Federal ID cards

[Woapalanne]

GernBlansten said: "I don't look at my voter registration card as identification. Its more of a receipt. Proof that someone with my name registered to vote, that's about it. It really doesn't identify me or prove my identity. It proves that the person who's name is on the card is registered. Rather worthless when trying to prove identity."

 

You are correct, sir, it is not an identity card. It should be. It should be proof that you are the one who is identified and eligible. That system is WAY too loose, imo.

 

 

[Woapalanne]

"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

 

THAT.... is one of the most terrifying statements on the planet.

[GernBlansten]

I thought it was

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[Woapalanne]

That's another one, Gern. I rank them both pretty high on the list.

[Woapalanne]

Actually, I have one of those Federal ID cards. It's called (for the time being) a "passport card". Notwithstanding the label, it's no good for travel in over 90% of the world.

[le Voyageur]

 

I'm flat out against a Federal ID card, which imho is a clear violation of the 4th, and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights...the last Adminstration tossed too many of our civil liberties under the bus, and it's past time to say no more.....nuff said..

[Gary_Miller]

The Fourth amendment has to do with unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Tenth amendment has to do with states powers.

 

Nether would be affected by an ID system that shows who a person is what their citizenship status is.

 

Many are already giving up their fourth amendments rights anyway without even knowing they have the right to refuse a search. For instant many give the police the OK to search their possessions upon request thinking that they have to allow this just because the police asked. When in fact unless they are being arrested for a the police has no right to search their property.

 

And the states give up their rights to the Tenth amendment when they except money from the Federal Government with strings attached. Such as the money sent down for eduction this year and other so call stimulus money. In order for the states to get their powers afforded to them by the Tenth Amendment they have to start telling the federal government to go pound sand. Also the appeal of the 17th Amendment would help get the states powers back as afforded by the Tenth Amendment.

[NJCubScouter]

Gary Miller says:

 

Also the appeal of the 17th Amendment would help get the states powers back as afforded by the Tenth Amendment.

 

I assume you mean "repeal", not "appeal." I'm not picking on you, I just want to make sure.

 

If so, you want to repeal the direct election of U.S. Senators, and give that power back to the state legislatures? Really? Personally I'd rather keep that power (or at least, the tiny little bit of that power that each voter has) for myself and the rest of us, than give it to someone else. I elect my state legislators to decide state issues, not to decide who should represent me in the federal government.

 

This is not the first time I have heard this idea in the past few months, and... and... I have typed about five different things to try to complete that sentence, and every single one of them would have sounded like a personal criticism of you, Gary. I don't mean to. I just don't know what to say when people want to give up their rights to elect holders of a particular office, which we have had for about 100 years. (Well, I personally haven't since I'm not that old, but you know what I mean.)

 

I'll also say, just in general, that the federal government certainly has no monopoly on violating peoples' rights. The history of state governments violating peoples' rights is long and varied, and to some extent it led to the federal courts and government agencies asserting more power, or using more of the power they already had, or however you wish to view it. You mention the Fourth Amendment (to which the states are subject under the 14th Amendment and applicable case law), before the 1960's the states basically ignored it and allowed police to do whatever they wanted. The federal courts had to step in and say the police could not knock down your door or tap your phone except under specific circumstances -- and in no circumstances could they beat a confession out of you -- regardless of whether they are local or state police (both of which are officers of the state) or federal police. On another note, it was not federal officials who stood in the schoolhouse door so little black children couldn't get in. It was federal officials who made the governors and mayors and police chiefs stand aside so those kids could go to school. I don't mean to over-dramatize this, but when I hear all the hand-wringing about federal government power I have to wonder whether people are looking at the whole historical picture here.

 

Has the balance of power tipped too far in the direction of the federal government? Maybe. I'm not necessarily convinced of it. What I am convinced of is that there needs to be a balance. The unrelenting attacks on the federal government from certain political circles recently do not advance the cause of balance.

[evmori]

I'm flat out against a Federal ID card, which imho is a clear violation of the 4th, and 10th amendments of the Bill of Rights.

 

Huh? How did you come to that conclusion? I'm not for them because I don't think we need them but the reason you stated, le Voyageur, is a real stretch!

[le Voyageur]

How is that a stretch? That issue was decided by SCOTUS in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S.(1868), Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972), Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977),Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31, 638 (1969), and et. al...

[Gary_Miller]

NJCubScouter, "I assume you mean "repeal", not "appeal." I'm not picking on you, I just want to make sure."

 

Yes, I meant repeal.

 

NJCubScouter, "If so, you want to repeal the direct election of U.S. Senators, and give that power back to the state legislatures? Really? Personally I'd rather keep that power (or at least, the tiny little bit of that power that each voter has) for myself and the rest of us, than give it to someone else. I elect my state legislators to decide state issues, not to decide who should represent me in the federal government."

 

The people electing the senators is exactly what the problem is. If you know anything about the constitution convention and the writing of the constitution then you know that the "House of Representatives" was put in place to represent the interests of the people, and the "Senate" was put in place to represent the interests of the States.

 

The "Senate" was to be selected by the state legislature who are selected by the people of the states. This process provided a check and balance between the House and the Senate, with the house looking out for the will/good of the people as a whole and the senate looking out for the will'good of the states as a whole. Therefore the state legislature could put pressure on the Senator's to not approve legislature that would not be the will/good of the state. Items like unfunded mandates that are forced down to the state from the federal government. A senator would be less likely to vote for such things is they had to answer to the elected body who had to find the funds within the state budget.

