The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

I will respond to the first six points in the same fashion as my opponent, then to his conclusion. 1-2. We are in agreement on and they need not be mentioned. 3. My opponent grants that Real ID can be used to violate privacy. He then goes on to claim that murderers do not deserve privacy while investigating their guilt. Due process suggests that the privacy of an alleged murderer should be respected. The alleged murderer (who is in this nation innocent until proven guilty) is under no obligation to comply with an investigation (retaining his privacy) until such a time that those investigators obtain a warrant. In order to obtain said warrant, investigators must provide ample evidence suggesting their invasion of his privacy would be 'warranted'. Someone can arrive at the conclusion that our nation guarantees a right to privacy from from a number of ways. The Judicial Branch has upheld a right to privacy in a number of rulings, notably the 1965 'Griswald v. Connecticut' in which the majority struck down a state law banning contraceptives, citing a right to privacy not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but could be extracted out of the "penumbras" and "emanations" granting a right to privacy. From another angle, it could be successfully argued that because the constitution does not give the government the ability to limit the right of its citizens' to privacy, that it would be illegal for them to do so. This is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people." My opponent then claims: <"I would further claim that privacy has the extra potential of violation from this act if and only if the people actually participate in the Real ID program. If they do not, then no additional potential of lost privacy is thrust upon them."> It may be correct that if they do not participate that their privacy would not be invaded. But this would unjustly limit those deciding not to participate in a number of things that would be restricted without one (driving, entering federal facilities, &ct.). 4. My opponent's bank analogy does not entirely apply to this scenario. It is considerably more simple to protect physical money with physical force (security gaurds, bank vaults, &ct.); with physical monitoring of the items protected and of personel that might attempt a breach; and with insurance guarantying those items from loss than it is to protect information stored on computer databases with significantly less security and oversight. The proposed database would also be linked to other databases allowing for additional breaches through personel, or someone hacking into the system from an outside network. Thus, my contention stands. 5. I assure my opponent that I am not confused regarding the nature of government. When I mention that the burden of the cost falls on the taxpayer, I am referencing costs in the form of new taxes. The federal government has far greater resources than the state and could more easily cover the cost with a shift in the budget. In this way no new tax burdens would be necessary. The states, especially the smaller states, are already pointing out that they cannot meet the expenditures that would be required of compliance. 6. My opponent seems to be saying that a positive effect of the Real ID is the opposition to it. This does not outweigh the negative effects of the program, since it is the program itself they seek to remove. My opponent's conclusion is as follows: <<"Conclusion: The Real ID Act, while not a good in itself by any means, could serve a terrific purpose in preventing or limiting future laws of its kind and its repeal can only serve to avoid this clash on an issue where there is a significant chance for those in favor of limited government to actually succeed.">> Rebuttal: Advocating a continuance of an unjust law for the sole purpose of manipulating the public dissention is the very definition of demagoguery. Conclusion: My opponent has only offered up the potential for demagoguery in putting down Real ID at a later date. He has agreed that Real ID should be repealed, but argues that it should await a future date so that public dissention can be manipulated for other goals that is not repeal of Real ID. This is just as dangerous of an outcome as the surveilance society that a national ID system would create. Note: I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic, and taking it into an equally interesting direction. I look forward to his response.