Grassroots in Nebraska

Working towards Constitutional, limited government

  • Home
  • About
    • About GiN
    • Principles
    • Operating Philosophy
    • Policies
  • Elections
    • Election 2016
    • Election 2014
    • Election 2012
    • Election 2010
    • Local Elections
    • Sample Ballots
  • Local
    • City of Lincoln
    • Lancaster County
  • State
    • Your Representatives
    • Governor
    • NE Unicameral
  • Federal
  • Contact
    • Subscribe
    • Tip Submissions
You are here: Home / Big Brother Government / Biometrics / History Has Proven Nullification a Failure – Just Look at REAL ID

History Has Proven Nullification a Failure – Just Look at REAL ID

Originally published March 14, 2011, By Shelli Dawdy. Updated May 26, 2013. 7 Comments

This is Part 2 in a continuing series on nullification. For Part 1, click HERE.

In Part 1, I explained that in the past year, I’ve come to realize that nullification is not a solution that should be pursued by the states. That change of opinion, the result of much research and reflection, includes a number of reasons.

The first I will give should convince even those who philosophically support the concept.

Historically, nullification has proven ineffective

While there are a number of examples available1 There are a number of historical examples that show nullification does not work. To preserve space within this article and to maintain focus on REAL ...continue I believe there are two, in particular, that sufficiently make the case that nullification is ineffective: REAL ID and the health care law. This article deals with REAL ID. Part 3 will focus on health care implementation.

REAL ID…Identifies Nullification as a REAL Failure

Many people cite nullification by the states’ of REAL ID, an Act passed in 2005, as proof of its success. Civil liberty, sovereignty, and limited government advocates quite rightly labeled REAL ID as a move towards a national ID card. They also argued that it violates of a number of long-standing principles:

  • Blurring of  law enforcement’s traditional jurisdictional boundaries
  • The original separation and balance of powers doctrine, which included the States through federalism2 Under the U.S. Constitution as originally written, the States were a critical part of the balance and separation of powers because Senators were ...continue
  • Particular inalienable rights articulated in the Fourth and Fifth amendments

The majority of state level bureaucrats and elected officials who objected to REAL ID did so almost solely on the basis of straining their state’s budgets – they said it was an unfunded mandate, and it was.

Most states refused to implement the Act, some passively, some actively through the passage of legislation 3 Nebraska was one of the States in which measures were introduced; LR28 was passed by the Nebraska Unicameral in 2007.  In 2009, LB229, which sought ...continue. The proof “is in the pudding”, however. Real ID 4 Due to the blow back from states, the federal government had apparently been moving toward an alternative version of REAL ID, called PASS ID. ...continue has been implemented in various degrees within most states, including some who passed legislation purporting to prohibit that very thing. While some quibble (including the CATO Institute!), implementation is going on as we speak. Computer World‘s January article on the topic informed of a study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies, which revealed implementation activities were underway. An updated April study, entitled “Real ID Implementation Embraced by 41 States” gives concrete details regarding status of implementation.

Image from DelawarePolitics.net

For people who live in states whose elected officials objected to REAL ID, several perplexing possibilities come to mind. Those elected officials were too much on their own in attempting to stop it, had little understanding of their states’ bureaucracy, or, worse, they were simply mollifying the constituents who objected by pledging that the actions they had taken were sufficient.

An examination of events in Nebraska should cause any thinking person to wonder: The Unicameral passed a resolution in 2007 (see footnote #3) urging Congress to repeal the REAL ID Act of 2005. It appears that no further action was taken by the Legislature until 2009, when a bill was introduced to bring the state into compliance with the REAL ID Act. But the only information I can find indicates the bill was indefinitely postponed and apparently died. There may be an information gap but I can’t currently close it. If Nebraska’s legislators subsequently voted to implement REAL ID, no one else tracking the issue seems aware of it. However, a Lincoln Journal Star article in July 2010 proves REAL ID implementation was underway at that point5 A personal experience provides some evidence that Nebraska moved to implement REAL ID in June of 2010; one of my children went to the DMV in Lincoln ...continue , causing a major backlog in getting people their licenses.

