Skip to comments.Enumerated Powers and National I.D. Cards
Posted on 11/19/2001 9:21:07 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
The quotation in the column is from the AP. (Which has its wire articles here.) I'm sure Scalia would agree with your version as much as with the one he's reported as having said, since he considers it a legislative matter, not a judicial one. Of course, he overlooked the lack of authorization for it in the Constitution.
Sounds interesting. Is anyone already working on it?
Well, I've never caught anybody. But I'm not sure you get my point. Ordinary people like you and me need privacy and freedom. As I've already pointed out a national ID/database system would be accessed by millions of people. (I observe that you did not attempt to refute this.) Existing databases have been abused by govt employees for personal reasons: stalking women, retaliating against people who piss them off, extortion, etc.
Do you seal envelopes before you mail letters? Do you close your curtains at night? Gee, you must have something to hide!
See how ridiculous it sounds?
Yes, I would be interested to hear his opinion on enumerated powers. I am of the mind that is question really should have said:
"If you think it's a good idea to have a national identity card, persuade your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment allowing it."
If this is the best out of Scalia, who is purportedly the most "constructionalist" on the court then I fear for the Republic, as the saying goes. I don't want "constructionalists" on the bench, I want "literalists." I want someone who will read a part of the constitution that says "Congress shall make no law" and actually figure it to mean that Congress shall make no law on the subject. I don't know why a document in English actually needs interpreting. I speak it well.
Be careful with that common sense. The JBT fans will be after you. They will tell you that reading what a document actually says is "utopian".
I am just curious. How could a "national standard for the issuance of state ID's" possibly be "voluntary"? I cannot envision what you are describing.
If you pass or enact a "national standard" for state IDs, that part is not so voluntary (for the states). Or do you mean "voluntary" in the same sense that the state ID's - driver's license, usually - are "voluntary" for people? (I.e. "voluntary" unless you actually want to drive a car anywhere, or live any sort of normal life....)
But even that doesn't sound to "voluntary" to me in the first place, except in a highly technical sense.
No offense, but it just seems like supporters of this or that ID card plan like to throw in the word "voluntary" just to make it sound more palatable, when in reality it has no basis in fact.
...on the American People.
Does the term "Juden" ring any bells?
Those who will not learn from history are destined to repeat it.........who knows, maybe they'll just be happy to put "gun owner" on our IDs and leave it at that....yeah, Right!!
Also remember that when initally instituted the SS card was guaranteed to NEVER be used for identification purposes. My original card even stated this quite plainly on the back - NOT TO BE USED FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES -- does the NEW card that I had to obtain after I married carry this disclaimer? Nope.... Loss of freedom and liberty is generally done incrementally and a National ID card (IMHO) is just another small incremental step with even more POTENTIAL for abuse by the feds and all their unconstitutional agencies.
Maybe they're just trying to go ahead and get the little ones accustomed to having to provide ID so they won't have a problem with it later in life. (Just a thought.)
...Loss of freedom and liberty is generally done incrementally and a National ID card (IMHO) is just another small incremental step with even more POTENTIAL for abuse by the feds and all their unconstitutional agencies...
Just one more little adjustment of the dial...for the Frog in the Water - - -- - - that's about to start boiling...
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.. As you are obviously aware, A drivers license IS the most common form of ID, and as you correctly stated, it is not REQURIED, unless of course you want to drive...
I support the standarization of drivers licenses, ISSUED BY THE STATES, NOT the Federal Government, this would prevent a person who has a LONG history of offenses in one state from simply moving to another state and getting a "Clean Slate".. I see this often, and I think that it is important for us to create a system that does not make it so easy for people to have numerous "identities".
I know this view will cost me a few votes from my libertarian friends, but I think the benefits of such a system outweigh the "anti-privacy" claims..
I still just bristle at the term "voluntary", however. I don't see the need to call it "voluntary", and find it slightly misleading, especially when presumably it would be de facto necessary to get them (in the form of state Driver's Licenses, or whatever) to live any sort of ordinary existence. Of course, I have much the same problem with calling Driver's Licenses "voluntary", so maybe it's just me... :)
As for your concerns about "clean slates" and so on - while warranted I'm sure, I thought this was supposed to be about fighting terrorism, in particular. And to be quite honest I'm not convinced that any new, expanded "ID" proposal will help us do that.
As for the "multiple identity" problem, the reason a standardized system would fix that problem, is because current technology allows a photo (or whatever means of positive ID is used) to immediately "flag" an existing "match" on an ID issued by another state, at which time the individual would be asked to "clear up" whatever issues exist with the previous state before asking for another ID from another State... ONLY if their are OUTSTANDING extriditeable warrants issued by the previous state would a person be taken into custody..
Does this clarify my position, or provoke further debate?
Does this clarify my position, or provoke further debate?
I think it clarifies, and actually we're pretty much on the same page when it comes to standardized IDs as a way of fighting the multiple-identity, "clean slate" problem.
I'm just not sure we're helping to fight "terrorism" per se, anymore.
There's also this:
current technology allows a photo (or whatever means of positive ID is used) to immediately "flag" an existing "match" on an ID issued by another state
Well, I'm not sure current technology is that good. There will be many false positives. Imagine going to the mall with your kids and being detained, "could you step aside and come with us just for a few minutes sir?" while they "clear up" the fact that a computer image processing algorithm thinks you look like some deadbeat dad from Florida.
Again, probably what still sticks in my craw about it is that it doesn't seem to be about fighting terrorism. It seems to be about a whole bunch of other stuff, which, however valid the goals may be, is definitely not what is being advertised as the Reason We Need A Better ID System.
The justification being advertised is purely and simply "to fight terrorism", that's what people will think it's for, and that's why people will support it.
Then all these other uses back-door their way in. And in the meantime I'm not sure terrorism has been stopped at all.
I hope so.
It would among other things, lessen the chance a person from one state would get mis-treated by police in another state (arrested instead of ticketed for speeding).
Why? There will still be out-of-state plates.
Another problem I have is the apparant fragrant violation of the 14th amendment that occurs at liquor stores. They don't allow those with out of state ID's buy beer. This would be solved with a national ID.
Or we could just get rid of the drinking age.
I have never been convinced that it would erode our rights.
How about your right to exist without government approval?
Please save the breath for more important things like protecting our rights to keep and bear arms.
As I explained, it's unConstitutional. The Constitution is not a small issue.