Talk:REAL ID Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Passed?

This has passed now, hasn't it? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

God damn it :( --I am not good at running 03:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Technically if the president doesn't sign it....ah, who am I kidding. Until PR gets out about how the Sec of HD is now a God amongst men, we're still royally screwed. FireballX301 04:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Struck out?

There seems to be little talk in the mainstream press regarding the fact that this part of the act was struck out? Logically, this seems to mean that it's dead for now, any evidence to the contrary? -- Xanadu 16:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Established to be incorrect. -- Xanadu 01:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe the third paragraph of the “Current Status” section is biased. Its reads like a guide for people against the Bill. It should be just the facts. SenorAnderson 23:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is too biased for you, cut the crap and leave the facts. It is a very controversial subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.163.118 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

THOMSAS @ L.O.C. Too slow!

The thomas registry at the Library of congress is to slow. The revisions shown ae not yet up, and the day Bush signed 1268 to Public Law, there was no revision 6 posted. Still, the actual version that was signed is not there or accessible.

Thomas needs to get things together and get things posted faster so the public can keep up with this stuff. it has been more than a week and the version Bush signed is not yet available so that we can really know which was signed. If anyone has any idea of a way to find this out for sure, please share with us.

grrrrrr..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.16.107 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And Australians?

What, are the yanks seriously picking on the aussies now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.170.242 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you guys now get your own visa category (E-3 visa). That means more of you can come over and work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigen III (talk • contribs) 02:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not being familiar with this law, I initially thought the part about changing visa limits for Australians was vandalism. But it's not. See Section 501: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c10955BdTd:e269084: 12.65.54.195 20:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, we admire u aussies! atleast most people i know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.129.123 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

australia. also known as the 51st state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.14.213 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Acronym?

A lot of the literature surrounding the REAL ID Act capitalizes all the letters in the bill, implying that it is an abbreviation (like the USA PATRIOT Act). What is the long name of the bill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZMan (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed text

such as Mexico since their laws consider guilty until proven innocent as per Napoleonic code.

I removed this statement because it is not true, though certainly there are plenty of due process concerns. -- Beland 20:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

More information needed

Changing visa limits for temporary workers, nurses, and Australians.

That topic isn't covered in the article. Any details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.72.151 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Senate bill

There is no mention of the Senate bill. Apparently it was passed but this section has failed to give any specifics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.176.254 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was considering the last comment when I read the senate passed the bill 100-0. does that seem biased to you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.129.123 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The term States

The Term States Refers to the 50 States, D.C, Puerto Rico, USVI, Guam, American Samoa, Nothern Mariana Islands and Trust Territories from the pacific.

National identification (ID) cards are on the way. Starting in 2008, if you live or work in the U.S., or any U.S. territory, including Puerto Rico, you will be required to carry a federally approved national ID card. That is, U.S. citizens will need the national ID to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

In February, Congress approved a Republican-backed measure compelling states and U.S. territories to issue ID cards and passports with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips embedded in them by no later than 2008. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved an $82 billion military spending bill that will, in part, create federally approved ID cards for all U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

"All states and U.S. possessions, including Puerto Rico, will have to comply with the national ID card requirement. If you want to get into a federal building, on a train or airplane, or even receive your Social Security check, you will need this identification," explained Eduardo Bhatia, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.204.182 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

wow... you are entirely wrong... i guess you didn't read the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.240.28 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How can this be mandated...i have entered a court house (federal building) & boarded an airplane just w/ my State Id...and besides seeing this article I have not seen any ads or other media encouraging people to get these ids!! And its 2009! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atler5264 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Act of Passage

According to what I can glean from Thomas, the REAL ID act was not a rider. It was inserted into the conference report for HR 1268. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.88.181 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It was actually rejected three separate times by the U.S. Senate, and was only passed because it was added to a larger bill containing disaster relief and funding for Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydidit (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the good citizens of this country, liberals and conservatives alike, should be very concerned with the direction of the step this REAL ID is taking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.129.123 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

US Domestic Air Travel without "Real ID" complaint ID

As an ANON visitor I wish to remind those that state that failure to carry an "approved" ID would prevent domestic air travel by carriers of non-approved IDs that a US or any foreign passport would constitute valid ID for US domestic air travel. I *always* carry my US Passport for domestic air travel as the TSA agent need not know anything more about me than I am a US citizen and am identified as documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.115.37 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

While it may not be "bias"...

