The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

I will quickly refute my opponents arguments and then finish with my closing argument. 3. <"I do note, however, that my opponent has granted that, in "warranted" cases, privacy can sometimes be legitimately violated. It seems that this leads necessarily to the idea that the "right" to privacy is merely a passing privilege, which can be given and taken away by positive law."> This does not mean that the right does not exist, and it does not follow that it would be 'merely a passing privilege'. The constitution also offers a number of other rights that in some cases are taken away. A felon loses his right to bear arms; someone cannot libel or slander someone despite the right to free speech; and the right to assembly can be taken away if an assembly becomes violent. These do not mean that they are not rights, in fact they are defined specifically as rights. However, a person loses access to protection of these rights when they commit a crime (felony; libel; violent assembly; or in the example my opponent offered, murder). The right to privacy is only to be taken away when there is Reasonable Cause to suspect the person's (in this case murderer's) guilt. My opponent states: <"I must counter with the fact that just because such is the current policy does not imply that this policy is the correct one. My challenge to my opponent is to explain why there *ought* to be a right to privacy, not whether or not there *is* a right to privacy." My opponent at first contended "a general right to privacy must be established" (R1), I refuted this by showing that it has already been established in the Judicial Branch of our government. Then he shifted his argument to claim that I must not prove that there "*ought" to be a right to privacy" (R2). I will do so now. Government, in theory and as it *ought* to be, exists for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of its citizens. The quick route to this is to point out once again that the U.S. government has already admitted that a right exists to privacy for its citizens, therefore the U.S. government exists to protect the right to privacy for its citizens (among other things, of course). To promote this on theoretic grounds one can point to a great number of philosophers that claim that government exists at the behest of its citizens, and for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of those citizens from being invaded by any external or internal forces. Therefore it would be against this basic principle of government to be the perpetrator in invading the rights of its own citizens. 4. My opponent points out that he is not an expert of hacking, but that the principle of having everything hidden away in one place would provide more security still stands. This is false. Government agencies have been hacked in the past and will be hacked in the future. The problem is that there can never be a physical barrier to absolutely, fully, and indefinately protect this information since it is stored on a computer that must necessarily have a network. There is a perpetual battle between hackers and protection software that is constantly tipping toward one or the other. In other words, a program is developed, then hackers find a way to break through. My opponent could potentially claim that in the distant future this may be corrected, but we are talking short term here, since there is a deadline of 2012 for compliance with the Real ID. This will not be corrected by that time (or anytime in the forseeable future). 5. It still remains that it is a fact that the federal government controls more resources and could more easily shift funding to cover the cost than could the states. 6. As mentioned before, a developing distrust in government has the potential for a demagogue to manipulate the system with potentially disastrous consequences. This is by no means a valid reason why the Real ID should not be repealed. My opponent states: "If I were to propose a perfect solution, people would simply ignore the law altogether and en masse, rendering it an impotent legal fiction, much like ordinances that remain on the books despite being completely ignored in the modern day (such as a law in Michigan which states that a woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission)." The Real ID is not on the same level of these types of laws. It is far less likely that someone will attempt to implement the law from Michigan mentioned by my opponent than it is for someone to attempt to slip a national ID on us. Leaving the law on the books without repeal will simply delay the battle for a future generation, much like the issue of slavery was delayed throughout early American history. Closing Arguments: MY opponent has not successfully refuted any of my arguments. I have proven that a right to privacy is not already recognized by the current U.S. government, but that itought to be as such theoretically. Furthermore, my opponent agrees with me that Real ID is a bad law with the potential to lead to oppression. The only argument he has to offer is that Real ID may possibly be good one day in that it might possibly one day lead the people to a healthy distrust and dissention toward the government. This is clearly not a valid reason why a law should be retained since allowing it to stay will merely leave the question unanswered for future generations. Ultimately, under my opponent's proposition, the result would either be repeal at some later date (which still falls under my resolution), or it would ultimately be adopted (which my opponent admits would be a negative result). My contentions have not been successfully rebutted, so my conclusion must prevail - The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed.