3 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).

Wowfunhappy 10mo ago
Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?
- semiquaver 10mo ago
  It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
  - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
      >We don't have a constitution any more, we just have interpretations and they change. US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent, it's built on English Common Law.
      - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
        There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.
      - skeeter2020 10mo ago
        >> US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent, Isn't the key here that an interpretation sets the precedent, and then we don't get continual "reinterpretation"? That's what seems to be happening these days.
        b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
        sure; the problem is ignoring precedence though, not judicial interpretation, which is a deliberate part of the process.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- engineer_22 10mo ago
  10th amendment - issuing IDs is a power already claimed by the states
  - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
    The Supreme Court can fix that right up anytime they want.
    - engineer_22 10mo ago
      What?? The Supreme Court doesn't write the Constitution.
      - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
        In the new world, the Supreme Court can change basically any policy or old decision and make up things not in the Constitution. One example is Trump's immunity that they created out of whole cloth and that was nowhere to be found. At the same time they invented a reason why Trump's attempted rebellion against the US did not violate the constitutional amendment that was designed to keep someone like that from running for president
- ranger_danger 10mo ago
  It's debatable as to whether it's technically required or not, but "the Tenth Amendment, establishes that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. This means states have the authority to create and enforce their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal laws." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resources/jurimetrics/2024-winter/implementing-government-backed-digital-identity-united-states/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
- doctorpangloss 10mo ago
  here's what we have: a way to identify every almost every American by their face, identify almost every American by their name and birthdate, identify every American invasively (like via a blood draw), lots of documents at the national level that we can compel people to have for various activities that are practically required for living. we don't, narrowly, have a document, that you can force everyone to have, in a very peculiar interaction, where someone can be like, "you're going to jail unless you produce this document," and you're not driving, you're not crossing a border, you're not etc. etc. so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.
dylan604 10mo ago
Which would be hilarious as it was the right that opposed just such a national id when proposed during the Clinton administration
SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
As the article says, the Real ID is very much a version of national ID compatible with the US’s strong tradition of federalism. Immigration authorities don’t want a reliable form of identification, they want to detain lots of people, because Stephen Miller gave them a target of 3,000 arrests a day.
JKCalhoun 10mo ago
I like the idea of a Real, Real ID.
- enlightens 10mo ago
  real_real_ID_v2_final__USE_THIS_ONE.pdf
- saltcured 10mo ago
  Right up until it becomes clear that they will only be issued to ubermenschen, who are identified by capricious processes meant to both obscure corruption and instill fear due to their apparent randomness.
boredatoms 10mo ago
We already have a national ID - its the passport
- wrs 10mo ago
  Citizens can be denied a passport for various reasons (22 CFR 51.60).
  - rose-knuckle17 10mo ago
    yes. you get it. They want a national id system that is weak enough that they can arbitrarily deny or revoke based on appearance or demeanor. Most US citizens couldn't prove they are citizens, at least without a fingers-crossed records search IF they can remember the county they were born in. Stats say only around 10% of americans could easily put their hands on their birth certificate. Almost no one can produce one at a checkpoint if demanded, and its rare for people to even have one in their possession at home. A passport proves citizenship, but its absence doesn't disprove it. Voting cards and social security cards aren't identification. State issued cards like drivers licenses, state ID cards or even realID cards do not prove federal citizenship (although they do prove identity). Sources: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
    - Scubabear68 10mo ago
      I think you misread your cited article. It does not say only around 10% could easily out their hands on a birth certificate. It says “9% don’t have proof of citizenship readily available” while traveling. It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate. Of course you are right, basically no one carries their birth certificate around. Which is probably countered by the fact that birth certificates are pretty easily falsifiable because there is no standardization of them.
wrs 10mo ago
The last thing they want is a reliable ID. It would make arbitrary detentions even less justifiable.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).

Wowfunhappy 10mo ago

Why would a national ID require a constitutional amendment?

semiquaver 10mo ago
It would not, although a requirement to carry and provide it to authorities on demand may require a change to the fourth amendment.
- Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
    >We don't have a constitution any more, we just have interpretations and they change. US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent, it's built on English Common Law.
    - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
      There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.
    - skeeter2020 10mo ago
      >> US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent, Isn't the key here that an interpretation sets the precedent, and then we don't get continual "reinterpretation"? That's what seems to be happening these days.
      - b00ty4breakfast 10mo ago
        sure; the problem is ignoring precedence though, not judicial interpretation, which is a deliberate part of the process.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
engineer_22 10mo ago
10th amendment - issuing IDs is a power already claimed by the states
- Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
  The Supreme Court can fix that right up anytime they want.
  - engineer_22 10mo ago
    What?? The Supreme Court doesn't write the Constitution.
    - Alive-in-2025 10mo ago
      In the new world, the Supreme Court can change basically any policy or old decision and make up things not in the Constitution. One example is Trump's immunity that they created out of whole cloth and that was nowhere to be found. At the same time they invented a reason why Trump's attempted rebellion against the US did not violate the constitutional amendment that was designed to keep someone like that from running for president
ranger_danger 10mo ago
It's debatable as to whether it's technically required or not, but "the Tenth Amendment, establishes that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. This means states have the authority to create and enforce their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal laws." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resources/jurimetrics/2024-winter/implementing-government-backed-digital-identity-united-states/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/resour...
doctorpangloss 10mo ago
here's what we have: a way to identify every almost every American by their face, identify almost every American by their name and birthdate, identify every American invasively (like via a blood draw), lots of documents at the national level that we can compel people to have for various activities that are practically required for living. we don't, narrowly, have a document, that you can force everyone to have, in a very peculiar interaction, where someone can be like, "you're going to jail unless you produce this document," and you're not driving, you're not crossing a border, you're not etc. etc. so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.

dylan604 10mo ago

Which would be hilarious as it was the right that opposed just such a national id when proposed during the Clinton administration

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago

As the article says, the Real ID is very much a version of national ID compatible with the US’s strong tradition of federalism. Immigration authorities don’t want a reliable form of identification, they want to detain lots of people, because Stephen Miller gave them a target of 3,000 arrests a day.

JKCalhoun 10mo ago

I like the idea of a Real, Real ID.

enlightens 10mo ago
real_real_ID_v2_final__USE_THIS_ONE.pdf
saltcured 10mo ago
Right up until it becomes clear that they will only be issued to ubermenschen, who are identified by capricious processes meant to both obscure corruption and instill fear due to their apparent randomness.

boredatoms 10mo ago

We already have a national ID - its the passport

wrs 10mo ago
Citizens can be denied a passport for various reasons (22 CFR 51.60).
- rose-knuckle17 10mo ago
  yes. you get it. They want a national id system that is weak enough that they can arbitrarily deny or revoke based on appearance or demeanor. Most US citizens couldn't prove they are citizens, at least without a fingers-crossed records search IF they can remember the county they were born in. Stats say only around 10% of americans could easily put their hands on their birth certificate. Almost no one can produce one at a checkpoint if demanded, and its rare for people to even have one in their possession at home. A passport proves citizenship, but its absence doesn't disprove it. Voting cards and social security cards aren't identification. State issued cards like drivers licenses, state ID cards or even realID cards do not prove federal citizenship (although they do prove identity). Sources: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/millions-americans-dont-have-documents-proving-their-citizenship-readily https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mill... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_Unit...
  - Scubabear68 10mo ago
    I think you misread your cited article. It does not say only around 10% could easily out their hands on a birth certificate. It says “9% don’t have proof of citizenship readily available” while traveling. It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate. Of course you are right, basically no one carries their birth certificate around. Which is probably countered by the fact that birth certificates are pretty easily falsifiable because there is no standardization of them.

wrs 10mo ago

The last thing they want is a reliable ID. It would make arbitrary detentions even less justifiable.