Nullification: 3, Real ID: 0

by Derek Sheriff

In spite of the fact that the Constitution was recently read in its entirety (minus a few sections and amendments), for the first time in the history of the House, several senior Republicans must have either been absent or just weren’t paying attention to what they were hearing. (No) Surprise! 

Less than three months after the historic reading, they were back to business as usual — the business of usurping more power from the states and consolidating it in Washington, DC.  House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano,  demanding she not extend the May 11 deadline for the states to comply with the federal Real ID Act.

In spite of the hysterical warning contained in their letter, the Obama administration wisely decided to do for a third time what the Bush administration was forced to do the first time when many state governments simply refused to comply with the act’s unconstitutional requirements — extend the deadline again.

Anticipating that the Obama administration would again back down to avoid conflict with the states, the letter asserted that the recent arrest of a terrorist suspect in Texas, “..underscores the importance of the immediate implementation of REAL ID.  Any further extension of REAL ID threatens the security of the United States.  We cannot understand how you could even contemplate a further delay – a delay that places American lives at risk.”

Homeland Hypocrisy
The real but greatly exaggerated danger of terrorism is a tried and true method of scaring Americans into giving the federal government a free pass to circumvent the Constitution. But how ironic that this time, one of the GOP chairmen who sent this letter was none other than Homeland Security Chairman Peter King! If you’ve heard how King spent decades raising money for the US-based Irish Northern Aid Committee (NORAID) and speaking at their events, you’ll understand.

NORAID, the US Justice department long suspected, was merely an arm of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), and both British and American intelligence reports seem to support that suspicion. In a recent article about King and his involvement with NORAID, investigative journalist William N. Grigg brought to many people’s attention what Ed Maloney, well known for his coverage of the PIRA, wrote in the New York Sun back in 2005:

“During his visits to Ireland, Mr. King would often stay with well-known leaders of the IRA, and he socialized in IRA drinking haunts. At one of such clubs, the Felons, membership was limited to IRA veterans who had served time in jail.”

So the King who demands that Real ID be shoved down our throats to supposedly protect us from Islamist terrorists, is the same King who raised funds for NORAID, which almost certainly went to support another terrorist organization that murdered Americans abroad. The 1983 bombing of Harrods department store in London, was carried out by the PIRA and killed six people and injured 90 others. Among the dead was a 28-year old American named Kenneth Salvesan. And among the injured was another American named Mark McDonald, whose wounds were very severe. Margaret Thatcher wrote to Ronald Reagan immediately after the bombing to demand that he crack down on NORAID, the organization that King supported for so long.

Why States Must Continue to Nullify the Federal Real ID Act
Besides the hypocrisy that usually accompanies homeland security smoke and mirrors, is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to set standards for state driver’s licenses and ID cards. Of course today’s state issued licenses and ID cards didn’t exist when the Constitution was drafted, but both before and after its ratification, the states had the authority to create such documents, since they retained all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution that were not prohibited to them by it (see 10th Amendment). If members of Congress are truly convinced that federal standards for state issued ID cards are necessary for the security of the United States, then they should propose a constitutional amendment. Of course, the vast majority of the people who make up our so called “federal” government have long behaved as if they’d never heard of the Constitution, or what Jefferson called it’s cornerstone — the 10th Amendment.

And what about the enormous costs associated with Real ID? While it’s true these outrageously expensive mandates have again reared their ugly head right at a time when many states face a severe budget crisis (the primary reason given by DHS for the most recent extension). Even if big budget surpluses were the norm among states these days, it would be no excuse for state governments to shirk their duty by submiting to an act of usurpation like Real ID. In spite of the decision many House Republicans have made to indulge in situational constitutionalism (the obnoxious habit of supporting the Constitution only when it is likely to result in a policy outcome one happens to favor), a far greater number of Republicans and Democrats in state governments across the country have chosen a more honorable path — that of state interposition and nullification.