...the links section contains some links whose description alone makes their legitimacy HIGHLY suspect. 68.39.174.238 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Real id act

Here is a web site to help cancle this bill out....This is one more step of big brother getting bigger... Please sign up today

http://www.nonationalid.com/TakeAction.aspx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.73.159 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh my: "the National ID is leading us into the prophesied world government and its mark of the beast system." I'm sure you can come up with a more reputable anti-Real ID site than that... Offshore1 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What, a prediction 2000 years before the fact isn't good enough for you? Open your eyes, man. Don't reject something merely because it goes against what you've been taught (whether by yourself or others) to think. That only leads to more of the same happening. It's just the same as people in America today still proclaiming mindlessly "we're a free country", and it's the same as the Germans under the Nazis who didn't want to stop and think and realize what was going on. peace (but above that, truth) Ramorum (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Online comment

According to [[ http://www.privacycoalition.org/stoprealid/ ]], there's until 5pm EST on May 8, 2007 to comment on the Act, via: The comments can be submitted in one of three ways:

1. Online through the Federal Rulemaking Portal: [[1]] (search for "DHS-2006-0030-0001" and follow the instructions for submitting comments

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.55.149 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper citations

I added a citation for Utah passing a resolution opposing the REAL ID Act. I was wondering if it is better to cite the actual resolution (http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillenr/hr0002.htm) or the recorded votes (http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/status/hbillsta/hr0002.001h.txt). The actual resolution is obviously more pertinent, but the voting results actually back up what is being said. --66.7.120.2 01:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumption of innocence

I removed the following unreferenced claim from the article:

"Such due process issues include nations, such as Mexico, which do not subscribe to the concept of innocent until proven guilty."

This seems implausible; moreover, traffic tickets are usually an administrative (not criminal) matter, and rights such as presumption of innocence and trial by jury generally do not apply to such cases in U.S. states, either. -- Beland 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Us

This is the first step by the US in brainwashing all of the American people and slowly takign away their individuality. This is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World novel becoming a reality, and people aren't even noticing. Mehicdino 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First step? Dude, we're on step 945 of Section 233, Book 17. Aceholiday (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I thought there were only 10 steps... Ramorum (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

References

I added the references template to the bottom, and touched up some of the references. Also, cleaned up the states compliance area - there was some redundancy, and there wasn't any reference for Tennessee, so I removed it from the list of states that had passed anti-REAL ID Act resolutions. Arrdee 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

42 USC

The article said

In addition, the federal Social Security Administration, (42 U.S.C. § 666(28)), requires the States to maintain a new hire directory. Employers would no longer be able to accept, or ultimately hire, bearers of non-compliant documents for employment.

42 USC section 666 is titled "Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support enforcement". The new hire directory is section 653a, but I don't see any requirement there for employers to require ID of any kind from employees. Even if the States are required to maintain a new hire directory this does not mean they are required to accept federally-approved ID or any ID at all, so some additional citation is required.

It also said

Also, financial institutions are required to assist the Federal Parent Locator Service, ((42 U.S.C. § 666(17)). Financial institutions would require compliant documents from all customers. Bearers of non-compliant documents would be denied financial or banking services.

which suffers from the same kind of problem: the second and third sentences don't follow from the first, and I don't think the first sentence is relevant to the topic.

It also said

Additional federal and state agencies who will require compliant documents are listed, in part, in (42 U.S.C. § 666).

which is, as far as I can tell after reading the whole section, simply not correct.

-- Geoffk01 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota?

The article says both that North Dakota has passed legislation condemning the act, and that Chertoff says it's made progress in complying. I can see how both can be true, but I want to be sure that it's correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.153.115 (talk) 00:35, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Biometric?

I thought the point of this act was to get biometric information yet that word is not found anywhere in the entire text of the article. What is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.206.43.5 (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you specify what you're asking? Aceholiday (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please expand the talk about what biometric data is, how it can be used and by whom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.189.37 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Skepticism

There are quite a few people opposing this Act, and it's easy to see how it can be rapidly seen as a scary proposition, I believe it would be interesting and informative to have a skepticism/criticism/opposition section in the article. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I really should pay more attention to the article. Zulu Inuoe (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading

It should be noted that the law does take effect May 10th, 2008 but STATES have until December 31st, 2009 to be in compliance. http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm Spiritfilledjm (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)spiritfilledjm

2 licenses in 2 states

if you have 2 licenses in 2 states, do you get a letter from "real id administrators" asking you which one you want to keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.188.245 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

thats a good question. i doubt they will contact everyone who have 2 id's. i am guessing they just cancel one of them, without asking you, but the question is, which one do they cancel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.14.213 (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wild guess here, but the one to be rescinded would most likely be the one issued earlier. 01:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.32.17 (talk)

Stating the obvious

Would a knowledgeable editor consider stating the obvious and adding, for the benefit of the world-wide readership, that this is a U.S. statute? I'd do it myself, but I have no understanding of the U.S. legal system. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Ramorum

Ramorum, please discuss your recent edits here instead of accusing me of vandalism for undoing your edit. I will explain here why I think that your recent edit represents a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

You have changed the title of the section "Constitutionality" to "Unconstitutionality" and added a paragraph that reads:

The REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States Constitution: Article I, which does not grant the Congress of the United States the powers asserted in the REAL ID Act. Section 8 enumerates the powers authorized to the United States Congress. The Fourth Amendment, which states: 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. The Tenth Amendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

These are fine legal arguments and I personally agree with them. But they clearly represent a personal judgement (correct as it it may be) on a controversial political topic. But that is not what Wikipedia is about. WP:NPOV implies that statements of opinion, such as The REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States Constitution, are not appropriate in a WP article. It would be perfectly OK to say, however, something like Critics charge that the REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States and then provide a reference to some reliable source where such criticism is raised. As your edit reads now, not only does it represent a statement of opinion, but the way in which this opinion is justified also, in my view, violates WP:NOR. Instead of citing some sources where consititutionality of the Real ID Act is questioned in the way you describe, you list some general legal sources that in your view (and in mine)justify your opinion. This is a clear instance of original research that WP:NOR prohibits.

There are plenty of newsarticles and other reliable sources that criticize the Real ID Act and I think you will not have much trouble finding a few of them that raise the same points as your edit does. So if you want to make a constructive input, please find such sources and add them to the article. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit by Nsk92

First of all, are you familiar with the Constitution of the United States? Please consider (re-?)reading that document in its entirety before making any further edits to this article. You referred to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in your reverting of my edit, but you failed to explain why you label the information as "original research". If the NOR policy considered reading of documents to constitute "original research", then Wikipedia would not exist, because we rely entirely on information which has been documented in other sources.

WP:NPOV states "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." and "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves".

Here are some examples of facts:

• The Tenth Amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This fact is learned by any person of reasonable intelligence with the ability to read the English language when he reads the Tenth Amendment.
• The Constitution does not delegate to the United States 1) the power to maintain a database of information about United States citizens, 2) the power to give funding to states, or 3) the power to force states to act in a certain way by threatening to revoke funding. This fact is learned by any person of reasonable intelligence with the ability to read the English language who reads the whole of the United States Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 8.
• Neither of these facts is debatable. The words of the Constitution are unambiguous.

