Category | Op Ed

Can I see some ID?

Published on March 27, 2007 by The Sentinel

    As usual, the civil libertarians are mistaken. There’s no “national ID
card,” let alone one that will destroy our civil liberties.

      A 2005 federal statute provided that in 2008
“a federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s
license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless
the state is meeting the requirements of this section.”

    “Official purpose’ includes but is not limited to
accessing federal facilities, boarding federally regulated commercial
aircraft, entering nuclear power plants, and any other purpose that the
secretary [of homeland security] may determine.”

    Applicants for a state-issued ID must provide
certain kinds of proof, such as citizenship or legal residency, and the
state-issued ID must contain certain kinds of information, such as
name, photograph and date of birth.

    Unarguably, Congress has the textual power,
augmented by more than 200 years of Supreme Court decisions, to
legislate on a broad range of ID-related subjects, including the use of
passports, production of veteran documents to obtain benefits, the
possession of draft and Social Security cards, and the public display
of licenses for all manner of personal and business activity.

    Moreover, for federal purposes, the federal
government is not obligated to accept any state identification
documents. One can’t re-enter the United States, obtain VA benefits or
possess DEA privileges solely on the strength of a driver’s license.

    Reciprocally, no state need comply with the ID statute.

    Although the secretary of homeland security has the
power to make administrative regulations enlarging the category of
“other [federal] purposes,” he hasn’t done so. When he does, they will
be subject to judicial review.

    What, then, upsets the civil libertarians?

    Some say state compliance will be too expensive.
Typically, not only do they offer no proof, but, ironically, for many
of them few state spending programs have ever been too expensive -
especially if they were for some boondoggle like welfare.

    Others spout empty slogans like “if we lose our
identification card, we lose our identity, we lose our ability to
access the services and infrastructure that society offers.” A Texas
congressman, speaking of the statute, loftily complained that in
Washington there “is no rule of law. There is no respect for the
Constitution.”

    One searches in vain for any serious commentary
plausibly arguing that under the Constitution and Supreme Court
opinions, Congress lacks the power to have enacted the statute. Nor
have any serious attempts been made to show any provision in the
statute that requires states to comply. Indeed, some states are
considering opting out.

    And perhaps most important of all, there have been
no serious examples proffered of how the statute violates Americans’
civil liberties; especially today, when the United States is in at
least a de facto war with radical Islam.

    On the other hand, there are manifest benefits to be
had from full implementation of the statute. Foremost is greatly
reducing the incalculable amount of forged and stolen identification
papers that this country is awash in; from driver’s licenses, to Social
Security cards, to credit cards and more [all of which facilitate
illegal immigration, identity theft and other criminal activity.]

    By itself, that’s reason enough for the states to cooperate.

    A potentially greater reason is the impact on
criminals and terrorists of, again, state-issued ID –which can’t be
issued without clear proof of identity and status, and will contain
crucial information of no threat to anyone engaged in lawful conduct.

    It is well known that the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers
relied on phony documents to facilitate their destruction of the World
Trade Center and murder 3,000 innocent souls. Perhaps more stringent ID
requirements would have prevented that calamity - perhaps not.

    But given the stakes, neither the American
government nor we the people can afford to take the chance of guessing
wrong.