 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / 4x4 Cars / October 2004URGENT - National ID Legislation in US Congress
There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. The bills would bar the Federal Gov't (agencies) from recognizing your driver's license unless the states implement national ID provisions. One of the provisions is it would require states to join the "Driver License Agreement" (DLA) which would require states to punish their licensed drivers for violations committed in other US States/Territories, Provinces of Canada and States of Mexico. The DLA will supercede the "Driver's License Compact" (DLC) and "Non-Resident Violator's Compact" (NRVC) which some states are a member of and other are not. The DLA has been worked on and presented by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to the US Congress. The AAMVA is getting the Federal Gov't to force states to join the DLA. The DLA will not allow states to write in exemptions to protect their residents from punishement as with being allowed in the DLC. Some states choose not to assign points for out of state minor violations (Such as Colorado, Maryland, NY, KY - speeding only). Other parts is the requirement for states post ALL VIOLATIONS even to parking tickets on driver's histories. Some states have laws where if an offense does not incur points, the offense is not recorded like Colorado. An additional item, the DLA is much more draconian than the DLC. The DLA requires some form of punishment for an offense even if the act would be legal in a driver's home state. An example is Indiana does not have a Careless Driving law where as Michigan does. Under the DLC, Indiana would not take action such as points for the careless driving ticket but under the DLA, Indiana is required to take action such as using the nearest similar law which could mean the Indiana driver would have reckless driving recorded against his license. The AAMVA has supported draconian concepts such as National ID for many years. We originally had National ID provisions in Federal Law back in the 1990's but however, they were repealed due to objections of many people before they took full effect. Now it is back again. According to the AAMVA web site, it mentions the DLA would be a voluntary agreement but yet, they lie out of their mouth and use the Federal Gov't to force states to join this with the threat that residents of a given state that refuse to toe the line will have their license rejected at the airport or in other dealings with Federal Agencies. Driver's Licensing is a state matter, not a place for the Federal Gov't to poke their nose in. Most states passed laws anyway to tighten licensing standards. Members of Congress should be contacted to oppose this National ID. Contact info is at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ . > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively > are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 > "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's > license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. Assuming this is accurate -- which it probably isn't --- > The bills would bar the Federal Gov't (agencies) from recognizing your > driver's license unless the states implement national ID provisions. So? What Federal agencies "recognize" a driver's license? The only one I can think of is the TSA -- and even that recognizes non-driver IDs, which cannot, by their nature be subject to the "DLA" and "DLC" (below). Hence, a state could get around almost all the provisions by issuing state IDs IN ADDITION TO drivers' licenses -- a practice I've recommended for years. The police have no need to know if you can drive, and what provisions are on your drivers' license, unless you have been driving or are intending to drive. If you're walking, and need to show ID, you should be able to show a non-driving-related state-issued ID. (As a further aside, in regard the TSA -- there still doesn't seem to be any law or published regulation which requires a state-issued ID in order to board an airplane. Perhaps these bills would fill that gap. This might be a good thing.) I think the only Federal agency which requires a drivers license, as opposed to a "government-issued ID", is the DOT in regulating interstate trucking. > One of the provisions is it would require states to join the "Driver > License Agreement" (DLA) which would require states to punish their > licensed drivers for violations committed in other US > States/Territories, Provinces of Canada and States of Mexico. ... > Other parts is the requirement for states post ALL VIOLATIONS even to > parking tickets on driver's histories, Most parking tickets, by their nature, cannot post to the driver's history, because the State cannot prove who the driver IS. I do believe the poster is lying. > Some states have laws where if > an offense does not incur points, the offense is not recorded like > Colorado. An additional item, the DLA is much more draconian than the > DLC. The DLA requires some form of punishment for an offense even if > the act would be legal in a driver's home state. That makes SOME sense -- however, if some states have no-points offenses (see the example of parking tickets, above), then it would be very difficult for any compact to require that an offense in state A (even if it were to incurr points for a state A driver) to be required to issue points in state B for a state B driver. Or for that matter, if an offense is a no-points offense in state C (radar-detected speeding), then would it accrue points in state D, which has no such provision?  SignatureThis account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack. I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me and it bounces, a second try might work. However, please reply in newsgroup. >> There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives >> sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Assuming this is accurate -- which it probably isn't --- From http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.R.