NationStates Jolt Archive

Article (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2007/02/05/news/state/20070205_arizona_news_41.txt)

It looks like some states are fighting back. I can only hope this really doesn't pass.

Article (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2007/02/05/news/state/20070205_arizona_news_41.txt)

It looks like some states are fighting back. I can only hope this really doesn't pass.

considering the nature of a car, and a driver, I see no good reason why drivers licenses should not be federally standardized and administered.

States don't want this to go through because they want to collect the money from fees and stuff that people have to pay to get driver's licenses, plates, etc. They don't want that money going to the federal governement. Just my cynical take on why they want to keep this at a state level. That and some states have such out-there laws abotu driver's licenses (last I heard, AZ only required renewal every 20-some-odd years) that standardizing those rules would be a major pain.

That said, I don't trust my state's government any more than I trust the federal government. Pis on both of them and piss on this new policy; I'll take the devil I know.

considering the nature of a car, and a driver, I see no good reason why drivers licenses should not be federally standardized and administered.

You're probably right and we will probably someday have this, but I agree with Morgana, I'm against it, too. While we're undoubtedly on our way to the kind of country in which you need to have your papers handy at all times, it's the outward appearance of that that disturbs me. At least, wait another 20 or 25 years until I die, then do whatever, I won't care.

Besides, a lot of states use driver's license records to put together the lists of who gets called for jury duty. People don't stampede down to the courthouse for that and the states haven't very many other ways of gathering a pool of people.

Why not? If you can freely drive from Oregon to California, surely the required licence should be the same for both. Perhaps a better solution could be minimum standards for licences and ensure all states accept licences from other states.

You're probably right and we will probably someday have this, but I agree with Morgana, I'm against it, too. While we're undoubtedly on our way to the kind of country in which you need to have your papers handy at all times, it's the outward appearance of that that disturbs me. At least, wait another 20 or 25 years until I die, then do whatever, I won't care.

There is a HUGE day between having a federal ID, and being required to have that ID.

I am very much against being required to carry an ID at all times. I am very much FOR drivers licenses being handled by the federal government, not the states.

Very seperate concepts.

Besides, a lot of states use driver's license records to put together the lists of who gets called for jury duty. People don't stampede down to the courthouse for that and the states haven't very many other ways of gathering a pool of people.

Tax forms.

States don't want this to go through because they want to collect the money from fees and stuff that people have to pay to get driver's licenses, plates, etc. They don't want that money going to the federal governement. Just my cynical take on why they want to keep this at a state level. That and some states have such out-there laws abotu driver's licenses (last I heard, AZ only required renewal every 20-some-odd years) that standardizing those rules would be a major pain.

That said, I don't trust my state's government any more than I trust the federal government. Pis on both of them and piss on this new policy; I'll take the devil I know.

actually AZ's doesn't have to get renewed until you are 65 unless you move.

Hubby's expiration date on his license was 2040. ;)

what the hell's wrong with standardised driving standards? i mean, it might make sense to have state driving licenses only if you could only drive in that state, but when you're driving on one state's license which doesn't meet the standards of the next state's standards you are effectively endangering the lives of the latter state's other road users by that state's standards.

reminds me of the idiocy of jersey driving licenses. jersey is a tiny island (9 miles by 5) divided into 12 parishes. licenses are issued by the parish halls. if you live in my parish and you pass your standard driving test you are licensed to drive cars and trikes and light motorbikes (up to 125cc i believe). if you live in st ouen's (another parish) and you pass your standard driving test you are lisensed to drive everything, including artics, tracked vehicles and large commercial passenger vehicles! I guess it's the US in a microcosm in this respect.

There is a HUGE day between having a federal ID, and being required to have that ID.

I am very much against being required to carry an ID at all times. I am very much FOR drivers licenses being handled by the federal government, not the states.

Very seperate concepts.



Tax forms.

True, but for some reason they seem to like the driver's licenses. And anyway, the only time driving with an out-of-state license is an issue is when you move from one state to the other and perhaps if you get pulled over, but even then, no one questions it if you have a valid license.

One of the issues here is that if the Feds issue driver's licenses, they'll be better able to keep track of illegal immigrants (:eek:). So in a sense, the licenses do become national ID papers.

Why not? If you can freely drive from Oregon to California, surely the required licence should be the same for both. Perhaps a better solution could be minimum standards for licences and ensure all states accept licences from other states.

uh... licenses are already accepted out of state.

The problem is that this is more than just a driver's license, at least as Congress passed it a few years ago. It's an identity thief's wet dream.

True, but for some reason they seem to like the driver's licenses. And anyway, the only time driving with an out-of-state license is an issue is when you move from one state to the other and perhaps if you get pulled over, but even then, no one questions it if you have a valid license.

One of the issues here is that if the Feds issue driver's licenses, they'll be better able to keep track of illegal immigrants (:eek:). So in a sense, the licenses do become national ID papers.

an optional photo identification that is only required if you wish to undertake certain activities, which you are under no legal obligation to perform, is no more a national ID paper than a passport.

I am talking about a DRIVERS LICENSE, which is exactly what I said. You don't have to have one, you don't need one, you are only required to get one IF you wish to drive.

How is that ANY different than a passport, something you don't have to have, don't legally need, and are only required to get if you wish to travel internationally?

The problem is that this is more than just a driver's license, at least as Congress passed it a few years ago. It's an identity thief's wet dream.

as I said, I am for a national drivers license, not national required ID.

Yes, but the main argument for supporters (according to the article)

The law's supporters say it is needed to prevent terrorists and illegal immigrants from getting fake identification cards.

I guess I don't understand exactly how this would prevent people switching from making fake State I.Ds to National I.Ds.

actually AZ's doesn't have to get renewed until you are 65 unless you move.

Hubby's expiration date on his license was 2040. ;)

Is that how it is? I knew it was some incredibly long time, but wasn't sure what...all I can say is this: If they print the governor's name on your driver's license when you get it, you had damn well better like the governor. Here in Ohio, they do that, but you get a new license every four years, and that's fine with me; I wouldn't want to be saddled with a license that has Bob Taft's name on it until I was 65.

I don't see what the big deal is. Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see privacy issues at stake (the IDs we have are already in state databases which can be accessed by the feds easily...why does that matter?)
We aren't being required to get one any more than we already are, and it makes life easier for bartenders, liquor stores, etc.

as I said, I am for a national drivers license, not national required ID.
what's the difference?
Is that how it is? I knew it was some incredibly long time, but wasn't sure what...all I can say is this: If they print the governor's name on your driver's license when you get it, you had damn well better like the governor. Here in Ohio, they do that, but you get a new license every four years, and that's fine with me; I wouldn't want to be saddled with a license that has Bob Taft's name on it until I was 65.

I don't think it has the governor's name on it.

an optional photo identification that is only required if you wish to undertake certain activities, which you are under no legal obligation to perform, is no more a national ID paper than a passport.

I am talking about a DRIVERS LICENSE, which is exactly what I said. You don't have to have one, you don't need one, you are only required to get one IF you wish to drive.

How is that ANY different than a passport, something you don't have to have, don't legally need, and are only required to get if you wish to travel internationally?
The driver's license is the shell under which is hidden the real agenda--a national ID Card. They're framing it as a driver's license because that's the way to sell it--and lots of people here are buying, because on a certain level it makes sense. But the long term point of this is to make every citizen carry an ID card which contains everything necessary to insert yourself into society on it, and that makes identity thieves drool with anticipation.

Also, all that information is going to be on a government database somewhere--do you really trust the feds to keep that info safe?

what's the difference?

Is a drivers license a required state ID? No, you do not have to get one at all, and nobody requires you to have one unless you plan on driving, it can also be used as a tool to establish age and identity in certain private transactions, but is not required to have under penalty of law.

How would a federal drivers license be ANY different? Most european countries have national drivers licenses (in that they're not federal systems) but those aren't REQUIRED for any other reasons than the ones I just said.

Just because the federal government would start to manage drivers licenses wouldn't magically make them legally required to have on your person at all times any more so than states do.

