New Hampshire House votes to defy Fed ID

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congratulations to New Hampshire

I've never been to New Hampshire, but apparantly there are people in your state legislative body witha the ability to read a straightforward sentence within a contract, and determine what it says.

I am very, very impressed that New Hampshire has stood up for the Constitutional right to privacy.

Congratulations guys and gals.

That is encouraging. Wish our Texas state representatives had those kind of huevos.
 
This issue is starting to gain the state's full attention. It is now before the Senate; I was at the Senate committee hearing and it was a sight and sound to behold with standing room only, almost every last person there to support this anti-fed bill.

Here is an article from the main statewide paper, the Union Leader, whose writers are beginning to behave, rightly, as though this is the most important issue of our time.

http://www.unionleader.com/article....rticleId=5a5fa4fe-0bba-4322-91f4-51b124fd0feb

Say no to national ID, senate urged

By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
Tuesday, Apr. 11, 2006

CONCORD – Voices from the right and left urged state senators yesterday to pull the state out of the National Identification System.

A broad range of groups — from the conservative Cato Institute to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union — denounced the system, known as Real ID. House Bill 1582, which passed the House 217-84, would bar the state from participating.

Congress passed the Real ID act requiring states to assemble specific sets of data to create a national secure system of driver licensing. Social security numbers, individual photos and addresses would become part of a single database that all motor vehicle departments could access. Birth certificates and other documents would also be in the permanent federal computer record.

Some members of a Senate committee said that the national IDs will be needed to travel on airplanes and interstate buses, and to enter federal buildings.

Without Real ID, a New Hampshire family would need passports to fly to Florida, Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, pointed out.

"How do we tell a family of five that they have to spend nearly $500 on passports to go to Disneyworld?" he asked.

He said he wants to talk with the Congressional delegation to sort out the facts.

Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, said he favors the bill.

"I believe we should be moving forward. New Hampshire should not be digging in its feet," he said.

New Hampshire has won a $3 million grant as part of a pilot project for early work on getting the system running by 2008. Several witnesses said the grant will cover less than one-tenth of the state's true cost.

Deputy Safety Commissioner Earl Sweeney said the state needs to upgrade its computer systems anyway, and can legally use the federal money to defray some costs.

But Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, sponsor of HB 1582, said the state needs to forget the money. Real ID is too great an intrusion on individual privacy, he said.

"I don't believe the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identity card," he said.

Some warn that the state could also complicate interstate commerce, including truck drivers who need to operate in multiple states.

Other speakers said the Real ID system smacks of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

"I am not a number. I am a free man," said John Babiarz, former Libertarian Party candidate for governor.

Barry Steinardt of the national ACLU office, said several states are considering a challenge.

"If you go first, other states will follow," he said. "New Hampshire can be the first to say 'The emperor has no clothes.' "

Others warned that the national database would make an easy target — a "giant dripping honey pot" in one witness' words — for hackers and criminal gangs intent on stealing identities and bank account information.

Sen. Iris Estabrook, D-Durham, has sponsored a Senate resolution opposing the Real ID program. The Senate tabled the measure last month.

"We need to send a message," she said, urging the Senate to at least pass that measure.
 
I testified...

I am one of the several Free Staters who testified before the Senate in favor of HB1582, which, if passed, will have New Hampshire "opt-out" of this Nazi-esque scheme.

That sounds impressive, but the deal is -- anyone can go to the NH State House, and show up on the day of the Senate committee hearing, and simply declare that he has something to say. That's exactly what I did.

As a software guy, I had a lot to say about databases -- like, there's no database on Planet Earth that can't be hacked into, either via some bug in the software, or by greasing the right palms. How many junior database backup lackeys could be bought by Al-Queda for. say, $10 million and a free trip to the Cayman Islands?

Anyways, the Senators by and large seemed quite receptive.

Maybe we'll get this Bill passed, and maybe we won't but one thing is for sure, there is a "culture of liberty" here in New Hampshire that you just don't see in political circles elsewhere in this country, not even in places like Texas, Alaska, or Arizona.

Yeah, I know those are fighin' words! Why don't you come out here and check it out for yourself? There's a great opportunity coming up:
http://freestateproject.org/news/festival
 
Welcome to The High Road!

I wish I didn't work third shift or I might make my way up to Concord more often.
 
But Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, sponsor of HB 1582, said the state needs to forget the money. Real ID is too great an intrusion on individual privacy, he said. "I don't believe the people of New Hampshire elected us to help the federal government create a national identity card," he said.
Other speakers said the Real ID system smacks of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. "I am not a number. I am a free man," said John Babiarz, former Libertarian Party candidate for governor.
Barry Steinardt of the national ACLU office, said several states are considering a challenge. "If you go first, other states will follow," he said. "New Hampshire can be the first to say 'The emperor has no clothes.' "
Sen. Iris Estabrook, D-Durham, has sponsored a Senate resolution opposing the Real ID program. The Senate tabled the measure last month. "We need to send a message," she said, urging the Senate to at least pass that measure.

Good people, making sense, in the halls of government... a credit to your state.

We Floridians could learn a thing or two here. I'm not leaving my ocean view for anywhere, but I'd love to see more of that spirit down here.
 
NH has a seacoast

Just for the record, antarti, New Hampshire does have a seacost, don't let that be a showstopper for you! :)
 
New Hampshirites rally against Real ID

Our rally against Real ID was yesterday, turnout was around 170 which is considered good in this low-population state. It was a very lively event, held with the aim of persuading state senators to vote in favor of New Hampshire's anti-real-id bill. The article doesn't mention this but as usual many of the demonstrators were wearing open carried firearms, which are allowed at the NH state house.

Here is the article in the Concord monitor:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060423/REPOSITORY/604230386

Database was a dirty word yesterday at a rally to oppose New Hampshire's participation in a national identification card system that would digitally catalog personal information.

More than 100 people - some dressed as Nazis, others wearing three-cornered hats - gathered on the State House lawn. Though the group's political leanings spanned the spectrum, they agreed that the system is a bad idea, citing identity theft, Big Brother and the violation of the United States Constitution.

"We have to decide . . . if we're going to stand by like sheep as they brand us," said Carol Shea-Porter, a Rochester Democrat (who was not in costume) running for Congress against Republican Jeb Bradley.

Known as Real ID, the card system would require motor vehicle officials to more thoroughly screen people applying for driver's licenses, issue licenses that contain anti-fraud precautions such as computer chips, and create a database with digital copies of drivers' birth certificates and other identifying documents. Anyone flying on an airplane, opening a bank account or entering a federal building would need to have the national ID card or a passport.

Congress passed the Real ID Act last year, and New Hampshire and Kentucky were offered $3 million grants to test the program. All states must comply by 2008.

But the New Hampshire House voted last month to refuse to do so, calling the program "contrary and repugnant" to the Constitution. Now it's up to the Senate to decide whether to take the federal grant money and overhaul the state's licensing system or not.

---ADVERTISEMENT---

At yesterday's rally, speakers urged the Senate to buck the new law, comparing the United States to Nazi Germany and warning against everything from a police state to the start of the apocalypse. Tim DeBenedictis, of Wakefield, was one of a handful of people with stickers bearing the number "666" stuck to their foreheads.
DeBenedictis, a member of the Constitution Party, said Real ID is a precursor to the "mark of the beast" told of in the Bible, where every man must have "666" on his hand or forehead to buy or sell anything.

The Rev. Garrett Lear, known as "the Patriot Pastor" for his knowledge of the Constitution and colonial dress, praised those who wore the stickers and said he was ashamed that more Christians hadn't showed up. He told the crowd the Real ID system is contrary to the liberty-for-all wishes of the founding fathers, many of whom were Christian.

"Thanks be to God that the House voted" against Real ID, he said.

Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and leader of the anti-Real ID movement, read a chapter from her book, Spychips, about how the government plans to track people through product ID tags. Albrecht of Nashua said that in the wrong hands, a national identification system could have disastrous effects.

It's like "putting a noose around your neck and hoping the government doesn't pull the rope," she said. "You could think you're giving the rope to Mother Theresa but find yourself looking into the eyes of Adolf Hitler."

To illustrate that point, Lauren Canario and Jim Johnson of Winchester, members of the Free State Project, dressed in Nazi beige and stood watch over a mock guard shack at the edge of the lawn. To pass through the fake gate to the free popcorn stand and rally ahead, passersby had to say "F U."

"You can't get by without cursing the Nazis," said Canario, who was holding a sign that read "Say Yahvol to Real ID."

Rep. Elbert Bicknell, a Deerfield Republican who also spoke at the rally, called Real ID an unfunded mandate similar to special education and the No Child Left Behind Act. He said the identification system won't help protect our borders from illegal immigrants or terrorists, but will take away our privacy. Americans shouldn't have to sacrifice their freedoms for "what those butchers did to us" on Sept. 11, 2001, he added.