Given that Real ID is both an expensive and unconstitutional act thatthreatens privacy, freedom and federalism, 25 states over the last several years have, according to the Tenth Amendment Center’s legislative tracking page:

“..passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been ‘delayed’ numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

James Madison, the chief author of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wrote in 1798 that when the federal government exercises powers not authorized by the Constitution, the states, “..are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Many state officials have faithfully carried out Madison’s admonition by rendering the Real ID Act null, void and without force within their state’s boundaries.  Now it’s up to us, the people of the several states, to remind them often, between now and the next deadline in January of 2013,  that they need to keep it that way.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.PrinciplesOfNinetyEight.Com. View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

Are All Governments Socialist?

*NOTE* - This entry was originally featured on Saturday, March 5th, 2011 at the Tenth Amendment Center

by Derek Sheriff

Yuri N. Maltsev worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team before defecting to the United States. Thankfully, he managed to immigrate to the United States without stopping in Siberia. Today he teaches economics at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. In a recent speech he gave in Florida, which was part of The Mises Circle in Naples, the former Soviet economist explained to the audience that in truth, allgovernments are socialist. Yes, that’s right…When it comes to governments, it’s only a question of the quantity of their socialist content.

Shortly after the midterm elections last year, columnist Gene DeNardo made a similar point in an article that appeared at NolanChart.com

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.

Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.”

But can a government exist that does not confiscate and redistribute the resources of its populace? In principle, I tend to think so, just as there might exist certain forms of voluntary socialism that redistribute without confiscation. In the broadest sense, governments are simply authorities that establish and maintain order, and (hopefully) justice, according to a system of law. If such a government can perform these functions with the unanimous consent of the governed and without redistributing wealth, then it would qualify as a non-socialist government, in my humble opinion.

But unless you’re are dealing with such a non-coercive government that does not redistribute wealth, you are dealing with a socialist government. You may be dealing with a big “S” socialist government that has a complete monopoly over vast territories, spanning multiple time zones, or you may be dealing with a small “s” socialist government in your state, county, city or town. But because almost all governments are based on socialism, Maltsev asserts that they can’t be reformed, “fixed” or ever made to run efficiently the way a business can in the private (voluntary), sector. The closest we’ll ever get to subjecting governments to market discipline, is by containing them, keeping them weak and dividing them up into as many competing jurisdictions as possible.

If we fail to do so and allow the consolidation of power that Jefferson, Madison and other founders feared, the result can be a dystopian nightmare, like the one Yuri Maltsev managed to escape from. On the other hand, if we succeed in doing so, we may force socialist governments in the U.S. to compete with each other, resulting in a greater number of freer and more prosperous political societies. Such an arrangement is called federalism, and I believe that it would naturally tend to prevent big “S” socialism from becoming a permanent feature of the federal government and gradually diminish small “s” socialism among the several states, as long as Americans remain free to move from one state to another.

Listening to Yuri N. Maltsev’s speech validated my belief that the federal government cannot be “fixed”. It also reinforced my conviction that Americans in one state shouldn’t be in the business of arguing with people of other states, about just how much socialism they ought to embrace or reject. Every state has a different level of acceptable socialism, but they are all socialist to one degree or another.

Now I’m not saying Americans residing in different states shouldn’t dialog with each other or coordinate their efforts when it’s mutually advantageous. But when more populous states choose to use their disproportionate influence in Congress or their greater number of electoral votes to elect a president who they know will usurp the authority of the states and micromanage their affairs, it violates the Constitution and is a recipe for political strife and disunion.

The Constitution authorizes a federal government of strictly limited powers, which are to be exercised for a few, carefully defined purposes. And both elected representatives and  the people they are supposed to represent, need to be reminded that the Constitution is a compact among the states, which are supposed to function as fifty competing laboratories of liberty, as it were.

Derek Sheriff [send him email] is a research analyst for the Tenth Amendment Center. His articles have appeared in various publications, and he writes regularly for the Center on issues related to state sovereignty and nullification. His blog and podcast “Principles of ‘98″ can be found at www.ThePrinciplesOf98.Com. View his Tenth Amendment Center blog archives here, and his article archives here.