Real ID/ HR 1955

[Volumnius Flush]

Does anybody know what the holdup on these two acts are? HR 1955 passed the House last year, and is yet to go into the Senate for voting yet Real ID is passed. It was supposed to come into effect this month or so, and yet is being held up possibly by the fact that so many states have come out against it.

Can anyone shed some light on this matter?

[Independent_CA]

Well they're both fairly stupid ideas and ought to be thrown out so hopefully HR 1955 stays held up.

And maybe Real ID will get lost somewhere or mis-filed or something. We can only hope.

[Volumnius Flush]

Well they're both fairly stupid ideas and ought to be thrown out so hopefully HR 1955 stays held up.

And maybe Real ID will get lost somewhere or mis-filed or something. We can only hope.

I think they have jettisoned the ideal of Real ID. And HR 1955 is clearly in violation of the First Amendment so yes, hopefully it stays held up.

[Der Übermensch]

My state passed legislation refusing to comply with Real ID. We were supposed to lose the right to use our Drivers licenses to board airplanes back on the 11th, but got an extension or something I believe.

[Volumnius Flush]

My state passed legislation refusing to comply with Real ID. We were supposed to lose the right to use our Drivers licenses to board airplanes back on the 11th, but got an extension or something I believe.

That would suck. Who does the federal government think they are that they can refuse you the right to board a plane? Not that it's a right or anything...

[Der Übermensch]

The same government who bribes states into passing 21 to drink laws by making highway funding attached to it...?

[Volumnius Flush]

The same government who bribes states into passing 21 to drink laws by making highway funding attached to it...?

That's corruption right there.

[Der Übermensch]

Thats just how things work unfortunately.

[Against Miik!]

All states were expected to comply with the Real ID act by May of 2008. A fair amount of states, I forget which ones, flat out refused, so they received an extension, even though there are no signs of them ever complying. Thats pretty much where it stands now. I'm not sure if act will be imposed if not everybody is on board. I cannot imagine it would, but hey, you never know.

HR 1955 has the potential to be a bit scary, but I don't see it ever being enforced to its fullest extent. It basically just gives a VERY VERY vague definition of terrorism, one that would probably put a few people on this very forum into detainment.

As for the drinking age, I wish some states would call the feds bluff. Some states are considering lowering the age to 18, some places it would be for everybody, in other places it would just be for veterans under 21. Regardless, I can't see the government allowing states infrastructure to fall apart any more than they already are.

But maybe I'm wrong on that. McCain is suggesting the gas tax holiday, and what the hell do taxes from gasoline go too!

[Volumnius Flush]

HR 1955 has the potential to be a bit scary, but I don't see it ever being enforced to its fullest extent. It basically just gives a VERY VERY vague definition of terrorism, one that would probably put a few people on this very forum into detainment.

That is my fear. If you read the language of the bill it says, "The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence". Now I agree something needs to be done about the terrorists who are planning an attack against the federal government. But to hold those accountable for "threatened use" is in clear violation of the First Amendment. We have the right to free speech but to make threats against the federal government is seditious and something should be done about it, but let me go on to say this:

What if the federal government began requiring all the Jews to wear stars, segregated blacks and whites, outlawed all guns in the country even for veterans, and began making serious efforts toward a state of martial law, but first began by seriously curbing all civil rights as we know it. Under this law the Second Amendment becomes null and void and there is no recourse for what I am describing here: a tyrannical government.

If something seriously illegal, unconstitutional, and excessively bad and completely against the main stream of thought in the field of human rights was implemented in this country, our people would have a moral obligation to fight the government. Now that's not to say with force or threatened use of force, but perhaps by more passive-agressive and perhaps some forms of civil disobedience such as refusal to pay income tax. There are other ways of fighting than with violence and perhaps that would be the correct method to adhere to.

But I still think this bill is in clear violation of the Bill of Rights, but I believe it is roughly the same thing as saying, "I'm going to kill x-person." Or saying you are going to blow up a school. That sort of language is not protected and I see where the government is going with this bill but under the current language it implies that if one were to say, "If x happens, I will do y," whether y is illegal, or violent, it could still be prosecuted under this act. So even an empty threat could be prosecuted.

