4 ms·

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 n

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?
freehunter 10y ago
There's something overriding state's rights though, and that's interstate commerce. People have to be free to move from state to state unimpeded, and states have to allow for open trade across their borders. With that in mind, the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade. If my state chose not to require an address on a driver's license, other states would not be able to enforce their laws on me while I am in their state, for example. If they don't require birthdates, other states can't enforce their drinking laws. If they don't require height and weight, other states would have a hard time verifying it's me. The list goes on and on. For interstate commerce, it makes sense that the federal government can mandate that states have to have at least some amount of minimal information on their licenses, otherwise the feds should issue a card with that information printed on it.
- nickff 10y ago
  >"the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade" This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?
  - rblatz 10y ago
    Unfortunately that is what has happened. The commerce clause has become so broad that growing crops on your own land to feed your own animals counts as interstate commerce.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and must be overturned, regardless of stare decisis. It seems that the comment I replied to had actually proposed an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, which would broaden the federal government's power to regulate all state government activities with an impact on commerce, which I would interpret as absolutely everything.
Something1234 10y ago
I kind of feel like this relevant to how the feds operate. https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109 https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109

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?

freehunter 10y ago

There's something overriding state's rights though, and that's interstate commerce. People have to be free to move from state to state unimpeded, and states have to allow for open trade across their borders. With that in mind, the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade. If my state chose not to require an address on a driver's license, other states would not be able to enforce their laws on me while I am in their state, for example. If they don't require birthdates, other states can't enforce their drinking laws. If they don't require height and weight, other states would have a hard time verifying it's me. The list goes on and on. For interstate commerce, it makes sense that the federal government can mandate that states have to have at least some amount of minimal information on their licenses, otherwise the feds should issue a card with that information printed on it.

nickff 10y ago
>"the federal government is free to mandate certain things that otherwise would hinder that freedom of movement and trade" This logic gives the Federal Government almost unlimited power, since almost everything affects commerce. Are you proposing that commandeering of state governments by the federal government be permitted? What limits would you place on this 'right to encourage commerce'?
- rblatz 10y ago
  Unfortunately that is what has happened. The commerce clause has become so broad that growing crops on your own land to feed your own animals counts as interstate commerce.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Yes, I think Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and must be overturned, regardless of stare decisis. It seems that the comment I replied to had actually proposed an even more expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, which would broaden the federal government's power to regulate all state government activities with an impact on commerce, which I would interpret as absolutely everything.

Something1234 10y ago

I kind of feel like this relevant to how the feds operate. https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109 https://youtu.be/b3fIRQa8vys?t=109