6 ms·

The article is titled to kind of make it sound like its a bad thing, when its not. The discrepancy in different IDs and how different states issue them and what

by scient 10y ago

The article is titled to kind of make it sound like its a bad thing, when its not. The discrepancy in different IDs and how different states issue them and whats accepted is ridiculous.

rblatz 10y ago
But the federal government was not granted the power to enforce how states issue IDs.
- evgen 10y ago
  Nor is the federal government mandated to accept a state ID for federal identification purposes if it decides that the procedures for issuing those IDs does not meet certain minimum standards.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    The problem is that the federal government is pestering the states about it. If they wanted to just require you to use a federal passport they could, but then citizens would object to that for much the same reasons they object to this.
    - logfromblammo 10y ago
      One scenario is that federal regulations might require you to acquire and show a federal passport in order to board a flight originating and terminating in your own state. I don't know about anyone else, but I was raised to believe that requiring internal passports for travel is a hallmark of repressive authoritarian regimes.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        That's the issue. People see straight through it when you require an actual passport, so they're trying to turn a driver's license into an internal passport and hope nobody connects the dots.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    It's turtles all the way down. I think you'll find that many of the activities they want us to use a federally-acceptable ID for are not, themselves, covered in Article I Section 8.
- SystemOut 10y ago
  But they can specify what kind of IDs are necessary to enter federally managed areas such as military bases and other agencies.
  - nickff 10y ago
    To some degree perhaps, but it also cannot discriminate against citizens of certain states, as that would be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.[1] Depending on the test you use for what counts as discrimination, you might find that disallowing certain states' IDs is illegal and/or unconstitutional; for instance, it is clearly discriminatory based on a disparate impact analysis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
the_trapper 10y ago
That's called state's rights and there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy. It is also the right of DHS to not accept ID cards that it does not feel comfortable accepting. I wouldn't say that either side is particularly wrong in its actions.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy People say that about a lot of things, but so much of the time the reasoning isn't clear to me. Why does Montana need a different style of ID than Washington? A separate system, that I could understand. Not necessarily agree with, but understand.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Why does the federal government need to force the states to accept their standard? If you have a great program or proposal, you generally don't need force of law to convince others to participate. If the standard benefited everyone, I am sure the states would implement it.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Lots of reasons. Immigration affairs aren't a state matter, regulating the roadways is. So a state like New York that has lots of immigrants, whose status may or may not be legal has a compelling public need to license drivers, as licensure is required for things like liability insurance coverage. A place like Montana may find that some of the consequences of higher levels of identity proofing are difficult or onerous because it's a huge state with few people and many Indian Reservations with other complications.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    We don't normally discuss freedom in this way. The other things in the Bill of Rights - Speech, Right to Legal Counsel, etc., we never ask "why do you need to exercise that right?". So why would you ask why a state needs to exercise the 10th Amendment?
- 10y ago
dogma1138 10y ago
There are no federal ID's other than a passport in the US. Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful. This is what people often seem to miss, and it also is going on in the EU sadly too much. The Federal government was granted certain powers by law, it can't just decide that it would grab more power or interfere in things it was intentionally prohibited from interfering. This isn't because everything the fed's do are malicious but because the separation of power between the state and local governments is a key element of how the US government and political system is structured. The federal government can't crouch over state rights any more than a state can decide to reinstitute slavery or ban women from attending school, once you start messing with that things can get murky really fast.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  > Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful. How so? The Federal government can set ID standards in areas that it has jurisdiction over, and reject IDs that don't meet these standards in its jurisdiction, which is all that's happening here. Like other federal levers over state behavior (No highway funding if your drinking age is under 21!), this is grating, but it's not illegal. This has been going on in one form or another for decades and has been consistently ruled legal, as long as its not an unfunded mandate on the states.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There are, in fact, federal IDs other than passports. They include resident alien IDs, military IDs, and numerous others.
Spooky23 10y ago
No, what's ridiculous is the Federal government using drivers licenses as a backdoor internal passport to travel. If you look the NIST standards for identity proofing, very few things actually require higher levels of identity assurance, and those that do generally aren't met by driver's licenses anyway, REAL-ID or not.
- drewg123 10y ago
  Yes, exactly. And the problem with this internal passport losing it in a different state. If you lose your US passport in the UK, you have a chance to get it replaced by going to the US Embassy or consulate. But New York doesn't have any embassies or consulates in California, so good luck getting home from California if your license is stolen.
  - greenleafjacob 10y ago
    Why do you need ID to go between states? I've driven from one coast to the other and never had to show ID or was even stopped once.
    - drewg123 10y ago
      Flying without ID is pretty hard, and driving without it (if you're the driver) is illegal in most states.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      You don't need ID to go between states. You need a driver's license on your person to drive in any state, however. All states have laws requiring this.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Flying? If you're stopped by the police, you'll get arrested in flyover country. If you need to conduct business in a federal facility, you won't get in.

