How close is Oklahoma to Real ID? Much, Much Closer Than It Ought To Be

Kaye Beach

September 14, 2012

Have you noticed the flurry of activity related to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses?  Did your Real ID radar begin to ping?

A Google photo search for “new driver’s license design” shows that many states, like Oklahoma, are getting new driver’s license designs.  And like Oklahoma, the photos are all moved to the left.  This isn’t a DMV fad.   These standards come from somewhere.  —  2012 AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design

“AAMVA (the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) is called the “backbone” and hub” of the Real ID Act in the final rules issued by DHS” Mark Lerner, testimony before the Michigan House of Representatives, 2008

Several news items were released last week about some changes coming to Oklahoma’s driver’s licenses.

Oklahoma Rolls Out New Driver License and Upgraded Issuance System by MorphoTrust Sep 06, 2012 by Business Wire

“The new license meets rigorous security requirements and will not only upgrade our system but enhance customer service as well,” said Michael C. Thompson, Commissioner for the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety.

Oklahoma driver’s license will get makeover

Repositioned photograph is among changes to be rolled out over next several months for Oklahoma driver’s license

“They totally redesigned the system to where it’s going to be faster for the operator, which will speed up the line of people waiting at the tag agencies and exam offices.”

These news items were primed by many articles released over the last couple of months regarding the horrendous waits driver’s license applicants are forced to undergo in our state since ‘The number of examiners at licensing offices statewide decreased from 152 in 2009 to 105 this year. The number of testing sites has been reduced from 89 to 36 in a decade’

Long lines drive push to help Oklahoma driver’s license exam sites

At this point, Oklahomans are frustrated and the news of any changes that could help speed up the process are sure to be greeted with a huge sigh of relief and little scrutiny.

A little scrutiny is in order.

The deadline for meeting the standards of the REAL ID Act is January 15, 2013.

The Real ID Act passed in 2005 imposed federal guidelines that use  INTERNATIONAL standards for state driver’s licenses and ID documents

REAL ID licenses are to be

•machine readable

•contain biometric data

(including facial biometrics)

This and other information is to be shared

•nationally

•internationally

There are 18 initial benchmarks (39 benchmarks total) to the Real ID Act of 2005 that, once they are achieved, a state can consider to be in “material compliance” with the Act.  A state is in “full compliance” with the Real ID Act upon meeting all 39 of the benchmarks.

Once material compliance is achieved a state may request to be able to place a gold star on their state license to indicate that the card is acceptable for “federal identification purposes” from the DHS.

Spring of this year seven states were named as being the naughty foot draggers regarding meeting the 18 Real ID benchmarks. Oklahoma is listed as one of those laggard seven states and for good reason-our state passed a law prohibiting implementation of the federal Real ID Act in 2008. 

Oklahoma – OKLA. STAT. ANN, tit. 47, § 6-110.3 (2007) (The State of Oklahoma shall not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Department of Public Safety is hereby directed not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and to report to the Governor and the Legislature any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005 through the operations of that or any other state department. . .

The President of the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License took it upon himself to help the Department of Homeland Security pressure and threaten these last remaining rebel states:

“It’s their last opportunity to get on board with the REAL ID rules or face consequences. . . . REAL ID is no longer a policy matter, the REAL ID debate is over.  REAL ID is now part of DHS’ ongoing operations.”
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bIrU)

What are the “consequences” of not having a Real ID?  Here is what we are told;

“In the future, only those state issued Driver Licenses and Identification cards which are fully compliant with the REAL ID act of 2005 will be authorized for use as identification for official federal government purposes, such as boarding commercial aircraft and entering certain regulated federal facilities.” Alabama DMV-STAR ID

Does this mean we won’t be able to fly?  In a word-no.  We will still be able to fly.   A passport will work as well as a military ID.  Of course any government issued photo ID means biometrics and carries with it the some of the same concerns as Real ID.  Any lesser ID may require secondary screening procedures, but you can fly without a Real ID.  As far as the federal buildings.  That will be interesting.  Barring US citizens from certain federal building will probably set off a constitutional showdown.

Oklahoma was not alone in their opposition to the Real ID Act.  At least 25 states passed a law or resolution prohibiting the implementation of Real ID in their states.  This was a historic level of rebellion and one that both red and blue states participated.

At least 13 (the National Conference of State Legislatures recognizes 16) states passed an actual law against Real ID but we know from Congressional documents that some of these states are quietly issuing Real ID compliant driver’s licenses anyways.