WP:NPOV makes an important distinction between POV and presentation of facts:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

The REAL ID Act is evil. However, that statement is clearly not considered NPOV and is not included in the main article, with good reason. The statement "The REAL ID Act is unconstitutional", however, is a statement of plain fact and does not violate NPOV. Whether unconstitutional laws should be allowed to pass and whether they should be kept and enforced is something that may be debated and a statement like "The REAL ID Act should be repealed" has no place here. However, the statement that the REAL ID Act is unconstitutional, backed up with an absolute source such as the Constitution itself, followed by a citation from another source about unconstitutional laws in the United States in general (which is also used in the Constitutionality article) is not biased.

Ramorum (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we need a third opinion here or some other form of mediation. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stating "The REAL ID Act is evil" is original research without a quote and a cite that makes this claim. Yaf (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wrote most of the above before you wrote yours, hence "you failed to explain". It would have been more appropriate for you to have written an explanation before you reverted my edit. I agree that additional sources which agree with the factual statements I made should be added. However, that is no cause for deleting unbiased, factual information before additional references are added. I will look into adding more sources. Ramorum (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors here, as it seems clear that you and I have a different understanding of WP:NPOV. I am all for factual and neutral statements such as "The Congress passed...", "she said ...", "the battle took place..." etc. However, a statement like "This law violates the U.S. constitution because..." is, however correct and well-justified it may be (and in this case it certainly is!), represents a statement of opinion and judgement. This may be OK in some completely noncontroversial circumstances, but not here, where the subject of an ongoing political controversy is addressed. As I said, in my view this is clearly against WP:NPOV. On the other hand, it would be perfectly fine to say something like "Critics charge that the law violates the U.S. Consititution because..." and provide some references. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the content in violation of WP:SYN and re-labeled the section as "Constitutionality". Labeling it "Unconstitutionality" presupposes the outcome and is not balanced. Also removed content in violation of WP:OR. Yaf (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Labeling it "Unconstitutionality" does not presuppose anything, it just clarifies that the issue discussed in that section is regarding the unconstitutionality of the Act. Wikipedia is about facts, not balance. Reading "A" and "not A" in two different places and concluding that the two are not in agreement does not constitute original research. Ramorum (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I edited the text to, instead of stating the obvious, say that many consider the REAL ID Act unconstitutional, and I added additional references confirming this. Some of the other references and links in this page probably make some of the same positions even though they're not cited in this section. Ramorum (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramorum, I looked at your latest edit. In my view, although it is a little better than your earlier version, your last edit is still violates both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. First, about POV. The statement "The Real ID Act is thought to violate..." is a little better than "The Real ID Act violates...", but it is still not good enough. "Is thought to violate" would be an acceptable statement if it reflected overwhelming consensus and was not controversial. But the judgement that the Real ID Act violates the U.S. Constitution is, at the moment, quite far from reflecting overwhelming consensus. The courts have not ruled so. None of the states has even filed a constitutional court challenge to the Act (which personally very much disappoints me!). The Congress has not repealed the law. The president and his administration support it and (unfortunately, in my view) most states seem to be willing to comply with it. And so on. Given all of this, it is not OK to say that you are "stating the obvious". It would, however, be OK to change the stentence in question to "The Real ID Act is thought by many critics to violate..." or something like that (and provide references that raise this criticism explicitly).

Second, regarding OR. If you read carefully WP:NOR, especially the WP:SYN section, you will see why the way you present your argument violates WP:NOR. WP:SYN mandates that one is allowed to summarize the published material but NOT to synthesize published material to advance a particular position. WP:SYN also says that "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research". There is (of course!) no explicit mention of the Real ID Act in the Constitution, which makes citing the Constitution here to advance your point inappropriate. There is also a specific example in WP:SYN that is very relevant to this situation:

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones:

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

That much is fine. Now comes the unpublished synthesis of published material. The following material was added to that same Wikipedia article just after the above two sentences:

If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Chicago Manual of Style, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Chicago Manual of Style does not call violating this rule "plagiarism." Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them.

