Driver's Licenses to Become National ID Cards 976
XorNand writes: "Time is reporting that the Dept of Transportation, acting on instructions from Congress, is in the process of linking together states' drivers' license databases. They figure that it'll be cheaper and easier to slip under the radar of civil libertarians and privacy watchdogs. Wonder if Larry is a bit peeved that he's not getting his cut?"
Shouldn't it be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't the national ID be uniform across the country? In the sense that the kind of info displayed on the card and the lay out. If it is not uniform, then it's harder to detect forgery on those ID, especially if the ID is out-of-state.
Then, the question on the on-card security add-on implies that we're effectively getting a new driver's licence ID. I dunno why don't they just enforce a single, uniform ID in the first place?
Just my 2c.
Where does this leave Virginia? (Score:3, Insightful)
The danger is that such a bogus ID will be taken as valid in more places and for more things due to its "national scope", and it'll be easier to get into things and do more damage than it is now (difficult concept, I know).
Re:What about an ID number? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now the SSN is the key to a whole lot of information - one of the few things keeping the world from being 1984-like is the fact that the databases aren't readily accessible. The more the SSN becomes a commonplace number, the more someone can track/grab your identity.
Not to be paranoid or anything...
right to privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the privacy rights - if there really are such things - vulnerable to a nationalized ID card have already been trampled under the wheels of increased security, more efficient law enforcement and better business long ago.
And there lies the problem.
It's too bad that the 28th amendment will probably ban flag burning instead of doing something useful.
Re:In the worst possble German accent I can manage (Score:2, Insightful)
-
The scary part (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure which is the scarier part of the article- the way it blythely assures you that this isn't really a significant step because the civil liberties damage is already done, or the fact that this is probably true. As they point out, all this involves is linking together data that's already kept and making it a bit easier to access. The problem is that making it easier to access will make it that much more tempting to access it for more and more trivial reasons. If it's really possible to check any driver's licence just by scanning it, how long will it be until you have to scan your license to buy alcohol or tobacco, rather than just showing it (or here in California not bothering to show it because nobody seems to care)?
What if I... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a thought...
But seriously, though, if information is property, how long will it be before everyday citizens claim their personal information as IP? How long will it be before we get a right to privacy? How much of Big Brother and Big Corp invading our lives does it take?Watch your tone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hadn't even noticed that. That really irks me. I mean really.
Did you happen to notice that almost all (something like 18 out of 22) of the hijackers were saudis? I wonder where all of saudia arabia's money comes from? Wonder where bin laden's dad's money came from?
Short hit : it's the damn oil we fuel our outdated transport system with.
Re:Shouldn't it be... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Ok, spare me the rhetoric about how we're no longer a republic, direct election of senators, yadda yadda yadda)
Re:What about an ID number? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iowa used to use your SSN as the DL number. You could "opt-out" when you got a license, and they would generate an ID. But, that was often quite a hassle as the generated ID had letters in it and many merchants had check clearing systems that flagged an Iowa DL with letters as invalid.
Of course, Iowa was also the only place I ever enountered Y2k problems. In 1997 I had a credit card that expired in 2000. Almost every place I tried to use it claimed it was expired.
This misses 95% of the benefit of a national ID (Score:1, Insightful)
None of the privacy arguments against the national ID hold water. Even those arguments that look superficially valid in the end only apply if you currently live "off the grid" (no state driver's license, no soc. security card, no passport, etc.)
Re:Pretty much the standard as it is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you lose it, or allow it to be destroyed, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all." - SARK
Elastic Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Automated Voter Registration? (Score:2, Insightful)
But wait... Then lots more people would probably vote. And all addresses/info could be automatically verified eliminating doubt and manual recounts. And 'elections' like Florida will never happen again!
$100 bucks says they don't incorporate the 1 thing into this system that could empower citizens.
Frank doesn't get it.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But until Congress passes a law like that -- and until you can't enter a movie theater without the usher checking you for priors -- there isn't all that much to get exercised about.
