(continued from previous page)
Real ID vs. the states
TalkBack
E-mail
del.icio.us
Digg this(continued from previous page)
Real ID could be the latest skirmish in years of legal battles between states and the federal government over religious freedom laws. Until 1990, U.S. law said that the government has to show a "compelling interest" in order to succeed in limiting a person's free exercise of religion, as evidenced in the Quaring case. But then came a U.S. Supreme Court case called Employment Division v. Smith, which concluded that if a rule is neutral and isn't designed to target a particular religion, then it may pass constitutional muster.
In a response to critics of that decision, Congress enacted a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which attempted to shift more of the burden back to the government in winning such cases. It said: "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" except in limited circumstances. That law, however, was partially gutted by the Supreme Court, which ruled Congress had overstepped its boundaries by applying that rule to the states, prompting many states to enact their own versions of the law.
What's relevant to the new Real ID rules, however, is that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does still appear to apply to federal laws and rules, said the ACLU's Mach. If the ACLU does challenge Real ID, it plans to make its case using that law.
Whether such a challenge would be successful is another question.
Because Homeland Security appears to have a fairly narrow requirement--that is, that a driver's license applicant's face be uncovered--the government would likely be able to argue that it's pursuing its security-related goals in the narrowest possible way, said Seval Yildirim, director of the Center for International and Comparative Law at Whittier Law School in California.
"In other words, this is not an outright prohibition on all religious clothing or covering, but only those that prevent the state from identifying the individual," said Yildirim, who is defending a Muslim police officer in Philadelphia who was prohibited from wearing her head scarf while in uniform and on the job.
A few years ago, the ACLU of Florida
Even though only some Muslims could be affected by the Real ID rules, it's a "significant minority," said Ibrahim Ramey, director of the human and civil rights division of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation. Ramey estimated that about 80 percent of Muslim women wear headscarves and about 10 percent also don a niqab, or face veil.
Organizations like his would "certainly be willing" to sign onto legal action with other civil liberties groups against the rules, Ramey said. (The Muslim American Society also has broader concerns about Real ID's implications for undocumented immigrants.)
"I would argue again that the benefit of religious accommodation far outweighs what some people might perceive as the drawback or the problematic nature of doing it," Ramey said in a telephone interview. "I don't think it's something...that will involve anything close to a large plurality of Muslim women, but for any woman that chooses to wear the covering, it ought to be something that's respected and accommodated by the larger society, particularly if there's no evidence of criminal intent."
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
What is Real ID?
Federal regulations creating a uniform national ID card--called Real ID--take effect on May 11. If your state hasn't agreed in principle to upgrade its driver's licenses to be Real ID-compliant, you could have trouble traveling by air and taking advantage of some government services.
A CNET News.com survey shows that just over half of the states have signed up, while some have flatly refused to participate, typically citing costs or sovereignty worries. Privacy is another concern, with a mandatory barcode on Real ID cards lacking encryption or legal prohibitions against misuse, and mandatory linking of states' motor vehicle databases.
Stories in this series
Monday: Real ID could mean real travel headaches
In just over four months, millions of law-abiding Americans could face new
hassles when traveling on commercial flights if they hold driver's licenses or
ID cards issued by states that haven't agreed to comply with Real ID. Homeland
Security is already predicting "delays" and "enhanced security screening"
procedures for those Americans in the non-Real ID line at the airport.
Tuesday: Federal buildings become Real ID zones
Everyone from visitors to the U.S. Capitol building to
jurors being called to duty in federal courthouses could be affected by Real
ID's requirement that noncompliant driver's licenses may not be used to access
"federal facilities." Homeland Security says it "cannot predict" how many
Americans in non-Real ID states will be inconvenienced.
Wednesday: Religious minorities face Real ID crackdown
Some U.S. states have long allowed citizens with religious objections to avoid
having their photograph on driver's licenses. The Amish, Old Order Mennonites,
and some Muslim women fall into this category. But licenses without photographs
don't comply with Real ID, a rule that could invite a legal challenge.
Thursday: FAQ: How will Real ID affect you?
What are the privacy implications? What happens next? This list of frequently asked questions tries to clear up
some of the confusion surrounding the controversial law.
Previous coverage
DHS: Real ID could help shut down meth labs
Chertoff: Real ID will 'strengthen' Americans' privacy
National ID plan may have killed immigration bill
Senate takes step away from Real ID
Congress rethinks the Real ID Act
Homeland Security offers details on Real ID
FAQ: How Real ID will affect you
Related coverage
U.K. ditches ID card megadatabase
Tech industry attacks state anti-RFID laws
Britain to use ID card database as national register
New RFID travel cards could pose privacy threat
Feds: More data sharing by terrorist screeners
Passports to get RFID chip implants
Credits
Editors: Michelle Meyers, Desiree Everts
Design: Shaun Charity
Production: Daniel Judd
Survey: Anne Broache
Sorry sir you must allow us into every facet of your data on your national ID card. If not then sorry sir you will not be hired or employed with us anymore.
However, if you read the captions per state, you can see that for several states requesting an extention does not mean acceptance yet. The map would be more honest if it also made a difference between the states that actually said 'yes' and the ones that asked for an extension. Again, these states that asked for an extension could still be 'no' states in the end.
Do these Muslim women who wear face veils wear veils while they drive? Did they object to being photographed for their passport to enter this country?
Would they allow an expert artist to draw an accurate rendering of them, (subject to inspection and approval, of course) for their license?
The answer is simple ? If these people are so devoted to their religion that they cannot comply to basic, essential laws which every other American must abide, then giving up the right to drive a motor vehicle should not be a problem. Why should the state need to make sacrifices for these people? If they believe so deeply in their religion, let them make the sacrifice ? take a bus.
If you don't want your picture on an ID, then the government should have a process in place to address. For example, at airports, you would be put through a much more stringent search process. At Federal buildings, you would have to accompanied at all times while in the buildings.
Would these be bad for the person, probably, but then again, I don't want people on the same plane with me that have not been properly screened.
Seems simple to me. No matter how hard you try to turn Americans into Cookie Cutter Citizens it's just not going to work. The Feds need to find another way to keep us safe than eroding our freedoms in the name of security.
privledges. If these individuals do not want their picture on the ID,
then they do not have to have one and they will have to deal with
the consequences of these actions. The whole purpose of the ID is
to include the picture. One without the picture really is not much
of an ID to begin with.
And if my three-year-old wants to participate in craft time at preschool, she must help tidy up the toys first.
Sometimes if you want to be a part of society, you have to play by the rules.
I've been required to show photo ID every time I fly for years now. Are these religious minorities who can't even watch TV or drive a car (generalizing, yes), really allowed to even fly on a plane that flies under its own power? Do these people also avoid all stores and public places that have video cameras or intersections with speed cameras? You're already on camera any time you're anywhere near a federal building or airport.
This doesn't sound like a religious choice so much as someone who has had any sort of self-esteem or self-worth beaten or bred out of them to the point that they lack (or are not permitted) to place any value on who they are. Or they are hiding from something. Do they hold jobs or social security cards? Or pay taxes? I just don't buy the religious angle. Seems like a cover for something negative, either by their choice or forced upon them.
(Yes, I am a Christian, but I've never heard of anything in my Bible to suggest that I should not take photos of my family.)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Ergo, the requirement for a photo id is unconstitutional and cannot be used by the federal government in any way, shape, or form to discriminate against that person.
If the federal government uses state licenses as their RealID 'vehicle', then the holding of a federalized state license no longer is a privilege, it becomes the right of that person.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF SOMETHING IS A PRIVILEGE OR NOT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PERSON BASED ON THEIR RELIGION!
Yes, Real ID is imperfect; name something that isn't? Democracy isn't perfect, but it's the best idea we've come up with so far, so we stick with it and try to improve on it. Same with Real ID: until something better comes along, it's much better than our present wide-open vulnerability.
Security is an all-or-nothing deal. As soon as an exception is made for even one minority group, an aspiring terrorist wishing to bypass security merely needs to claim membership of the minority group. Since by it's very nature, the minority's members are un-identifiable, any claim of membership is impossible to verify or refute.
We can't even stop under-age drinking with current ID technology, but American citizens seriously expect their security forces to protect them from terrorists by using the same ineffective tool? Duh!!
Oh, and let me guess; the next "news item" will be "illegal immigrants face Real ID crackdown"?
Spare me.
If you want special ID and search procedures for people with special beliefs whether its Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or other religions - ok let them pay for the complete cost for those special requirements - all of them. That would have to include set up of the "new" agency in charge, all the bureaucrats who justify their existence within that agency and empire building with its power, the rent for their space and the costs of all the resources they require.
Its time this country and this world quit confusing or excusing the mentally lame with the mentally lazy. Critical thinking is not a luxury or an option if your are a responsible citizen - any where. If you chose not to make choices in your life without critical analysis of their basis, worth, validity and subsequent consequences - you should pay for it - all of it. Insurance company's have finally wised up to those who chose to be addicted to tobacco, alcohol, etc. It only seems fair to extend the same logic to the supernaturally addicted - whose chosen belief systems require that they receive additional care and consideration. This includes making the third largest business in the US pay its appropriate share of taxes - that being religion.
Religious freedom is not an absolute. If religious freedom were an absolute, we should then be allowing terrorists to blow up more buildings?after all it is their religious beliefs that drive them to strap bombs to their chests.
Its time to stop this now I pay for uninsured motorists who will buy insurance even if requided by law. My medical insurance is higher because we have a large population of uninsured by choice who feel they are never going to need medical,
If you don't like rules move somewhere else.
require REAL ID compliant cards to purchase certain medications.
Expect this expansion of "oversight" to continue, since they can
do so without authorization from Congress.
I would not be surprised that at some point down the line, you
will be required to have a REAL ID compliant card to purchase
basics such as gas and food.
And then they'll have road blocks at each state border, where
they'll check and register your travels across state lines.
Now -- just so long as they don't accidentally "lose" our data
that they are collecting. It's not like they've ever done that
before.
Sure you're life and credit may be destroyed because some some
flub at a federal agency by some guy who hates his job -- but
don't you feel safer?
- Umm..the Amish don't fly on planes...
- by CraigSam February 6, 2008 11:27 AM PST
- Amish people reject technology and prefer to stay part of their small-town style community. I really have trouble imagining long lines of Amish people at the Airport being held-up for not having IDs. They have no phones or TVs or computers or cars. Are we really talking about Amish plane trips? Really...?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (128 Comments)