Moreover there already IS a federal ID. It's called a passport. only 1 in 4 americans actually owns one and, unless you're traveling, very very few leave the house with them on a daily basis. That isn't mandatory, why the hell would this be?

The driver's license is the shell under which is hidden the real agenda--a national ID Card. They're framing it as a driver's license because that's the way to sell it--and lots of people here are buying, because on a certain level it makes sense. But the long term point of this is to make every citizen carry an ID card which contains everything necessary to insert yourself into society on it, and that makes identity thieves drool with anticipation.

Also, all that information is going to be on a government database somewhere--do you really trust the feds to keep that info safe?

I know, I'm not in favor of THIS ID. I have no problems, and in fact am in favor of federal DRIVERS LICENSE. That's it. I am not in favor of mandatory government IDs, not at all.

But federal driver's license is a good idea.

uh... licenses are already accepted out of state.
Ah, I assumed that if different states had different licences they wouldn't have to accept them. I assumed that would be why your government would want to deal with licences at a federal level.

The driver's license is the shell under which is hidden the real agenda--a national ID Card. They're framing it as a driver's license because that's the way to sell it--and lots of people here are buying, because on a certain level it makes sense. But the long term point of this is to make every citizen carry an ID card which contains everything necessary to insert yourself into society on it, and that makes identity thieves drool with anticipation.

Also, all that information is going to be on a government database somewhere--do you really trust the feds to keep that info safe?

yes. its a back door national id card.

maybe we need one, maybe we dont. but what we DO need is honest debate about it not some stupid nationalized driver's license.

there is NO need for national standards for driving.

I know, I'm not in favor of THIS ID. I have no problems, and in fact am in favor of federal DRIVERS LICENSE. That's it. I am not in favor of mandatory government IDs, not at all.

But federal driver's license is a good idea.

only if the feds are going to start administering driving tests.

only if the feds are going to start administering driving tests.

part and parcel of handling driver's licenses after all.

I'm a bit confused. As described in the article, this isn't really a "national driver's license." It is still your good old state driver's license, except that there are federal standards if you want it to be recognized as ID in certain situations (like flying). States can either comply or not comply, as far as I can tell.

We could certainly argue over what those standards should be, but I'm not going to get all up in arms over federally recognized standards in general.

Hellos,

I like what Infinite Revolution said (page 1, about 1/2 way down):
what the hell's wrong with standardised driving standards? i mean, it might make sense to have state driving licenses only if you could only drive in that state, but when you're driving on one state's license which doesn't meet the standards of the next state's standards you are effectively endangering the lives of the latter state's other road users by that state's standards.

reminded me of the difference between "marriage" and "civil union".

civil union is where you can only get st8 stuff in the state of issue, marriage is where you can get it in any state.

but seriously, you paranoid, agoraphobics out there, what is wrong with a federalized driver's licence?

you already carry a drivers licence on you when you drive! so constant carry is already necessary! *and it weighs SO much! :rolleyes: *

your end of world number *666-phobics*, yeah, its called your social security number you dolt! stop trippin!

all i hear is "the world is ending!!! the sky is falling!!!"

well yeah, its called democracy, you voted/*or not* for this to happen! you got what you voted for, or you got what you deserved by not voting!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

the usa needs a binky,
i need an adult section,
-"Rafe"

I'm a bit confused. As described in the article, this isn't really a "national driver's license." It is still your good old state driver's license, except that there are federal standards if you want it to be recognized as ID in certain situations (like flying). States can either comply or not comply, as far as I can tell.This is essentially what we have in Canada. Provinces could choose to keep their own low-security licences, but since they were easier to fake, they weren't accepted as ID anymore (by most reputable places). So provinces signed on to the more secure ID. And Big Brother hasn't put his foot on our necks since they came out so...what's the problem here?

I'm a bit confused. As described in the article, this isn't really a "national driver's license." It is still your good old state driver's license, except that there are federal standards if you want it to be recognized as ID in certain situations (like flying). States can either comply or not comply, as far as I can tell.

We could certainly argue over what those standards should be, but I'm not going to get all up in arms over federally recognized standards in general.

so you think that we need a national id card and that that card should be the driver's license?

if your state doesnt comply, you cant get on a plane without a passport. think about it.