Er, no Frank, that's when it's too damn late to start doing anything about it.
Once you get to that stage people start becoming afraid of resisting goverments attempts to be Big Brother in all aspects of life, as it becomes a lot easier for the government to make otherwise innocent peoples life difficult by 'accidently' putting false information on the cards.
Oops. We accidentally put that you've got a criminal history on your card...oh well better luck at the next job interview.
Most of the privacy rights -- if there really are such things...
Yes, Frank such a thing does exist in the rest of the world. Here's [dataprotection.gov.uk] the government body that protects my privacy and data.
For some, the real problem with smarter, more centralized ID cards is that they give bureaucrats a better chance to screw up more of your life
No there are lots of people who don't like the idea of either government or companies being able to see anymore information about them, than is absolutely necessary.
With the growth of the Internet it is getting far too easy for companies and governments to trade information about their citizens.
Fake Licenses? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's all about trust relationships. At some point down the line you have to trust that somebody has verified who a person is and has done so accurately. As long as the system is dependent on trusting an underpaid, overworked, low level bureaucrat, people who want to get false identification will continue to do so. Heck, even if they are a well paid bureaucrat in a cushy position, they can still be bought, it just costs a bit more.
Ultimately the only people who this will effect is law abiding citizens who don't get fake ID's. Anybody who honestly wants to conceal their identity will continue to do so in any number of ways that are nearly impossible to prevent.
A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:5, Insightful)
And once there are nifty little networked readers in all these places, it'll be incredibly trivial for Big Brother to track your movements-- hey, you had to give your SSN when you bought that prepaid cell phone after the PATRIOT II passed in 2003, right?
And, of course, Big Brother has lots of annoying minions working in the IRS, local law enforcement, and collections agencies, all of whom are going to have much easier access to records than the law would suggest.
This isn't the America I want to live in. I want to live in a country where the long arm of the law doesn't have the resources to pursue anyone but the real baddies, by conventional means like the ones we had five or ten years ago.
I want this for your sake. I want you to be able to escape bad debts, a warrant for your arrest on drug charges, the ex-spouse with an unfair judgement against you. Right now you could change your name, move to another state, pay cash, and live quietly, and thankfully, never screwing up again.
But once all this is in place, you'll be sickly aware that you'll never manage to avoid the little red light on the ID-card scanner that'll bust you in a moment. Then you'll be more prone to a violent solution to your desparate situation, once escape and disappearance are no longer a realistic option. That's worse for my own safety.
(Of course, it'll please the Feds-- more of an excuse to clamp down on gun rights!)
I want to live in a country with a little breathing room, without an omnipresent electronic nanny state.
Doesn't anybody else, in the country of Patrick Henry and Tom Paine? Isn't anybody going to fight this?
I know that some of you, for your "safety", want to have a national ID card, national ID number, surveillance cameras, and face recognition everywhere. But isn't there a place, actually otherwise a really nice place, that you could move to? I think it's called "Europe".
what if you dont drive? (Score:2, Insightful)
States Rights. (Score:2, Insightful)
More and more the US is becoming a 100% federal entity. Things work best when you have choices and people are allowed to rule their town, county, state and country the way they want to. If you don't like what your state does just move to another one. That's what the entire Civil War was about.
What makes this really suck is that the US federal government is not only sucking away state's rights, but sucking away the rights of the world by using "economic sanctions" to get other countries to conform to our laws adn using the WTO as the big stick as we walk softly.
It won't be too long until if you don't like a law the only way to protest it or get away from it is to leave the planet. I've been considering leaving the US after I finish up a few obligations because their foreign policy pisses me off too much, but US law is creeping into every country. Once we have a homogenized world law system and a world culture, the land of Huxley's "Brave New World" is not too far off.
Re:Constitution (Score:1, Insightful)
Han Solo: "It's the ship that made the 'Kessel Run' in less than 12 parsecs".
Obi-Wan Kenobi: "Use the Force, Luke!"