+5148: <quote> There are 2 versions of Bill Number H.R.5148 for the 102nd Congress 1 . To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.R.5148.IH] 2 . To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States. (Reported in House)[H.R.5148.RH] </quote> Doesn't sound much like "Identity Management Security Act" And it's dated May 12, 1992. Dick Evans >>> There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives >>> sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Dick Evans There's a numbering sequence for each session. Here's HR 5148 for the current session of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:6:./temp/~bd5Jfw:: "Title: To provide improved security for driver licenses and State identity documents. " Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively > are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 > "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's > license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. <snippity snip> Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization of motor-vehicle violations are chronic offenders. The rest of us who DON'T violate those laws don't really care. PWB > Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization of > motor-vehicle violations are chronic offenders. The rest of us who DON'T > violate those laws don't really care. Next time you drive out of state and get plucked as an easy mark despite driving slower than everybody else or not even violating the letter of the law or even entrapped, remember you made your own nest. The reason some states do participate in the existing compacts is, IMO to protect their residents as much as they can from being harmed by revenue collection practices out of state. >> Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization >> of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to protect their residents as much as they can from being harmed by > revenue collection practices out of state. Actually, here in Ohio we have our own homegrown revenue thieves. Ever heard of the "village" of New Rome, OH, and its 1000 feet of US40? They collected $360,000 a year in admittedly bogus fines (plus the occasional confiscated vehicle) for over 20 years... and honed embezzlement by the village treasurer to a high art. PWB > Actually, here in Ohio we have our own homegrown revenue thieves. > > Ever heard of the "village" of New Rome, OH, You mean *HAD*. Last time I checked, New Rome had been *unincorporated* by the state and the county sheriff and highway patrol had taken over policing it just as they would any other little unincorporated backwater. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; once) To agree w/ Brent P and disagree w/ PWB. For Brent P. I think you meant that "States do ^NOT^ participate"... in the last paragraph. How about this ! Do a special excursion to the South of the Border, get a trumped up ticket from a cop, pay the ticket, then the town "loses" the payment and since that town is in a Mexical State that participates in this DLA, the town notifies the State Gov't of the individual Mexican State who then contacts your US State DMV not only concerning the violation but also how you "ignored" it. Think of the ramifications. Your state pulls your license for the supposed unpaid Mexican ticket. To add insult to injury, your state assigns points for that ticket which then means your insurance goes up or gets canceled. Got too many points ? Well you lose your license and if you live in a state that has a "points tax" (NJ, MI, TX), pay again. Then you have to go through the Mexican bureaucratic quagmire to set things right such as paying bribes, repay the fine, etc. Gee, you are f*cked thanks to the DLA as mentioned by the top post. Under the current system, you can flip the bird to that Mexican two bit town but don't go back ! This DLA presumes you are guilty and there is no recourse, no due process ! And, BTW, states are NOT ALLOWED to add in clauses to protect their residents from unsavory practices that occurr in other states or countries. In addition, what happens in Mexico does happen in some US States. Think of Louisiana for one thing. Other state such as CA or other states that are very revenue hungry can do the same thing as well. About Mexico, even with them not communicating with the US states on tickets, I am not inclined to drive in Mexico especially with my own wheels. I have driven in other countries such as Canada but forget Mexico. Interstate reciprocity sucks ! > > Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization of > > motor-vehicle violations are chronic offenders. The rest of us who DON'T [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > IMO to protect their residents as much as they can from being harmed by > revenue collection practices out of state. >> Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization >> of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >The sky is falling, The sky is falling, Oh no the sky is falling. HarryS >>> Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization >>> of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> to protect their residents as much as they can from being harmed by >> revenue collection practices out of state. > The sky is falling, The sky is falling, Oh no the sky is falling. So you've stamped out small town ticket traps? You've stamped out state troopers preying on people without of state plates? >>>> Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the >>>> federalization [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Checks and balances are needed in a society other wise there would be total >CHAOS argue that one! HarryS >>>Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization >>>of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > HarryS yup >Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization of >motor-vehicle violations are chronic offenders. The rest of us who DON'T >violate those laws don't really care. It is not federalizing violations that one should be concerned with. It is the issuing of the national ID card that should concern everyone. ------------ Alex >It is not federalizing violations that one should be concerned with. Why not? There's lots of shithole townships that rely on ticket revenue from out of towners for the bulk of their budget and you're at their mercy just by passing through. Imagine now that said violations follow you back home if you do a lot of