Emerging Tech

Real ID Act receives criticism and support


Real ID ActSenator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Department of Homeland Security, and a growing list of states openly oppose the Real ID Act because of privacy and security concerns. Groups that support the Real ID Act include national security aficionados, businesses that sell compliance technology to motor vehicle departments, and anti-immigration advocates. For an in-depth look at the details surrounding the Real ID Act controversy, read this article by CNET Networks' News.com: "Congress rethinks the Real ID Act."  

Here's a snippet from the article:

What's new:
Because Real ID is already on the books and final regulations are nearly complete, opponents of the federal law face an uphill battle.

Bottom line:
Beyond both conservative and liberal groups, a potent source of opposition has been state legislatures and DMV offices, which are worried about the cost of doing background checks on their citizens and outfitting everyone with Real ID cards.

For more information about the Real ID Act, take a look at these other news sources:

According to Leahy, Real ID will "effectively create a national ID card." On the flip side of the coin, 9/11 Security Solutions president Janice Kephart says, "Real ID does not create a national ID card." Are you for or against Real ID and the possibility of a national ID card? Join the discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay on top of the latest tech news

Get this news story and many more by subscribing to our free IT News Digest newsletter, delivered each weekday. Automatically sign up today!

About

Sonja Thompson has worked for TechRepublic since October of 1999. She is currently a Senior Editor and the host of the Smartphones and Tablets blogs.

705 comments
Absolutely
Absolutely

deepsand & sn53 have reminded me of the necessity of one hour per day of active review of public records pertaining to my elected representatives. Not scanning headlines, but searching for votes, commitments, speeches, and whatever other monkey business they might be pursuing on my dime. If the popular press made the type of effort to hold our officials to logical consistency that deepsand makes with regard to sn53, we Joe Sixpacks would all be a lot better off. Since they don't, we must.

deepsand
deepsand

by the Legislatures. The differences between Statue, the enabling Regulation(s), and Implementation can be great indeed. A useful source for keeping abreast of the latter, both Federal & State, Military & Civilian, is [i]Washington Technology[/i]. While its intended audience is those businesses which provide IT goods & services to the governments, it also serves to inform others re. what really happens when the rubber meets the road. Much of what I've learned re. Real ID was by way of this publication. It's available both in print & on-line; see http://www.washingtontechnology.com/ .

deepsand
deepsand

You are speaking very much like one who has a vested economic interest in its successful implementation.

sn53
sn53

deep asked, "What, sn53, is your personal interest in Real ID?" I have to think about this. I like it because I believe it is the right thing to do. I also like it because it is the first time in a long time that I believe the Congress has taken a right step toward providing for our common defense. "You are speaking very much like one who has a vested economic interest in its successful implementation." I believe I answered this question just a few minutes ago. I have an indirect economic interest because I believe it will have an impact on illegal immigration. And that will have an economic impact on me.

deepsand
deepsand

Ah, I see. Having already admitted that Real ID will do little to fight terrorism, you are now in need of a new purpose for it, for its justification. How very clever - not; just more sophistry.

deepsand
deepsand

The underlying assumption re. likeness is not one that's been held by me since I first attended school.

deepsand
deepsand

Though it may be in the vernacular, its usage outside one's own circle of friends does reflect unfavorably on the user.

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "And, though he goes to great lengths to conceal when he is wounded & in great disarray, his behavior betrays him & signals his true condition." One of the great problems in intelligence gathering and analysis is the problem of mirroring. We tend to believe the other guy is very much like us. In general it may be true. But specifically it is usually wrong. I deny that I have been wounded or in disarray. But I will admit that I once came to a wrong conclusion about you. I did a reset on my attitude about you. You have not proven me wrong.

sn53
sn53

btl wrote, "DUDE!!!........" I interview lots of people every year. Drop the 'dude' as it will tend to eliminate you from consideration for most high end technical jobs. It is up to you, of course, but you might want to just consider what I have written to you. You really can move forward but you will have to drop that chip on your shoulder and change your attitude. You may have to re-invent yourself with either new skills or a new approach to showing off to potential employers what is in it for them.

