Real ID Cards, a threat to our a way of life!

Antipitas

TITLE II--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVERS' LICENSES AND PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARDS

SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.
(3) OFFICIAL PURPOSE- The term `official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.

(4) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security

SEC. 205. AUTHORITY.

(a) Participation of Secretary of Transportation and States- All authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the States.

(b) Extensions of Deadlines- The Secretary may grant to a State an extension of time to meet the requirements of section 202(a)(1) if the State provides adequate justification for noncompliance.

Note the sections that I have underlined. They say exactly what I said they say. Whatever the minimum requirements might be (Sec. 202) at the inception of this Bill are, they do not have to remain as written. Full discresion is given to the Secretary of DHS. Further, the defined objective of this law will be for whatever purposes that the Secretary might in the future determine... the phrase, "and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine," says exactly that.
Click to expand...

"...the defined objective of this law will be for whatever purposes that the Secretary might in the future determine..."

*sigh*

No. The defined objective of the law is what's in the text of the law, and what is in the House, Senate and combined committee reports. That's how laws are made in the US. You need to study up on this before you go making statements like the ones above. Someone coming after the fact cannot alter the defined objective except as ammending the law, and only Congress has the power to do that.

You seem to think that the Secretary of Homeland Security has been granted magic powers to Do As He Whilt. This is not the case.

Let's look at the last three sections first. Section 205 (a) and (b) are how the Secretary carries out his duties as defined by Section 202, 203 and 204. That is what is meant by "under this title." The title refers explicitly to "MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION," "TRAFFICKING IN AUTHENTICATION FEATURES FOR USE IN FALSE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS," and "GRANTS TO STATES." This language is used to define him as the proponent, or lead agent, for all actions taken under this legislation. Such language is quite common when Congress chooses to assign responsibility for administrative actions. Hunt around some, and you can find phrases analagous to "...all authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title..." in laws pertaining to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Education or the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. BASED OFF THIS LAW, the Secretay of Homeland Security has only the listed authority to 1) ensure that states are in compliance with the outlined standards 2) give them money to help. He has no authority under this legislation to set standards for National Forest Service use, or military small arms range clean up or anything else not pertaining to the matter at hand.

On to the "and any other purposes" clause. This, on its face, appears to give the Secretary unlimited power to...define what an official purpose is. It does not give the Secretary the authority to demand that you use the ID, or display it, or even prove your identity in any manner. That would be covered in separate legislation and regulations, and would say something like "In order to (board federally regulated commercial aircraft) (enter a nuclear powerplant), persons must display identification."

Here's a phrase from the conference report that may shed some light on the issue: "For example, non compliant driver's licenses or noncompliant state issued ID cards cannot be used for identification to board federally regulated commercial aircraft, enter nuclear power plants or have access to federally regulated critical infrastructure or similar facilities determined to be vulnerable to attack....The Secretary is authorized to establish other purposes for which only those license and ID cards that meet federal standards can be used." These are areas that are regulated by other Federal agencies (such as the Department of Energy, or the Department of Transportation), and their regulations and Public Law state that they may require persons to identify themselves. If you don't like the fact that you need to show ID to fly, the Secretary of Homeland Security isn't the right one to complain to. He isn't telling you that you have to render ID, just that when you do it needs to be federally approved.

Congress' intent is clear, and if the Secretary were to attempt "mission creep" by adding facilities or activites not currently under his authority to protect according to the law(s) that created his office, then no doubt a Federal court would swiftly move to stop him. Is the law hazy? Sure. Is there the potential for attempted misuse? Absolutely. That's why the IRS was beaten down by the courts in the 70s...they attempted to stretch "administrative authority" into areas not intended by Congress. Congress, which was not amused, then changed the law to specifically prohibit the IRS from conducting certain activities.

The bottom line? You see much more of a potential for trouble here than I do. I urge you to contact your Senator and Congressperson, and get them to pass additional legislation that better defines "official purpose."
 
Last edited:
F350Lawman - I don't care what the forum members say about you...

...behind your back. I think your the proverbial $#!t.

I think I should shut up and always defer to F350Lawman in this forum as otherwise I get too upset and can't accentuate my opinion.
 
IZHUMINTER wrote:
No. The defined objective of the law is what's in the text of the law, and what is in the House, Senate and combined committee reports.
Click to expand...

