Thread: Is a National ID Unconstitutional?

Is a National ID Unconstitutional?

by David Ferguson — 03-16-2007 @ 11:36 AM




Jim Harper of the CATO Institute wrote an outstanding article on the REAL ID Act. While trekking through our local Fox News Headlines in the dense jungles of Washington DC, Harper's article put me on the scent of four fine specimens of RINO. The RINOs I found are four Republican Senators who have cosponsored the REAL ID Act most recently authored by

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME).

Republicans in Name Only

Sen Collins, Susan [ME]

Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN]

Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE]

Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME]


I thought I was on the trail for five, but it seems as if though Sen Carper (D-DE) was just another liberal democrat trying to increase the size and scope of government by cosponsoring this bill. But why are these liberal republicans trying to take away our individual freedom and the dual-federalism guaranteed to the states?

Harper, in his article, explained the REAL ID Act by saying it is:

"...the 2005 measure which would coerce states into issuing nationally standardized driver’s licenses and require them to enter information about their drivers in nationally accessible databases."


In reference to this bill, what part of the Constitution gives a Secretary in a limb of our Executive Branch the authority to rule on the legitimacy of a state document? In this instance, I am referring to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, validating an intrastate document used for identification and permission to drive. Where is that in the Constitution?


As Conservatives, before we look elsewhere, we should read the Constitution and case precedent to find the answer to these types of questions. While Collins and Chertoff are concerned with saving the REAL ID Act, I am concerned with saving the Constitution. If the federal government wants to provide federal money to the states in order to complete tasks that are not constitutionally enumerated for them to do so, like the REAL ID, the Supreme Court set strict guidelines for them to do so. The case was South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and the requirements are as follows:

1. Be in pursuit of the “general welfare;”

2. Be related to federal interest, in particular national projects or programs

3. Not be prohibited by any other Constitutional provisions

4. Be unambiguous in describing the conditions on the states’ receipt of federal funds; and

5. Be a financial inducement and not coercion


Well, does the REAL ID Act meet these standards?


Before I go, I would like for people to notice Sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Real ID Act. It reads:

(6) provide a fair system of funding to limit the costs of meeting the requirements of section 202 of the REAL ID Act of 2005;

(7) facilitate the management of vital identity-proving records; and

( improve the effectiveness and security of Federal documents used to validate identification


I have just one question. Would it not be just as effective for the government to buy a vat of ink for cost efficiency, tattoo a number on our forehead to streamline the process, and place a computer chip inside our forearm to validate and secure Big Brother's records? Again, I stress, no person should be willing to surrender personal liberty for more security. That is why we have the 2nd Amendment. The incremental growth of government is dangerous and should be checked by the people at any and all cost. As our Founding Father Patrick Henry once said, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!"


http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=21509

Amen! The nonchalance with which Americans seem to be accepting this dangerous move toward tyranny would appear to be further evidence of the gross failure of our educational system.

Oliver, Great article!!! Listen up America!! before its to late!!