traveling. You'll be taking the bus in short order. Are you truly free if your right to drive hinges upon the practices of thousands of bumblefuck counties? > It is the issuing of the national ID card that should concern everyone. They already did that decades ago. Called it "Social Security" I believe. Serial number follows you 'till death and can't do a GD thing without it. >>Honestly, the only people who have anything to lose by the federalization >>of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is the > issuing of the national ID card that should concern everyone. Already done. Your SSAN follows you EVERYWHERE, remember? Even if it's not on a "national ID card", you're still tracked by it. PWB > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively > are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 > "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's > license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. Google is your friend. To refute some of the ridiculous claims made by the OP (as well as supporting some of the more mundane), below is the full text of the act. Enjoy! -- C.R. Krieger (Never called anyone a jackbooted nazi thug) 108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 5148 To provide improved security for driver licenses and State identity documents. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 24, 2004 Mrs. MILLER of Michigan (for herself, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SHAYS, and Mr. CARTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To provide improved security for driver licenses and State identity documents. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Identity Management Security Act of 2004'. TITLE I--IMPROVED SECURITY FOR DRIVER LICENSES AND STATE IDENTITY DOCUMENTS SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS. In this title, the following definitions apply: (1) DRIVER'S LICENSE- The term `driver's license' means a motor vehicle operator's license, as defined in section 30301 of title 49, United States Code. (2) IDENTIFICATION CARD- The term `identification card' means a personal identification card, as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18, United States Code, issued by a State. (3) STATE- The term `State' means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States. (4) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security. SEC. 102. MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION. (a) Minimum Standards for Federal Use- (1) IN GENERAL- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a Federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver's license or identification card issued by a State to any person unless the State is meeting the requirements of this section. (2) STATE CERTIFICATIONS- The Secretary shall determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section based on certifications made by the State to the Secretary. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation, may prescribe by regulation. (b) Minimum Document Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall include, at a minimum, the following data elements and features on each driver's license and identification card issued to a person by the State: (1) The person's full legal name. (2) The person's date of birth. (3) The person's gender. (4) The person's driver license or identification card number. (5) A photograph of the person. (6) The person's address of principal residence. (7) The person's signature. (8) Physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes. (9) A common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements, that will facilitate the capture of driver's license and identification card information by law enforcement officers. (c) Minimum Issuance Standards- (1) IN GENERAL- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following data elements before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person: (A) A photo identity document, except that a nonphoto identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth. (B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth. (C) Proof of the person's social security number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security number. (D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence. (2) VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall implement the following procedures: (A) Before issuing a driver's license or identification card to a person, the State shall verify, with the issuing agency, the issuance, validity, and completeness of each document used to provide information required to be presented by the person under paragraph (1). (B) The State shall not accept any foreign document, other than an official passport, to satisfy a requirement of paragraph (1). (d) Other Requirements- To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall adopt the following practices in the issuance of driver licenses and identification cards: (1) Employ technology to capture digital images of identity source documents so that the images can be retained in electronic storage in a transferable format. (2) Retain paper copies of source documents for a minimum of 7 years or images of source documents presented for a minimum of 10 years. (3) Subject each person applying for a driver's license or identification card to mandatory facial image capture. (4) Establish an effective procedure to confirm or verify a renewing applicant's information. (5) Confirm with the Social Security Administration a social security number presented by a person using the full social security number. In the event that a social security number is already registered to or associated with another person to which any State has issued a driver's license or identification card, the State shall resolve the discrepancy and take appropriate action. (6) Refuse to issue a driver's license or identification card to a person holding a driver's license issued by another State without confirmation from the other State that the person is terminating or has terminated the driver's license. (7) Ensure the physical security of locations where driver licenses and identification cards are produced and the security of document materials and papers from which driver licenses and