See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Dry Those Eyes, Governors!
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hein/hein107.html
Published: Jul 21, 2005
Author: by Paul Hein
Post Date: 2005-07-21 10:22:04 by boonie rat
Keywords: Governors!, Those, Eyes,
Views: 15
Comments: 3
Dry Those Eyes, Governors! by Paul Hein Save a link to this article and return to it at http://www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at http://www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site Crocodile tears are being shed by the nation’s governors at the prospect of a bill—the Real ID act – mandating federal regulations of drivers’ licenses, becoming law. One of their complaints is that it will be expensive – as though the states ever worried about that! State governments are very profitable enterprises, and need worry more about ways to spend the money than to acquire it. Besides, if need be, you-know-who can foot the bill. One of the more amusing arguments I’ve seen on the internet is that the driver’s license is not intended for identification, but to assure the competency of the driver. Oh, please! Drivers’ licenses are simply another revenue-raising scheme. When I got mine, the only "competency" that was required was the ability to hand over a few bucks. The license arrived shortly thereafter in the mail. Today it costs very much more, in time and money, to get a license, but are today’s newly licensed drivers any more competent than we were? And doesn’t everyone obtain a driver’s license, eventually? Yes, many flunk the exam on first taking it, but it must be extremely unusual for a person to NEVER obtain the license. Obtaining a driver’s license, therefore, is a little like obtaining a grammar school diploma. Everybody gets one; what does that prove? Of course, after the appropriate weeping and wailing, the governors will stop their sniffling and accept the new law. Yes, they could refuse, but in that case, residents of their states would not be allowed to board an airplane, or enter any federally protected building. Gosh, I guess that means if the IRS sues you, you won’t be able to attend the trial! Of course, in all the hot air being blown about, there is a conspicuous absence: no governor has, or likely ever will, suggested abolishing drivers’ licenses, thus making moot the question of using that license as a federal ID. Nor have any of the governors made the obvious point that there is nothing in the Constitution that even hints at a grant of authority to the federal government to control the issuance of licenses by the state – assuming such licenses serve a valid purpose in the first place. I realize that the Constitution is a dead letter, but if the governors are so truly horrified at the prospect of a national drivers’ license ID, they could hold the feds feet to the fire with the Constitutional argument, knowing that no federal official will publicly acknowledge his profound contempt for that document. It would behoove the governors to consider the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1799. Written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, they asserted the right of the states to disregard unconstitutional federal laws. (Specifically, they referred to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the previous year.) The same arguments presented by Jefferson and Madison are applicable today, in spades. Would the states be punished by Washington for exerting their sovereignty? Of course, as mentioned above. But it would work both ways: the states could retaliate. For example, the state could make it a crime for any state-licensed business or individual to send any tax monies to Washington. State troopers could escort state citizens onto airplanes, or into federally guarded buildings. Have things come to such a pass? Well, it would seem so, if freedom is not to be nibbled into oblivion. The pretext for the Real ID law is the fight against terrorism, but the law only makes "proper" ID more difficult to obtain. A dedicated terrorist will obtain the necessary documents to obtain his driver’s license, rest assured. But, in truth, he doesn’t need to. The mere whisper of "terrorism" has already convulsed our society and inconvenienced the citizenry without the terrorist having to set off so much as a firecracker. And it will eventually dawn upon our rulers that individuals without proper ID can commit acts of terrorism despite that handicap. If your state won’t protect your rights, who will? And if it can’t, who needs it? July 21, 2005 Dr. Hein [send him mail] is a retired ophthalmologist in St. Louis, and the author of All Work & No Pay. Copyright © 2005 http://LewRockwell.com
Poster Comment: Boonie Rat MACV SOCOM PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
If your state won’t protect your rights, who will? And if it can’t, who needs it? AMEN
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: boonie rat (#0)
Sounds good, but where's the state willing to do this? That reminds me, what happened to the Free State Project?
After "The War of Northern Aggression" all state "constitutions" were revised and the power to lay and collect taxes was removed. All taxes now go to DC, hence, DC plays the tune and the "states" dance. Boonie Rat MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be. Louis Beam
I wasn't aware of the timing. A sort of permanent carpet bagging law.
It would behoove the governors to consider the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1799. Written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively, they asserted the right of the states to disregard unconstitutional federal laws. (Specifically, they referred to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the previous year.) The same arguments presented by Jefferson and Madison are applicable today, in spades.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#2. To: robin (#1)
#3. To: boonie rat (#2)
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest