necessarily an indication of our intent to comply."
--Mike Browning, spokesman, Tennessee Department of Safety
Texas has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We're still reading the fine print." --Tela Mange, spokeswoman, Texas Department of Public Safety
Utah has requested and received a deadline extension. "Our driver's license division is not a policy-making body. It would be up to the legislature and the governor. We are currently going through our legislative session--it just started. That will be one of the topics, whether to go through with it."
--Sgt. Jeff Nigbur, spokesman, Utah Department of Public Safety
"Vermont requested and was granted an extension until December 31, 2009."
--John Zicconi, spokesman, Vermont Agency of Transportation
Virginia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The Virginia DMV is currently reviewing the regulations to determine our next steps."
--Melanie Stokes, spokeswoman, Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Gov. Christine Gregoire signed legislation last year prohibiting the state from implementing Real ID unless the federal government provides funding and greater privacy protections. But, in an apparent effort to avoid inconveniencing state residents in May, Gregoire requested a compliance extension. "By not filing an extension, effective May 11, Washingtonians would have automatically been subject to additional security screenings at airports and federal buildings," Gregoire said in a recent statement. It also said: "I will not allow for confusion and chaos at our busy airports. This extension will allow our residents to continue use of their Washington state driver license or ID card to board planes and enter federal buildings...The federal regulations on Real ID compliance are ambiguous, and I share funding and privacy concerns held by many state legislators."
West Virginia has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "In West Virginia we are still weighing our options based upon the recent changes to the act's requirements."
--Susan Watkins, spokeswoman, West Virginia Department of Transportation
Wisconsin has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "We've not made a final determination regarding next steps for Wisconsin as it relates to Real ID," said Patrick Fernan, operations manager for the Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles. "We have not requested an extension as of yet."
Wyoming plans to request a deadline extension. "Unless the law for implementation of Real ID is changed in Washington D.C. or our Wyoming Legislature passes legislation not to comply with the Real ID, we will work toward implementation," said Jim O'Connor, support services administrator for the Wyoming Department of Transportation. He added, however: "We are concerned about this unfunded federal mandate and the effect it will have on the people of Wyoming."
The nation's capital has not decided whether to comply with Real ID, reject it completely, or request an extension to keep its options open. "The DC DMV is still deciding on next steps," said public information officer Janis Hazel. "Nothing further to report at this time."
"We are deeply concerned that Real ID and the associated regulations intrude on the religious liberty of many Americans who for reasons of faith wear head coverings or object entirely to having their photo taken," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The faithful shouldn't have to choose between a driver's license and their religious beliefs."
Under Real ID, there's no obvious wiggle room for Americans who object to facial photograph requirements on religious grounds. The lengthy new regulations released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security last month set minimum standards for state-issued driver's licenses and IDs, among which is a "full facial digital photograph" that adheres to specific federal requirements.
This could pose real problems for some residents of states with a history of allowing the devout to obtain valid driver's licenses without photographs in an attempt to accommodate religious beliefs. Still more states have enacted laws known as "religious freedom restoration acts," which more broadly allow for accommodation of religious beliefs in the face of government regulations.
"My understanding is that the Real ID legislation takes that option away from states," said Steve Nolt, a history professor at Goshen College who has studied Amish interaction with government regulations in recent decades.
For some Christians, Quaring included, one source of religious objections to Real ID comes from the Christian Bible's Second Commandment, which in one translation says: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
Homeland Security justifies its mandates by saying a facial photograph "serves important security purposes." Its stated goal through Real ID--approved unanimously by the Senate and overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives as part of a "Global War on Terror" bill--is to improve driver's license security and thereby handicap terrorists, identity thieves, and illegal immigrants.
"Given these security concerns and the clear statutory mandate, DHS believes that a driver's license or identification card issued without a photograph could not be issued as a Real ID-compliant driver's license or identification card," the agency says.
Translated, that means in just over three months, federal agencies may no longer accept those "noncompliant driver's licenses" for Americans who are boarding a commercial airplane or entering a federal building. In addition, Homeland Security can add other requirements--one Homeland Security official recently suggested Real ID could be required to buy certain cold medicines--without consulting Congress first.
--Bible
The lack of flexibility is troubling to Herman Bontrager, the secretary-treasurer of the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom. His all-volunteer group has met at least twice with Homeland Security officials to try to seek a compromise, and it's also talking with some members of Congress, as the Amish don't generally file lawsuits. They've had "congenial" conversations that discussed alternative possibilities for verifying identity--the Amish are amenable to fingerprints instead of photographs, he said--but no actual progress has been made so far.
The photo ID requirement has already raised practical concerns in recent years, particularly because of the newly instated passport requirement for crossing into Mexico and Canada, where the Amish often travel to visit family or seek medical treatment, Bontrager said. Because the Amish don't fly on airplanes, most do not have passports, he said, adding that he worried the Real ID requirements could make it less convenient for them to access federal buildings. Without a photo-equipped license, they won't be able to visit some Social Security offices, for instance.
