Chertoff vs States on REAL ID; South Carolina May Sue Feds

Show down time on REAL ID is here. The official deadline is May 11th for states to file (i.e. beg, for there is no written law about this) for extension from the new extra-constitutional Dept. of Homeland Tyranny. Montana got an extension without asking for one (still refusing to comply), and five Senators requested for all 50 states to be exempt from hassle. Meanwhile, Gestapo chief Chertoff insists that it is Congress that established the deadline, while it had no choice because REAL ID was craftily attached and passed under another "must-pass" military spending bill, and without debate . Chertoff is trying to gain compliance, arbitrarily by compromises, so long as all states eventually comply with his dictates. Tyranny will enter softly.

The big news, and key precedent that the Feds fear, is that South Carolina may justly file a lawsuit against them for treating South Carolinians like non-citizens and terrorists suspects. THIS IS WHAT EVERY STATE SHOULD DO.

WEST VIRGINIA NEEDS TO PASS SB248 AND HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUE, PER THE 10TH AND 4TH AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, FOR MOUNTAINEERS TO TRAVEL FREELY WITHOUT THE INTRUSIVE FEDERALIZED STANDARDS OF ID.

clipped from news.yahoo.com Chertoff: ID must comply to fly For weeks, the Homeland Security Department has been headed toward a showdown with some states over a law called Real ID, which would require new security measures for state-issued driver's licenses. If the two sides can't cut a face-saving deal, Chertoff has offered a blunt warning to those critics who claim the government is bluffing. "Showing up at the airport with only a driver's license from such a state will be no better than showing up without identification," he wrote to the senators. "No doubt this will impel many to choose the inconvenience of traveling with a passport." South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was considering legal action, and the state's attorney general was preparing an opinion on whether the governor would have a case if he decided to sue the federal government. Critics of the plan say it is too expensive, an invasion of privacy, and won't actually make the country safer.