deepsand
deepsand

And, though he goes to great lengths to conceal when he is wounded & in great disarray, his behavior betrays him & signals his true condition.

btljooz
btljooz

sn53 said, "I just won't play along with you." That dude hasn't an original thought in his head!!!! NOW he's using MY material to draw from!!!!! :^0 ROTFLMAO :^0 !!!!!!!!! NOW, do you see what I mean? ?:|

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "Wasn't Real ID supposedly about fighting terrorism?" In so far as it was meeting a 911 Commission recommendation to eliminate a vulnerability that the 9/11 terrorists exploited, yes. "Ah, I see. Having already admitted that Real ID will do little to fight terrorism," No. What I said is that it is no silver bullet. It is just one more tool to be used in a layered security posture. You seek perfection before taking action. Security does not work that way. I just won't play along with you. "...you are now in need of a new purpose for it, for its justification." The law itself mentions several purposes. Counter-terrorism and fraud reduction are two. I think there may have been a third. These two will do for now. "How very clever - not; just more sophistry." Really it just shows that I actually read the law and the implementing rules. Not everybody cares to.

btljooz
btljooz

http://www.youtube.com/programmersguild [b]JUST [u]DO[/u] IT!!![/b] NOW, what do you think of THAT? Was R ID even brought up as subject matter in that video?

deepsand
deepsand

Plebe year at USNA taught me well. While your conclusion [u]may[/u] be correct, and your advice [u]may[/u] be appropriate, do not discount the possibility that you just might be missing relevant information. When venturing to give advice to a stranger, questions serve far better than statements.

sn53
sn53

btl wrote, "I'm not 'bitter and alienated'. I simply don't agree with, or appreciate, the direction to which this once Great Country is heading. If you were even HALF as intelligent (as in STREET SMARTS as opposed simply to scholastics) and had even a modicum of common sense you would see the points that deepsand and others like him (including myself) are making. Or are you having too much fun playing your pitiful game of Cat & Mouse?" You continue to sound both bitter and alienated. I am suggesting that you give up your bitterness and get on with the very hard task of figuring out what you might enjoy doing that will allow you go find good employment. "I have even stooped as low as to apply for RETAIL jobs that pay minimum wage just to get in the door. Job counseling was a VERY BAD JOKE!!!!! I went through that dog and pony show for MONTHS with NO results." The point of job counseling is to determine what areas you might enjoy doing and might also have some aptitude for. The point is not to make sacrifices and do work you do not like. The point is to find something you can absolutely catch on fire doing. "What happened "seven or eight" years ago is exceedingly moot compared to the conditions of today! Back then we had a BOOMING economy. Today we have a national debt higher than any other point in US history with exception to ONE!" Excuses. Always excuses. Give them up and start moving forward. "Your supposed "six figure" income impresses me NOT!!! ...BRAGGART! ...with BLOWN credibility. (oy pendejo!)" No bragging. I had to make some difficult decisions to break the $100,000 barrier. Back then it looked like network engineer was the way to go. I became an MCSE and a CCNA in a few short months. My longer term goal was to become a CCIE in both routing and security. That did not happen. Instead, I decided I would take on any job I was asked to do no matter how ugly or difficult the job appeared to be. I traveled all over the world on short notice. I never stopped learning even more. I would be happy to share my experiences if you think it would be helpful for you. "BTW: You're "Retired" REMEBER? "Six figure income" indeed. Yeh, riiiiiiight. AGAIN, STFU!!!!!!!!!!" I don't really count my retirement income as part of the six figures. My retirement is roughly equal to my federal income tax burden. It is a wash.

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "Again, you presume too much re. btjooz." He has told me everything I need to know. "How do you know what skills and experience he already has? Absent such knowledge, how do you know that such are inadequate to his needs." If he had skills people were willing to pay for someone would be paying him. His actual skills and knowledge are irrelevant. He has to determine what someone is willing to pay for and get those skills. "Absent that, how can you know that your advice is "valid?"" The fact that he is unemployed and is complaining about how unfair life is tells me all that I need to know. No one who wants to work should be unemployed. The solution is to get some help in determining what people will willingly pay for and then to get those skills.

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "Perhaps it is the case that the "war on terrorism" is not your true focus." Perhaps. It is just one more tool. Security works that way, you know. Layers of security have a better chance of buying the time needed to identify that an attack is underway. In this case it is also beneficial for making life harder for illegal aliens. "Having re-read your posts here, as well as those in other discussions, it becomes increasingly reasonable to conclude that your primary interest in Real ID is not as a means of fighting terrorism, but one for ferreting out illegal aliens." It is a reasonable step to take for both reasons.

deepsand
deepsand

Draws a conclusion based on facts not in evidence.

deepsand
deepsand

"[i]He is free to take my valid, free advice to get some skills someone is willing to pay him for[/i]" How do you know what skills and experience he already has? Absent such knowledge, how do you know that such are [u]inadequate[/u] to his needs. Absent that, how can you know that your advice is "valid?"

deepsand
deepsand

Having re-read your posts here, as well as those in other discussions, it becomes increasingly reasonable to conclude that your primary interest in Real ID is not as a means of fighting terrorism, but one for ferreting out illegal aliens.

deepsand
deepsand

Having re-read your posts here, as well as those in other discussions, it becomes increasingly reasonable to conclude that your primary interest in Real ID is [b]not[/b] as a means of [u]fighting terrorism[/u], [b]but[/b] one for ferreting out [u]illegal aliens[/u].

btljooz
btljooz

"Never judge someone until you've walked a mile in their mocasins." Dude, I would give you the distance of only ten FEET traveling in MY mocasins!!! >"It amounts to the same thing. You cannot get the interview because they can do more than you do, do it better, quicker, and for less money. Rather than stay bitter and alienated you might consider getting some job counseling to see what else you may enjoy doing that people will pay you to do. Not everyone who criticizes you is your enemy. I had to do the same thing seven or eight years ago. I worked very hard to change my skill set and now earn a six figure income. You can too.

sn53
sn53

sn53 wrote, "You are confusing legal immigration and offshore employment with illegal immigration." btl wrote, "No confusion at all. They BOTH result in the same thing! In addition to which, even LEGAL immigrants TAKE OUR JOBS, too!!!!! (oy, pendejo! )" We can move this to a new forum to discuss if you wish. It is not relevant to discussions of the impact of Real ID on illegal immigration. sn53 wrote, "I see that say you are unemployed. Rather than complain wouldn't you be better served to either get some skills that people are willing to pay for or start your own company?" btl responded, "#1. I'm not complaining about not having a job. I'm complaining LOUDLY about the REASONS I can't even score a stinking INTERVIEW!!!" It amounts to the same thing. You cannot get the interview because they can do more than you do, do it better, quicker, and for less money. Rather than stay bitter and alienated you might consider getting some job counseling to see what else you may enjoy doing that people will pay you to do. Not everyone who criticizes you is your enemy. I had to do the same thing seven or eight years ago. I worked very hard to change my skill set and now earn a six figure income. You can too.

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "Unlike illegal aliens , legal ones do take jobs from citizens." We can start a new forum to discuss that if you like. It is not relevant here. "As for your suggestion to btljooz, it's more than a bit presumptuous of you to even imagine that you know anything about him." He is free to take my valid, free advice, to get some skills someone is willing to pay him for, or not. I have been in his position. I evaluated the expected needs of the marketplace and re-educated myself to fill a need. I did not whine and complain that life is not fair because corporations would not hire me over someone they could get at significantly less expense who would do a better job, have a greater knowledge base, and complain far less than I. It is up to each of us to remain competitive.

btljooz
btljooz

PERFECT example of what I was talking about in my post to you earlier. ;) sn53: >"You are confusing legal immigration and offshore employment with illegal immigration.""I see that say you are unemployed. Rather than complain wouldn't you be better served to either get some skills that people are willing to pay for or start your own company?"

sn53
sn53

deep wrote, "Either way, it's irrelevant to the issue of national security." For the sake of argument let me agree with you, for the moment. Does it really matter that Real ID can fulfil purposes beyond the immediate need of reducing the ease by which those who are here to harm us may get state-granted identity documents? One of the stated purposes of the Real ID law is to reduce fraud. That clearly covers giving identity documents to illegal aliens. So once again we disagree.

deepsand
deepsand

And, with the Federal government's blessing. Can you say "hypocrisy?" As for your suggestion to btljooz, it's more than a bit presumptuous of you to even imagine that you know anything about him.

deepsand
deepsand

"[i]Real ID will have an impact on those who come here illegally or stay here illegally.[/i]" What that impact may be, and whether or not such is beneficial to the U.S., and whether the cost to obtain any benefit is reasonable, remains but a matter of conjecture. Either way, it's irrelevant to the issue of national security.

sn53
sn53

You are confusing legal immigration and offshore employment with illegal immigration. Real ID will have an impact on those who come here illegally or stay here illegally. I see that say you are unemployed. Rather than complain wouldn't you be better served to either get some skills that people are willing to pay for or start your own company?

deepsand
deepsand

How is that those who most fervently claim to be "conservatives," profess to champion smaller, less intrusive government, and feverously demand that judges be "strict constructionists," are those who [b]rely most heavily on [i]Implied Powers[/i][/b], rather than [i]Strict Construction[/i], in matters of national security, law enforcement, domestic spying, the sanctity of private property, [i]ad nauseum[/i].

JCitizen
JCitizen

It does seem like people in my camp have a contradictory habit of throwing away all consideration for the Constitution when it comes to national defense. Believe me - we would regret it sooner rather than later. If Washington needs to circumvent the usual standard operating procedure they are going to have to declare a martial law state of emergency and they'd darn well better have a good reason (like imminent nuclear terrorism) to do that; and it would still be subject to court interpretation, and "We The People" and our tolerance for invasion of OUR sovereignty: As we are the only subjects mentioned in the Constitution that have both power AND rights. Supreme power in my opinion. Correct me if I am wrong deep, but wasn't this what George Washington did when he fought the Whiskey Rebellion? In fact isn't this an executive power? I know it is an gubernatorial power at the state level.

zoso967
zoso967

George Washington was fighting a well organized militia of about 13,000 men for tax evasion, albeit unfair taxation. However, In the absence of imminent danger all the gov't could do is MAKE USELESS UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS!!!!! BTW, The whiskey tax was repealed in 1803, having been largely unenforceable outside of Western Pennsylvania, and even there never having been collected with much success ...

deepsand
deepsand

While the present Congress would seem unlikely to blindly defer to a Presidential decision to declare Martial Rule, Congress's powers to override such are limited.

JCitizen
JCitizen

Deepsand wrote: The purpose of Martial Rule is to restore the Rule of Law; the inability to identify "enemy agents" does not constitute a breakdown of such Rule. I acknowledge that my "devils advocate" argument is deeply flawed; does the President? Or congress for that matter.

deepsand
deepsand

The purpose of Martial Rule is to [b]restore[/b] the Rule of Law; the inability to identify "enemy agents" does not constitute a breakdown of such Rule.

JCitizen
JCitizen

To play devil's advocate, my focus and my argument should be on the World War II model; whereby the states being too weak to properly respond to the science of reliably identifying sappers (saboteurs), it would become necessary to provide an emergency action to enable this capability so saboteurs[terrorists] could be more easily detected and arrested. Bear in mind I feel this is a weak argument(because of undeclared war on an unidentifiable enemy state, and many more); but our President has not let weak arguments deter him in the past; he might attempt it anyway. I suppose you could always argue that case law is a forever changing dynamic and something like this is bound to come up - but then again - maybe not.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

but after doing some research, I see that there is no such term as "Martial Law" (except in Guam and the Virgin Islands). Thanks for the info.

deepsand
deepsand

From the enabling Legislation" "[i]From the Revised Statutes of the United States: "5297. [b][u]In case of insurrection[/u] in any State against the government thereof[/b], it shall be lawful for the President, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, when the Legislature can not be convened to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, which may be applied for, as he deems sufficient to suppress such insurrection; or, in like application, to employ for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval forces of the United States as he deems necessary." "5298. [b]Whenever, [u]by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the United States[/u][/b], it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to enforce, by ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of any or all of the States, and to employ such parts of the land or naval forces of the United States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, or to suppress such rebellion, in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed." "5300. Whenever, in the judgment of the President, it becomes necessary to use the military forces under this title, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time." [/i]