"I think the Amish appreciate the conversations and the access to Homeland Security people, but we're now getting down to the implementation phase," said Bontrager, a Lancaster County, Penn., resident who runs an insurance company inspired by Biblical principles. "Each step in the rulemaking progress, we provide comment, and so on and never get any response. We have not yet seen any evidence that they're willing to make accommodations or provide options."
Real ID could be the latest skirmish in years of legal battles between states and the federal government over religious freedom laws. Until 1990, U.S. law said that the government has to show a "compelling interest" in order to succeed in limiting a person's free exercise of religion, as evidenced in the Quaring case. But then came a U.S. Supreme Court case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concluded that if a rule is neutral and isn't designed to target a particular religion, then it may pass constitutional muster.
In a response to critics of that decision, Congress enacted a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which attempted to shift more of the burden back to the government in winning such cases. It said: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" except in limited circumstances. That law, however, was partially gutted by the Supreme Court, which ruled Congress had overstepped its boundaries by applying that rule to the states, prompting many states to enact their own versions of the law.
What's relevant to the new Real ID rules, however, is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does still appear to apply to federal laws and rules, said the ACLU's Mach. If the ACLU does challenge Real ID, it plans to make its case using that law.
Whether such a challenge would be successful is another question.
Because Homeland Security appears to have a fairly narrow requirement--that is, that a driver's license applicant's face be uncovered--the government would likely be able to argue that it's pursuing its security-related goals in the narrowest possible way, said Seval Yildirim, director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Whittier Law School in California.
"In other words, this is not an outright prohibition on all religious clothing or covering, but only those that prevent the state from identifying the individual," said Yildirim, who is defending a Muslim police officer in Philadelphia who was prohibited from wearing her head scarf while in uniform and on the job.
A few years ago, the ACLU of Florida lost a case in which the state revoked a devout Muslim woman's license because, after a later review, the state decided she may not wear a veil that covered most of her face. The ACLU argued that such a practice violated Florida's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but state courts ruled that the government's security concerns outweighed Freeman's religious freedom. Critics said the decision reflected a post-9/11 mentality that's less permissive of religious liberties.
Even though only some Muslims could be affected by the Real ID rules, it's a "significant minority," said Ibrahim Ramey, director of the human and civil rights division of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. Ramey estimated that about 80 percent of Muslim women wear headscarves and about 10 percent also don a niqab, or face veil.
Organizations like his would "certainly be willing" to sign onto legal action with other civil liberties groups against the rules, Ramey said. (The Muslim American Society also has broader concerns about Real ID's implications for undocumented immigrants.)
"I would argue again that the benefit of religious accommodation far outweighs what some people might perceive as the drawback or the problematic nature of doing it," Ramey said in a telephone interview. "I don't think it's something...that will involve anything close to a large plurality of Muslim women, but for any woman that chooses to wear the covering, it ought to be something that's respected and accommodated by the larger society, particularly if there's no evidence of criminal intent."
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
Nor is there a right to enter a Federal building. Or a National Park. Or buy a gun.
All things Homeland Security is suggesting may require a RealID.
Oops, that buying a gun thing may be an issue.
There are already large numbers of people in the US who refrain from any ID, and only enter “the system” when they are arrested. A goodly number of such people are incapable of retaining an ID even if they get one—it will be lost immediately.
This was an issue even back in the 1980s, and such people were then called “blanks”. They work for cash, pay no taxes, receive no welfare, attain no licenses or insurance, and live in dwellings provided by their identified friends or strangers.
Endless government threats, offers, promises, etc., are not enough for such people to carry IDs. They will not, no matter what is demanded of them, or if they are routinely arrested for not having “their papers.”
I have no doubt that under such circumstances as they need to appear in federal court, a subpoena will override the government’s passionate desire to identify all citizens with an ID card. But then again, maybe not.
Perhaps the lack of an ID will guarantee such a person a federal contempt of court citation, for being unable to appear after being barred at the door.
But in the short term, nationwide, I see a marked decline in airline stocks, and political groups emerging that reject such IDs as a group. Maybe becoming a ‘blank’ will become a status symbol.
Perhaps Americans will join Mexicans in illegally crossing the Mexican, as well as Canadian, border instead of bothering with official decrees and IDs. And I’m sure that with our great creativity, we will do it much better than the Mexicans ever did.
A great and rousing chorus to the government, “GO BUGGER OFF!”
Using that logic, it is entirely reasonable to ban the private ownership of guns. Do you support such a reasonable change?
Maine, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina.
Four states who treasure freedom. The first time there were 13.
People have rights not stipulated in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment:
‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’
If buying a gun were mandatory you may have a point. But it's not.