identification cards are produced. (8) Subject all persons authorized to manufacture or produce driver licenses and identification cards to appropriate security clearance requirements. (9) Establish fraudulent document recognition training programs for appropriate employees engaged in the issuance of driver licenses and identification cards. SEC. 103. LINKING OF DATABASES. (a) In General- To be eligible to receive any grant or other financial assistance made available under this Act, a State shall participate in the interstate compact regarding sharing of driver license data, known as the `Driver License Agreement', in order to provide electronic access by a State to information contained in the motor vehicle databases of all other States. (b) Requirements for Information- A State motor vehicle database shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) All data fields printed on driver licenses and identification cards issued by the State. (2) Motor vehicle driver histories, including motor vehicle violations, suspensions, and points on licenses. SEC. 104. TRAFFICKING IN AUTHENTICATION FEATURES FOR USE IN FALSE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS. Section 1028(a)(8) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `false authentication features' and inserting `false or actual authentication features'. SEC. 105. GRANTS TO STATES. (a) In General- The Secretary may make grants to a State to assist the State in conforming to the minimum standards set forth in this title. (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title. SEC. 106. AUTHORITY. (a) Participation of Secretary of Transportation and States- All authority to issue regulations, certify standards, and issue grants under this title shall be carried out by the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation and in consultation with the States. (b) Extensions of Deadlines- The Secretary may grant an extension to the deadline established by section 102(a)(1) with respect to the driver licenses and identification cards issued by a State if the State submits to the Secretary, in writing, an adequate justification, as determined by the Secretary, for the extension. TITLE II--IDENTITY SECURITY OF VITAL RECORDS SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS. In this title, the following definitions apply: (1) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Homeland Security. (2) BIRTH CERTIFICATE- The term `birth certificate' means a certificate of birth-- (A) for an individual (regardless of where born)-- (i) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and (ii) whose birth is registered in the United States; and (B) that-- (i) is issued by a Federal, State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record and produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record; or (ii) is an authenticated copy, issued by a Federal, State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record. SEC. 202. GAO STUDY OF THE SECURITY OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES. (a) Study- The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the security of birth certificates and other birth documentation used by States as proof of identity. Such study shall include-- (1) an assessment of the parties involved in the issuance of birth certificates and other birth documentation within the United States; (2) an assessment of the physical security features of domestic birth certificates and other domestic birth documentation; (3) an evaluation of fraudulent activity, both domestic and foreign, of domestic birth certificates and other domestic birth documentation used to acquire driver's licenses or State-issued identification cards; and (4) an evaluation of methods used by Federal agencies, States and other parties involved in the issuance of domestic birth certificates and other domestic birth documentation to reduce fraudulent activity, both domestic and foreign. (b) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection (a). The report shall include recommendations regarding measures needed to improve both the physical security of birth certificates and other birth documentation and the process used by parties issuing such documents, including the establishment of minimum standards if necessary, to reduce fraudulent activity. SEC. 203. ELIMINATING DUPLICATION OF VITAL RECORDS. (a) Assistance in Matching Birth and Death Records- (1) GRANTS- The Secretary, in coordination with other appropriate Federal agencies, shall make grants to States to assist them in-- (A) computerizing their birth and death records; (B) developing the capability to match birth and death records within each State and among the States; and (C) noting the fact of death on the birth certificates of deceased persons. (2) ALLOCATION OF GRANTS- The Secretary shall make grants to States under this subsection based on the proportion that the estimated annual average number of birth and death records created by a State applying for a grant bears to the estimated annual average number of birth and death records originated by all States. (b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section. > > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES So the relevant provisions are: Requires states to ensure that a person only has an identification card from one state. (I don't see anything that precludes a state issuing multiple identification cards to the same person, as I've recommended, but I could be wrong. If I AM wrong, a rational alternative would be to only issue state ID cards, and drivers' certificates which are not ID cards.) Requires that states gather SSN information. (I think that's already in law under highway funding provisions, but I'm not sure.) Requires participation in the DLA (not the DLC), which further provides that states share information about tickets. There's no mandate that the home state do anything with foreign tickets, other than file them. SignatureThis account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack. I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me and it bounces, a second try might work. However, please reply in newsgroup. On the foreign tickets, the DLA requires the state to treat the foreign ticket as if it was received in