OK, this article is going to circle around a bit before I get to my point. So bear with me here.

First, I have to concede a key point on the realID legislation to bakerstreet. The realID legislation is not actually unconstitutional, as I study it closer and get past the spin. I still have privacy concerns, but will put that in the "agree to disagree" category here, as it is not key to THIS argument. I only wanted this disclaimer to explain that I'm not backtracking, I just looked closer at the legislation in question. My initial judgement was based on a superficial examination of the evidence.

The reason it's not unconstitutional is because it is not a LAW, per se. You see, a law provides penalties for noncompliance. This legislation does not. It provides BENEFITS for compliance, in this case, a federally acceptable ID card.

The thing is, prior to this point, there's really never been a federally acceptable ID card. Your drivers' licenses are STATE approved. I discovered this when I moved to Nevada and needed a mountain of identification, as they didn't accept a Wisconsin driver's license as an acceptable form ID. This legislation only provides the standards by which a card can be accepted by the federal government (there are other provisions too, but as regards this argument, this is the only one that is relevant). In other words, the legislation is not MANDATORY; it is up to the states to approve. If they don't meet the standards, then you will need a passport or some other form of ID for a federally acceptable standard. So the battle belongs in the state legislatures.

Similarly, the No Child Left Behind act is not a law in the conventional sense. It is a set of federal mandates for receipt of federal monies (this is why NCLB standards do NOT apply to private schools or homeschools, btw). States actually could break away from NCLB in theory, but they would be responsible for footing the entire bill for education themselves. This is an unattractive option for the states.

And this is why I have come to believe Bush isn't as bad a fiscal conservative as I thought.

Because "fiscal conservative" is not a synonym for "miser".

A fiscal conservative regards himself as a steward of the resources entrusted him. This means that, instead of writing a "blank check" to the states, he would hold the states accountable for the monies (and, in the case of ID, the confidence) entrusted to it. And I reluctantly concede that Bush DOES meet that standard to a reasonable degree.