Tenth Amendment Center

Guest Commentary by Brian Trent

There’s a lesson in the Aesopian tale of the man who wanted to cook a frog. When he tossed the amphibian into a pot of boiling water, it leapt out to safety. The thwarted cook then changed tactics. He placed the frog in cold water… and slowly brought up the heat.

In much the same way, American freedom is slowly being cooked away. When I was growing up, “Papers, please!” was once the bark of Communist soldiers patrolling state lines. It’s set now to become an American staple. Slipped insidiously into an $81 billion bill for “supporting troops” and “tsunami relief” was a tiny law - The Real ID Act of 2005 - which creates a de facto National ID card for Americans and requires it to be in place by 2008 (the Feds are now “allowing” an extension through 2009 for States that request it). Every driver’s license will be required to include “physical security features” and “a common machine readable technology.” The cultists who support this National ID card say that it’s all voluntary.

And it is. You can refuse to comply, in which case you won’t be able to open a bank account, enter a federal building, ride a plane or train, etc. Yes, quite voluntary. A nice card, containing all sorts of sensitive information about you, which can be scanned everywhere you go.

“This is almost a frontal assault on the freedoms of America when they require us to carry a national ID to monitor where we are,” railed Missouri state Representative James Guest, a Republican. “This does nothing to stop terrorism.”

One of only eight Republicans to oppose the measure, Representative Ron Paul of Texas added, “Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens.”

Today we face a thriving identity-theft market. National ID will be like adding chum to a sea of sharks; a veritable African diamond war for the digital age. Everyone’s value will be melted down to cold equations which will be stolen, which will be seen by people who have no business seeing it, and which will make it very hard to get your life back when this happens to you.

Let’s forget the cost to the states, which has been estimated at more than $14 billion. The ID card will, making use of RFID technology already discussed in another essay of mine, be able to show where you are at all times. Information ranging from mailing address to DNA can be encoded into this little spy.

Supporters of the card say it will help prevent terrorism. Not only do they fail at giving real examples of how this card can magically do this, they completely turn tail from the scores of problems - and yes, security problems - that this card will create.

For starters: The National ID card will eventually be forged. To whom do you protest when this happens? Roughly 20 percent of identity papers, cards, and documents are lost each year; what do you do when your digital self is misplaced? How do we hold the government, FBI, NSA, and president accountable for how they use this information? What magic firewall or force-field will be put into place to prevent hacking? And oh yeah… what happens when the database crashes?

Having all this information available on a database will result in a Golden Age for identity-theft, surveillance, and blackmail. It will make our lives less secure. And there’s something very suspicious in putting a system in place under the guise of “protecting us from terrorists” when all that system really does is staple a lab-tag onto American citizens.

Fortunately, a real civil war is heating up over this — though to what extent that protest will go remains to be seen. The current presidency is notoriously in support of gigantic government (yet another symptom of how the alleged “conservative party” has devolved like political Morlocks.)

Maine was the first state to rebel, passing a resolution to outright refuse implementation of the Real ID Act. Following this trailblazing defiance came Idaho, and a recent storm of protest from Arizona, Hawaii, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. For anyone keeping score, this is a coalition of states not often seen on the same side of an issue.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise. Historically, Americans have rejected any effort at mandating a National ID card. Sneaking this into law was the coward’s way of circumventing public debate; slipping it under our skin might be next. Or perhaps we’ll have a nice tattoo on our right hands and foreheads? Citizen John Valjean, 24601!

The debate will heat up in the next few months. Exactly how hot it’ll get is up to us.

The Aesopian frog, meanwhile, is cooking.

Brian Trent [send him email] is a professional essayist, screenwriter, and novelist; he is the author of “Remembering Hypatia” and the forthcoming “Never Grow Old: the Novel of Gilgamesh.” Brian is a contributor to American Chronicle and The Humanist Magazine. Visit his website at www.rememberinghypatia.com.

In a recent article on Habeas Corpus, it was shown that the 10th Amendment prevented the federal government from suspending Habeas. Why? Because the Constitution only allows for its suspension in very limited situations. Article I, Section 9 spells this out quite clearly:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This, in conjunction with the 10th amendment’s mandate of limited government demonstrates that any suspension of Habeas Corpus outside the above provision is done so in violation of the Constitution. For clarification, here’s the text of the Tenth:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Typical of those who wrote in opposition was this comment posted by someone under the name of “L. Savage”

you seem to forget that we are at war, we are not the ones that have chosen to hide among the civilian population and wage unchecked atrocities. you seem so concerned about the rights of terrorist who are trying to destroy the very democracy that you are trying to use to protect them and in the process you have decided that their rights as terrorist, not citizens of this country, is more important than bringing to justice those that helped topple the twin towers in n.y..

where is the cry of outrage from you for all the murdering and butchery that these people have committed, or is it not politicly aligned with your agenda to bad mouth the present administration no matter what they do? god help us all if you had been around during the second world war we’d all be speaking german or japanese now!

Here’s a textbook example of how the enemies of freedom try to whip us into supporting an expansion of power and the elimination of rights. It’s obviously not well-founded, but still worth a quick look.

1. you seem to forget that we are at war

How that can be forgotten by anyone is absurd! But, as made quite clear above, the Constitution doesn’t make any additional exceptions for being “at war.” The only times the federal government is allowed to suspended habeas corpus is in cases of Rebellion or Invasion – with the additional caveat that the “public safety may require it.”

2. we are not the ones that have chosen to hide among the civilian population and wage unchecked atrocities

If anyone made the claim that you. did these things, you would need the right to defend yourself and maintain your innocence.

3. you seem so concerned about the rights of terrorist who are trying to destroy the very democracy that you are trying to use to protect them

The concern is for the liberty of all. It must be stressed, until due process has been served, we do not know that these detainees have done anything you or anyone else has accused them of doing.

