Recent edits by User:Ramorum 

Ramorum, please discuss your recent edits here instead of accusing me of vandalism for undoing your edit.
I will explain here why I think that your recent edit represents a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

You have changed the title of the section "Constitutionality" to "Unconstitutionality" and added a paragraph that reads:

The REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States Constitution: Article I, which does not grant the Congress of the United States the powers asserted in the  REAL ID Act. Section 8 enumerates the powers authorized to the United States Congress. The Fourth Amendment, which states:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 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 to the states respectively, or to the people. The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

These are fine legal arguments and I personally agree with them. But they clearly represent a personal judgement (correct as it it may be) on a controversial political topic. But that is not what Wikipedia is about. WP:NPOV implies that statements of opinion, such as The REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States Constitution, are not appropriate in a WP article. It would be perfectly OK to say, however, something like Critics charge that the REAL ID Act violates the following articles and amendments of the United States and then provide a reference to some reliable source
where such criticism is raised. As your edit reads now, not only does it represent a statement of opinion, but the way in which this opinion is justified also, in my view, violates WP:NOR. Instead of citing some sources where consititutionality of the Real ID Act is questioned in the way you describe, you list some general legal sources that in your view (and in mine)justify your opinion. This is a clear instance of original research that WP:NOR prohibits.

There are plenty of newsarticles and other reliable sources that criticize the Real ID Act and I think you will not have much trouble finding a few of them that raise the same points as your edit does. So if you want to make a constructive input, please find such sources and add them to the article. Regards,