I read one article on the issue and it said the bill seems to suggest any force, including boycotts, or civil disobedience, not necessarily violence, could be prosecuted under this bill.

Very scary indeed.

[Against Miik!]

Yes, technically, this bill could be viewed as unconstitutional. Again, I think its a stretch to think it will ever be used to its full potential, but it should not even exist on principle.

It is things like, though, that set the framework for a tyrannical government. Of course they will not start shooting people in the streets. Thats not how things are done these days, not in America.

I'm sure you have all heard the quote, as roughly stated "The best way to enslave people is to make them think they are free".

This is a perfect example of that...potentially.

[Volumnius Flush]

Yes, technically, this bill could be viewed as unconstitutional. Again, I think its a stretch to think it will ever be used to its full potential, but it should not even exist on principle.

It is things like, though, that set the framework for a tyrannical government. Of course they will not start shooting people in the streets. Thats not how things are done these days, not in America.

I'm sure you have all heard the quote, as roughly stated "The best way to enslave people is to make them think they are free".

This is a perfect example of that...potentially.

This legsilation/bill is unconstitutional, but kudos to Dennis Kucinich being one of only, I think, 6 who voted against it out of 400+ votes cast. Dennis Kucinich knows what's up.

Remember when asked why he voted against the Patriot Act. He said, "Because I read it" !!! :smash:

[Against Miik!]

That is another part of tyrannical government, making the sane ones look like extremists. Dennis Kucinich is a perfect example of that, although I wouldn't want him as a president. I lived in Cleveland when he was mayor, and he drove all the businesses out to make it the shithole it is today.

But some of the things he says should definitely be taken into consideration. The funny part is, if Democrats really took a good hard look in the mirror, they would realize that their views most line up with a guy like Kucinich, who ACTUALLY voted against the war (none of this I wasn't in Congress but I would have voted against it if I did crap), who really wants to do something about global warming, and who really cares about the poor. He is one of the few people in Washington who really knows what its like to be poor. He lived in a broken home as a child, and thats the reason that he cares so much about the little guy.

[Volumnius Flush]

That is another part of tyrannical government, making the sane ones look like extremists. Dennis Kucinich is a perfect example of that, although I wouldn't want him as a president. I lived in Cleveland when he was mayor, and he drove all the businesses out to make it the poophole it is today.

But some of the things he says should definitely be taken into consideration. The funny part is, if Democrats really took a good hard look in the mirror, they would realize that their views most line up with a guy like Kucinich, who ACTUALLY voted against the war (none of this I wasn't in Congress but I would have voted against it if I did crap), who really wants to do something about global warming, and who really cares about the poor. He is one of the few people in Washington who really knows what its like to be poor. He lived in a broken home as a child, and thats the reason that he cares so much about the little guy.

Dennis Kucinich just went down a notch in my book, but is technically still one of my favorite Democrats. One of the few I can actually stand despite our disagreements!

Dennis Kucinich thinks for himself and doesn't always follow the party platform; he does his own thing and really is the mockery or horse's *** of the Democratic party.

[EinzingerIsGod]

Dennis Kucinich thinks for himself and doesn't always follow the party platform; he does his own thing and really is the mockery or horse's *** of the Democratic party.

Since when did speaking out against mob mentality become such an evil? I'm glad we have someone in the house who isn't afraid to speak his mind. It's "staying the party line" which gave us 8 years of unchecked Bush/Cheney.

And the democratic party is a mockery.

[Dave de Sylvia]

My state passed legislation refusing to comply with Real ID. We were supposed to lose the right to use our Drivers licenses to board airplanes back on the 11th, but got an extension or something I believe.
Aren't drivers licenses the easiest to forge?

[Against Miik!]

Not under Real ID they wouldn't be. That would be the point. They would contain extra security measures, RFID, etc...