Want a gun without an ID? Buy it from an individual.
Need access to a court but don't have an ID? I'm sure your lawyer will/could press for remote access and have your testimony on live video.
Translation, they found this tiny crack, and now they are going to try to shove millions of illegals and dead voters through it.
The Virginia dmv, the Black hole of intelligent thought.
Do you know that the Virginia dmv will not accept cdl skills test from other states. But people that test in those states and live in another state can drive in Virgina. Sort of a catch 22 of intelligent thought. And of course an untested Mexican can drive anywhere.
I don’t know what it takes to comply with real ID, but the last time I renewed my Virginia drivers license I had a real hassle, and ended up having to go to the Social Security office {where they offer translators for 50 languages} twice to document who I am because of a confusion over my married name, my maiden name and my middle name. And I took a passport, my birth certificate, marriage license, a property tax bill, a work ID with a picture and my old drivers license with me when I went to renew. It still wasn’t enough. I can’t think how they could make it any more rigorous.
“REAL ID will do ZILCH to stop illegal immigration or terrorism.
This is solely about tracking AMERICANS. “
Amen Brother. Thanks for the links.
Sad to think of who gave birth to this idea, worse is those that promoted it.
bmflr, for comparison to Revelation Chapter 13.
To those who say, "It can't happen here", wake up!
You have the right of free speech, but that does not entitle you to be given a printing press.
I don’t know where you live, but I can travel from the East Coast to the West Coast without restriction. I can also travel to Mexico and Europe without restriction. {During World War II you needed coupons from the government to buy food and gasoline. The Republic survived.} Why should I care if there are cameras on highways? Nor do I have a problem with “monetary transactions,” because I can’t remember the last time I needed to deposit or withdraw $10,000 in cash. The police where I live are the opposite of abusive, they are helpful and polite and protect me from the bad guys. But...I agree with you about the Fairness Doctrine, “thought crime” legislation, gun control, private property, socialized medicine and other unpleasant Marxist trends on the horizon. Mostly I care about the rule of law.
If you must submit to mandatory, unconstitutional searches on aircraft, you have restrictions on your travel. While the Federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate overseas travel, even to Canada and Mexico, it has no authority to do so domestically, unless you choose to abuse the "interstate commerce" clause against the original intent of the Framers/
Why should I care if there are cameras on highways?
Any power or authority given to government is subject to abuse. The best way to prevent abuse is to deny government power or authority. In the last century, over 100 million persons were killed by governments, a number far greater than all those killed by organized or unorganized criminals. The massacre at the Branch Davidian facility in Waco resulted in far more deaths than did the Valentine Day massacre or the murders of Jeffrey Dahmer, the Son of Sam, etc.
Nor do I have a problem with “monetary transactions,” because I can’t remember the last time I needed to deposit or withdraw $10,000 in cash.
What business is it of the Feds if a person chooses to use currency rather than checks or electronic transfers? These regulations, which are unconstitutional, have done nothing to dry up drug trafficking, which was their initial intent. However, they do serve to provide the IRS and other agencies with a means of controlling the so-called underground economy. A conservative, that is, one who adheres to and seeks restoration of the foundational principles of this republic, should favor the abolition of the income tax and the restriction of government power so that the Feds are limited to legitimate functions, like national defense.
The police where I live are the opposite of abusive, they are helpful and polite and protect me from the bad guys.
I know nothing of your local police department, but the frequency of abusive behavior by lawmen and an increasingly arrogant attitude toward those they are sworn to defend, has increased over the last few years. Have you forgotten the "don't taze me, bro" incident when a student who asked a question of Senator John Kerry was given a mini-elecrocution. Please check out http://www.policeabuse.org, a Web site established by a former police detective. You cannot have the sort of moral decline this nation has undergone for decades without expecting that the police, drawn from this culture, will reflect the moral relativism and self-centeredness increasingly dominant. As for protection, the most and best police can do is to take information after the fact and hopefully catch the criminal or recover stolen merchandise. You, not the police, are responsible for protecting yourself from bad guys, as several Supreme Court cases have stated.
I agree with you about the Fairness Doctrine, “thought crime” legislation, gun control, private property, socialized medicine and other unpleasant Marxist trends on the horizon.
Fair enough, but once you permit restrictions on liberty for things of no concern to you, your grounds to oppose restrictions on things that you support are weakened. I care for the rule of law, but that rule has eroded over the years, and there is in effect one standard for the wealthy, elected officials, bureaucrats, and police, and another for the rest of us. As our Founding Fathers believed, an unjust law is no law. We have many unjust laws.
I am sure you are right, Wallace, and I have to say the tinfoil hat becomes you.
Justice Robert Jackson, I think.
“During World War II, which was a true, total war, there was no restriction on travel.”
Unless you were a totally, completely innocent American citizen...who happened to be of Japanease Descent...
Thank you, FDR/sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