Darth Vader: "I am your father!"
Re:not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
Our world changed on 9/11/01 and it will never ever be the same. We are doing exactly what our enemies wished us to do, we are giving in?
Here's the deal: there have always been businesses and lobbyists waiting in the wings for something to happen that will allow them to get what they want, total control/knowledge of our daily lives. These people, for various reasons, want all this data in one place. They don't care about privacy, they don't care about civil liberties, they only care about their agenda.
Now that the majority of Americans are scared shitless they are getting their laws passed with ease. And they have the greatest reason in the world to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The problem with the average person is that they lack vision. They lack the ability to see beyond their fears and beyond their own problems. They want tax cuts because that $300 will be great for a downpayment on a new tv. They don't mind giving up alittle privacy because they aren't doing anything wrong, not yet.
What people fail to see is the impact on the country as a whole. They fail to see the fact that once these things start being implemented there is no turning back. Social Security numbers weren't meant to be your national ID number, but it turned out that way. Even if social security were abolished, we would still be issued a number xxx-xx-xxxx
I really think the terrorists won, it's over. The United States of America lost and it's over. I am truly saddened by this, I really am. Where can I live now, where is there a country that truly cares about it's citizens?
Is this really that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, just because they have a possibility to be used for evil, dosen't mean they will be. Look at Napster: it (in itself) is not illegal, it just has the possibility of being used for illegal purposes, yet we support it. Now switch the word "illegal" with "bad" and the word "Napster" with the phrase "National ID Card" and instantly our opinion chanages. Well-legislated IDs can be useful, and besides, most of you already have one; it's called a Passport (and if you don't have one you should). They can be well used in such things are preventing identity theft, reducing fraud, and miinimizing travel pains. The key to them is well-written and concrete legislation, crafted without the input of lobby groups or vested interests. In France, no bartender can ask for your National ID card, nor can an insurer, a municipal police officier, or a private company. In fact, I htink it may be a constitutional right that only the Feds can (not sure about that). Do they have a problem with it? No, because only (theoretically) responsible people have access to the card. Legislate well, and National IDs (be them in Driver's Licence form or whatnot) can be a Good Thing(tm).
Unintended Consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most important unintended features of our government is the amount of play between law and enforcement. It is widely understood (among law and philosophy students, anyway) that no society enforces its laws perfectly. Laws are usually written with the inherent limitations of the state in mind.
In many cases, a poorly or selectively enforced law is good for society - and I will take copyright as an example (albeit a hot button one). We currently have an impossibly strict and protectionist set of laws protecting authors (of books, software, etc). Yet these laws are rarely enforced at all, and when they are, typically against companies or large organizations doing what we would call "bootlegging" or "piracy" and hardly ever against "informal" violations. Person to person breaches of copyright happen with astounding frequency and, looked at objectively, constitute a massive act of civil disobedience, with just those acts we know about totaling millions per minute (napster, etc). This state of affairs, where enforcement lags behind the law, has two important effects it would have been difficult to achieve "head on:"
1) Artists do get paid, and they get paid quite well. Copyrightable media is a worldwide business estimable in the trillions of dollars. Most people who can pay the author, do.
2) Conversely, lower-income and disadvantaged users gain access to books, software, and other media for free (by violating the law without consequences).
Should this be stopped via systematic enforcement, a massive chilling effect would occur across all aspects of our society, as children, students, and low-income users could no longer learn on stolen $1,000 compilers, or depend on hundreds of "stolen" texts. Programmers lose their (illegal) access to the latest tools and work of the industry, slowing feedback and development overall. As copyrighted material represents our intellectual heritage, properly enforcing the tollbooth in front of it stymies our intellectual development.
Surveillance technology such as a national ID is dangerous because, aside from the obvious potential for abuse, it allows for enforcement which is too effective. Many of the laws in our country were written as copyright law is - to be enforced using traditional, 20th century law-enforcement techniques. In some cases these laws (copyright, taxes) have extravagant penalties by way of "intimidation" - since enforcement is expected to be difficult or impossible. While new technology may be effective in improving enforcement against violent criminals and other laudable activities (for which improved enforcement actually is better), it will have numerous negative effects as it surpasses legislative intent on good laws and reduces the "containment" of bad laws.
