The argument that Patrick Henry and others made against the Bill of Rights was that that very act of enumerating the rights of the citizenry would be used to infer that those were the only rights that were constitutionally protected. The tenth amendment was an apparently unsuccessful attempt to address that concern.

The best way of thinking about the founding father's view of the Constitution is that a citizen had the right to be left alone by the national government (but not by the individual States).

True conservatives should not be too facile in dismissing the concerns that a national identity system might be misued by government.

Dittos of sorts to Earl.

My biggest problem with the above law is the possibility that it becomes a "pass law" of sorts.

Frankly OJ, If I'm just going to the ballgame, and a cop on the L stops me and asks for my ID, I believe I DO have the right to say GFYS, or at least, "why?"

With out probable cause, they can't search your person. Why should they be able to force you to say who you are?

BB:

Your identity is a public matter, not a private one.

BB:

Orrin is right. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly so, and the vast majority of Americans realize that is the only sane rule--especially now that we are living in an Age of Terror.

Earl:

The arguement that our privacy must be protected or else we will lose it is ludicrous. With many federal databases, modern technology and a culture of complete openness in public with even the most intimate details of our personal lives, nobody really cares about privacy.

The unstated assumptions are:

(1) A national ID will make us safer;

(2) The privacy issues are outweighed by (1).

Bruce Schneier wrote an excellent essay as to why ID cards won't make us safer here:

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html

I've reread his essay many times now, and I agree with his conclusions.

Federal databases? Come on...this after Safire or Will or whoever it was derided the INS for their IT while proclaiming Amazon would have captured the terrorists?

Which is exactly right (though I may differ on the reasons). We have extraordinarily little to fear from the federal government vis-a-vis snooping databases. The worry sure ought to be corporate databases--credit bureaus, financial services companies, grocery stores, etc.

To the extent that there is anything to fear from entities collecting information on us, the federal government comes way down the list because it is demonstrably less competent than private sector companies who earn their profits from just such activity.

(Now you've gone and made me feel like a whacko.)

Seems to me, if there are standards for the documentation that must be presented to authenticate one's identity in order to get a driver's license, it will make it tough for the "undocumented" to get a driver's license, register to vote, etc.

Works for me. I can authenticate MY identity just fine...

jsmith:

It was Mark Steyn.

The problem is that too often these sorts of laws end up criminalizing the behavior of otherwise law abiding citizens while doing nothing to deter real criminals. Or worse, they are only used to punish those who's only crime is not complying with that particular law.

What we are probably going to get here are more hoops for people like me to jump through, and we will be punished for trying but missing one, while the illegals and criminals won't be punished (and maybe even rewarded) for ignoring the hoops completely.

There is persistent confusion between privacy and annonymity. The former is protected by the fourth amendment. The later is nonexistent. In the pre-modern world, no one was anonymous. Everyone knew who you were. Only in the 19th century with the growth of large cities with transient populations did annoymity become possible. I do not see any plausible source for a constitutional or natural law law right of annonymity.

Jsmith:

I don't know if you were replying to my comment, but that was pretty much my arguement.

Raoul:

You may be right, but the arguement is whether such laws hurt our privacy. My point is that we don't really have any privacy, and that most Americans don't care about it. Knowing that, if such laws could help, then I am all for it.

I feel like Bill Clinton. I agree a 100% with everybody above. (even though you disagree with each other).

H-man:

Read my response to Jsmith.

I can't see any correlation here between those who use a pseudonym and those who are upset about this proposal. Fascinating.

The issue is not "privacy", but the right to move about unmolested. In my opionim the random road blocks used to catch drunk drivers are unconstitutional in the sense George Mason or Patrick Henry would have thought of it.

If the government has probable cause that I am a terrorist, they can follow me to their heart's content and I will have very little privacy.

They can tap my phone if they can convince a judge to let them and I will have essentially no privacy.

On the other hand, this legislation has all the potential for turning every transit point in the country into what you experience getting on an airplane.

As I grow older I have more and more the feeling that I am some sort of dinosaur, and (with a bow to C. Darwin) soon to become extinct.

This is so nuts. All these folks who own real estate and hold professional licenses are talking as if they were about to run off into the bush and dodge the black helicopters, and that having a standardized driver's license is going to stop them from doing this.

Haven't we figured out by now that, to a Marxist, rules only point in one direction? If a better I.D. system would strengthen, or even just improve the morale and confidence of, the homeland of the bourgiousie, why then it is the end of liberty. If it would weaken the class enemies as by making them easier to diarm, there's no problem.

Earl:

You're still losing me. Why should your mere identity be secret?

Bruce:

Actually both assumptions are wrong. It needn't make us safer to be a good idea and there is no privacy concern to be outweighed.

Earl:

Who cares what George Mason or Patrick Henry think about roadblocks? It is what our elected officials, judicial scholars and the American people think, and they are all fine with roadblocks. Furthermore, what right do you have to "move about unmolested"?

I will never understand why people base their arguments on what people said 200 hundred years ago. If Patrick Henry and George Mason were alive today, they would just be two men with a certain point of view going up against the majority of us who disagree. As a result, they would lose.

Amazing that once mad-cow disease threatened us, the US government could track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington, and determine exactly what that cow ate. They can also track her calves right to their stalls, and tell you what kind of feed they ate.

But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around in our country, including people that are trying to blow up important structures in the U.S.

Give every illegal alien a cow when they come into the country.

Robert:

Where?:

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

OJ:

It's not about keeping my identity secret. Its about the government not intruding into my daily affairs. The general rule ought to be that it is hard for the government to take your liberty, your money, your property, or in this case your time.

