Federal ID cards

[evmori]

I see the ID card as another way for criminals to make money selling illegals phony ID cards!

[BadenP]

It is not so much the card as the administration of the program and the database of information that would have to be maintained for this purpose. With the federal government having continuing problems with hackers getting into sensitive and top secret databases already I would hate to see yet another database out there with sensitive information that a hacker could easily break into.

[Woapalanne]

evmori asked: "Where in the Constitution does it state federal ID cards aer not allowed?"

 

10th Amendment. Which states that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow it, they may not do it. The most ignored provision of the Constitution.

[evmori]

10th Amendment

 

Huge stretch.

[NJCubScouter]

10th Amendment. Which states that if the Constitution doesn't specifically allow it, they may not do it. The most ignored provision of the Constitution.

 

The Tenth Amendment does not use the word "specifically." What it says is that "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." So in other words, if authority to do something can be found in any provision of the Constitution (including the amendments), then the federal government has the power to do it, otherwise it does not. So the issue is how broadly or narrowly the courts should interpret various provisions of the Constitution that give powers to the federal government. There are some who seem to believe that there should be little or no interpretation -- that if the Constitution doesn't say "the United States government may issue identification cards and require everybody to carry one", then the federal government may not do so. (I suspect that if someone adds the word "specifically" in describing the Tenth Amendment, they are probably of this viewpoint.) The courts have generally taken a broader view, though I don't know whether there is any provision of the Constitution that would actually be interpreted to allow federal I.D. cards. (Some possibilities are discussed earlier in this thread.) Personally I think Congress should not pass such a law, and if they don't, the constitutional issue will not come up. The Constitution is not the first line of defense against bad legislation -- the first lines of defense are the Congress and state legislatures.

[Woapalanne]

" So in other words, if authority to do something can be found in any provision of the Constitution (including the amendments), then the federal government has the power to do it, otherwise it does not."

 

Correct. Well spoken. And that is pretty specific.

 

Recent Congresses have often really stretched to try to authorize themselves to do things that they are really NOT allowed. Even the Supreme Court has gotten tired of the overreaching (as in a ruling a few years ago that a local elementary school is NOT "interstate commerce").

 

And, yes, the suthorization in the Constitution does include amendments. That is the whole purpose of the amendment process, to get permission from the States before taking on another activity. (Would that they use the process all the time.)

[Shemaqua]

To those who ask whether a Federal ID is constitutional, no ID of any kind is mentioned in the in the Constitution, not passports or anything else. It was never intended that the Constitution should be our only laws or that the Constitution should be an inflexible document written in stone. The framers did put a provision in for amending the Constitution. They must have figured it would be used. As to the Issue of a Federal ID Card - When the issue of ID's were first needed, this country and the world in general were a much bigger place. It took days to travel across the country and sometimes weeks to travel around the world. Today, in a matter of hours you can be clear across the country and a few hours more can put you half way around the world.In this era of Global Terrorism, a global economy and the like, it only seems rational to have at least a NATIONAL ID.

[packsaddle]

I almost missed this by BadenP, "It is not so much the card as the administration of the program and the database of information that would have to be maintained for this purpose. With the federal government having continuing problems with hackers getting into sensitive and top secret databases already I would hate to see yet another database out there with sensitive information that a hacker could easily break into."

 

I could agree except I happen to know that when it comes to protecting sensitive information, the STATES are hardly the 'gold standard'. They actually sell personal info to direct marketers in some cases. From my comparative work with both states and feds, I'll take the feds any day on security issues. My personal experience is that the federal government is a model of efficiency and competence compared to the states. I've seem them both from the inside.

[Woapalanne]

Disagree, Shemaqua. Passports (and the establishment of the State Department that issues and regulates them) is covered under Section 8.

 

The Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land, and all other laws subservient to it. Except international treaties, of course.