This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Chicago Manual of Style's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the OR once again. To insert the claim of unconstitutionality, it will be necessary to find a source that states it is unconstitutional. And, if the sourced statement gives reasons why, all the better. Again, the WP:SYN issue prevents doing the research yourself in accord with primary sources. WP requires verifiability, not necessarily truth, to determine whether text can remain. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the page. Read what I said above, and read the content you removed. I have found references which state it is unconstitutional. And yes, the sourced statement gives reasons why.

Applying SP:SYN to this situation is misguided. The Constitution is not just a "primary" source, it's the definitive source, and it should be presented here. Ramorum (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Real ID Act is thought by many critics to violate..." or something like that (and provide references that raise this criticism explicitly). -- Then why don't you do that? Do something useful instead of just harming Wikipedia by removing meaningful content which expresses a not only true but also widely-held position. IMO the unconstitutionality of the REAL ID Act *does* have an overwhelming consensus. Those who don't hold that view aren't even considering the Constitution at all. They've forgotten (willfully, for the most part) that the Constitution even exists to govern the decisions and actions of Congress, the President, and the courts. That said, if you disagree, make minor changes, but don't remove the entire content again. That goes for both of you and anyone else. Ramorum (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing OR is not vandalism. Have removed the OR once more. If you want to include this point, then you need to find a source that makes this claim, and properly cite it. Making original research claims based upon reading the Constitution is not permitted in WP. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're doing is vandalism. The sources are cited. Do not edit this article until you have actually read them. Ramorum (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nsk92 said There is (of course!) no explicit mention of the Real ID Act in the Constitution, which makes citing the Constitution here to advance your point inappropriate. -- That's incorrect and unsound reasoning. For one, since the Constitution enumerates what *may* be done by Congress and says nothing else may be done, there is no requirement for the Constitution to explicitly mention the REAL ID Act. Second, the REAL ID Act, by its very nature as a bill passed by Congress, makes the explicit claim that it is in agreement with the Constitution, and Congress by its act of passing the bill also makes the claim. To say that the Constitution is not an essential source in *any* discussion of the REAL ID Act is ludicrous. Ramorum (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguments you make are a fine and correct political and legals argument for why the Real ID Act is unconstitutional. It is certainly perfectly OK to make these arguments in the public sphere, e.g. in a letter to a newspaper or to a Congress member or on a website of some political organization. However, making these arguments in a Wikipedia article is not appropriate, as it violates both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Thus WP:NOR clearly implies that a source could be used to reference a particular statement only if the source in question explicitly makes that statement. Thus it is pefectly OK to reference the U.S. Constitution in a WP article for some statements that are explicitly made in the Constitution. E.g., something like "The U.S. Constitution vests the chief execitive power of the United States in a President of the United States" would be a perfectly fine statement to reference to the U.S.Constitution in a WP article. However, the statement that the Real ID Act violates the Constitution is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. Making such a statement requires inference and evaluative judgment. Therefore making a statement in a WP article "The Real ID Act violates the Constitution because ..." and citing the Constitution is a reference is against WP:NOR. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing the article. Instead, I am keeping it to a high standard by removing content that is in dispute and that is not properly sourced and cited. Please find a source that claims the REAL ID Act is unconstitutional, identify the source, cite it, using quotes or whatever, and no one will complain at all. On the other hand, making an interpretation of the Constitution relative to the REAL ID act is in violation of WP:NOR, and your interpretation (or mine, either, for that matter) cannot be used as a source. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramorum, I suggest, if you are willing, that we try to work out a consensus version of a section dealing with constitutionality of the Real ID here, on the talk page, and then, if a reasonable agreement is achieved, edit the main file. To my mind, there are two things to do: 1) Give a concise and accurate summary of the constitutional criticism of the Real ID Act, and 2) cite some reliable sources as references for where this criticism is raised. On point 2), I think that we need to find better sources that the ones your used in your last edit. E.g., you cited [2], which is a blog. A blog is usually viewed as a poor choice of a reliable sources for WP purposes, and it is much better to try to find some newsarticle or a position statement of a political organization where the same issue is raised. In this respect you "Tenth amendment center" [3] is a little better but is still somewhat questionable. On the other hand, I think that the position paper of the Constitution Party [4], that you also cited, is OK as a source. Regarding (1), how about the following text:

