Devvy Kidd -- New Hampshire rejects national ID: "NEW HAMPSHIRE REJECTS NATIONAL ID
March 20, 2006
'Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.' --James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788
If it's one thing architects of totalitarian government out in Washington, DC, despise, it's when the states of the Union stand up and say no! We are seeing more and more state legislatures rebuff the unconstitutional laws coming out of Washington, DC, than we have in decades. One MAJOR victory came last week, although there hasn't been a peep out of any media that I've seen or read:
The New Hampshire House voted overwhelmingly to reject the Transportation Committee's recommendation of ITL and in a subsequent motion to pass HB 1582, forbidding any state agency from participating in any national ID requirement. The bill is succinct and to the point:"
AN ACT prohibiting New Hampshire from participating in a national identification card system.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
Prohibition Against Participation in National Identification System. The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 through 10 of the New Hampshire constitution as well as Amendments 4 though 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire shall not participate in a national identification card system; nor shall the department of safety amend the procedures for applying for a driver's license under RSA 263 or an identification card under RSA 260:21. (text of bill)
may the federal government use other actors in the governmental system and the private sector as its agents and give them orders as though they were parts of a prefectorial system? The short answer is "no." State governments are independent, although subordinated, sovereignties, not subdivisions of the federal government.
"Although the federal government may regulate many of their functions directly [as well, for example, it subjects state water districts to the Clean Water Act], it may not require them to exercise their own governmental powers in a manner dictated by federal law. The states may be encouraged, bribed or threatened into entering into joint federal state programs of various sorts, from unemployment insurance to Medicaid; but they may not be commanded directly to use their own governmental apparatus in the service of federal policy. There is a modest jurisprudence of the Tenth Amendment that seems to have settled on this proposition. See the DOJ [Dept. of Justice] memorandum for a fuller elaboration."
What does this mean from a constitutional position? It means that the government can bribe the states, they can threaten them, but in fact, the states cannot be forced to get down on their knees to the federal machine.
In my letter to my state rep, senator and Mr. Arnie, I provided a copy of that memorandum as well as these three cases for their legal staff to use in drafting legislation just like New Hampshire:
Marbury v Madison, U.S. v Lopez and Printz/Mack vs US.
Contrast the statement from Doyle's office with the language in the bill out of New Hampshire. This is what the people of Wisconsin need to do immediately: Call your state legislator and state senator.