By believing that nullification was a solution, not only did efforts to stop REAL ID fail in Nebraska and other states, many fundamental issues associated with the whole subject were never addressed. Those include questions about the constitutionality of federal government commandeering state licensing procedures for its own purposes, implications for electronic collection of citizens’ personal information, sharing of data with third-party vendors, and compilation of information on the federal level that had previously been held within the state, among others. Moreover, there have been ongoing efforts to push identification requirements much further, and as this is being read, efforts are ongoing to embed biometric data and RFID technology in driver’s licenses in many states. Such developments are even more disturbing than the original REAL ID concept.

Nullification of REAL ID seems like a dog and pony show to me

One a political level, opponents of REAL ID believed state-level elected officials and bureaucrats were both competent and well-intended. Officials who made objections on the singular premise of “unfunded mandate” were not called to account to make the best arguments. Sorting out the incompetent and ineffective from the purely politically-motivated did not take place. Therefore, none were properly monitored, scrutinized, nor lobbied with actually effective solutions. Many were re-elected to office.

The implication I am making is clear – elected officials who pledged nullification as a solution to the REAL ID implementation problem were ultimately fooling themselves and others or they were knowingly doing so for political gain.

______________________________

Lingering Questions…

  • Why did it take until 2007 for the Nebraska Legislature to repudiate the REAL ID Act, which was passed by Congress in 2005?
  • How did the implementation of REAL ID in Nebraska move forward absent legislative authority (such as for making necessary changes to state statutes and, very importantly, to authorize funding) or did the Legislature pass some measure missed by all of the watchers?
  • Did the Department of Motor Vehicles directly apply for a federal grant to fund implementation?
  • If our legislators had known what they were doing and had been serious about blocking the implementation of the law, instead of merely passing a resolution to be sent to Congress, what other steps might they have taken?
  • Was Nebraska’s Governor totally on vacation?
  • Where was the Attorney General?

Civil Disobedience vs Nullification

It’s very important to understand that blocking implementation of the REAL ID Act would have actually required (and actually did entail, for a while) some measure of civil disobedience from our state-level officials. The distinction between civil disobedience and nullification is very important. Civil disobedience is a deliberate choice to refuse to implement or obey a law, even if it does apply. Nullification rationalizes that individual states or, apparently, individuals may rightfully determine on their own that a law is unconstitutional. Civil disobedience should only be engaged in rarely, in extraordinary circumstances, and for a limited period while other available options are pursued.

Possibilities…

Nebraska officials, including the Governor, members of the Legislature, and the Attorney General should have worked together to devise and coordinate a specific action plan to respond to the passage of the REAL ID Act by Congress.

1) Passage of a resolution by the Legislature at the earliest available date following Congress’ action

2) Formal Request made to the Attorney General by the Governor or Legislature to review the federal law (see #5, below)

3) An issuance of directives by the Governor to his executive branch agencies explicitly prohibiting any action on implementing the law or requesting funding from the federal government for the purposes of implementation, at minimum, for a specified period while under review and/or litigation

4) No appropriation of funding for implementation or inclusion in the Governor’s submitted budgets

5) My research indicates there were ample grounds for a suit filed by the Attorney General. The 2007 resolution passed by the Legislature had strikingly similar language to that found in several Supreme Court rulings pertaining to federal government encroaching on states, particularly in this passage6 The Printz v. United States case includes very similar language and in turn, references many previous cases upon which the Printz decision was ...continue:

“WHEREAS, the REAL ID Act wrongly coerces states into doing the federal government’s bidding by threatening to refuse noncomplying states’ citizens the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other states’ citizens;”

6) Due consideration to the necessity of broader action to protect from state encroachments. Considering the implications of REAL ID, this action by federal government, along with others should have provoked, at minimum, questions from state-level officials regarding the growing imbalance between the federal and state governments. See footnote7 There are no easy options and I will not explore all here. One I find appealing is a particular amendment to the US Constitution allowing 2/3 of ...continue.

A REAL MESS

Based on the evidence as relates to REAL ID – nullification not only does not work – it creates a mess. This particular mess is now six years old and only getting bigger. One case in point is a map prepared by an entity which has been advocating for REAL ID. As of 12/31/2009, according to this group, most states had made significant progress in implementing the 18 benchmarks required by the REAL ID Act, including Nebraska, which had implemented 16 out of the 18.

