Two issues on State Rights

State rights have come under fire since the legislation of the Real ID act. Many states have claimed it is unconstitutional- being difficult to enforce, as well as violating privacy.
Some states have even gone so far as refusing to comply, others (Montanta) cite the fact that they have already enacted their own, more stringent policies.
A driver's license is considered, in most cases, sufficient proof of identification; surely when an officer of the law, acting on behalf of a State needs to confirm identity, he or she relies on just that license. The federal government is adamant in insisting that these measures are needed in order prevent acts of terrorism, and as such will refuse to accept State identification cards as sufficient proof of identity.
In order to apply for a driver's license in Texas, one must already confirm proof of identity, as well as Social Security number. To place this information in a nationally centralized database would only streamline identity theft.


Oddly enough, national id cards have been repeatedly rejected throughout American History, and SS numbers are NOT meant to be used as identitification numbers.

The Supreme Court recently delivered a major opinion regarding Medellin v. Texas; limiting the ability of the Federal Government to enforce treaties, thus giving states more rights.
The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states that "The 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."
However, the right to make treaties has been given to the President, by Article II, Section II of the Constitution.

The above two facts are not under debate. What is in question is whether or not the power to enforce those treaties is implicit, or must be provided for within any given treaty. Treaties are designed to "contribut[e] to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems." If other countries feel that there is no power to enforce treaties, they will be reluctant to enter into future treaties.
Additionally, there is no evidence that Medellin was given knowledge of this right (a stipulation within the treaty requires that the held party actively request contacting his home nation), which seems to contradict precedence set forth in Miranda v Arizona.

State rights are a delicate subject; less than 100 years ago a Civil War was fought over this issue, costing over a half million lives, and nearly tearing the young United States in half. It is clear that State governments have achieved a victory in the opinion that was recently delivered, however future events that precipitate from the final decision (which is to be delivered next Spring) may make this victory bitter sweet.

Do we really not care?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722537,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
US Citizens are willing to sacrifice rights and liberties in order to feel safe.
But, it seems to the contrary, then, to deny amnesty to telecoms that participated in the warrantless surveillance programs. Politicians on the record seem to favor government transparency
Either way, the issue at hand is the invasion of privacy, which as I said in my previous posts is not a right granted to the government.
I can not iterate enough that as long as we live in fear, the terrorists have won.