the driver's given state which means points and your insurance company finding out about it and raising your rates. I looked at the different items on the DLA on the AAMVA web site (http://www.aamva.org). Some of the information that under the DLC - Drivers License Compact that was limiting such as violations committed out of state that has no equivalent at home, no action is taken. An example is the state that you live does not have a careless driving law, you travel to a different state and while you drive in that state, you get a careless driving ticket. You pay the ticket and that is the end of it since your state has no equivalent, no action under the DLC concept. Under the DLA concept, it requires the state you have a license in to take some form of action to ensure that you don't escape punishment. Your state might decide to jack the violation as reckless driving since it is the closest similarity. States might have to pass a law where there is a flat point penalty for a violation that has no in-state equivalent in order to comply with the spirit and intention of the DLA. It could be something like NJ which has a flat 2 point penalty for all out of state moving violations, even if the violation committed inside of NJ would be more. One time, I looked at the DLA codes a while back but I think now, the AAMVA site has it behind web password protection but they include codes for even equipment violations such as tinted windows, radar detector (only VA & DC has such violation besides many of the Canadian provinces). Looking at the power point slides and pdf docs on the DLA at the AAMVA web site, there is even wording in the language the would ensure there is not much due process rights to challenge an action by your state DMV. It makes it very easy for state DMV's but very difficult for motorists. It is another money grab ! The burden is on the motorist to keep his license, money in his pocket. This is once big power grab and fleecing. It is not law yet and before it is voted on, it is out duty and obligation to tell our so-called reps that this is wrong ! "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote in message > Requires that states gather SSN information. (I think > that's already in law under highway funding provisions, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tickets. There's no mandate that the home state do > anything with foreign tickets, other than file them. > On the foreign tickets, the DLA requires the state to treat the > foreign ticket as if it was received in the driver's given state which > means points and your insurance company finding out about it and > raising your rates. The law doesn't so specify. The DLA might, but it's named in the law, not refrenced, so it's not binding on states. Furthermore, as I noted, some states have no-point offenses -- radar-detected speeding in a number of states. Hence, a requirement that the home state assess a "penalty" (defined as "points") if the issuing state would not is a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Furthermore, if, as it is said, states such as MA have tickets as civil violations rather than criminal violations, it would be a violation of due process for a state to take judicial notice of a civil violation in a criminal case. In other words, CA could not take notice of a MA traffic "conviction" in regard criminal penalties. If I ever get a ticket in MA, I may consider bringing this before the CA courts. No -- if this passes, and your interpretaion is correct, it would void the DLA. > ... States might have > to pass a law where there is a flat point penalty for a violation that > has no in-state equivalent in order to comply with the spirit and > intention of the DLA. If the DLA is not a "law" per se, then there is no need to comply with the "spirit and intention" of it. > One time, I looked at the DLA codes a while back but I think now, the > AAMVA site has it behind web password protection but they include > codes for even equipment violations such as tinted windows, radar > detector (only VA & DC has such violation besides many of the Canadian > provinces). Aren't equipment violations a no-point violation in ALL states? They are in CA and AZ -- even those which are misdemeanors, rather than infractions. > Looking at the power point slides and pdf docs on the DLA at the AAMVA > web site, there is even wording in the language the would ensure > there is not much due process rights to challenge an action by your > state DMV. Violation of state Constitution, in many cases, and a violation of state and Federal due process law where it IS a violation of the state Constitution. Possibly a violation of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution in states in which driving has the status of an entitlement -- intermediate between a "right" and a "prvilidge". If the DLA is as you say it is (which apparently can no longer be confirmed), the part of the statute mandating compliance would be void. SignatureThis account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack. I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me and it bounces, a second try might work. However, please reply in newsgroup. > Driver's Licensing is a state matter, not a place for the Federal > Gov't to poke their nose in. Most states passed laws anyway to tighten > licensing standards. > > Members of Congress should be contacted to oppose this National ID. > Contact info is at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ . The real question re the federal drivers license though is what part of the bar code they're going to use to hide the number 666. > > Driver's Licensing is a state matter, not a place for the Federal > > Gov't to poke their nose in. Most states passed laws anyway to tighten [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The real question re the federal drivers license though is what part > of the bar code they're going to use to hide the number 666. Actually, the number of the beast is social security. HTH. Reassembler Well for once I agree with the fellows in DC, then dirt bags who continuously run red lights, speed, aggressively drive and various other criminal acts will not be able to hide from their employers or your neighbors. Also, it will stop the illegal