Skip to main content

View Diary: Montana Dems lead way against national ID (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  More than withholding funds (0+ / 0-)

    If states don't share thier DMV data with other states, then those states lose funding.

    In addition--and this is key:

    After December 31, 2009, "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" specified in the Real ID Act. States remain free to also issue non-complying licenses and ID's, so long as these have a unique design and a clear statement that they cannot be accepted for any Federal identification purpose.

    (From Wikipedia)

    Since the TSA is a federal agency overseeing airport security check-ins, it means that if you're a Montanan who wishes to fly, you will not be able to use your Montana-issued driver's license to get through security.  Also, if you lose your Social Security Card, you can't use your Montana-issued driver's license to get another one.  Tough noogies for you.  

    It's similar to Reagan's forcing drinking age limits, but the ramifications are more than withholding funds--this will affect Montanans on a more direct and personal level.

    "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

    by LiberalVirginian on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:18:08 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Ok. But my concern is with state nullification (0+ / 0-)

      of a federal law.  If that's true, Montanans are truly making a principled stand, and good luck to them.

      I am not defending the federal law, or these types of punitive measures.

      •  True that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joelarama

        The decision by Montana to opt-out of the Real ID is their choice, and both the state (who will lose funding) and citizens (who will have to go through more hoops when dealing with Federal agencies) will have to deal with it.

        As for the nullification issues, I think the difference is that Montana is opting out of a specific piece of legislation that is a partially funded federal mandate.  In the 50's and 60's, Southern states were essentially nullifying the 14th Amendment, which is a serious no-no.

        "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

        by LiberalVirginian on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Almost any federal statute, including civil (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LiberalVirginian

          rights statutes, can be cast as a "partially funded federal mandate."  Compliance has costs, in almost every case.  So, that really can't be the distinction between a statue that may be nullified, and one that may not.

          In terms of voting, yes, the South was nullifying the 14th Amendment.  But the 14th Amendment applies to state action only.  And Congress had to pass laws to safeguard the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, and especially to end discrimination in the private sector, and it's these latter laws that are at issue when we talk about the potential nullification I'm concerned about in Montana.

    •  Take a look at the date (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LiberalVirginian

      After December 31, 2009, "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"

      There will be a new Administration in power then. Might be able to fix some of our broken laws

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site