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]the federal government doesn't need a local insurrection to enact martial law[/i] All that is required is that the local government be unable to effectively govern and the state either asks for help or is itself unable to get it working. I don't think the "why" matters.

deepsand
deepsand

some of the presently remaining fog will be no more. In any case though, for so long as we've an Executive claiming extraordinary implied powers by virtue of the President being the Commander-in-Chief, Court decisions, even those of the highest in the land, are of little to no effect.

sn53
sn53

zoso wrote, "thanks for the explanation deep ... " He is good, isn't he?

JCitizen
JCitizen

There may be no basis bound by my words; but I always understood that the World War II precedent was an action akin to some sort of marshall action; whatever the wording. I remember the word "marshall" in my study of the scholars commenting on it for that time. This was a long time ago before the internet and I have not googled to do a new study on it. It has been constantly referred to in the national media; so the public is aware of layman comparisons out there; but there is no accuracy to this of course. I know the feds at that time had no problem spying on domestic contacts and had no trouble using all military personnel to detect and arrest ememy sappers posing as US citizens. Not unlike what goes on today - EXCEPT, under my argument, they have no definable ememy to meet the obvious constitutional litmus test. Hence the problem of whether it is legal or not. In summary my argument is that this is going to happen eventually, if not already(in whatever form), and it will cause a crisis in the courts, ect. when it does - precisely for the reasons you and others have pointed out in this discussion. (edited) Thanks for the clarifications you found in the Wolters reference deep!

deepsand
deepsand

From "MARTIAL LAW AND ITS ADMINISTRATION," COMPILED BY JACOB F. WOLTERS Member Houston, Texas State, and American Bar Associations Brigadier General, TNG?ORC [b]MARTIAL LAW DEFINED[/b] 1. Probably the clearest exposition of the principles of law relating to Martial Law will be found in an article entitled, ?The Rationale of Martial Law,? prepared by Mr. Frazer Arnold, a member of the Denver (Colorado) Bar, and published in the American Bar Association Journal, September, 1929, issue. Mr. Arnold?s article is reproduced in full, but subdivided into paragraphs to make reference convenient: 2. ?A period of tranquility like the present is no doubt more timely for considering the above subject than would be an occasion of civil turmoil attendant upon industrial strife in one or more of the states; because, in the latter event, the conditions that lend interest to the topic often hamper any endeavor at scientific analysis. 3. ?From consideration of brevity, the writer has avoided quotations and citations of authority; and, from the same consideration, the article which follows contemplates mainly the situations of martial rule which continually arise in some of the states and does not attempt to deal with Federal legislative enactments and the war powers of the Federal Executive although these are naturally and closely akin in theory with the more limited war powers of governors. 4. The basic principles involved are, as a rule, more clearly understood by persons in the Military Service of Federal or State governments than they are by citizens generally, including many practicing attorneys and an occasional judge. And yet the principles of Martial Law are necessarily as much a part of the Constitution and law of the land, both Federal and State, as are the rules that clothe the judge with his civil authority and the citizen with his civil rights and immunities. [b]MILITARY JURISDICTION[/b] 5. ?In American law, three kinds of military jurisdiction exist: ?First is Military Law, governing persons in the Military Service and camp followers. It is found in the Acts of Congress, Army Regulations, Articles of War, General Orders and Customs of the Service. It does not apply to civilians, either in peace or war; and its characteristic tribunal is the Court Martial, General, Special and Summary. It is part of our domestic or municipal law. 6. ?Second is Military Government, sometimes called the law of hostile occupation, covering invaded territory. This supersedes, so far as the commander of the invading forces deems expedient, the local law in force before the invasion took place; and the sanction or basis for that part of the local law which is allowed to govern is not the displaced sovereignty of the invaded country, but the will of the military commander of the invader; in short, the commanding general decrees that the hostile population will be governed by its usual laws and customs except as they interfere with his operations or conflict with his orders and policies. Examples of this were the military government set up in Mexico by General Scott in 1847; that of the belligerent Confederate States when invaded in the 60s; that enforced, with unnecessary vigor, by the German forces in Belgium (during the World War; and that of the occupied zone in Germany from 1918 to 1920. Its sanction is the will of the military commander under the direction of the President. Its legal foundation is International Law. Its practices and precedents are the customs and usages of war. Its characteristic tribunals are the Military Commission and the Provost Court, superior and inferior. 7. ?The third is Martial Law. A more logical descriptive term is martial rule. It relates to domestic Territory in a condition of insurrection or invasion, when the Constitution and its civil authorities, State or Federal, as the case may be, have been rendered inoperative or powerless by the insurrectionary or invading forces. It is part of our domestic or municipal law. In the Federal Constitution its foundations are Section 5 of Article IV, wherein the United States guarantees to every State a republican form of government and protection against invasion, and, on application of the Legislature or of the Governor when the Legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence; and Sections II and III of Article II which make the President the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States and of the militia of the several states when called into actual Federal service, and make it his duty to ?take care that the laws be faithfully executed.? In the various State Constitutions, its foundation is in those sections which vest in the Governor the supreme Executive power of the State, which make him commander-in-chief of its military forces, when not in actual Federal service, and give him power to use those forces to suppress insurrection or repel invasion. The practices and precedents of Martial Law are borrowed from International Law, and the usages and customs of war. Its characteristic tribunals are the Military Commission and the Provost Court. Superficially, therefore, it resembles military government or hostile occupation. [b]EARLY CONFUSION[/b] 8. ?The foregoing classification is important to remember, as much confusion of thought and language was formerly caused in this country, and is still in England, by applying the term ?Martial Law? indiscriminately to hostile occupation as well as to domestic Territory in a State of insurrection or invasion. ..." It is exceedingly important that these distinctions be made, so as to understand that, under our current Federal & States' Constitutions, it is Martial [u]Rule[/u] alone that is provided for. And, that the [u]purpose[/u] of such is one that is speifically & narrowly defined; i.e., it is for the purpose of [b]enforcing existing Civil Law, [u]when, by virtue of insurrection or invasion, Civil Authorities are unable to do so[/u].[/b] The simple declaration of a "national emergency" is not sufficient to meet the requirements for the invocation of Martial Rule.

