[cyberax]

I don't believe that this is actually unconstitutional. The whole argument about the Fed not being able to set up a Federal ID hinges on the Tenth Amendment, saying that it's not a specifically delegated power.

But that is a ridiculously weak argument, there are tons of ways the Federal Government can mandate the unified ID. For example, it can be tied to the Social Security number. The government can (quite reasonably) argue that it needs to positively identify people to be able to correctly track their SS contributions.

Why this hasn't been done yet? Probably because nobody cares about that. Real ID gets postponed time after time, exactly for the same reason.

[jandrewrogers]

What you believe isn’t backed up by the long history of a national ID in the US. Your legal theory would have to explain, for example, why some States today (e.g. Washington) do not recognize or accept any Federal IDs, like passports, only State IDs. This is strictly in line with the Constitution, it is entirely permissible for States to reject Federal IDs for all legal purposes. What would compel a State to recognize any new Federal ID in the future if they already have the power to disregard Federal IDs in theory and practice?

A Social Security Number is not an ID expressly as a matter of law, because it can’t be legally. The many loopholes the Federal government tried to use to backdoor a national ID were shutdown by the Supreme Court repeatedly. The US can only have a mandatory national ID system if the individual States, in aggregate, decide to create one. Thus far, they have shown no interest. Real ID is not a unified ID because the Federal government cannot compel it.

As with most persistent problems, the “obvious” solutions are not being ignored because no one has cared or no one has tried but because there are fundamental technical reasons they don’t work.

[dmurray]

> What would compel a State to recognize any new Federal ID in the future if they already have the power to disregard Federal IDs in theory and practice?

The same thing Congress does to add a workaround for any law it's constitutionally forbidden to enforce on the States. A "voluntary" program where states that don't agree to the ID law don't get any federal highway funds that year.

This has been extensively tested and the Supreme Court is fine with it, e.g. [0]

Alternatively, enforcement through military means - Congress hasn't authorized the use of force against dissenting states since the 1860s, but the threat is always there.

Or paramilitary means, where an armed federal law enforcement group seizes control of state installations that aren't aligned with aspects of federal law. The DEA and ATF have a blueprint to follow here.

Or financial means, where Congress orders federally-regulated banks not to engage with customers that don't respect its ID policies.

There are other levers to pull, too. It's not that the States don't have any power, but in practice they are allowed the powers that the federal government chooses not to centralise - the opposite of how it works in theory, where the federal government governs only to the extent the States allow.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

[HWR_14]

I don't believe any state does not accept a US passport as ID, and would need to see a source on that. A quick google returns no results.

[ranger_danger]

https://dol.wa.gov/driver-licenses-and-permits/documents-pro...

US Passport is listed as acceptable identification.

[withinboredom]

> why some States today (e.g. Washington) do not recognize or accept any Federal IDs, like passports, only State IDs.

So, note to self: do not move back to the US from overseas to these states or they won't believe I am American.

[cyberax]

> Your legal theory would have to explain, for example, why some States today (e.g. Washington) do not recognize or accept any Federal IDs, like passports, only State IDs

I don't believe you're correct. WA accepts all kinds of identification. I can't find anything in the RCWs to mention the exclusivity of WA identification for ANY purposes.

> A Social Security Number is not an ID expressly as a matter of law, because it can’t be legally.

Yet it is an ID (although not a strong one), and it's used for that purpose by the IRS. You can't be legally employed without an SSN (with several narrow exceptions).

Males in the US are also required to register with the Selective Service, which also requires an SSN.

All this has been upheld by the SCOTUS, the government just needed to show that it had a legitimate need for the ID system.

> As with most persistent problems, the “obvious” solutions are not being ignored because no one has cared or no one has tried but because there are fundamental technical reasons they don’t work.

Really? Have you lived in Europe, in countries like Estonia? It somehow managed to do the technically impossible.