I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use this as justification for a national ID, even though (to my knowledge) that would require amending the Constitution (or just ignoring it).
yes. you get it. They want a national id system that is weak enough that they can arbitrarily deny or revoke based on appearance or demeanor.
Most US citizens couldn't prove they are citizens, at least without a fingers-crossed records search IF they can remember the county they were born in. Stats say only around 10% of americans could easily put their hands on their birth certificate. Almost no one can produce one at a checkpoint if demanded, and its rare for people to even have one in their possession at home.
A passport proves citizenship, but its absence doesn't disprove it.
Voting cards and social security cards aren't identification. State issued cards like drivers licenses, state ID cards or even realID cards do not prove federal citizenship (although they do prove identity).
I think you misread your cited article. It does not say only around 10% could easily out their hands on a birth certificate. It says “9% don’t have proof of citizenship readily available” while traveling. It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate.
Of course you are right, basically no one carries their birth certificate around. Which is probably countered by the fact that birth certificates are pretty easily falsifiable because there is no standardization of them.
> It properly indicates nearly every US citizen has their birth certificate.
"Nearly every" is a bit of a stretch, given that black americans were still denied access to hospitals during childbirth in some states/counties as recently as the 1960s (or later). Children born via midwives often never ultimately get a birth certificate.
I think categorizing around 90% (from the cited link) as “nearly every” is accurate.
The sixties were over 50 years ago, I know as I am a child of the sixties :-)
Given how necessary driving is to living in nearly all of America, and that a with certificate is the primary point of ID to get one, there is a very strong motivation to get a birth certificate.
As the article says, the Real ID is very much a version of national ID compatible with the US’s strong tradition of federalism. Immigration authorities don’t want a reliable form of identification, they want to detain lots of people, because Stephen Miller gave them a target of 3,000 arrests a day.
Right up until it becomes clear that they will only be issued to ubermenschen, who are identified by capricious processes meant to both obscure corruption and instill fear due to their apparent randomness.
It's debatable as to whether it's technically required or not, but "the Tenth Amendment, establishes that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved for the states or the people. This means states have the authority to create and enforce their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal laws."
There used to be a fig leaf of truth to the idea that the supreme court would interpret things and it would generally stick. That has changed with today's court reinterpreting many settled legal ideas, one obvious one being the recent "kava augh stop" turning America into a "show your papers please" country. It didn't used to be this way.
>> US law has always relied on interpretation and precedent,
Isn't the key here that an interpretation sets the precedent, and then we don't get continual "reinterpretation"? That's what seems to be happening these days.
here's what we have: a way to identify every almost every American by their face, identify almost every American by their name and birthdate, identify every American invasively (like via a blood draw), lots of documents at the national level that we can compel people to have for various activities that are practically required for living. we don't, narrowly, have a document, that you can force everyone to have, in a very peculiar interaction, where someone can be like, "you're going to jail unless you produce this document," and you're not driving, you're not crossing a border, you're not etc. etc.
so do we need a constitutional amendment? i guess if enough people perceive that we do.
In the new world, the Supreme Court can change basically any policy or old decision and make up things not in the Constitution. One example is Trump's immunity that they created out of whole cloth and that was nowhere to be found. At the same time they invented a reason why Trump's attempted rebellion against the US did not violate the constitutional amendment that was designed to keep someone like that from running for president
