Now we just need states to require photo id to verify voting status (Georgia just passed a law like this) to reduce voter fraud, particularly in the big cities.

What about the old Libertarian canard that "The Founding Fathers just wanted to be left alone! That's what the American Revolution was all about!" I never know how to counter that one.

In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
-Thomas Jefferson

It's long overdue by at least six years. Agree with AWW too.

Jefferson's quote does not apply because a private citizen's rights is not a "question of power." "Questions of power" deal with officials in the government.

Mr. Durnell is quite correct that Mr. Judd has the quote exactly backwards. Jefferson was commenting on how to limit government power, i.e. don't have confidence that the feds will do the right thing about ID cards, but bind them via the Constitution to not be able to do that.

The Constitution is conspicuously silent on the imagined right to privacy.

GB, I wasn't aware our FF needed licenses to drive their wagons/carriages.

Sandy:
I wasn't aware that I was talking about the "FF's" need for carriage licenses. Unless you're talking about the Fantastic Four, that is. I'm strongly opposed to Jessica Alba's casting as Sue Storm.

Mr. Judd;

Irrelevant. The Constitution is a document of the enumerated powers of the federal government which explicitly states that powers not so enumerated are not permitted to that government. That means if the Constitution is silent, then the federal government can't do it and be in compliance with the Constitution.

Therefore the "right to privacy" is a red herring. The significant Constitutional question is, where in the enumerated powers of the federal government is the right to issue and require a national ID card?

AOG: The act deals with immigration and the use of driver's licenses in interstate commerce. Both clearly federal powers under the constitution.

AOG:

Rights place a few restrictions on what the government can do in fulfilling its purposes, among which is to provide for the common defense. The point is there is no constitutional basis for objecting to identifying yourself.

"If a state does not comply with any provision of the law, its residents would no longer be able to use their driver's licenses for federal identification purposes, such as for boarding a plane."

This is not the Feds setting up a national ID card. This is very carefully crafted *not* to take power from the states. They're just saying "Do it right, or we won't recognize your IDs as meaningful." I'm pretty sure it's the "no illegals" thing combined with the reduction in noexistant and/or dead people getting licenses and then voting that has the Democrats running scared.

This is such a crock. Responsible people have things like professional licenses, academic degrees, real estate, legally registered and insured automobiles--the list goes on and on--that set out our identity. There is no down side to an authentic identity document, the opposition generated by the death throes of a failed political coalition to cling to existence via voter fraud.

"From whence arises the absurd notion that you have some reasonable expectancy that your very identity can be kept private?"

They have created a persistent confusion between privacy and anonymity. the two actually have little connection.