Thirteen states have laws prohibiting compliance with the REAL ID Act. Even so, DHS believes that some of these states already issue secure identification documents consistent with the standards of the regulation.  Link

These states may not sign up for the gold star just yet, but with a wink and a nod, they are just as surely undermining the will of the people by meeting the first 18 benchmarks of Real ID.  To state it simply, these states are positioned to do the bidding of the Department of Homeland Security by meeting the requirements of the Real ID Act while retaining plausible deniability about violating their states’ law that prohibits implementation of the Real ID Act.

At least nineteen states are now in compliance with the Act.   Twenty-six more are reported to have committed to meet the standards before the (new) deadline. (Dec. 1, 2014) link

So where does Oklahoma stand on the 18 (Real ID) benchmarks?

I will show you that Oklahoma is merely one benchmark away from compliance with this international ID scheme that caused an unprecedented uproar by the states following its introduction in 2005.

Oklahoma has progressed from meeting 9 of these benchmarks in 2008 to currently meeting 14 of the 18 Real ID benchmarks. (3 of the benchmarks pertain to formalizing commitment by the state to REAL ID.  State’s that have passed a law prohibiting Real ID implementation are forgiven these benchmarks by the Dept. of Homeland Security.  That is the “wink and a nod” Do in reality, Oklahoma is really only one benchmark away from being considered Real ID compliant.)

Real ID benchmarks 1-6

Real ID Benchmarks 7-15

Real ID Benchmarks 16-18

 

Doesn’t appear that the law prohibiting implementation of the provisions of Real ID slowed us down much, does it?

Some of these 18 benchmarks are sensible measures that many states were already working on prior to Real ID anyways.

However, benchmark Number 1 is a REAL problem!

Benchmark #1. “Mandatory facial image capture and retention of such image.”

Let me explain briefly why:  the digital facial photo is a biometric suitable for use with facial recognition software.  In fact, facial biometrics is the governments biometric of choice.  Why?  It is not the most accurate biometric for identification purposes but it does allow us to be identified in public without our knowledge or consent.  Never mind that we have the right to go about our business, as long as we are not a criminal or suspect, without be investigated.  The Supreme Court has upheld our right to anonymity on several occasions in recent history.

Here is just one example;

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority … It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation–and their ideas from suppression–at the hand of an intolerant society.”

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334

The inaccuracy of facial recognition could cause anyone to be misidentified which would introduce the unfortunate person host of unpleasant possibilities.  But, I suppose, it is ‘good enough for government work,’ as they say.  But it gets even worse.

After the initial 18 benchmarks are met, the states will proceed to implement the next 21 benchmarks, step by step enrolling us into a global biometric identity system.

“The main ideology for defining the design of the DL/ID is the minimum acceptable set of requirements to guarantee global interoperability. “

Source: Personal Identification – AAMVA North American Standard – DL/ID Card Design, 2012

Myself as well as many other policy watchers that care to know, have been warning for years that our government intends to use those DL photos, conveniently combined with our personal, biographical information to not just identify us in public absent of any specific, articulable suspicion; they intend to use our facial biometrics to investigate and even predict based on the associated data- whether we are more or less likely to present a threat to government.  As of late, these intentions have been loosed from obscure, seldom read government documents and have been printed in black and white for the world to see.

In addition to scanning mugshots for a match, FBI officials have indicated that they are keen to track a suspect by picking out their face in a crowd.

Another application would be the reverse: images of a person of interest from security cameras or public photos uploaded onto the internet could be compared against a national repository of images held by the FBI. An algorithm would perform an automatic search and return a list of potential hits for an officer to sort through and use as possible leads for an investigation.

New Scientist, September 7, 2012 FBI launches $1 billion face recognition project

And then this-a first-law enforcement admits to using facial recognition on protestors in public.

Computer World: Undercover cops secretly use smartphones, face recognition to spy on crowds

And this one from June 16, 2013,  the Washington Post:

State photo-ID databases become troves for police

Oklahoma residents who prefer to not be enrolled into this biometric identification system ought to be asking their representatives why the state is continuing in the fulfillment of the Real ID Act in spite of the law which clearly expresses the will of the people to not participate in the international biometric identity scheme.

 

For Immediate Release: Rally For Healthcare Independence Sat. July 7, 2012 Oklahoma State Capitol

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 3, 2012

Contact Jon Scolomiero, the Oklahoma Tenth Amendment Center

jon.scolamiero@tenthamendmentcenter.com

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma—On Saturday, July 7, 2012, 9-11 am, The Oklahoma 10th Amendment Center, in conjunction with numerous other like-minded activist groups and individuals, will gather for a Rally for Healthcare Independence on the south steps of the Oklahoma State Capitol.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision last Thursday that upheld the most onerous portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including the individual mandate – liberty-loving Oklahomans once again find themselves at the losing end of Washington, D.C.’s continued big government policies.  Now that the Federal Government has been given the power to force individuals to buy health care insurance, into what other actions will individuals be coerced under the guise of a tax?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the Federal Government.  Health care is NOT an enumerated power.  The 10th Amendment to the Constitution 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.”  Thus, any health care policy must be left to states to enact at the behest of their citizens – if they so choose.  America’s Founders instituted government to protect the liberties of individual Americans.  In fact, the majority believed that power could not emanate from a central government, that it must be dispersed among states, in order to protect the states and maximize the freedom of the individual.

In 2010, Oklahomans overwhelmingly supported State Question 756– The Oklahoma Health Care Freedom Amendment – which, among other things, prohibits making a person participate in a health care system.  Our state has spoken on this issue.

Last spring, Oklahoma, along with the states of Louisiana, Florida, Nebraska, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Michigan, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin refused to implement the Health Insurance Exchange plans inherent in the PPACA.  Again, our state has spoken on the issue.

Attendees of Saturday’s rally will have an opportunity to hear speakers who can educate them in some of the many ways Oklahoma citizens and legislators can band together to continue defending individual liberties.  All Oklahoma legislators are invited to attend in order to assist and address their concerned constituents.

Please join us for this important rally on the south side of the Capitol steps, Saturday, July 7th, from 9am to 11am, and find out what you can do to prevent Oklahoma from succumbing to ObamaCare – and other unconstitutional federal overreaches.

 

###

Supreme Court Rules Landowners May Challenge EPA on Weltlands Ruling

Kaye Beach

March 21, 2012

Remember this case?

In 2005 Mike and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a fully built-out portion of property along the shores of Priest Lake, in northern Idaho, with the ideas of building a modest 3-bedroom home. In 2007, they started work, but were forced to stop when the EPA claimed they were filling a wetland without a permit.

Today the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court opinion that prevented the Sackett’s from challenging the EPA in its order to stop preparing their land for building and to restore the property to its original condition.  The EPA claimed this power under the Clean Water Act and told the couple that the fine  for noncompliance could be as high as s 75,000 per day.

All the Sackett’s have won really is the right to take the EPA to court and challenge their claims but that is a start.

The Washington Post reports;

“There is no reason to think that the Clean Water Act was uniquely designed to enable the strong-arming of regulated parties into ‘voluntary compliance’ without the opportunity for review–even judicial review of the question whether the regulated party is within the EPA’s jurisdiction,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. read more

Reuters

Supreme Court backs landowners in EPA clean water case

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and sharply curtails a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

Read more

 

Supreme Court rules warrant needed for GPS tracking

Jan. 23, 2012

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – In its first ever review of GPS tracking, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that police need a warrant before attaching a GPS device to a person’s car.

The opinion was unanimous, although the justices split in their views of how the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to such high-tech tracking.

The case, which during November oral arguments had prompted justices’ references to George Orwell‘s futuristic novel 1984 and to “Big Brother” government, ensures that police cannot use GPS to continuously track a suspect before presenting grounds and obtaining a warrant from a judge.

Read more

OK-SAFE Q and A about the 2011Joint Legislative Committee and Health Care Reform Law

Kaye Beach

Nov. 17, 2011

From OK-SAFE’s Blog;

OK-SAFE, Inc.

AP reporter Sean Murphy on Tuesday asked OK-SAFE Executive Director Amanda Teegarden for some comments about the 2011 Joint Legislative Committee and Health Care Reform Law. (Teegarden spoke to this committee on 11/3/11 in Tulsa.)

Formed at the conclusion of the last legislative session to examine the impact of the federal health care reform law on Oklahoma, this committee held its’ fifth (and final) meeting on Tuesday, 11/15/11 in the House chambers.

 

Here are the questions that were asked (follow this link to OK-SAFE’s Blog to read the answers)

-Do you think the Oklahoma Legislature should ignore the federal requirement that a health care exchange be established? If so, why? 

 -What about the provision that provides if a state doesn’t establish an exchange, the feds will do it for them?

-Do you think the state should count on the health care law being overturned/dismantled by a the Supreme Court or a future administration?

-What are your thoughts about the ability of the tea party and other grassroots conservative groups like yours to successfully fight against the establishment of the exchanges and to resist the implementation of the federal health care law in Oklahoma?

-What are your thoughts in general about this task force and the work they’ve conducted, recommendations they should make

Cooking Up a Collective Right

By Dave Kopel

America’s 1st Freedom

September 2011

Everyone knows the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. Instead, it establishes a collective right, which cannot be legally asserted by an individual. The only people who claim the Second Amendment protects an individual right are deluded “gun nuts” who are ignorant of the original intent of the Second Amendment, and of the Supreme Court’s past rulings.

If all you knew about the Second Amendment was what you learned from the national media, that’s what you would have believed during the latter decades of the 20th century.

Yet that view was entirely wrong, according to the unanimous Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). How did such a foolish and obviously incorrect view of a constitutional right become so popular among America’s opinion elite?

Read More

Vermont Marketers Win Patient Privacy Loses

Kaye Beach

July 18, 2011

From the Center for Democracy and Technology;

Supreme Court Finds No Privacy in Vermont Drug Marketing Law

by Deven McGraw

July 11, 2011

On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. et al., striking down as unconstitutional a Vermont statute that prohibited the use of drug prescribing information for marketing purposes.

The data targeted by the statute was de-identified with respect to patients per HIPAA standards.  The data identified prescribers and their prescribing patterns and is commonly used for “detailing” or targeted prescriber marketing by drug company sales representatives.  In enacting the statute, Vermont identified the need to curb costs associated with the prescribing of brand-name drugs (versus available generic alternatives).  Vermont also argued that the statute was enacted to protect patient and prescriber privacy.

By a vote of 6-3 the Court found that the Vermont statute was not aimed at protecting privacy and violated the free speech rights of drug marketers.

Read More

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Why hasn’t the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?

By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.” Then he shot back: “How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?”

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress’s powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power “to regulate” interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison’s understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept “regular.”

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Read More;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

America-You are Being Framed! The New Paradigm for Public Health

Oct 6, 2009

The H1N1 pandemic hysteria has done us all an enormous favor. It has brought to light a number of new laws and policies that have been quietly and incrementally placed since 9 11.

9 11 has been used to justify a myriad of changes to the more traditional process of law that at least gave a nod to the notion that our government was created and designed to protect the intrinsic rights of the individual. The old saying that your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins has always been acknowledged yet the debate has shifted to a point of limiting rights far before one’s fists come anywhere near another’s nose. This shifting is largely responsible for the growing ire of Americans who are quite attached to the philosophy of individual sovereignty that founded this nation.

The Model State’s Emergency Health Powers Act is case in point. Here is a bit of the thinking that has justified these new, repressive measures;

Helena Gail Rubinstein, JD, MPH states;

To initiate potential legislation before there can be another modern day disaster, he Congress should study Jacobson v. Massachusetts for the communitarian framework of its decision-making, using it as a guidepost.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts_brief.htm

The Jacobson Court upheld Massachusetts’ right to enact a compulsory vaccination law under its police power, rejecting Reverend Jacobson’s argument that the individual has the right to bodily integrity and thus, the right to refuse the injection.

The U.S. Supreme Court based its decision on a communitarian argument, recognizing that a citizen is not merely a rights-bearer; he does not live alone in a society, but lives in a society with correlative rights and responsibilities, each member owing a duty to the other and to society as a whole. Society, in turn, operates under a social compact in which “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”7

One hundred years later, the communitarian framework remains a good benchmark for reviewing legislation and public health issues for the polity.

Helena Gail Rubinstein, JD, MPH, is a doctoral student at the Harvard

School of Public Health in the department of Health Policy and

Management. She can be reached at hrubinst@hsph.harvard.edu

Taken from
www.phla.info/documents/phla%20newsletter_4_27_05.pdf

Ms Rubinstein (and many others) argues that Jacobson v Mass is based on communitarian principle and provides a solid legal foundation for compulsory vaccination, broad police powers for public health officials to hold, treat and test individuals at will, commandeer property without compensation, coerce those with medical skills to participate in implementing forced medical procedures and a host of other actions that strike many Americans as entirely unconstitutional.

Given the development of the criminally based threats to health marked by bioterrorism, the relatively recent emphasis on the personal rights side of the equation should be reassessed.⁴ A reexamination of the legal, ideological, and social limits of police power is appropriate since increased state capacity can be crucial for first responses to terrorist threats or actions. Effective first responses may be hampered in the absence of pragmatically designed realignments of the state-individual relationship and the redesign of state public health infrastructures.⁵

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2569983

The Argument, in a nut shell is this;

Historically, the communitarian bases of the American legal system supported the subordination of individual rights when necessary for the preservation of common good. Quarantine measures were subjected to a deferential review supporting the states’ right to substantially limit individual rights for the community’s benefit. Viewed through this lens, vigorous judicial support for certain public health activities may generally be considered an essential element of effective public health practice.

Jorge E. Galva, JD, MHA,^ab Christopher Atchison, MPA,^a and Samuel Levey, PhD, SM^a

Read the entire article;

Public Health Strategy and the Police Powers of the State

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2569983

First of all, what is this communitarian basis in American law that these great thinkers keep referring to?

According to Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich, the founders of the Anti-Communitarian League;

Communitarianism is the documented socio-cultural rulebook that defines the new conduct rules and ethics for global citizenship. In other words, it is the human being’s official notice of enforced behaviors and beliefs. You do not have the right to your mind or to your opinions anymore – not without being detrimental to “your community.” In fact, your function as an individual in the world has been eliminated. You are now a pre-defined group entity. Hence, you are a community commodity, and absolutely nothing more.

Communitarians call the U.S. national system of political and economic freedom, and especially individual liberty, “outdated” (Etzioni 1968). They claim a global perspective is necessary to ensure Americans’ peace and safety, and they always present their philosophy as if it is a “fresh perspective.” They emphasize they seek innovative ways to “balance” the ongoing “tension” between Americans’ individual liberty and social responsibility. They preach as if their platform is more “moral” than the original American political system of liberty, freedom and equal justice for all under an agreed upon system of protective laws. They sing a soft lullaby for the American ideal of national prosperity and lure American politicans into relinquishing national sovereignty to a modified, “softer” international Marxist system, often called the Third Way (Etzioni 2000, Blair 1993).

I noticed that the drafter of the MSEHPS, Lawrence O Gostin, noted that the model legislation had been drafted on “consensus”

Consensus is the Communitarian alternative to voting. Communitarians don’t believe in majority rule because they don’t believe in opinion. Here is an example of how decisions are made by communitarian consensus: Basically, group leaders keep talking and keep convincing until all in a group agree with a pre-defined goal. A small group of leaders decide what is to be accomplished, and then invite members of a community to gatherings to convince the masses that 1) the brilliant idea is actually the brainstorm of the group, and 2) to get consensus on what was already decided by 1, 2, or 3 community leaders who are, in truth, the politically and financially connected. I strongly suggest to you that the politically and financially connected are some of the first homeowners in new communities. These leaders are often connected to the development corporations and/or movers and shakers in the immediate political jurisdictions.

.Raapana and Friedrich of the ACL

Also noteworthy is the fact that the measures advocated by the MSEHPA were in development long before 9 11.

The 40-page MSEHPA was authored by Lawrence O. Gostin and James G. Hodge of the Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins universities.

While stating that their proposal considered the “civil rights of the individual,” the appeals process described in the text describes the nearly absolute powers of public health authorities to detain people against their will and force them to submit to whatever medical intervention deemed appropriate by authorities. The process gives little hope that the individual will prevail in an appeal and that he will continue to be detained throughout the process.

Unless intentional harm can be proven, the proposal states, “Neither the state, its political subdivisions, including the governor, public health authorities, the police, or other state officials, [will be held liable for] the death or injury to persons, or damage to property, as a result of complying with, or attempting to comply with this Act or any rules promulgated pursuant to this Act.”

Then Department of Human and Health Services Secretary Tommy Thompson acknowledged existence of the CDC model. He said, “We need not only a strong health infrastructure and a full stockpile of medical resources, but also the legal and emergency tools to help our citizens quickly.”

Under the proposed law, one case of smallpox or swine flu in a public school could trigger authorities to urge a governor to declare a state of emergency. Once such is declared, the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and most cherished civil liberties will be immediately suspended in addition to states being empowered to take immediate possession of private property under the doctrine of eminent domain.

• Read more
• http://www.pandemicfluonline.com/?p=613

I will be adding to this post shortly but for now I will leave you with this to mull over;

WE MUST VIEW THE COMMUNITY AS AN END, IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO MAKE

PERSONAL SACRIFICES FOR THE SAKE OF THE WHOLE-Rubinstein ’99

[Helena Gail; Director of Policy Analysis and Program Development, Group Insurance Commission of the

Commonwealth of Mass; “A Communitarian Look at the Privacy Stalemate”; American Journal of Law and Medicine; 1999; LexisNexis; retrieved 7-28-05]

Communitarians reject the primacy of the individual, and invite members of the community to move

beyond self-interest in favor of a vision of society defined by community ties and a search for the communal good. The individual lives as a member of a community; indeed, “It is impossible to think of human beings except as part of ongoing communities, defined by reciprocal bonds of obligation,

common traditions, and institutions.” n182 For communitarians, the community is the end, not, as in the liberalist vision of society, an end, “one contender among others within the framework defined by justice.” n183 A sense of community can involve “some divergence of interest … between individual and community.” n184 It is the very act of sacrifice, the willingness to sacrifice individual interests in favor of the common good, that defines community membership. Indeed, one “cannot think about a meaningful sense of community without thinking of some sense of sacrifice.”

n185 Through sacrifices for the communal good, the community may enjoy a result greater than the sum of each individual’s sacrifice. Medical and health policy progress requires sacrifice from every individual who hopes to benefit from that progress.

Is the communitarian philosophy reconcilable with the essential premise of individual liberty that our country was founded upon?

AxXiom

related posts;

Communitarian Dialogue: Public Health After 9/11

https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/communitarian-…alth-after-911/

Supreme Court Case Jeopardized Red Light Revenue Bonanza

From The Newspaper;

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2854.asp

Red light camera and speed camera manufacturers fear that last month’s US Supreme Court ruling in the case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could create legal turmoil for the industry. The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running issued a statement yesterday warning that the ruling has armed motorists with a greater ability to challenge the basis of automated traffic citations. Speed cameras, for example, depend heavily on legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine’s speed reading. In the Melendez-Diaz case, the high court ruled that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient. Defendants have the right to cross-examine any individual who claims to have certified evidence.

 

“Violators often object that they cannot challenge their accuser if it is a camera,” Leslie Blakey, executive director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running said. “This new ruling may spur more court cases and lawsuits on the basis of the right to challenge the human elements of the evidentiary chain.”

Blakey is principal of the Blakey and Agnew public relations firm that five of the top photo enforcement companies — Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), CMA Consulting, Gatso of the Netherlands, Lasercraft of the UK and Redflex of Australia — paid to create the National Campaign to lobby on their behalf. Each of these firms could face a tremendous challenge if their methods are brought into closer scrutiny, although Blakey believes that this constitutional protections may not apply in states where photo tickets have been made “civil” violations.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz, a 5-4 case that dealt with a laboratory analysis of drug evidence. The defendant argued that he had a right to question the lab worker who signed a piece of paper that certified the substance he had been carrying was cocaine. The majority agreed that despite the possible hassle involved in confirming each fact at trial, it is essential to the integrity of the court system that questioning of the evidence be allowed.

“The ‘certificates’ are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination,” Scalia wrote. “Respondent and the dissent may be right that there are other ways — and in some cases better ways — to challenge or verify the results of a forensic test. But the Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation. We do not have license to suspend the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available.”

Scalia further argued that the ability to confront witnesses is essential to ensuring that the potential for bias or error in scientific testing is uncovered.

“Nor is it evident that what respondent calls ‘neutral scientific testing’ is as neutral or as reliable as respondent suggests,” Scalia wrote. “Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation…. And because forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency. A forensic analyst responding to a request from a law enforcement official may feel pressure — or have an incentive — to alter the evidence in a manner favorable to the prosecution… the prospect of confrontation will deter fraudulent analysis in the first place.”

These concerns are especially apt with respect to the photo enforcement industry. In April, for example, lawmakers in France began to raise questions after learning that the private, for-profit company that operates the speed cameras, Sagem, is solely responsible for calibrating the units and certifying their accuracy. The situation is the same in the US, where companies that are in most cases paid on a per-ticket basis, are solely responsible for determining the accuracy of their own machines.

Under the ruling, it becomes the burden of the state or local authority to ensure photo enforcement company employees show up to testify in court. Failure to testify would result in the evidence being excluded and a likely acquittal.

“We’re concerned about the potential impact of this ruling on photo enforcement programs across the country,” Blakey said. “We don’t want to see anything jeopardize the public safety benefit of automated enforcement.”

A copy of the supreme court decision is available in a 350k PDF file at the source link below.

Melendez-/Diaz v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court of the United States, 6/25/2009)

relevant post-https://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/stop-making-sense-real-red-light-running-solutions/