[ScoutBox]

We have Federal ID Cards over here in Europe. I don't see the problem. I think it's just another thing for people to cry about.. Now days there's almost nothing that can't be gotten if someone wants it bad enough..

[packsaddle]

OK, this thread's only a couple of years old but something eamonn wrote on the first page of this thread stuck with me. With various states about to start different variations of voter ID, I decided to add a couple of questions to my beginning survey this year. I've run it for about 3 semesters now and the results are interesting.

Eamonn noted that back when he was running a bar, it seemed fairly easy for young persons to acquire realistic id cards to get past the age limit.

So I asked a few questions about alcohol use among the others. The surveys were anonymous and didn't count for a grade, I was just trying to get a sense of 'where' these new students 'are'. Without going into the numbers I was surprised to learn that quite a number of them DO engage in underage alcohol use and nearly all of those have fake ID cards. The cards are evidently cheap, $5-10, and easily available.

So I asked them later in class how many of them support voter ID laws and most of them raised their hands. And then I asked them how many of them think they could fool a polling place volunteer with a fake ID? You could see some minds rethinking things.

So here I want to thank eamonn for pointing me in this direction.

 

BTW, out of all those students, so far only 4 have answered that they think the age of the earth and universe is less than 10,000 years. Interesting....and fun.

[Eagle92]

In regards to fake IDs, they are so easy to obtain, ti is ridiculous. For whatever reason, in NC they mail, yes MAIL, your drivers license to you. When you go to the DMV, they issue you a paper one without a picture. SOOOO a thief can interpreter the mail and modify a license.

 

Best story was the college students who broke into a DMV and stole the machine that makes licenses. They did get caught eventually, making fake IDs in their dorm room, but don't know how many IDs were made.

[NJCubScouter]

BTW, out of all those students, so far only 4 have answered that they think the age of the earth and universe is less than 10,000 years. Interesting....and fun.

 

Pack, I found this the most interesting part of your post. I have a question: Of those four, how many do you think believe that because they were taught somewhat that that is what they should believe (for religious reasons or otherwise), and how many because they are just completely unaware of the history of the Earth and guessed wrong? I mean, somewhere along the line they heard in school that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, but there are people who just don't retain certain facts. I think that if you stopped 100 adults randomly on the street, you would find at least several who believe everything has existed for less than 10,000 years, not as a matter of faith, but just because they don't know the right answer.

[skeptic]

In regard to the age of the earth and so on, I found myself thinking recently that some of the misconceptions for the short period of existence would likely relate to when our own species actually showed up with ability to learn and expand knowledge. Recently some archaeologists found some bones and a skull that they think may be one of the first actual homo sapiens; they estimated it to be between five and six thousand years old. Not very far back. Just a thought for some reason. I am not pushing it as reality, just pondering.

[packsaddle]

NJ, the survey mostly asks things they can't answer at all - if they already know the answers they don't need this course. I expect this and I tell them to respond with 'DNK' (do not know) if they don't know the answers, and there's no penalty for it. I even tell them that if they are doubtful about their answer, just write DNK. So when they actually attempt to give an answer they are more likely to have confidence in their answer.

I only have about 100 of these students each semester and they come from every conceivable degree program - I don't keep track of that, only the answers.

 

The two questions that I mentioned ask what they think is the age of the earth and what they think is the age of the universe. Nearly all of the answers that are not 'DNK' mention something at least various millions years up to various billions of years.

There have been two students both of whom said "less than 10,000 years" and two others who answered "7,000 years". I'm still tabulating the most recent survey so there might be more.

It could be that these are wild guesses but I am inclined to think such guesses would have been replaced by DNK, given the opportunity. Still, I understand your point and, like I said, I mostly want to know their minds coming in. But also interestingly, most them attempt to answer these two questions even if they've answered most of the others with 'DNK'.

That's about all I can say because I carefully avoid any reference to religious beliefs. But I do address these two questions later in a different context. By the end of the semester they've answered all the rest...and more. It's a load of fun.