Of course, no discussion of federal or quasi-federal surveillance or information-gathering technology should pass without further acknowledgement of the general "chilling effect" on free speech and free expression these technologies create.
When people are aware that they are being observed (even in abstract, highly specific, or systematized ways), their behavior is altered - whether it is no longer stealing a kiss on a dark street corner for fear of the mute eyes of the surveillance camera on the traffic light, or altering the way they write their correspondence, choosing not to share an opinion in a debate, or choosing not to travel. This is an implicit and often unconscious reaction to authority, and it represents, collectively, the psychological weight of being observed. U.S. Courts have acknowledged that this kind of tacit "intimidation" sometimes constitutes a breach of our first amendment rights, as it makes us self-conscious and we work to avoid an implicit judgment. It is political dialogue on a primitive level - and where those in power are actively observing, "dissent" is stifled.
Common sense can tell you that to live in a state of "freedom" we must be free of the specter of observation.
The story of government is the story of uneasy compromise between freedom and conformity necessary for a healthy society. America has had its success on the foundation of personal freedom's default supremacy; here, our homes, our persons, and our daily business are meant to be sacrosanct and immune from invasion by both each other and the state, as evinced by many of our strongest legal edicts (the Bill of Rights is preoccupied extensively with personal sovereignty, and it is - theoretically - the highest legal doctrine in our country). Our lives were meant to be lived outside the view of the government, which must be absent unless it has "probable cause" - and by and large, this is true... at least for the moment.
This is not an accident, but by design. Our government's success is based on its distrust of itself. We could still have a monarchy if we believed people in power always know what's best, or do the right thing. Instead, we have a complicated, subdivided, cynical democracy; one which, even now, functions in spite of itself, its wheels greased with millions of illegal yet necessary actions every moment. In all of human history, Government has never, ever walked it's talk, but with new technology, it might soon be ready to try.
I agree - needs dual key encryption of biometrics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhh... so giving the government more money is a way to recapture our liberties?
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is exactly why real criminals won't be hindered by these new invasions but the rest of us will live with that background fear that "THEY" will screw up our data (with no accountability) and the result will be that we get our lives totally screwed over. I just read that a special collectors edition DVD of "The Net" is due for release soon. The story is weak, but it makes a great cautionary tale.
Re:not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you ever stop to think that maybe an initiative like this is being done in the interest of the American people? The government is not a "big brother" organization that is looking to turn you into another node in "the matrix".
The American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal think tanks are getting in the way of what is important, and they don't realize that we have to sacrifice a certain amount of privacy in excange for national security.
I really think the terrorists won, it's over. The United States of America lost and it's over. I am truly saddened by this, I really am. Where can I live now, where is there a country that truly cares about it's citizens?
You think the terrorists, who are now running, won this? No, they started it. The United States is extremely resilient, and will not be stopped by a loosely knit group of radicals. As fora country that cares about its citizens, America represents so much in the world. If American didn't care for its citizens, then why have a democracy? Why take such measures to protect the people?
Re:not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a suggestion, however. Be part of the solution. Or get treated as part of the problem.
Re:not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
He wasn't planning on winning a war. He was trying to make a point. He was trying to make a change. He was trying to make life for Americans a little worse.
In that he won on 9/11
Re:A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
The slippery slope argument is perfectly valid when applied to a person or organization with a proven record of sliding down the slippery slope.
For instance, the fact that someone with a record of throwing firecrackers at cats and fighting dirty in schoolyard brawls does not necessarily mean that he's eventually going to kill or maim someone. However, nobody in his right mind would knowingly hire such a person to baby-sit their toddler.
Similarly, nobody in his right mind would trust the government that brought us COINTELPRO, political tax audits, Carnivore, etc. with the additional power that could be excersized under a "national ID" scheme.
