although the composition of its citizens IS made up of the rest of the world. The issue being argued against a "national ID" is the potential for abuse by governmental authority, counterfeiting, and other tampering that negate its purpose or effectiveness. To address such, "other" countries might impose penalties that in the U.S. would violate the U.S. Constitution.
Of course that is what is being argued regarding bulk NSA data collection and requiring a national ID would amount to bulk fingerprint collection which brings the 4th Amendment to the fore -
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.
Requiring a photograph (for some) would amount to prohibiting the free exercise of a religion as there is a need for consideration of those who are members of religions that forbid photographs. Other countries wouldn't give a damn about that. This brings up the issue of the 1st Amendment -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Since the 1930s, Americans have been able to receive Social Security benefits (and since the 1960s, Medicare service) without any need for a photographic ID. In fact, here in PA, drivers did just fine without a photographic ID until ~1980s when the photo drivers license was implemented (with the option for no photo for those opting out for religious purposes).
Fingerprints can be altered as can photos, so such a "national card" would not guarantee identity. As an example, even RF-chipped passports have been used fraudulently by parties in possession of lost/stolen/manufactured passports.
The initial court arguments here in PA were to address the effort and cost required to obtain a "Voter ID" (birth certificate, etc)
to be used solely for voting (for those who did not have any other type of ID). That cost amounted to a violation of the 24th Amendment -
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Literally - while on the stand the summer before the 2012 election and testifying for the state (PA), the state's electoral authorities
rescinded the cost provisions for obtaining the PA Voter ID and since then, the entire thing was put under injunction pending the Constitutionality case (that case being the subject of this Breaking News).
For voting purposes, ALL states need to either make polling places local enough that neighborhood/town poll workers are familiar with the voter -OR BETTER- just allow for mail-in voting and call it.
The one thing that I have harped on since this whole Voter ID thing came about is that if one looks at the U.S. Constitution, one will find that of all the topics addressed as Amendments,
"Voting" has FOUR Amendments dedicated towards restoring and enforcing the practice as a "right" for those disenfranchised. No other topic has as many changes made to the Constitution to deal with the problems associated with it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