Note the date on the map – as mentioned above – the bill in the Nebraska Legislature, LB229, to bring Nebraska in compliance with the REAL ID Act, by all accounts died in committee. If this map is accurate, how did Nebraska move toward implementation?


There is another issue – health care implementation – that is likely to go down the same path if people remain determined to focus on nullification as the answer.

The problems with advocating for nullification as a way of stopping health care implementation will be addressed in the next article in this series, Part 3.

[catalyst_hook_box name=”articleseries”]

1. Nullification NOT the Answer for Health Care (or anything else)

2. This article

3. Nullification Measures Not Stopping Health Care Implementation (Think Idaho)

4. Nullification: Are State Level Officials Really Opposed to Federal Encroachment?

5. Nullification: Are States Sitting Ducks or Willing Accomplices?

Share this article:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Google
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn

Notes & References   [ + ]

1. ↑ There are a number of historical examples that show nullification does not work. To preserve space within this article and to maintain focus on REAL ID, for the moment I will simply refer those interested in pursuing the topic further to an article on the Wallbuilders site written by David Barton in February 2010. I believe it is important to clarify that in linking to Mr. Barton’s article, I find some aspects of it problematic. For those who are truly interested in the history of nullification and interposition, I’d recommend using the timeline in Barton’s article as a basis for additional inquiry. Also, despite my caveats, Barton extensively cites primary sources. Those interested in an independent inquiry are encouraged to pursue those primary sources for themselves.
2. ↑ Under the U.S. Constitution as originally written, the States were a critical part of the balance and separation of powers because Senators were elected by State Legislatures, not by the people of their state – see Federalist 62. The 17th Amendment in 1913, which provided for election of US Senators by the people, removed a key element. It’s difficult to avoid a potential correlation between this disturbance in a balanced federalism and the increasing encroachment of federal government on states.
3. ↑ Nebraska was one of the States in which measures were introduced; LR28 was passed by the Nebraska Unicameral in 2007.  In 2009, LB229, which sought to bring Nebraska into compliance with the law, was introduced, but my research indicates it was postponed indefinitely and not taken up again. As the information on this blog indicates, the Nebraska DMV proceeded with implementation absent legislative authorization. The site links to an article in the Lincoln Journal Star from July 15, 2010, which informs that Nebraska license applications – including those renewing – were all being sent to L-1 Identity Solutions, a third-party vendor.
4. ↑ Due to the blow back from states, the federal government had apparently been moving toward an alternative version of REAL ID, called PASS ID. However, it now appears that the Department of Homeland Security has reverted back to pushing for the original REAL ID program.
5. ↑ A personal experience provides some evidence that Nebraska moved to implement REAL ID in June of 2010; one of my children went to the DMV in Lincoln to obtain her first driver’s permit that month. It was at that point we learned that something had definitely changed about obtaining permits and licenses, although I did not at that time recall prior years’ media reports about REAL ID. My daughter was issued a temporary paper permit with a 30 day expiration and was told the new procedures meant the permanent card would be mailed. When the 30 day deadline was only days away, we called the DMV and were informed that problems with the new system had erupted, causing delays, and a new temporary would be issued.
6. ↑ The Printz v. United States case includes very similar language and in turn, references many previous cases upon which the Printz decision was based. The Court held that the federal government cannot impose a regulatory program or scheme on States, even temporarily.
7. ↑ There are no easy options and I will not explore all here. One I find appealing is a particular amendment to the US Constitution allowing 2/3 of states to repeal a federal law or regulation. Other options that occur to me are more political or would involve the associations and conferences of which many legislators and Governors are members. While I have not done any research, I have no recollection of more than a handful of candidates ever making REAL ID an issue at election time.

Filed Under: Biometrics, Legal Limit, REAL ID, State Sovereignty Tagged With: 2007 nebraska resolution real id, attorney general, attorneys general, balanced federalism, bill of rights, biometrics, chips in driver's licenses, driver's license, federalism, fifth amendment, fourth amendment, governor, governors, history of nullification, history of real id, interposition, jurisdiction, law enforcement, lr28 real id, national id card, nebraska governor, nebraska politics, nebraska real id, nullification, nullification by states, nullification debate, personal information, personal privacy, politics, printz vs united states, real id, state action on nullification, state legislatures, Unicameral

Comments

  1. Glen says

    March 15, 2011 at 5:11 am

    Typo?

