4 ms·

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.

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.