Critics charge that the Real ID Act violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the Act is a piece of a federal legislation in an area that, under the terms of the Tenth Amendment, is the province of the states. (Insert references to where this criticism is raised). The Act is also often criticized as an unfunded mandate by the Federal Government on the states, which is also considered by many to be an infringement of states' rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. (References). Critics also assert that the Real ID Act violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, providing protections against unreasonable searchers and seizures, in that the Act infringes on the privacy rights of individuals and limits the ability of law-abiding citizens to travel and to obtain employment. (Insert references).

How does that sound, as a rough start? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "unfunded mandate" is that funded or not, the Act is unconstitutional. Also, federal funding of state projects is in itself unconstitutional. Yes, we should find sources that say so explicitly. But including "unfunded mandate" here shifts the issue away from the Constitution (which is the subject of this section), although adding that issue to another part of the page might be OK. Ramorum (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ramorum: OK, the unfunded mandate criticism does not have to be mentioned in the constitutional section (although it does belong somewhere on the page, since this is a particularly widespread criticism of the Real ID Act). My main question is if you are willing to try to work out a compromise version of the constitutional issues section here, on the talk page first, before editing the main article. Another possibility (which I personally would also agree to) is to request mediation, as described in WP:M. It is clear that me and Yaf, one one side, and you on the other side, substantially differ in our understanding of the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. The only caveat is that both sides would have to agree to abide by the results of the mediation before it starts (see WP:M). I, on my part, would be perfectly happy to follow whatever resolution the mediators would reach. What do you think? Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have once again removed the original research section claiming the act is unconstitutional. A reliable source is required claiming this before this may go into the article. Quoting the US Constitution is not a reliable source in this context, as it is subject to many interpretations that vary widely. Please work with other editors to achieve a consensus before inserting this once more. Thank you. Yaf (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Since things seem to have quited down here for the moment, I edited the constitutionality subsection of the article and added some sourced info regarding the tenth and the first amendment constitutional criticism. I have looked around quite a bit on the internet, but so far I have not found solid sources (in the sense of WP:SOURCES and WP:RS) to cite regarding the forth amendment constitutional criticism (most of what I found were blogs and discussion forums). I'll keep looking but if someone has some specific suggestions, please make them known here. I think that, for balance, one might mention in the article that in the DHS final rule [5], DHS discusses and rejects a number of constitutional objections raised by commenters during the public comment period on the DHS regulations. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. From what I've read so far, they're full of shit. For example, in their discussion of the Tenth Amendment violations, they say One commenter wrote ... under the Tenth Amendment, such State authority generally is not subject to encroachment by the Federal government.

But in their "response", they don't mention the Tenth Amendment at all and make no attempt to say that their policies are consistent with it:

Response: DHS recognizes both the important national interest in secure identity documents and the Federalism implications of the policies which underpin this rule. Accordingly, DHS has welcomed and encouraged State participation in this process and, where possible, drafted these rules in such a way as to maximize State discretion. Where the exigencies of national security and the need to prevent identity fraud have militated in favor of a uniform national standard (e.g., baseline security features on identity cards and background check requirements), DHS has, as reflected above, consulted with States in order to ensure that the uniform standards prescribed could be attained by the States and would reflect the accumulated security experience of State motor vehicles administrations.

While for the sake of completeness it might be a good idea to include a reference to this DHS document, I don't think it's appropriate to say they actually addressed the arguments. The fundamental issue regarding the Tenth Amendment is that the federal government simply doesn't have the authority, and their claim about "consulting" with states doesn't address that at all. They're more evasive than anything. Articles of Confederation, anyone? If I have more time before someone else gets to it I'll look for more references, especially regarding the Fourth Amendment. Ramorum (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A Third Opinion on the NPOV dispute

The Constitution is a very ambiguous and disputed document. There are often several opinions on how a particular aspect of the Constitution should be applied. As far is I am concerned, Wikipedia should not say that something is unconstitutional unless a court rules thus, and even then it should say something like "this court found this language unconstitutional for this reason". Unless it is almost unheard of for anyone disagree, such as that the world is round (which the Flat Earth Society does contest), Wikipedia should not state something as absolute truth. Wikipedia must state opinions "fairly, proportionally, and without bias" per WP:NPOV. Clearly, there are many people who believe that this act is constitutional because it passed Congress. Also, "Is thought to violate" uses weasel words. If you can find reliable sources which argue that the act is unconstitutional, you can add their arguments. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed yes, ambiguous no. It is in fact impossible for a reasonably intelligent human being fluent in the English language and free from bias to read the Constitution and come away believing that it authorizes the federal government to have anything to do with driver licenses or ID cards. The specific violations I listed are obvious to any rational person. As for courts, their decisions are often unconstitutional, and the Constitution does not establish the courts as the rulers on the Constitution. We should not fail to present information from important documents such as the Constitution which contradict the REAL ID Act. Wikipedia states plenty of things as absolute truth and this is often never challenged. The fact is, A != ~A IS absolute truth, and should be stated as such. "Clearly, there are many people who believe that this act is constitutional because it passed Congress." -- You are using incorrect reasoning here, to assume that Congress believes what they are doing is constitutional. I do not believe they do. Ramorum (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

These are your views, they are not shared by most people. Can you produce a reliable source which states that Congress routinely intentionally violates the Constitution. Courts have been accepted as the interpereters of the Constitution since Marbury v Madison. Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish your theories. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can. See below.

This measure includes funding for such unconstitutional programs as overseas corporate welfare for big US corporations, funding for Bosnia activities, the UN's so-called peace-keeping missions in Sinai and Cyprus, and a wide variety of direct foreign aide packages.

In the first place, there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to take money from the taxpayer and then transfer it overseas, and there is certainly no basis - constitutional or moral - for spending taxpayers' money in foreign countries to pay for the wholesale slaughter of children.

The second piece of legislation to be considered this week will be the 1998 appropriations bill for the Labor Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. These departments, and their related agencies, are entirely unconstitutional, have been completely ineffective, and when one looks at their stated goals they are in fact destructive. This appropriations act will spend at least $80 billion to continue funding these departments, and the systematic attack on the constitutional principles their existence represents.[6]

A cursory examination of the annual appropriations bills reveals incredible amounts of unconstitutional, wasteful, and truly unnecessary spending.[7]

Over the past century, however, the unconstitutional notion of judicial supremacy has emerged in American politics. We have come to view courts as omnipotent superlegislatures which can substitute their wisdom rather than follow the law.[8]

Yet while Congress finds hundreds of billions to fund every conceivable unconstitutional program and special-interest pork project, it fails to provide adequately for our nation's veterans.[9]

We conveniently forget, however, that American tax dollars militarized the entire region in the first place. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.[10]

This man's spent 18 years in Congress -- there's no denying his reliability on the subject. Ramorum (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but just because Ron Paul thinks Congress violates the Constitution doesn't mean you can put your own interpretation of the Constitution onto Wikipedia as truth. If you can find a reliable source that says the act is unconstitutional for this reason, you can write "so and so says the act is unconstitutional for this reason", but as you yourself stated the meanings of many passages in the Constitution are disputed so we have to represent all views related to the Constitution proportionally to their adherence from reliable sources. For example, I suspect that you don't buy the "implied powers" argument and Ron Paul does not either, but there are many experts on Constitutional law who do, so you can't just dismiss their arguments. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment responses

If this article directly asserts that the ID act would be unconstitutional, then it should NOT do so. Those opinions should be clearly attributed to reliable sources. In other words, I agree with Asmodeus Samael BigK HeX (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've done some substantial editing of the article in the last couple of days. I've added a new section about verification requirements of the Real ID act and moved some data from other sections there.