    “One a political level, opponents of REAL ID believed state-level elected …” should be “*On* a political …”.

    Reply
  2. Hank Williams says

    March 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Though Glenn Beck loves David Barton…he is a big government revisionist. A neo-con of the first order. His version of history fits well with the state sponsored Lincoln propaganda but is a long way from realty. True historians like Kevin Gutzman eat his lunch all the time. I reccomend the politically incorrect guide to the constitution. I also recommend Lew Rockwell and Andrew Napolitano as opposed to beck.

    Reply
  3. Mike Maharrey says

    March 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    It would appear that the argument posed here proves state legislators lack the guts to follow through, not that nullification is ineffective as a principle. I suppose by the same argument, the Constitution itself is a failure. It certainly isn’t followed.

    I would further argue that state resistance HAS foiled the speedy implementation of Real ID despite the lack of gonads exhibited by many of our state lawmakers.

    Reply
  4. Sheila Dean says

    March 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    I think the point of this article is that nullification is some sort of veiled threat or “all hat and no cattle”; that it portended to be a fix-all, overpromising and underdelivering. Nullification and its potentials threatens federalists. Tenth Amendment Nullification holds a certain amenity to all States who choose to use it. There was certainly strength in numbers as an expression to push back against federal in this instance. It is also true every State continues to get requests for compliance on a law DHS itself won’t back up due to States’ resistance. As a result, there’s a slack wristed, wan type of reaction from States, who have bigger priorities vs. Real ID. Did it comprehensively solve the problem of barcode and regulations contractors bullying State DMV’s with threat of suit? No. Did it stop some states from going-along-to-get-along on compliance rules that were otherwise viewed as benign or as less nefarious? No. Indeed, I have made the argument that it is very hard to marshall outrage over things like holographic laminates. The DMV has its own unsavory reputation to contend with as being the worst of local petty tyrants in terms of documentation and the abuse of constituent time. A federalized license is what Real ID would become. Those who aren’t in the least threatened by this idea, aren’t standing in the way of “federal standards” for State drivers licenses; which can be viewed as playing nice with the feds or it’s good PR by politicians. I believe there is some quid pro quo to keep those balances copacetic because “we all have to work together” etc. etc. I think the other idea behind this article is to get people to ask the question, what if nullification worked? What if it didn’t work? In terms of Real ID, who would be the losers? Every State still contends with Real ID. Even if it has been successfully defunded, there is a lot of work left to do by States to keep it at bay. Individual libertarians bear the burden of vigilance to watchdog this until it truly goes away. The 10th Amendment came as a great pitch hitter to knock it back into the federal strata. That certainly is not a bad thing, even if there is still a great deal of work left to be done.

    Reply
  5. Donald Mellon says

    March 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Nullification is a possibility but not by a single state but rather by a majority of states acting collectively. This can be done formally using state conventions, the same bodies that ratified the Constitution, or by a lengthy and uncertain Constitutional amendment process. Here is a link to an article on how state conventions can be used. http://www.teaparty911.com/blog/nullification-of-federal-actions-by-the-people/

    Reply
  6. John Michaels says

    November 30, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Real ID has been nullified in many states…and for you to say that it doesn’t work is absurd. Not only is Nullification mainstream, but it is the only tool proven effective to stop a government dead in it’s tracks! You can ask anyone from the country of India or Pakistan, when Mohondus Ghandi dreamed of a free India, Nullification is the tool he used.

    Reply
    • Shelli DawdyStubborn_Facts says

      February 5, 2013 at 4:07 am

      Mr. Michaels,
      It has long been in my plans to do a couple of follow up articles regarding the issue of nullificaton.

      Clearly, you don’t agree with anything you read in the article about which you commented, but, I honestly have to question whether or not you did indeed read the article. Do you actually mean to say that nullification worked in the specific instance of Real ID? Has it not been implemented in essentially every state, including Nebraska? It most definitely has been implemented here. On the date this article was written, as was shown, 16 out of the 18 benchmarks had been implemented in NE. Our personal information IS being run through a third party out of state database.

      Can you please give evidence that nullification worked in the case of Real ID?

