A requested topic for RubySlippers.

I wanted to first use this viideo which I can support is 100% accurate on how the ID requirements are making it far harder to stay off the streets and in fact even function as a citizen. And I will add after this mans video - warning some course language he is a good ol' boy and working man so it fits but he has a good heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3IPJUqp_Yw#ws

Okay.

Now this is a real issue and I'm in it I can get some documents but not all of them the proof of residency, not a mailing address but a home is the big issue for me. So when my ID is going to expire in thankfully a couple years I could be in trouble and not have an ID so this hits home.

I live in Florida to like this gentleman and our state like most others did not include an allowed under the Homeland Security regulations a non-Federal use state only ID under the old rules. That would simply have solved the problem for much of the homeless ID needs.

I want to point out this is fundamentally to me a CIVIL RIGHTS and FLORIDA STATE CONSTUTUTIONAL RIGHTS issue namely my state by doing this is depriving the poor and most in need the Homeless and others who get trapped in the requirements to not:

1. Being able to vote a core right.

2. Not being able to access government services.

3. Can't enter Federal buildings and some state buildings such as courts to make use of their full legal rights, a due process violation in my view.

4. Can't work.

5. Can't rent a place in most cases.

6. You must scan an ID to seek medical care (doctors offices have to scan the card and keep a record to treat outside of the RT) and especially get legally prescribed narcotics for pain management.

7. Avoid detention by police if they ID you under probable cause under state law.

8. As a member of the clergy I have to show both that state ID and ULC (modesto) clergy card to get clerical hospital visitation off normal hours so it violates my rights to religious practice. And I do hospital visitations to ULC members in my area so do practice.

Likely I could dig up more but these eight are good examples of how this law is telling the poor and those without homes that we don't matter and are not even citizens, since core functions of citizenship are denied to citizens.

I know in a few years if noone does anything I'm going to see about suing the second this is an issue for me, mostly to overturn the state law as unconstitutional at the state level, it would likely if pressed not hold up to Federal muster and since these are regulations would be easier to block at that level I hope.

I found the guy in the video a bit rambley, but I'd tend to agree.  The ID requirements can make things very difficult for people already in bad situations.  I think laws like this get made with the average citizen in mind, without sufficient thought going into how it might effect those in non-standard situations (and that's when I'm filling more charitable towards the republicans and not assuming they're just trying to keep people likely to vote for Dems away from the polls).  If the government is going to insist on ID, it needs to be free to obtain, and possible for any citizen to obtain in a reasonable amount of time.  I'm really not sure how to make that possible and at the same time make the ID have any real validity, to be honest (if it's easy for a homeless person with no documents to get, then it probably won't really be much proof that you are who it says you are).  Possibly an option of getting a provisional ID card that says something like "this person is in the process of applying for proof of ID, and can be hired, etc. until [insert date]" which can cover the time that you're waiting for your documents to be processed, etc.  Though there danger there would be someone just repeatedly getting one of those, I guess?

As for the option of suing, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure how much luck you'd have with that.  Laws can be bad without being unconstitutional.  This one does make it more difficult for you to exercise a number of rights, as you point out, but it doesn't prevent you from doing so, so I'm not sure it's really unconstitutional.  That said, I'm not familiar with the Florida constitution, so there may be something in it that would cover this.

Well that is the thing the DHS has a provision for a non-Federal use that says on it that in clear wording but would be 100% useable in the state. And what is wrong with the old identifications for that your birth certificate with seal, a social security card and two forms of ID one with your address in the state.

I used the first time my voter registration card and my photo identification PSTA bus pass for the disabled, they checked them and it cleared with no issues. When I renewed I went with my current ID about to expire, had to prove my address again my voter identification and they renewed it no issues. That would be enough IMHO for a limited use ID in the state it would have limits but its better than nothing.

Most homless could get this level of ID easily enough I know I work with them and few don't have the birth certificate and social security card, then its a matter of a mailing address that is the not to hard part. Unless you demand utility bills, documents of domicile (lease, mortgage), done't bank and work off the books.

As for the lawsuit noone actually is challenging in state court on the simple question in our states enacting did they place a crippling burden on citizens of the state who can't meet the new requirements, with the understanding they could before the law. My case would be not using the old rules as an in-state use alternative they are inherently violating the rights of citizens to due and proper access to the government and to daily life functions such as holding a job. I would sue under the state consititution I think the law itself as set-up at the Federal level is fine and left the states free to offer alternative ID. As a citizen I would argue that the fact I cannot get an ID due to the law as enacted in the state violates my citizens rights under our state consititution so as to be a unjustified barrier to my rights.

I agree with you 100%. And it is indeed a constitutional issue, if you must present this ID in order to vote. You may only request ID if you have a reason to suspect the individual isn't registered, and in those circumstances you must accept ANY government ID (at least, that's the training they gave me three times).

My major concern isn't one of availability, but of privacy and division of power. This should be a state issue. And you shouldn't be rejected from basic, protected services based on your unwillingness to register yourself (protected services are voting, right to trial, rights of citizenship. Not to be confused with services like welfare, which are not protected.)

Actually it might the 14th Amendment in Clause 1 states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I would make a simple case that by enforcing the Federal Law and not having a substitute ID for use in the state they are violating the equal protection rights of citizens. If one has no ID they are deprived of life, liberty and property without due process that is for a legal reason such as a criminal. I would go so far as they are violating the 14th Amendment by enacting the Federal Law on this matter to begin with.

I'm sorry, I'm not even following what you're arguing for here.

Simple no ID right lets say your homeless and shun shelters I know quite a few that won't go to one, so they have no residence. Okay they don't have one and can't get one in Florida. How are they supposed to vote, bank, get prescribed narcotics for pain, access government services of all sorts and identify themselves to police risking detention without one when someone that can get one has NO such issues.

It is the embodiment of UNEQUAL treatment and since the law was implimented by states are they not in clear violation of the 14th amendment after all its not in the law how its done, that is up to an agency regulations. Therefore the agency is enforcing regulations that defy the rights of all citizens to life (you can't even go to doctors office now without an ID), liberty (basic access to what a citizen with an ID has as a privilege to access) and without due process (they are not criminals in jail they just do not have ID which they cannot get). And no ID you cannot hold a job outside of the cash only underground economy since proof of your status to work must be verified with one there you go loss of economic access as well.

In reply to RubySlippers (msg #2):

I'm an immigrants rights activist and I'm with you 100% in opposition to the Real ID Act.  And you don't even need just the points you raised to oppose it.

At this point it can be opposed for it's costs as well.

Its not even a matter of illegal immigration I had a friend who is here illegally and speaks very good English has an accent but could be from Louisiana and Creole and pass for a citizen. He has a fine defense when they ask for ID he is homeless, was born in Louisiana and the hurricane damaged much of the original records so he can't get one but notes its not illegal if a citizen to not have ID. Then plays the race card since he is mixed race but clearly part black if they pressure the point. So far he has had zero issues with anyone as long as he stays clean of clearly illegal activities and works in the underground economy.