deepsand
deepsand

Although I'm not yet completed reading the document you provided, I've yet to find the quoted purpose to be legal ground for a declaration of martial rule. Have you?

zoso967
zoso967

... only then can he declare martial law. so the president can declare a national emergency and then martial law. however, congress has the authority to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if it believes the president has acted inappropriately ... this is as of May 9, 2007 ...

JCitizen
JCitizen

This is the difficulty the feds face. But, World War II was not an insurrection and it is my understanding that martial law WAS declared, in the federal context, to deal with Nazi and Japanese saboteurs. Because Hawaii was a territory at the time, some of the measures taken there borderd on draconian rule. From the scholarship I have read about these matters, there was NO argument that FDR's grounds for invoking this action were not solid, because we were in a war with several enemy states and the domestic side had to be covered for the security of the United States. So theoretically, in my opinion, a sitting president would have to convince congress and the courts that just because there isn't a definable enemy state, does not mean he can't take similar action to preserve the domestic tranquility and security.

zoso967
zoso967

that actually just made me feel just a little safer ... thanks for the explanation deep ...

deepsand
deepsand

[i]prior[/i] to an insurrection or invasion. And, it seems clear that under Martial Rule, the Military is both constrained by existing Laws & to the enforcement of such; i.e., it may neither violate present Civil Laws nor make new ones. From "The Rationale of Martial Law": "[i]... Martial Law. A more logical descriptive term is martial rule. It relates to domestic Territory in a condition of insurrection or invasion, when the Constitution and its civil authorities, State or Federal, as the case may be, have been rendered inoperative or powerless by the insurrectionary or invading forces.[/i]" From the Revised Statutes of the United States: "5297. In case of insurrection in any State against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, when the Legislature can not be convened to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States, which may be applied for, as he deems sufficient to suppress such insurrection; or, in like application, to employ for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval forces of the United States as he deems necessary." "5298. Whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to enforce, by ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of any or all of the States, and to employ such parts of the land or naval forces of the United States as he may deem necessary [b]to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States[/b], or to suppress such rebellion, in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof forcibly obstructed." "5300. Whenever, in the judgment of the President, it becomes necessary to use the military forces under this title, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time."

