Information Clearinghouse – by Lea Lane
October 09, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – When traveling, it’s best to plan ahead whenever you can. For example, you may have thought you don’t need a passport because you don’t travel outside the United States. But for residents of nine states, that will change at the beginning of 2018 for any commercial flight, whether international or domestic.
As reported by Travel and Leisure, nine states will no longer allow travelers to board an airplane with just their state issued driver’s licenses as of January 22, 2018. To get past TSA security checkpoints, another form of identification will be required: passport, permanent resident card/green card or a military ID.
The Real ID Act of 2005 states that state-issued IDs from these nine states do not meet the minimum security standards of the federal government:
- Kentucky
- Maine
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Montana
- Oklahoma
- Pennsylvania
- South Carolina
- Washington
Back in December, it was announced that signage would start being placed around the security checkpoints in airports to remind travelers of what is to come. With just a few months until the Real ID Act goes into full effect, it is time to start planning now and look into getting your passport.
Some states have started working on offering federally approved issued IDs that would not require a passport for domestic air travel. Check with your local government office to see if there is a different type of ID you can apply for.
These posters are huge reminders that 2018 is not nearly as far away as it seems. On January 22, 2018, the enforcement for those nine states will go into effect, and by 2020, even more people will end up needing a passport, as confirmed by the official website of the TSA.
This means that if you’re going to take a flight and you have a state-issued ID from one of those nine states, you will need a passport to go anywhere. That includes going to the next state, across the country, or even to Walt Disney World, as all domestic travel is included in these new standards.
Yes, traveling by air seems to have been made more difficult by the federal government, just as it has been made more complicated because of the need to remove our shoes at security check-in. But this new move is considered another way to make traveling safer, and another example of the new normal.
Again, to be clear, The Real ID Act is going to maintain that the residents of the nine included states must have another form of ID, most typically a passport, other than their state-issued driver’s licenses for international and domestic flights.
If this applies to you, start applying for a passport now. 2018 isn’t too far away. And there will be a last-minute rush for sure.
Follow me @lealane, or on Instagram, where I’m Travelea; and check out Amazon for my latest book in paperback and on Kindle, Travel Tales I Couldn’t Put in the Guidebooks
This article was originally published by Forbes –
What a crock of shit!
Divide and conquer technique.
Designed to make it safer? What has happened recently that has made it NOT safe? NOTHING! This is such more police state bullshit and the people will willfully go along with it like assholes.
Talk about destroying our country from within. This says it all.
A passport was used to pass through countries. I didn’t know a state was a different country these days. Must be that Common Core education.
The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended our war with Great Britain, held that each state was a sovereign nation. Each feared giving up its rights to a powerful central government, that it would NOT become a strong central government, but would become and stay a representative for the states ion dealing with foreign affiars, (etc). Anti-federalists wanted some sort of guarantee that states would remain sovereign and that the power of the federal government would be limited and it would be recognized as a creation of, an agent of and a servant of the states. They said their votes to ratify could only be obtained if the Constitution contained a bill of rights protecting the rights of the people and their states. This was done, it was accepted and ratified. That is why the US Constitution is a LIMITING document for the general (federal) government. It is a compact (contract) between the states that they would all agree to use the decisions made in dealing with foreign affairs, and some very LIMITED domestic affairs such as seeing that the states traded equally with each other.
Michael LeMieux says it well here: “The Constitution has very little to do with the American citizen. It was written to establish a Federal Government and to place the boundaries by which that government would operate. The constitution was never designed to provide or enumerate the rights of the citizens but to restrain the federal government from meddling in state and ultimately citizen affairs.”
“It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty”…. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty”…. Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones. Article 1, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people… The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.”… The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: “ The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” ….This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty”. Justice Scalia
(1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181.
It (federalism) enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458.
Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919
Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
The USA is a bunch of different countries that joined together in CERTAIN purposes, which is found within the US Constitution. THAT is why the federal government is limited by expressly writing down what powers was delegated from each sovereign nation (state) to the states, who send a REPRESENTATIVE to specify what their state requires of a Treaty, etc; the federal government is NOT a central government over the states and people, but a REPRESENTATIVE of the states in dealing with certain matters found in writing. Which is why each state sends their representatives to the federal government. Those representatives are supposed to be standing for the interests of their own nation (state). This is why there are very little that the feds can LAWFULLY do in each state, and why federal mandates are NEVER LAWFUL and binding on the American people.
BTW, all who are born here in the USA are basically dual citizens, of their state, and of the nation as a whole by virtual of their birth. Those that immigrate here LAWFULLY are a citizen of the USA, not any particular state unless they live lawfully within that state for at least 5 years, and can speak basic English.
The US Constitution created the general (federal) government and this was created by the states to represent them in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. Why? So that each state would have the same foreign and immigration policy making it easier going from state to state. Also so that the people of each state (country) who moved to another state would have most of the same type of ID, expectations, etc to be the same. The language would be the same, etc. This was also done to facilitate traveling from state to state for all who lived within the united States.
It is why the US Constitution’s policies is supreme ONLY when those who serve within the federal government do the duties as written, take and KEEP their Oath. If is why it is not only a felony and Perjury to break the Oath; but felonies to go against the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution. They are LAWS, but only the US Constitution is supreme, NOT the people or statutes, Treaties, etc they create UNLESS those follow the US Constitution.
Each state is a sovereign nation in its own right, but banded together in only CERTAIN areas that is all put down in writing. That is why it is always important to control your own state government because it is always stronger within your state over the federal government – in writing. This is why each state’s Sheriff is the HIGHEST LAW ENFORCEMENT over all including the feds within that state. Because they (sheriffs) are to be elected by the people, cannot lawfully be assigned to that position.
Because each state is required to be represented EQUALLY within the federal government there is no representative that can be higher, etc then another. There can be, and are, those that are willingly assigned other duties that go with dealing with state reps as a group – but they have NO other power to tell others what to do. Etc.
Most are not aware of these things.
James Madison Federalist 45: “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”
Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”
Hopes this clarifies the issue.
Are you one of those federalists asserting that the Supreme Court or the state court has authority to regulate and define my rights? You talk of the 10th Article as an authority for separated powers. The 9th Article is the one, combined with the 10th Article, that separates the people from both the state and federal governments into the true self-governess for the people under the common law, which is the Bill of Rights.
Every constitution, including the state constitutions, is a permission to operate a limited government, and no government is ever to have authority over our people, otherwise we’d be subjects instead of sovereigns.
Next time you write a f#@king book advocating for contractual tyranny from either a state or federal apparatus, your acquiescing ass is out of here.
The only people who could want a government to rule the people is someone who wants to be subjugated or ruled. We are done with that here. F#@k the federal government, f#@k the state government, we are the people and we rule. We understand that the governments that were slipped in on us represent collective power over individual liberty and no such power can exist.
Accept the 9th Article or get off this site.
No, it only clarifies you are a collectivist and wasted all of our time with this inane and, quite frankly, statist screed. If you can’t make your point in a paragraph or two, shut the H up.
Have you been on a plane lately? Friggen torture! The whole damn thing, nightmare!
Yes, last year and I hated every single second of the travel days.
KGB man/woman: Papers please! Papers please! Why you want to leave this glorious Soviet State for other Soviet State?
We travel to Vegas every year for business. This year we have opted to drive the 2400 miles 1 way rather than be tortured on a domestic flight. Yes it will take 2 1/2 days to drive which actually equates to an extra 1 1/2 days actual travel 1 way. But after doing the math we will save over $800 total in costs and get to see some more of the FREE United States along the way.