Real ID & Homeland Security Extorting the States

In a recent Fox News (or should we say Faux News) article dated March 3rd we’re told “Homeland Security officials are pushing recalcitrant states to adopt stricter driver's license standards to end a standoff that could disrupt domestic air travel.“ Further we’re told that “Chertoff warned that any state that does not seek an extension by the end of March will find that, come May, their residents will not be able to use their licenses to board domestic flights”. They are telling us (in New Hampshire) that we WILL comply with their arbitrary rules or our Citizens will face being turned away from our flights at OUR airports. They’ve also threatened to turn us away from any parks controlled by the Federal government which, in our backyard includes the Appalachian National Scenic Trail which goes from Maine to Georgia as well as Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in Cornish. We won’t even be allowed in Federal buildings, like courthouses, which means you will be denied “Due Process” under the law. (Which is guaranteed under our Constitution.) Being a simple Irish lad, I always try to find simple solutions to complex problems. My solution to this is to have New Hampshire give a civics lesson to the Feds on the nuances of Federalism and separation of powers which would quickly demonstrate to the Feds what it means to be a “sovereign state” within the united States.

The Fact is that the Feds don’t own our airports. Airports are owned locally and privately. Manchester Airport for instance, is owned by the City of Manchester (not the Feds), Concord Airport is owned by the City of Concord (not the Feds), Lebanon, Laconia and all the others are also private corporations. As such, these operations come under the control of the New Hampshire government and our regulatory control. I would suggest that the proper (initial) response to Chertoff’s threat to violate the  Rights of the Citizens of New Hampshire is to pass a regulation stating that any New Hampshire Citizen that is refused access to board their aircraft, at any airport within our State, due to our IDs not being acceptable, be allowed to present their unused tickets to the NH Dept. of Transportation for refund who’s Director would impose a $5,000.00 fee on the airlines issuing the tickets called State Ticket Return ‘fee’ for every instance or occasion that our Citizens are denied their Right to travel. This  regulation is a local handling fee and not under Federal jurisdiction. Since it’s clear that the Rights of the Citizens mean little to the Feds, it may be amusing to see if the airlines effected by our local regulations have a louder voice with them. Further, any aircraft owned, operated or leased/rented for Federal use, utilizing any New Hampshire airfield, would be subject a landing and takeoff ‘fee’ of $5,000.00, payable to the NH Dept. of Transportation, imposed on the owner of the private or municipally owned airfield, that would be used to offset local “security” of the Federal aircraft which we (of course) would mandate as required under State law. Of course, like the Transportation Safety Administration under Homeland Security, we wouldn’t need to make any real effort to “secure” the aircraft but the regulation would entitle us to the fee and the airports would, in turn, collect it from the aircraft owner or deny them landing and takeoff rights. If Citizens of New Hampshire aren’t allowed to travel let’s see how the Feds enjoy paying a bit more to come into our State. The fact is, the Feds don’t have a monopoly on figuring out how to play hard ball. Deny our Citizens the Right to travel and we would penalize the Federally subsidized airlines who can take it up with the Feds. If they try to sue our State (in Federal Courts) our representatives wouldn’t show up because they can’t enter the Federal Court Houses with our State’s driver’s licenses.

The fact is the States have regulatory control over their sovereign territory and the corporations operating here. Ask yourself (or our State government) how much real estate in our State is called "federal" that isn't. Federal offices are leased, they are NOT Federal land, federal highways really aren't - so, it might be fun to impose similar fees on ships for ‘birthing’ at ports where Federal vessels dock as well as ‘security’ fees on property owners leasing space to Federal offices, etcetera. The FACT is a State, tired of federal interference, could make life very difficult for the Feds limited only by the ‘will’ of our State government to impose regulatory “fees” on our own corporations which would then be passed on to their users. Before you find out you can’t take the family to Disneyland because the Feds won’t let you board an aircraft or a train, CALL or WRITE your state Representative and get them acting on these ideas and remember, in today’s world it doesn’t matter if the Law or Regulation is legal to get it passed - they always have to litigate what they do and (comically) we don’t have to show up because we’re not allowed in their courts!




Christopher T. Sununu

District 1

Mike J. Cryans

District 2

Andru Volinsky

District 3

Russell E Prescott

District 4

Theodore L. Gatsas

District 5

Debora B. Pignatelli

Click on the above photos to read about each of our council members.


Home Q & A Rules Q  & A Answers RC's Column