Re:not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that taxes should be a fraction of what they are now and that the government should be small and only providing basic functions to the people: defense, law enforcement, public health services, etc.
The government is way too powerful and lowering taxes would be the best way to shrink the government and force them to focus on what they should be focusing on, rather than trying to push family values and get in everyone's business.
there is nothing wrong with national ID cards (Score:3, Insightful)
Problems arise when the "card" isn't just a card, but a set of back-end databases and records that are exchanged in non-transparent ways and that you have no control over. Problems also arise when the "cards" and ID numbers are designed and used poorly (e.g., when knowing your semi-public social security number potentially can be used to get access to your bank accounts).
The problem with using driver's licenses and all the other bogus ID documents and numbers that exist in the US is that they don't work well and are being used for things they were never designed for. Self-proclaimed civil libertarians are at fault here: we won't get any good, secure ID cards and numbers as long as any such effort is immediately torpedoed.
What we should do to protect our civil liberties is to design a robust, secure system of identification, and create privacy legislation that lets us get control of who stores what data about us. Or, in different words, the complete opposite of the agenda of the libertarians and the conservatives.
The Really Hysterical Part (Score:2, Insightful)
Central to the entire proposition is a big, fat non-sequitur: that knowing who the person in front of you is tells you anything about that person's motives. Even if we blithely ignore the problems in standardisation and expense, the core problem is the same:
why should a terrorist / criminal to be appear any different to you or me (in terms of the information linked to the card)?
Consider: Joe Bloggs, a disgruntled Nuclear Plant worked, has nefarious (sp?) intentions. How does this register on his card? What possible difference can that make to the businesses who (in terms of the article) are crucial to the success of the system? Can people believe that Joe will have a "terrorist risk" label attached to him (and if so, how in heaven's name does it get there)?
So the prospect of "demand[ing] a swipe to weed out terrorists" is assinine in the extreme.
Finally there is one other belief: that this will make it easier to retrospectively track the actions of terrorist. Wow. The FBI can know that Joe (having now destroyed the plant) was a big fan of Coca-Cola and McDonalds. Congratulations. Everyone with those tendencies gets "flagged" as dangerous.
I feel safer already.
Re:A look ahead to the nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
Your classic error is assuming that any alarmist scenario is worthless. I'm sure there were once people like you telling the German Jews that things couldn't get any worse too!
The fact that the "slippery slope" is a cliche doesn't make it less worrisome. The end result may not be as far downslope as the previous poster stated, but since you can't prove that it won't be, why stifle conversation? How is it not a positive trait to anticipate the worst and design a solution to avoid it?
Re:not quite (Score:2, Insightful)
As fora country that cares about its citizens, America represents so much in the world. If American didn't care for its citizens, then why have a democracy?
If you can't even correctly name our form of government, you should have no say in what happens here. You are being untrue to the many men and boys who have fought and died over the last 225 years by being such a moron. How your idiotic comment got rated to 3 "Insightful" is beyond me. A free clue: the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, for one major reason. You and the people like you are idiots and would like to have the government raping you up the ass for the rest of your life, while our founding fathers and myself belive that because of you and the rest of America's inherent stupidity, we should have a way of keeping the uninformed majority from trampling over the informed minority.
We do not need the sort of horse-shit that is going on these days to continue our great nation. It turns out that they were right in the beginning, an even moderately powerful federal government will find a way to insinuate itself into all aspects of our lives, and override the people of the several states' better judgement as to what is best for them.
Until people like you get it through your thick heads that those in power want nothing more than more power for themselves, and not to protect me and you, we will all suffer. The worst part for people like me is that there is nowhere I can go to acheive such self governance. All lands on the planet are claimed by shit-eating regimes such as we have in the US.
Sorry for the ranting, but your remark on our "democracy" really set me off. It just amazes me how few people understand that the entire point of our form of government is to keep things from getting done, all to keep those like you from trampling on those like me. Why can't you people just leave me alone to live in peace? Why must you dictate what I do and how I do it? Why do you feel the need to impose on those around you? Is it just to get that feeling of power? Hrmph.