You're probably right and we will probably someday have this, but I agree with Morgana, I'm against it, too. While we're undoubtedly on our way to the kind of country in which you need to have your papers handy at all times, it's the outward appearance of that that disturbs me. At least, wait another 20 or 25 years until I die, then do whatever, I won't care.

Besides, a lot of states use driver's license records to put together the lists of who gets called for jury duty. People don't stampede down to the courthouse for that and the states haven't very many other ways of gathering a pool of people.
I've started to have those thoughts more and more often. Shortsighted, huh?

Seriously, the federal government has been so lax with personal information that it doesn't make any sense to let them have all of it in one place. That's just an invitation for some bureaucrat to sell it to identity thieves.

so you think that we need a national id card and that that card should be the driver's license?

if the states dont comply, you cant get on a plane without a passport. think about it.

I almost always travel with my passport. My travels are a little different because I can be called to leave the country before returning home, but it isn't that much harder to put your passport in your pocket before you leave for the airport.

I can hear the wailing now -- "What about the poor people that can't afford a passport?" Well let them eat cake!

I've started to have those thoughts more and more often. Shortsighted, huh?

Seriously, the federal government has been so lax with personal information that it doesn't make any sense to let them have all of it in one place. That's just an invitation for some bureaucrat to sell it to identity thieves.

Yep. And it's not like the private sector is any better about it either--how many stories have there been in the last year about this company or that "losing" millions of customers' information to hackers? Too many eggs, not enough baskets is what it looks like is about to happen, assuming we're not there already.

so you think that we need a national id card and that that card should be the driver's license?

if your state doesnt comply, you cant get on a plane without a passport. think about it.

You can't get on a plane without valid ID.

What is valid ID? Security requirements need to be met. You don't get to use your club card to Source Adult Video to board a plane. So use your passport, or use this licence, which is issued according to federal ID standards. I'm not understanding why this is such a scary proposition.

The other options we have in Canada are to get a provincial ID (that meets federal standards) apart from a licence. And status/Metis cards are also acceptable as they update to meet security requirments.

I was gonna write something, but then I couldn't muster caring. Ah, well.

I was gonna write something, but then I couldn't muster caring. Ah, well.

Aww.

Yep. And it's not like the private sector is any better about it either--how many stories have there been in the last year about this company or that "losing" millions of customers' information to hackers? Too many eggs, not enough baskets is what it looks like is about to happen, assuming we're not there already.

I'm sure it sucks to be the one that has the stolen ID, especially if it involves an erroneous arrest and jail time, but at least the damage has been limited to a million or so here and there. I wonder when the non-military side of the government ( and business) will start taking computer security seriously?

so you think that we need a national id card and that that card should be the driver's license?

Um....no, and nothing in my post even remotely suggested that. You usually actually read a post before you reply to it. I'm disappointed.

if your state doesnt comply, you cant get on a plane without a passport. think about it.

You shouldn't be able to get on a plane without some form of ID meeting set standards. If your state's driver's license does not meet those standards, then it should not count. Like I said before, we can argue over what those standards should be, but I don't think many would argue that they shouldn't exist.

It's being handled perfectly well on the state level. There's no reason to go through the expense and BS of coverting it to federal control.

Sounds like they just need to make changes to the law to make it acceptable to everybody. You know, whatever.

States don't want this to go through because they want to collect the money from fees and stuff that people have to pay to get driver's licenses, plates, etc. They don't want that money going to the federal governement. Just my cynical take on why they want to keep this at a state level. That's the only logical reason. Here it's $15 for the privilege of showing up to get tested for a license.

Article (http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2007/02/05/news/state/20070205_arizona_news_41.txt)

It looks like some states are fighting back. I can only hope this really doesn't pass.

I'm against it because that is a function of the states given by the US constitution, (10th amendment i think) There is a reason our system is like it is, the federal government has enough responsibilities as it is, let alone licensing and regulating somewhere around 100 million drivers in the country.


Leave it for the states, and yes I'll take the devil I know instead of a new one.