URGENT - National ID Legislation in US Congress

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:22:50 GMT, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Arthur L. Rubin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 ---
>
>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'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"

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> 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

C.R. Krieger wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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

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.

--
This 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.

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 !


[email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message news:<iTU6d.291277$Fg5.198264@attbi_s53>...
> In article <[email protected]>, PWB wrote:
>
> > 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 ^NOT^ 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.

"PWB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> 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)

Rob Kleinschmidt <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > 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.

Actually, the number of the beast is social security. HTH.

Reassembler

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 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.

The Big Biker wrote:
>
> 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.

--
This 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.

[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.

--
This 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.