black market purchasing of drivers license trade by undocumented foreign nationals. I say if you do not have anything to hide no big deal and don't reply to argue your point because I really do not give a rats a.s! HarryS > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively > are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 > "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's > license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. SNIP THE BS http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ . > Well for once I agree with the fellows in DC, then dirt bags who > continuously run red lights, speed, aggressively drive and various other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anything to hide no big deal and don't reply to argue your point because I > really do not give a rats a.s! Please never vote. I don't have anything to hide; maybe a five year old speeding ticket, a few more dollars on my credit card than I'm confortable with, and a student loan that isn't quite paid in full... but that doesn't change the fact that your attitude is not only unAmerican but one that leads down the road to fascism and a police state. nate ...just one of the guys standing on the slippery slope, trying to push the ball back where it belongs. Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >...just one of the guys standing on the slippery slope, trying to push >the ball back where it belongs. Too late. It's not a slippery slope any more. It's a free-fall, with the ACLU and others reduced to trying to manually blow the ball back up. > I say if you do not have > anything to hide no big deal and don't reply to argue your point because I > really do not give a rats a.s! The usual arguement for a police state. It's ok so long as you have nothing to hide. You know nothing to hide, like political opinions, religious beliefs, disagreements with the state's actions, etc and so forth. Oh, and I hope that once we end up with a police state, that all you idiots with "nothing to hide" get dragged into your local homeland security offices accused of being terrorists when you buy regular household items that could be combined to make explosives, even if purchased six years apart. Beware the power of data mining. I've seen it in the virtual world and the power is scary to behold. >> I say if you do not have >> anything to hide no big deal and don't reply to argue your point because I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >purchased six years apart. Beware the power of data mining. I've seen it >in the virtual world and the power is scary to behold. If I am asked, I always respond that I have everything to hide. If you can't see it, then it's something I have chosen to hide. -------------- Alex > If I am asked, I always respond that I have everything to hide. If you > can't see it, then it's something I have chosen to hide. > -------------- > Alex Unfortunately the days of being a "private" citizen are long over. Don't believe me? Check how many times your Social Security number is used for loans, to get a drivers license in most states, hunting and fishing licenses, voter registration etc.. We already in so many databases its frightening. But hey, I'm the guy that won't have a car with Onstar because they continuously track you. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I prefer to think of it as a survival tool rather than a neurosis Don Let's say I'm a moron...... Now let's say I'm a congressman... But, I repeat myself. Mark Twain In a previous posting, "Boffer" <baughmans81@surewest.net> had the audacity to say: :Unfortunately the days of being a "private" citizen are long over. Don't :believe me? Check how many times your Social Security number is used for :loans, to get a drivers license in most states, hunting and fishing :licenses, voter registration etc.. Is this really true? I have two social security numbers in the Soviet Union, but no SIN here in Canada. Also, I have no desire to register for one at the moment 'cause it would identify me as someone with, ahem, questionable legal status. If living in the US in a similar capacity, I don't think I'd be running the gauntlet of trying to get a SSN. Is life really truly impossible without one? I certainly managed to get a Canajun driver's licence without a SIN, and there are still employers around - unofficially of course - who'll gladly let you work without one. SignatureE.R. aka SJG aka Ricardo present location: vancouver bc canada refugee from the european union's evil bureaucracy >Is this really true? I have two social security numbers in the >Soviet Union, but no SIN here in Canada. Also, I have no desire [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >licence without a SIN, and there are still employers around - >unofficially of course - who'll gladly let you work without one. It is very difficult to do many things without an SSN. Mainly because the IRS uses it to track and collect taxes. ----------- Alex > It is very difficult to do many things without an SSN. Mainly because > the IRS uses it to track and collect taxes. We can always do without paying taxes ;) > In a previous posting, "Boffer" <baughmans81@surewest.net> had > the audacity to say: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > licence without a SIN, and there are still employers around - > unofficially of course - who'll gladly let you work without one. The sky is falling, The sky is falling, Oh no the sky is falling. HarryS > There are a couple of bills in the US House of Representatives > sponsored by Dennis Hastert and Candice Miller. The bills respectively > are HR10 "9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act" and HR5148 > "Identity Management Security Act" which will use your driver's > license as a backdoor method to a National ID Card. It appears I was wrong. The CDT thinks there are serious privacy violations in this bill. Who am I to argue? I just don't think that the abuses this poster is referring to are in the bill. SignatureThis account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack. I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me and it bounces, a second try might work. However, please reply in newsgroup. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.