The Real ID Act of 2005 should be repealed

I will, at the request of the instigator, refrain from using semantic arguments alone to make my case as Con. First, let me remind the readers of the issue at hand: Should the Real ID Act be repealed? It is important to note that the Con side of this debate is not "The Real ID Act is good" but rather, "The Real ID Act should not be repealed." In my argument, I do not plan to make the case for the former statement, but rather limit my case to the latter and to refuting fallacious claims should they be made by my opponent. I will now address my opponents contentions in the order that they appear: 1. I grant that the Real ID Act creates a national identification card. 2. I grant that a national ID system has a potential for misuse, while further noting that anything has a potential for misuse, thus rendering this point fairly unimportant. 3. I grant that the Real ID system could be used to violate privacy. However, this needn't be instantly considered a negative in its own right. For instance, it would behoove us to NOT respect the privacy of murderers while investigating a crime. For this contention to be of any use, a general right to privacy must be established on its own merits and a demonstration of how the Real ID violates the essential elements of that right would be necessary. 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. 4. Here I believe my opponent is overstretching. Yes, it is true that a centrally linked database will be created. However, this does not imply that identity theft would be easier. Indeed, one might look to the analogy of using a bank to store money vis a vis everyone storing it in their houses and the implications for security. While a bank may centrally locate the money, it also allows for more heavy protections to be placed on the whole, as defense resources are also centrally located by the bank, rather than each homeowner needing to protect his own house with a limited amount of defense. 5. On this point, I think my opponent is confused regarding the nature of the federal government. Just as the states need to tax their citizens or impose fees to pay for programs, so does the federal government. In either case, whether federally funded or state funded, the citizens will be paying the bill. This comes from the fact that government has no wealth or resources of its own - it only has what it has taken from its citizens. 6. Again, I must disagree. I believe my opponent has overlooked the extent to which the Real ID plan is of utmost concern to people and the state governments, as well as the ferocity of the opposition to it. Many Christians have called it "The Mark of the Beast," civil libertarians are concerned with the dangers of rights violations, constitutionalists see this as a major unconstitutional expansion of federal power, fiscal conservatives note the large costs associated with this plan, state governments are concerned about their sovereignty and the funding for this program, and so on. These groups combined may be enough to present a serious threat to the successful implementation of such a policy. It is possible that the tradition of Jefferson and Madison shown in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions will be sparked by this policy and nullification will be attempted by several states. Secessionist movements will likely gain support. Individuals may engage in mass non-cooperation. People may begin to leave the country. All these actions make it more and more difficult for the federal government to enforce their mandate. But, even more importantly, this experience will send a message that speaks loudly - the people of the United States will not put up with such draconian legislation. This will prevent, or lessen support for, later acts of Congress. This should be regarded as a great potential benefit, something of this sort has not happened in a long time. The only true "checks and balances" on the federal government are the state governments and the people. If you were to simply repeal the law now, none of this could come to fruition and a great opportunity for striking a blow against big government will have been lost. 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.