-Nathan
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
- Proof of Citizenship
- Proof of Identity
A drivers license serves as proof of identity, but not as proof of citizenship.You would need something else (such as a birth certificate) that proves citizenship (a birth certificate proves citizenship, but not identity).
A passport proves both citizenship and identity, so it's the easiest solution if you want to make sure you don't get held up at the border.
Re:Excellent! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it *is* illegal. Laws punishing those who flaunt them is one of the basic funcitons of goverment--not entirely unlike a parent punishing a kid who challenges their authority, and almost exactly like a group of people beating on the one contrary person who's about to get them all in trouble.
Or in other words, if you do drugs, cheat, steal, or murder (all crimes), you most certainly do risk becoming "unemployed, homeless, or worse." From a legalstandpoint, "an occasional toke" is no differnet than "an occasional theft" or "an occasional beat-down."
If you don't like the war on drugs, you've got two things to worry about. The first is that the punishment fits the crime; this is what you're complaining about above. Just as the death penalty is overkill for a first time, crime-of-passion, total life-ruination may be overkill for occasional drug use.
The other avenue is to attack the root--to try and convince society that this Bad Thing is really a Good Thing. And as the good folks in Prohibiiton can tell you, it's a very hard task to try and change society's mind about Good and Bad products.
If I knew how to carry out this second part, I'd probably be making myself famous, rather than posting on slashdot.
you seek personal service from the feds! (Score:4, Insightful)
A national ID will just be another ID for people to steal. What makes you think the post office is going to detect fraud any better than a national bank? You delude yourself to think any kind of computer program can take the place of personal service.
Get to know the people you trust your money to. If you want to know your banker, go visit him! Open an account at some nice stable local bank and get to know someone there. If you want to be sure of ticket purchasing, get to know a travel agent. The local banker can offer you the same account and credit card insurnce that the national bank does but he might know your spending habits better than a computer program. Sure, it costs more but there's a trade off to everything isn't there? As a society, we get what we demand.
Identity theft is rampant because big institutions are irresponsible with their lending. The same fool that thought automatic executions of email attachments thought it would be a good idea to offer credit cards by mail. It just screams, screw me and everyone else, I don't care so long as I'm raking in the cash.
9th and 10th Amendments Explained (Score:5, Insightful)
The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" is one such reassurance. All it's saying is "don't worry if you don't see one of your rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution - just because it isn't in there doesn't mean that the Constitution gets rid of it."
The 9th Amendment has been brought up as an argument for the right to privacy, but to my knowledge a court has never accepted that argument. However, the Supreme Court has said that a right to privacy does exist as an implication of some of the other amendments (specifically in the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.)
The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" is another amendment that you could say doesn't really do much. The authoritative word on the matter was set down by none other than John Marshall (who is probably most famous for articulating the theory of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison). In Marshall's decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he said two things - 1) the people who wrote the amendment didn't mean for it to limit the powers of the Federal government because they wrote it to read "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." instead of "The powers not [explicitly] delegated to the United States by the Constitution...". It might seem somewhat absurd to parse the sentence so much, but for the most part members of the First Congress, which submitted the amendment in the first place, agreed that the court was interpreting their intent correctly. 2)Marshall pointed out that any document that explicitly enumerated every power of government would be too large, convoluted, and cumbersome a document to even be understood. Remember, we have the Constitution was written by a group of men who considered the Confederation too weak to fix.