4. and in the process you have decided that their rights as terrorist, not citizens of this country, is more important than bringing to justice those that helped topple the twin towers in n.y.

All people have the same rights - as people. Again, you’ve convicted them of being a “terrorist” and of “toppling the twin towers.” If they’re guilty, it’ll be easy to convict them of these crimes.

It’s more likely that the government can’t prove their guilt, and that’s why they refuse to bring trial, or even charges for that matter.

5. where is the cry of outrage from you for all the murdering and butchery that these people have committed

There is a cry to catch, try, and prosecute these criminals. But the politicians running this government have no interest in this whatsoever. They just want to wage war in Iraq, kill civilians in Afghanistan, and where does that get us? Nowhere – A majority of those responsible for the horrible September attacks continue to run free.

6. god help us all if you had been around during the second world war we’d all be speaking german or japanese now!

It’s hard to believe that people still parrot this nonsense. The Japanese were able to pull off a “surprise” attack (although that’s debatable), and no one could seriously think that they had the ability to conquer and control America, an armed nation in the hundreds of millions of people. The Germans, on the other hand, couldn’t even cross the English Channel to invade England, let alone cross the Atlantic ocean to invade the United States!

Another common argument in support of expansive government powers in regards to habeas corpus is that the Constitution and the US government only have jurisdiction within U.S. borders, like this comment:

The author’s argument is fundamentally flawed and here’s why. The US Constitution frames the authority of the federal government - that’s a given. The US Government does not have global jurisdiction thus foreign combatants detained outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States and HELD outside the United States are not covered or entitled to rights or protections of the US Constitution. There is NO jurisdictional authority for the US to grant habeas corpus.

While it’s correct that the US Government doesn’t have global jurisdiction it often acts that way. People are held outside of US jurisdiction, and the claim is that outside of it, the government doesn’t need to follow the Constitution. But – while claiming exemption from the law due to lack of jurisdiction, the government still exercises jurisdictional authority by imprisoning these people in the first place.

In short, the government exercises jurisdictional power while, at the same time, claiming an exemption due to lack of jurisdiction.  As always, wanting it both ways.
More importantly, though, the Constitution doesn’t mention any location or jurisdiction. It doesn’t apply to foreigners. In fact, it doesn’t apply to people at all!

It applies to the Federal Government – only.

The Constitution lists what the government can do, while the Bill of Rights lists what it cannot do. Nowhere are there exceptions for where/what location the US government comes into contact with people.

The principle here is simple – all people are created equal and that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Going further, it is the purpose of the Constitution to “secure these rights.” How? By limiting the power of the Federal Government to violate them.

In short, it doesn’t matter if the US is at war. It doesn’t matter if the politicians tell us someone is a terrorist. It doesn’t matter if atrocities have been committed, or if a person is being held “outside” jurisdiction.

Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended – except in cases of “rebellion or invasion.”

Period.

A Letter from a Reader:

Why this Conservative Tennessean Opposes REAL ID

1. REAL ID is a de facto national identification card. At least Lamar Alexander, in recent comments, was honest enough to admit this. Has America sacrificed so much for freedom only to create a “papers please” society?

2. REAL ID does an end-run around the 4h Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It is unreasonable to give the central government the power (potential) to track individuals in real-time. If the government needs to search a citizen, let it get a search warrant. We should not have to be monitered. Is not this the essence of freedom? REAL ID, and its future additions, will make life subject to the good-will of the government in a software maze of “red light, green light.” This is not freedom.

3. REAL ID reduces God-given rights of the individual to a string of digits, subject to the good-will of software and/or bureaucrats. It makes Americans get “permission” to live and move in the basic functions of society: banking and travel. The permission we need to do this (and more) is God-given. We shouldn’t have to ask permission to be functioning citizens within our own country.

4. REAL ID may require biometrics at the state level or at the federal level. Why should Americans be “booked” like criminals even if they’ve committed no crime?

5. REAL ID compiles much personal information into one place. With the ease of internet access, this information is vulnerable to anyone on the globe with the ability hack.

6. REAL ID is a move towards the centalization of more power. In an age of terror, the country should operate on a philosophy of de-centralizing as much of our lives as possible–so that if an attack handicaps one part of the country, the rest of the country can still function.

7. The burden of proof lies on promoters of REAL ID. Show us exactly HOW this significantly new and immense power to the government is NOT a threat to freedom. FREEDOMS ARE LOST IN THEORY/PHILOSOPHY LONG BEFORE THEY’RE LOST IN PRACTICE. Conservatives are threatening freedom and promoting “big government” with the REAL ID Act.

8. We should be moving away from an identification society. This kind of atmosphere promotes suspicion and fear. Are Americans innocent until proven guilty or are we suspicious until properly identified?

9. Programs like REAL ID never remain static. The private sector will seek to use this identification system as well. One bad application will lead to others. How can we remain an “open” society with this kind of philosophy?

10. Some folks say we already have a national id–Social Security. But if REAL ID is only a lateral move, why are we doing it? We are doing it because it is indeed an increase in the government’s ability to track its citizens. If we’re on the wrong road, the soonest way to progress is to turn around.

We don’t have to do anything stupid. Just because we “can” doesn’t mean we “should.”

Tennessee [and all of America] should Just Say NO to REAL ID.

by John Rush, who grew up in central Kansas and went to a small college in Florida to study for the ministry. John has pastored a church in Hailey, ID, and has served as a Christian School administrator in Newport, TN. He is currently pastoring Liberty Church of Cosby in Cosby, TN. John is a conservative republican who believes that people ought to love all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. He welcomes feedback through his blog at http://realidwatch.blogspot.com.