"Someone has to tell Uncle Sam 'Whoa, this is enough. We've had it,'" Bicknell said.

Those at the rally credited Rep. Neal Kurk for planting the seed with the impassioned speech he made on the House floor last month. After the Weare Republican spoke in favor of an anti-Real ID bill, the House overturned a committee recommendation and approved it.

Yesterday, Kurk said lawmakers had "moved the cannon into position to fire a shot that will be heard around the world," meaning that other states are paying attention and will hopefully follow suit. But if the state is going to make history, Kurk said, the cannon must be loaded and Gov. John Lynch must pull the trigger.

"Let the nation hear that New Hampshire is first and takes the lead in the fight for liberty," he said.

------ End of article

By MELANIE ASMAR
 
Known as Real ID, the card system would require motor vehicle officials to more thoroughly screen people applying for driver's licenses, issue licenses that contain anti-fraud precautions such as computer chips, and create a database with digital copies of drivers' birth certificates and other identifying documents. Anyone flying on an airplane, opening a bank account or entering a federal building would need to have the national ID card or a passport.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any blackmail or Nazis tactics only a standardized sset of requirements for state DLs if they are to be used for federal ID purposes.
There was a reason I asked for a link to the bill ,which many here seemed to have missed
 
Interesting that there was repeated mention of hats. I take it they left the tinfoil at home.

There are legitimate concerns, but leaving the protest to people in costumes, openly carrying guns, waving extremely worded signs, and chanting trendy slogans is not going to carry the day. It makes the issue appear to be championed by a small group of whackos.

The NH legislature is going to think twice about putting all of their federal allocations at risk. That is what noncompliance would mean. That kind of blackmail should be illegal IMO, but that's the way it works.
 
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any blackmail

It won't be mentioned in any one bill. As I understand it, Congress cannot force State compliance on anything but can leverage compliance with State appropriations. That was not possible before the income tax, the end of federalism, and is certainly why any fundamental change in the tax system will be resisted mightily.
 
You missed a key point in the bill

Joab, all of the things you mentioned are not terrible I suppose, however there are a couple of points you are missing. Prepare foil.
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.

Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Waiver-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
What exactly (besides the second ammendment) stops the Secretary from waiving an election of Democrats, because they may interfere with his wall-building project? Sole discretion is bad.

(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 of Transportation. Such certifications shall be made at such times and in such manner as the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may prescribe by regulation.

(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.
What this means is that Homeland Security determines whether the State's anti-tamper technology is effective, and which machine readable technology is acceptable. It also does not state that the minimum requirements listed above are the same minimum requirements listed here.

If you believe that I am off the deep end about this, explain to me the following:

1. How is giving private land to another private owner, a public use?

2. How is giving pot grown in a state to another person in the same state, interstate commerce?

3. How is telling people where they can protest not making a law abridging freedom of speech?

4. How is putting creating laws limiting which firearms are legal, not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

If these stretches can be made, then I do not believe that there is much that is inconcievable.
 
RealGun,

NH already gets hit with not cooperating with evil.

It is the ONLY state in the country without a mandatory seatbelt law for adults. We loose lots of money every year for it.

They can take their check and fold it until it is all corners...:eek:
 
Joab,
"with defined minimum data elements" as defined by whom? The Homeland Security Czar. And he isn't limited to items 1 through 7 on that list.
 
I'm not missing anything

My point was to get some of you to actually read the document that you are criticizing without ever actually reading it.

Relying on others, no matter which side of the fence they are on, to tell you the substance of a law or what to think about it is definitive sheepism, no matter which side of the fence you are on.
 
joab,
I did read it. What made you believe that we were speaking from a position of ignorance?:confused:

You said both "I'm not missing anything" and "Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any blackmail or Nazis tactics only a standardized sset of requirements for state DLs if they are to be used for federal ID purposes."

I showed you something that was not "only a standardized sset of requirements for state DLs if they are to be used for federal ID purposes."

Ergo, you missed something.

D\/\/
 
Quote

"Perhaps they missed that Real ID compliance is tied to appropriations. Want the money? Pay the blackmail in the form of compliance. This is what I hate about the income tax. Conditional appropriations should be illegal."

Isn't it funny how that is supposedly legal, yet clearly unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court and the Federal Courts love to "strike down" as unconstitutional, laws an Individual Judge (but not a jury) disagrees with politically, and alternatively tell us that a clearly unconstitutional action on the part of the federal government is legal, and constitutional, if they personally (again, with no jury input) agree with something, due to their "findings".

Usually, the reason stated is: (1) We the People, don't know how to read as well as a lawyer (i.e., interpretation of a sentence within the Bill of Rights or an Article can only be comprehended by an esquire-like being)

Or (2) The Constitution is a "living, breathing" thing that changes like some sort of Wood-Pulp-Based Chameleon, rather than by Amendments made in the Legislative Branch.
 
Apparently I have posted on the wrong thread.
Possibly the wrong forum.
That's what happens when you have too many conversations going on at once.

In the thread that I took exception to there were many links to the organization supporting the protest with an outline of what they believed the law did.
There were no links to the actual bill, request from other posters for the text of the bill nor any mention of any actual wording in the bill.
Just alot of cheerleading for anybody that stood up to the government


My apologies to the participants of this dicussion
 
Last edited:
This is probably one NH's worst ideas in recent times, and the concept that the federal government is impeding on their state constitution seems to be a moot point in my opinion.

The federal government setting standardized minimum requirement to get an ID really is not a bad idea. Actually, I like it. An ID in one state is considered proof of who you are in 49 other states, and is also (for the temperary present) your ticket into and out of Canada, Mexico, some carribean Islands etc.... Why not verify the identity of the person getting that ID? Even if the concept of terrorism is outlandish, wouldn't it help with something else, possibly cutting down on identity theft? How would you like to be the guy who gets an NICS rejection because somebody used your info when they got put away?

Face it, the federal government has the ability top make laws that permit or forbid the states from acting in a certain manner. The argument that the federal standards violate the NH constitution is moot. For example, the federal government says that assault weapons are legal, however my home state, CT, disallows them. The same with marijuana. The federal government was allowed to prosecute people who lived in a state (CA?) that allows marijuana for medicinal purposes, because they violated federal law.

Remember, nobody is being forced to enter any data base, or obtain any ID card under this law. Getting the ID, and the benefits that come with that are not cumpolsary, to the best of my knowledge. If it was, i would be upset, but it isn't?
 
Face it, the federal government has the ability top make laws that permit or forbid the states from acting in a certain manner. - mp510

Not really. What they do is make State appropriations conditional on compliance with mandates. They get that power from the income tax.
 
Good job NH, I guss I better write my own state representatives here in Texas, and everyone else should get the ball rolling in thier own states too.

The federal government setting standardized minimum requirement to get an ID really is not a bad idea.

Except for the fact that the United States Consitution mentions nothing about the US government being allowed that power.

Driver's licenses and ID cards are something set up by the states, they are not something that the Fed gov should have any say in.
 
Driver's licenses and ID cards are something set up by the states, they are not something that the Fed gov should have any say in.

Except when it comes to legitimate interstate commerce and "full faith and credit". Your license or ID is good in other States only because the feds went to bat for you via requiring States to honor each others licensing. I guess when it comes to guns, that would have to provide that licensing is actually available in both States. It is just hypocritical sometimes, using whatever rationale is economically, practically, or politically convenient.

Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to
the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner
in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and
the Effect thereof.

Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime,
who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on
Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled,
be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of
the Crime.
[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but
shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or
Labour may be due.]*

*Changed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
 
Enumeration

The concern with Real-ID should be especially close to home for those of us concerned about our Federal 2nd Amendement rights, or, more powerfully, our New Hampshire Constitutional right "to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. [NH Art. 2-a]"

Groups like the NRA are opposed to gun registries. Why is that, do you think?

Here in New Hampshire, we have no central State registry of gun owners, precisely because we do not allow even the possibility that, at some future time, some future government body might abuse such a registry, and use it to conveniently round up all the guns.

Google for "Nazi Germany Gun Control" (or read a bit of German history) and you'll find gems like:
The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

Now consider that in just the past few months, cities in "progressive" states like California have started banning gun ownership outright. Remember: 10 years ago, only the wacko socialists in California were banning smoking in bars. Now how many states have the same ban?

I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, I'm being realistic.
 
If it were akin to a gun registry and you dwelled on the metaphor, then certain individuals would be subject to being picked up. That's tinfoil territory, but not without historical precedent. If you had an expired visa, that could be a good thing. Unwelcome consequences might be a natural progression, but it's not a conspiracy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top