JCitizen
JCitizen

but the federal government doesn't need a local insurrection to enact martial law, in my opinion. I may not be the master communicator you and others are on this thread, so forgive me if my brief statements don't cover all grounds. World War II would have been a good test case for present circumstances but there is no verifiable ememy state to declare war on. So anything the feds did in this regard would be a large gray area that would have to be backed up by the courts, and the legislature, of course. "W" seems to have a policy to take action and let the chips fall where they may. If this were imminent nuclear terrorism I might even agree with this tactic - but other wise, I will be in the trenches with my other contitutional compatriots fighting for my God given rights.

deepsand
deepsand

In fact, it's an area that I've been meaning to research for quite some time now. Perhaps that time has come.

zoso967
zoso967

insurrection: an act or instance of REVOLTING against civil authority or an established government. a state exercising it's constitutional rights againts the federal govt is NOT insurrection.

deepsand
deepsand

As for who bears the cost of their maintenance, I cannot say. And, the base is Federally owned, having been purchased from Pitcairn shortly after the beginning of WWII, for use in anti-submarine warfare. The mechanisms being used to ensure that it remains available for the use of said wing are seeming unnecessarily circuitous; I can't put my fingers on the details at the moment, so I'm unable to be more specific.

JCitizen
JCitizen

about that deep! I am used to reading this junk because I have to interact with the Feds on a lot of weapons and explosives issues and I get too used to tons of legal verbiage(garbage). Base closings are always a hot political subject; but I was trying to focus on actual command control of the troops. Each state has a different logistical relationship with the Feds. Some of them own their equipment and land assets; some of them don't. Some like Texas and Michigan have their own militias that are exclusively under the governor's control. As far as actually taking National Guard troops, and using them, the president has full control [they are legally federal troops] - the legislature controls the Reserve. The state of Kansas is now in conflict with "W" on the equipment and manpower issue; as I am sure a lot of them are now days. Like Louisianna, Kansas has a lot of weather related disasters that strain this relationship. (edited) I suspect in the PA case the state actually owned the aircraft or had spent state funds to keep them maintained. This gives the state great power over any asset that is given to, or is paid for by said state. They may actually own the ground the base was on, although this is not usually the case with Federal Reserve forces.

deepsand
deepsand

I've downloaded the PDF file, but only gotten as far as page 18 as of 2200 hrs..

deepsand
deepsand

In fact, PA recently beat the Fed in that regard. The Willow Grove Naval Air Station is one of those selected for closure; as a Joint Reserve Base, it is home to the 111th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard, flying A-10s. As part of said closure, the Feds ordered that this squadron be disbanded. PA challenged the Fed's authority for such order in Federal Court, and won. Then the Fed said, fine, you can keep the squadron, but we're taking back your aircraft; again, the Fed lost. As it stands now, via a multi-party leasing arrangement, the base will remain open for the Air National guard.

JCitizen
JCitizen

I'm no expert either but I was in the National Guard for eleven years and we were extensively trained in all UCMJ related to this subject. The National Guard is totally under Federal control with the state's goverenors as secondary executive to the President of the United States - despite popular belief. This has been tested in court under President Reagan and the states lost.(no links on that - sorry) But we did go by this case brought to the State of Texas by the Adjutant General of the Texas National Guard (Brigadier General Wolters) and the book on martial law was written by, and is considered the best case coming as close to a federal Constitutional litmus test as could be ascertained up to now. http://www.texasranger.org/E-Books/Martial%20Law%20&%20Its%20Administration%20(Wolters).pdf [Please copy and paste the entire URL or it wont work] This was a state conflict involving insurrection, but is used to establish federal guidelines[and was by the National Guard]. The only other modern emergency regarding federal martial law history would be World War II; but this was a readily definable enemy and involved a declared war against actual foreign states. I think we would see a Constitutional crises because of a lack of precedent on this particular problem of stateless terrorism.

Editor's Picks