by scient 10y ago

The article is titled to kind of make it sound like its a bad thing, when its not. The discrepancy in different IDs and how different states issue them and whats accepted is ridiculous.

rblatz 10y ago

But the federal government was not granted the power to enforce how states issue IDs.

evgen 10y ago
Nor is the federal government mandated to accept a state ID for federal identification purposes if it decides that the procedures for issuing those IDs does not meet certain minimum standards.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The problem is that the federal government is pestering the states about it. If they wanted to just require you to use a federal passport they could, but then citizens would object to that for much the same reasons they object to this.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    One scenario is that federal regulations might require you to acquire and show a federal passport in order to board a flight originating and terminating in your own state. I don't know about anyone else, but I was raised to believe that requiring internal passports for travel is a hallmark of repressive authoritarian regimes.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      That's the issue. People see straight through it when you require an actual passport, so they're trying to turn a driver's license into an internal passport and hope nobody connects the dots.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  It's turtles all the way down. I think you'll find that many of the activities they want us to use a federally-acceptable ID for are not, themselves, covered in Article I Section 8.
SystemOut 10y ago
But they can specify what kind of IDs are necessary to enter federally managed areas such as military bases and other agencies.
- nickff 10y ago
  To some degree perhaps, but it also cannot discriminate against citizens of certain states, as that would be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.[1] Depending on the test you use for what counts as discrimination, you might find that disallowing certain states' IDs is illegal and/or unconstitutional; for instance, it is clearly discriminatory based on a disparate impact analysis. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

the_trapper 10y ago

That's called state's rights and there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy. It is also the right of DHS to not accept ID cards that it does not feel comfortable accepting. I wouldn't say that either side is particularly wrong in its actions.

serge2k 10y ago
> there are various legitimate reasons for the individual states to have that sort of autonomy People say that about a lot of things, but so much of the time the reasoning isn't clear to me. Why does Montana need a different style of ID than Washington? A separate system, that I could understand. Not necessarily agree with, but understand.
- nickff 10y ago
  Why does the federal government need to force the states to accept their standard? If you have a great program or proposal, you generally don't need force of law to convince others to participate. If the standard benefited everyone, I am sure the states would implement it.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Lots of reasons. Immigration affairs aren't a state matter, regulating the roadways is. So a state like New York that has lots of immigrants, whose status may or may not be legal has a compelling public need to license drivers, as licensure is required for things like liability insurance coverage. A place like Montana may find that some of the consequences of higher levels of identity proofing are difficult or onerous because it's a huge state with few people and many Indian Reservations with other complications.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  We don't normally discuss freedom in this way. The other things in the Bill of Rights - Speech, Right to Legal Counsel, etc., we never ask "why do you need to exercise that right?". So why would you ask why a state needs to exercise the 10th Amendment?
10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

There are no federal ID's other than a passport in the US. Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful. This is what people often seem to miss, and it also is going on in the EU sadly too much. The Federal government was granted certain powers by law, it can't just decide that it would grab more power or interfere in things it was intentionally prohibited from interfering. This isn't because everything the fed's do are malicious but because the separation of power between the state and local governments is a key element of how the US government and political system is structured. The federal government can't crouch over state rights any more than a state can decide to reinstitute slavery or ban women from attending school, once you start messing with that things can get murky really fast.

Analemma_ 10y ago
> Unless they pass a new federal identification law what they are doing is unlawful. How so? The Federal government can set ID standards in areas that it has jurisdiction over, and reject IDs that don't meet these standards in its jurisdiction, which is all that's happening here. Like other federal levers over state behavior (No highway funding if your drinking age is under 21!), this is grating, but it's not illegal. This has been going on in one form or another for decades and has been consistently ruled legal, as long as its not an unfunded mandate on the states.
dragonwriter 10y ago
There are, in fact, federal IDs other than passports. They include resident alien IDs, military IDs, and numerous others.

Spooky23 10y ago

No, what's ridiculous is the Federal government using drivers licenses as a backdoor internal passport to travel. If you look the NIST standards for identity proofing, very few things actually require higher levels of identity assurance, and those that do generally aren't met by driver's licenses anyway, REAL-ID or not.

drewg123 10y ago
Yes, exactly. And the problem with this internal passport losing it in a different state. If you lose your US passport in the UK, you have a chance to get it replaced by going to the US Embassy or consulate. But New York doesn't have any embassies or consulates in California, so good luck getting home from California if your license is stolen.
- greenleafjacob 10y ago
  Why do you need ID to go between states? I've driven from one coast to the other and never had to show ID or was even stopped once.
  - drewg123 10y ago
    Flying without ID is pretty hard, and driving without it (if you're the driver) is illegal in most states.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    You don't need ID to go between states. You need a driver's license on your person to drive in any state, however. All states have laws requiring this.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Flying? If you're stopped by the police, you'll get arrested in flyover country. If you need to conduct business in a federal facility, you won't get in.