What may be confusing, though, is that the history of the 10th Amendment isn't as simple as that. Even though the authoritative decision was made in 1819 the Courts would occasionally use the 10th Amendment to curtail the powers of the federal government. It's generally accepted that the court wasn't doing this because it had stumbled upon a more correct interpretation of the Constitution (after all, James Madison himself agreed with Marshall, and he wrote the Bill of Rights, so he should know!) No, the Court was curtailing Congress's power for political reasons, specifically the fact that most members of the court believed in laszie faire economics. The fact that the Court tried to cut the legs out from under Congress is a great example of the way the 3 branches fight amongst each other, and the reason we need checks and balances. Anyway, speaking of checks and balances, the practice of using the 10th Amendment to cripple Congress came to an end when FDR enacted all those government programs that he's so famous for. Think about it, the Depression era programs have to be the greatest expansion of Federal powers in our history - how was he able to get it past a Court that wanted explicitly wanted a weak federal government. In 1937 FDR checked the power of the Supreme Court by threatening to expand the Supreme Court and to add members who would give him the results he wanted. It's an amazingly dirty tactic, but it did restore the interpretation that is regarded to be the correct interpretation. This interpretation was reiterated by the 1941 case United States v. Darby.
So, what was the point of the 10th Amendment? Just like the 9th amendment it was a statement intended to reassure the people, but not to alter the functioning of the Constitution - it was simply a statement of a truism.
I have to admit though, that the argument isn't 100% dead. Why? Because in 1995 the conservatives of the Supreme Court (the same political types that were invoking the 10th Amendment before FDR) invoked the 10th Amendment again (US vs Lopez) - now, so far this seems to be a fairly limited ruling (because it hasn't affected any laws outside of the original law yet), but it may be that politically inspired use of the 10th Amendment is coming back in vogue. (Mostly depends on if more conservatives get added to the court, the decision to invoke the 10th was one of those 5-4 affairs.)
So, in summary, there's a chance that the Supreme Court would agree with you as far as the 10th Amendment goes, but 1)I doubt they would be correct in so agreeing, and 2)cynically speaking they probably won't do that to a law enacted in this environment by a Republican President. For better arguments than mine, I suggest reading the remarks of the Justices for the cases I've mentioned.
IANAL, but I was a history major.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy doesn't exist if you function in society (Score:3, Insightful)
Own a credit card? How about a driver's license? A checking account? If you answered yes to any of these, you have already sacrificed a significant amount of your privacy for the sake of convenience.
None of these things are mandatory. You don't have to get a credit card and no one is holding a gun to your head making you drive. Any (and especially all) of those 3 things gives the state an enormous amount of information. They know where you get your money from, what you spend it on, probably where you live, what kind of car you drive, where you got this car, what you do with it, and can practically learn everything about you without ever meeting you in person.
So, why do we do it? Simple. Try to survive without a credit card. Pretty doable, but it rules out most e-commerce, and makes staying at hotels pretty difficult. No driver's license? Sure, but if you don't live in a city, you're probably fucked without a car.
No checking account? You're going to have to go far out of your way just to perform basic life functions. You expose yourself to great personal risk by mailing cash (and many companies will flat out refuse it). You have to get money orders for everything, and you could never accept money orders because cashing them requires ID. You'll probably fail most credit checks (which are done for everything nowadays; mobile phones, apartment leases, etc)
Beginning to see a trend? To function in society, you need to have some degree of accountability. You forfeit quite a lot of your freedom just so you can function. It's no coincidence that many ultra-privacy/paranoid people are drifters.
Being unknown is entirely your right, but fat lotta good it'll do you. A National ID card is entirely voluntary, so if you want the convenience of speedy airport checkout, you'll do it. And if not, no biggie. Get on the other line.
Re:not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
As expressed by the thousands of idiots I hear on talk radio and read posts by on the internet? Yes, that has occurred to me.
That's why I'm worried.
Re:9th and 10th Amendments Explained (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe you are incorrect in your interpretation. Your quote of Marshall doesn't invalidate the 10th Amendment, what it does is clarify that Congress is allowed to elaborate on their Constitutional authority without violating it. However, the amendment still serves to deny Congress the authority to surpass their Constitutional mandate. This is a fine line. What it amounts to is that, unless Congress can make an argument that a new power is derivative of their duties, according to the Constitution, it is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Eric Christian Berg