 

The 17th amendment afforded for this check and balance to no longer be there, and we end up with things being pushed through the legislature base on what the majority party wants and not what is best for the people and the states.

 

NJCubScouter, "This is not the first time I have heard this idea in the past few months, and... and... I have typed about five different things to try to complete that sentence, and every single one of them would have sounded like a personal criticism of you, Gary. I don't mean to."

 

Lets hear what you have to say. Criticism is good as long as it is constructive and backed with facts or a good honest personal opion. I would be more than interested in why you think this would be wrong.

 

NJCubScouter, "I just don't know what to say when people want to give up their rights to elect holders of a particular office, which we have had for about 100 years. (Well, I personally haven't since I'm not that old, but you know what I mean.)"

 

I'm not giving up any rights. I still have the right to select my Representative in the "House of Representatives" and the right to select my state legislature. Both of which I can hold accountable if I don't agree with their choices. I just want the balance as designed by the original constitution.

 

NJCubScouter, "I'll also say, just in general, that the federal government certainly has no monopoly on violating peoples' rights. The history of state governments violating peoples' rights is long and varied, and to some extent it led to the federal courts and government agencies asserting more power, or using more of the power they already had, or however you wish to view it."

 

It's call checks and balance and is the reason the judicial system is a separate branch of government. Our founding fathers was not stupid when it came to setting up the government. They had studied many of the worlds government and had experience with the good and bad of them all. That's why our government is totally different from any government in the world.

 

NJCubScouter, "You mention the Fourth Amendment (to which the states are subject under the 14th Amendment and applicable case law), before the 1960's the states basically ignored it and allowed police to do whatever they wanted. The federal courts had to step in and say the police could not knock down your door or tap your phone except under specific circumstances -- and in no circumstances could they beat a confession out of you -- regardless of whether they are local or state police (both of which are officers of the state) or federal police."

 

Again checks and balances the judicial systems job is to make sure that the rights afforded the people in the constitution is adhered.

 

NJCubScouter, "On another note, it was not federal officials who stood in the schoolhouse door so little black children couldn't get in. It was federal officials who made the governors and mayors and police chiefs stand aside so those kids could go to school."

 

Thats the job of the federal government to make sure that all the rights of the people are protected and to make corrections within the law when they are not. This is the part of the oath taken by leaders and the military that says "Defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic." This would be under the domestic part.

 

NJCubScouter, "I don't mean to over-dramatize this, but when I hear all the hand-wringing about federal government power I have to wonder whether people are looking at the whole historical picture here."

 

I can't speak for other but I assure you I'm looking at the whole historical picture, and it that picture that lead me to my conclusion that part of the problem is the 17th Amendment.

 

NJCubScouter, "Has the balance of power tipped too far in the direction of the federal government? Maybe. I'm not necessarily convinced of it. What I am convinced of is that there needs to be a balance."

 

The balance is no longer there, it been given away one freedom at a time. To the point that even the Judicial Branch has began to wright legislation, instead of ensuring that the legislation passed by the legislative branch and the executive branch fall within the guidelines of the constitution.

 

NJCubScouter, "The unrelenting attacks on the federal government from certain political circles recently do not advance the cause of balance."

 

Those political circles are the voice of the people. The people have the responsibility to make their wishes and frustrations know to their representatives. That is how checks and balances work.

[GernBlansten]

I'm with Gary on this. The senate as it is today, is controlled not by the people, but by special interests. Senators are only interested in getting reelected and are owned by their biggest contributors. If we reverted to a state legislature appointing senators, there would be no campaigning at the degree we have now and the true purpose of the senate would be regained. Campaign finance reform might help, but I'm not holding my breath that the senate would pass anything that changes their gravy train.

 

Barring that, I think the purpose of the Senate has run its course and should be disbanded. Their rules allow a single senator to stop the will of the people and disrupt progress. The filibuster has been abused to the point that it is a joke. It is a place where special interests override the interests of the people.

[Gary_Miller]

le Voyageur, "How is that a stretch? That issue was decided by SCOTUS in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S.(1868), Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 334 (1972), Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977),Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629-31, 638 (1969), and et. al..."

 

Say what all these rulings address the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause. From what I saw with a quick glance The 4th and 10th amendments are not even mentioned.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

[Gary_Miller]

GernBlansten,"Barring that, I think the purpose of the Senate has run its course and should be disbanded."

 

I think this would be a big mistake. The Senate is that last check before a bill goes to the President for signature. That step is important when it comes to ensuring balance in legislature. The party system is the problem not the Senate.

 

GernBlansten, "Their rules allow a single senator to stop the will of the people and disrupt progress."

 

This is not all bad. Sometimes the most important thing is to disrupt the progress by slowing things down. Just last year we saw what can happen when things are allowed to go through the system two fast.

 

GernBlansten, "The filibuster has been abused to the point that it is a joke. It is a place where special interests override the interests of the people."

 

We just need to go back to the old rule of a filibuster. That of which you have to be actively engaged in speaking on the floor. It slows the process down but does not end it altogether.

[nolesrule]

When the state legislature is already controlled by special interests, what difference does it make if special interests fund a general election campaign or the state legislature selects the senators?

 

Color me cynical, but I live in a state where a criminal was just elected governor, and now he wants to disband government in the name of special interests and big business.