      Shelli

      Reply
You are here: Home / Big Brother Government / Biometrics / History Has Proven Nullification a Failure – Just Look at REAL ID

We welcome civil comments, discussion and debate: Cancel reply

We're glad you've chosen to join the discussion. All comments are moderated according to our official commenting policy.

If you wish to format your comment a bit, simply highlight text, then click the appropriate button. (b = bold, i = italics)

Latest

NE Medicaid Expansion:  The Race is On (AGAIN)

NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On (AGAIN)

Back on January 17, 2013, I published an article here at the GiN website … Read full article...

A Tribute to GiN Founder Shelli J. Dawdy

A Tribute to GiN Founder Shelli J. Dawdy

We could begin this eulogy with a recitation of the usual facts and statistics, … Read full article...

Why the Electoral College?  Because State and Regional Diversity Matters.

Why the Electoral College? Because State and Regional Diversity Matters.

Where you live, your day-to-day experience gained through interacting with your … Read full article...

VOTE!  It’s Weasel-Stomping Day!

VOTE! It’s Weasel-Stomping Day!

For those of you who have lost your sense of humor during this interminable … Read full article...

What’s Wrong With the Electoral College?

What’s Wrong With the Electoral College?

During my lifetime, I've heard more criticisms of the Electoral College than … Read full article...

Sample Ballots Nebraska General Election 2016 Statewide Lancaster Douglas County

Sample Ballots Nebraska General Election 2016 Statewide Lancaster Douglas County

As you can see, there are a lot of ballots here. All but a few are relevant for … Read full article...

Submit News Tips

If you have information about an important issue or event that you believe demands further scrutiny, please visit our Tips Submission page.

Unlocking Solutions

"...in our system it is often more
important HOW we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies (and presidents) change. We cannot change the system upon which we all depend for our rights and representation."

~ Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law, Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, February 26, 2014
Read more...

Subscribe to new articles by Email!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Top Articles – All Time

GiN Response to Presidential Popular Vote Advocate

Presidential Election 2012 Electoral College Maps as of October 9, 2012

This most read article is an energetic response to the well-funded, organized effort to eliminate the Electoral College.

TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices

TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices

We're sure this article has been so well read because it is decidedly unique. If you want a different perspective on the Keystone Pipeline, this is a good place to start.

Dr. Benjamin Carson - Speaking Truth to Power

This popular article was written in 2013, well before voters began to take an interest in the good doctor. It was inspired by a reading of Dr. Carson's book.

Photo of Dr. Benjamin Carson

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Painting of Benjamin Franklin

For the past five years and counting, we've found the continued popularity of this article a source of hope. At the very least, a lot of people are curious about this historical incident.

Archives

SO, we had a 10th Amendment resolution, huh?

And how's that working out for us?
GiN's Nullification Series provides a hint:
  1. Nullification Not the Answer for Health Care
  2. History Has Proven Nullification a Failure: Just Look at REAL ID
  3. Nullification Measures Not Stopping Health Care Implementation (Think Idaho)
  4. Nullification: Are State Level Officials Really Opposed to Federal Encroachment?

Health Care Archive

GiN health care graphic
  • Health Care Law Achilles Heel? A Growing Legal Morass
  • Money For Nothing and Health Care For Free
  • Families Need Medicaid Like Fish Need Bicycles

Search the GiN site

Some Vintage GiN

Governor Heineman Really Liked Purple People Before They Were “Cool”

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Ever-Expanding Welfare: He May Be My Brother, But He's Getting Heavy

47% of Nebraska Births Paid for By the State: Is that Good?

Also of Possible Interest

NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On (AGAIN)

Back on January 17, 2013, I published an article here at the GiN website entitled "NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On."  I followed up with an entire series of articles … [Read More...]

A Tribute to GiN Founder Shelli J. Dawdy

We could begin this eulogy with a recitation of the usual facts and statistics, but we won't. This is an unusual remembrance for an unusual lady: Shelli J. Dawdy. She admonished us … [Read More...]

Subscribe: New Articles Delivered By Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Quoteworthy

"Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody."

~ Calvin Coolidge, Fourth Annual Message, December 7, 1926

Copyright© 2009–2018 · Grassroots in Nebraska · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Jovian Limited

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.