I have also removed, for now, the following sentences from the "Minimum nationwide standards for state driver's licenses or ID cards" section and changed the title of that section:

Employers would no longer be able to accept, or ultimately hire, bearers of non-compliant documents for employment.

Financial institutions would require compliant documents from all customers.

Bearers of non-compliant documents would be denied financial or banking services.

These statements appear to be factually incorrect, or at the very least non-verifiable. I looked through the text of the real ID act and the DHS rule carefully and have not found anything there to directly support the above statements. I also did an extensive internet search, with the same result. If I am wrong about this, please correct me.

Perhaps the stuff about banking and employment belongs in the "Ctiticism" section of the article, and I'll look for sources that raise these points.

Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a bit more of looking around. It appears that many people and advocacy groups do believe that the Real ID Act requires people opening a bank account to have Real ID compliant driver's licence, since banks are federally regulated, e.g. [11] [12] On the other hand, the text of the law itself and the DHS rules do not seem to support this view. The DHS final rule on the Real ID implementation [13] says:

Comment: Many commenters wrote that obtaining a REAL ID could become a requirement for participation in American life, and that a REAL ID could be used for purposes beyond what is contemplated today, such as controlling gun ownership or smoking. Another commenter wrote that implementing REAL ID would undoubtedly result in a system that political and agency heads would not restrain themselves from using and expanding in the future, and that REAL ID would become a practical necessity for anyone wishing to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security benefits, or take advantage of other government benefit programs. Other commenters wrote that the result would be a dividing of the citizenry into those who have REAL identification cards and those who do not, with the later group subject to suspicion. One commenter urged DHS to make clear in the final regulations that driver's license numbers and ID card numbers must be unique within a State and that the REAL ID cards should not have a nationally standard format.

Response: DHS agrees with the comment that a driver's license or identification card number needs to be unique only within a State and need not be a unique nationally identifying number. DHS also understands the concerns raised in the comments about how a REAL ID might be used outside of the defined "official purposes" identified in the Act and this final rule. DHS does not intend that a REAL ID document become a de facto national identification card. Whether States choose to require presentation of a REAL ID for State purposes is not within the purview of DHS's authority under the Act--which applies to documents that Federal agencies can accept for official purposes--and thus is outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

The text of the Real ID Act itself defines "official purpose" as follows: The term "official purpose" includes but is not limited to accessing Federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purposes that the Secretary shall determine.

Since banks are not federal agencies or facilities, it does not appear to me that the Real ID Act would require a Real ID compliant card to be presented when opening a bank account. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added some sourced info about possible requirements of having a Real ID licence for opening bank accounts, etc, to the National ID card controversy subsection of the article. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph and several new references to the subsection dealing with the privacy controversy. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added an opening paragraph to the Controversy and opposition section of the article, and included info about the positions of the 08 presidential candidates on the Real ID Act. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Controversies section I've added a subsection "Congressional efforts to change or repeal the Real ID Act". Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Controversies section I added a subsection about the Congressional passage procedure controversy. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed California, from the list of States that have remained supportive of it with this news, and I suggest we either leave it as be or add it to the states that oppose it due to this news: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/24/0225254 Taboo Tongue (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The REAL ID Act has been mentioned in numerous conspiracy theories as one way a few powerful evil people will secure more control over the masses. It's retarded, I know, but it's notable enough to be mentioned.--Loodog (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but only briefly, and only if coverage of such views by non-fringe reliable sources is available, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. Nsk92 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are powerful people in this world that will take over this world, read the bible, and this is just another act to make it legal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.221.144 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Redux

In my opinion, this article is blatantly biased against the act. Of particular note is the controvery section, containing such gems as a list of the states that have 'pending' legislation against the act. I could make the same list for states with pending marajuana legalization legislation; almost every state would be on it. That doesn't mean the state is actually opposed to it. The article makes it seem like the entire country is against the act, when that is clearly not the case. I don't have the time or energy to fix it, but I am adding NPOV tags so that maybe somebody else will. Lexi (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)