Should there be a national ID?

[simone]

So you're confessing to having intentionally broken various laws for the fun of it?

That makes you as much a criminal as Brady, who has admitted to torturing/killing animals and performing arsonist acts.

Brady did what? When did he admit to that?

[NATO 556]

Brady did what? When did he admit to that?

Somewhere around August 2nd, 2009.

[simone]

Somewhere around August 2nd, 2009.

You can offer up a link for that?

[josephdphillips]

If we can make money extremely difficult to counterfeit, we should be able to do the same with IDs.

Of course. Absolutely.

[josephdphillips]

There's a number of things that're constitutional only on state level, not national.

No, there isn't. If it's constitutional anywhere in the United States, it's constitutional in all 50 states.

[JPSartre12]

No, there isn't. If it's constitutional anywhere in the United States, it's constitutional in all 50 states.

Not true. RE: state gay marriage bans

[josephdphillips]

Not true. RE: state gay marriage bans

The ability of any state to ban gay marriages is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Amendment 10, I believe.

At least until the Congress bans such bans.

[JPSartre12]

The ability of any state to ban gay marriages is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Amendment 10, I believe.

At least until the Congress bans such bans.

It's constitutional to ban gay marriage in Michigan but it's unconstitutional to ban it in other states, according to their state courts.
A state can give more rights to its citizens than the Federal Constitution does. NATO is 100% correct in his assertion.

[josephdphillips]

It's constitutional to ban gay marriage in Michigan but it's unconstitutional to ban it in other states, according to their state courts.
A state can give more rights to its citizens than the Federal Constitution does. NATO is 100% correct in his assertion.

Agreed, but federal law is supreme, as marijuana dispensaries in California have found out the hard way.

If there's a national ID, and such an ID doesn't comport to state constitutions, that's too bad. There's nothing the states can do about it.

[JPSartre12]

Agreed, but federal law is supreme, as marijuana dispensaries in California have found out the hard way.

If there's a national ID, and such an ID doesn't comport to state constitutions, that's too bad. There's nothing the states can do about it.

That's not accurate. There's plenty the state can do. The states aren't sheep, they do have means to redress grievances.

[josephdphillips]

That's not accurate. There's plenty the state can do. The states aren't sheep, they do have means to redress grievances.

You mean, like all the southern states, after Brown vs. Board of Education?

The states have to submit to federal authority. That's what the Civil War was all about. If Congress makes a law, it supercedes state law.

[MarieAntoinette]

A national insurance card does not give others access to your medical records* and would definitively establish citizenship for hiring purposes.

Otherwise a national id card is a massive government waste and even creates a heightened risk of identity fraud.

I agree with Simone, in premise, that short of a national insurance card, there are plenty of easier ways, such as enhanced driver license ids or just a passport, which should be funded anyway for people can't otherwise afford them.

It's called streamlining. As for these employers, they usually know they're hiring illegally. Just stop giving them the presumption of innocence. It's no great feat to check someone's social security number or citizenship status when hiring. Penalize them heavily. Perp walk the employers out in shackles and throw them in prison like they do in Virginia.

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

* In Canada, the medical records accessed through this card are more private than in the U.S. In the U.S., it sure is pathetic who can easily access your medical records ...

[JPSartre12]

You mean, like all the southern states, after Brown vs. Board of Education?

The states have to submit to federal authority. That's what the Civil War was all about. If Congress makes a law, it supercedes state law.

Really?
The DOMA of 1996 FEDERALLY defined marriage as one man/one woman, so why are there states with same-sex marriage if the federal law is binding on the states?

[josephdphillips]

The DOMA of 1996 FEDERALLY defined marriage as one man/one woman, so why are there states with same-sex marriage if the federal law is binding on the states?

You obviously don't understand the law. It only applies to the federal government, not to the states.

Even so, it's already been declared unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit.

[JPSartre12]

You obviously don't understand the law. It only applies to the federal government, not to the states.

Even so, it's already been declared unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit.

I understand the law. The point is that there are differences between federal law and state law. That particular law says that other states need not recognize gay marriage.