Vince:

I care what Henry and Mason thought the Constitutional bargain was. If most peopole in the Commonwealth had not also thought the same way, Virginia would never have ratified the Constitiution. As it was it passed in the General Assembly by one vote.

Refer to my last paragraph in the previous posting again.

Earl:

they're going to ask who you are when you go to get on a plane--is it really your arguiment that we're all better served if that takes a long time and is grotesquely inefficient?

h:

No one wants to find them--we'd have to clean our own offices and pick our own vegetables. Even uber-nativist Tom Tancredo hires illegals to do his housework.

Earl:

That is my point. Back then the people agreed with Patrick Henry and George Mason. Today, we live in a very different world, and people have a different opinion. Furthermore, who is to say that the founding fathers would still agree with all of their own 200 year old positions if they were alive today?

You should also keep in mind that most people will not sympathize with you if you act as though getting stopped for 20 seconds was so horrible. In fact, most people would probably get upset with you for making such a big deal about it and potentially letting bad guys get away.

Orrin:

The brothersjudd.com icon at the top of the page shows two male figures. I am guessing one of them is supposed to resemble you. If so, which one?

If information wants to be free, doesn't that include information on who you are?

Vince

I think it's the ugly mean one.

I only asked because I was curious.

H-man:

No, that's the Canadian the handsome, kind one is about to shoot.

Surely Earl's misgivings deserve a little more respect. This is like the reverse of those morality issues where one can always dream up tough hypotheticals where breaking laws of general application seems to be ethically justified. There may be no one good reason why someone wants to disappear anonymously, but there are plenty of reasons to fear a government that is steadily increasing it's technological ability to amass information and make use of it. Surely conservatives know better than anyone that powers assumed by government, and especially by bureaucracies, expand by definition and that assurances of citizen protections don't last. And in the modern era of rapidly shifting popular causes, we have no idea what the popular "conception" of rights will be in five years.

In war, many things must give, but otherwise it is not my job to help the state and its agents do their jobs, not even to fight crime, track down deadbeat dads, find bankrupts or whatever. They (the state and its agents) are necessary evils and a general adversarial realtionship between state and citizen is healthy. One of the earliest mistakes on the road to modern barabarism is when, back in the 50's, we started to invite policemen into public schools to give talks to gradeschoolers about how they were really our friends. They aren't, even though we would be toast without them.

Vince,

Orrin is to the left of me!

Orrin -

I disagree, of course. If not to some advantage in some sphere of life, why do it? Why give the government at any level more power? Of course, Schneier's essay details how it could make us less safe, cost money, and decrease privacy (still a concern with me if not you). Other than those disadvantages, it's an OK idea....

Bruce:

What power?

Bruce:

That may be a concern of yours, but it is an unneccessary one.

Peter:

We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people. What you are really suggesting--ironically--is that the government should be a totally seperate entity unaccountable to the people.

OJ: Yes, you have quoted the fourth amendment. That is the constitutionally protected right of privacy.

You can sit at home, in private, and the agents of the government cannot come into your house except on a properly issued warrant.

Its not annonymity. It has nothing to do with medical procedures performed on unborn children in public hospitals by squadrons of strangers or the purchase of contraceptives at drugstores in Connecticut surrounded by thousands of people you do not know.

Not exactly privacy is it?

Vince, your entire argument hinges on the misguided idea that democracy is more valuable and important than freedom. Do you have any idea how un-conservative your view is?

Democracy is simply a means to an end. It is not an end unto itself. Liberty and individual rights -- not voting and popular whim -- are what America is designed to enshrine.

In fact, the mechanics of democracy are one aspect of the same Constitution whose values and writers you decry. What if "the majority" voted to outlaw voting? Where would you turn to show them they can't do that? Now that you've removed the Constitution from your bag of rhetorical ammo, you've got nowhere to turn.

Every person in America, whether citizen, resident alien, guest worker, or captured illegal, should be required to give a DNA sample, the analyzed pattern of which to be maintained in a Federal database.

Although I mourn the loss of anonymity, the simple fact is that whether we like it, agree with it, or not, the future will be ever more and more intrusive, by both public and private organizations.

For now, one can escape it by living as Kaczynski did, alone in a forest, or by taking pains to conduct all public business using a pseudonym, or fake ID.
In the future, even that won't be enough, although there may be active steps one could take to shield one's identity or actions, in certain situations.

We'll all be moving, in the First world, anyhow, through a sea of "smart dust", that will passively track our every move and action.
The saving grace is that, as Vince and jsmith touch on, nobody will care who you are, where you are, or what you're doing, unless you've come to the attention of the authorities. All the tracking will be done by machines, and primarily used to make our lives more convenient, and to advertise to us.

Vince:

I'm happy to see that you support drug legalization, euthanasia, and the Howard Stern show, in such places as a majority of people desire them. Welcome aboard.

Loss of anonymity? How could you ever have a decent society with anonymity?

Tomas:

Freedom and democracy are both just means, not ends.

"Freedom and democracy are both just means, not ends."

In the macro sense, sure. But within the context of my post -- which was about the nature of American government -- democracy is simply a means, and freedom is the end.

Michael:

If the majority of people desire those things and vote for them, then they win. The fact is, Michael, the majority DOES NOT want those things--far from it.

Tomas:

Voting by citizens over 18 is a constitutional right; privacy is not. If two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states want to outlaw voting, then I guess that is what would happen. It would be the biggest bonehead move possible, and it would be purely hypothetical because it would never happen. Don't get wild and crazy and start sounding like the ACLU--that would be unconservative of you.

Vince:

Except where they do want it.

Your refusal to accept that majorities of certain locales disagree with you is puzzling.
It's a matter of public record, and takes but seconds to look up.

Michael:

What on Earth are you talking about?