You were quite correct up until you added that little word "and." The defined objective of the law is what's in the text of the law, is where you should have left off. What you are missing is how the Courts will determine the extent of the Law, as written.

So what is the defined objective, as stated in law? "The term `official purpose' includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine." Includes but is not limited to... Another broad statement of the powers given, by Congress, to the Secretary. And this combined with the further statement, "All authority to issue regulations, set standards, and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary," says that the Secretary may, by regulation, expand the scope of both the data required and the purpose such data is used. While this authority is not unlimited, it is overly broad and vague.

Your insistence that "MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION," means that these standards will stay as they are, does not mean they will stay at the minimums. Not when Sec. 201(3) allows for expansion and Sec. 205(a) grants such regulatory power to the Secretary of DHS (Sec. 201(4)).

Further, it doesn't matter what was said in conference. Conference reports are not the law. What was written as law, passed by both houses and signed by the President are the law. While such reports may be viewed by the Courts, it is neither a safe bet that they will nor are they (the Courts) bound by such things.

Perhaps the Courts will set limits (legislating from the bench?), but do you really want to take that chance? How many decisions by the Circuits or the SCOTUS itself have struck laws that thwart State powers via the 10th amendment in the last 30 years? How many decisions have been struck down that rely upon the Commerce clause (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3)? Same question for National Security (Art I, sec. 8, cl. 1)?

Even your little example with the IRS conforms with my views. It took additional Congressional action, not the Courts, to heel the agency.

In this post 9/11 world we live in, too many people, and I include you, IZHUMINTER, are more than willing to give up your rights for that brief and fleeting feeling of security. In this, the Terrorists have won. Pity you don't see that.
 
Antipitas

In this post 9/11 world we live in, too many people, and I include you, IZHUMINTER, are more than willing to give up your rights for that brief and fleeting feeling of security. In this, the Terrorists have won. Pity you don't see that.
Click to expand...

*laughs*

You are absolutely right. I am more than willing to give up my rights for a feeling of security, but not for one "brief and fleeting." I am a Soldier in the United States Army. Many years ago, I willingly exchanged quite a few of my rights in order to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." I see no evidence that this bill runs counter to that oath. I am offended by your condescending attitude, and your belief that I am somehow blind to what goes on around me. Our difference of opinion gives you no right to imply that.

I have attempted to explain how the bill would work, based off Congressional intent, and how laws in general work, but you continue to pull isolated portions of this bill out of context (of this bill and US Laws in general) as some evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security will suddenly get amazing powers. He won't. He will have the authority to require states to follow common standards for the issuance or ID cards, and be able to reject forms of ID that don't meet Federal standards when dealing with the Federal government. As I read it, that is all the law says. That's my opinion, as formed by my education and layman's analysis of past law, and I'm sticking to it.

HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE:

I disagree with your interpretation of the bill, on what powers it grants the Secretary of Homeland Security, on how it will be seen by the courts and with your dystopian view of the future. If your objection to this bill, as written, is so strong, I urge you to contact your Senator and Congressperson to have it ammended or repealed.
 
Last edited:
F350Lawman - Thanks for the great response. If I am understanding correctly, you are not demanding an all out comprehensive ID card? It seems you are asking for uniformity in a standard ID card with just certain information strictly for legitimate law enforcement purposes? That seems pretty reasonable.
I do fear that this card would be susceptible to add-ons by various advocacy groups, one after the other, and that we would end up with what people here are expressing concern about.
I assume you would be on board for safeguards against this? Anyway, I appreciate your posts and see your point of view much better than a few posts ago.
 
Laugh all you want. I'll hold my prior service in the USMC up to yours any day of the week. In fact, since you want to play that game, I'll raise you a son, who will be celebrating 12 years of continuous service in the USMC. 2 generations. A pair of Aces to beat your King.

You have your view. I have expressed mine, but not by taking anything out of context, as you seem to think, but by simply reading the language it was written in, in the order it was written.

As for your tune of writing to my congresscritters... Well, when all four of them (2 reps and 2 senators) all voted for this thing, what makes you think I will change their minds? But to set your mind at ease, I have written to them extensively on this and other legislation. They are all republicans and roll with the pack.

We will have to agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top