Voter ID laws

They do take it away from felons.

 

I worry about y'all. The lot of you are as stubborn as liberal progressives on their gay stuff. If your rights have been federally established, can the states go in and start changing them? NOPE.

There was no Constitutional age set for when someone was allowed to vote. But the STATES established an age. There were no Constitutional prohibition to felons not being able to vote. But states can deny voting rights for life to anyone once convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they reach voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their President. Congress governs the District of Columbia more directly than any other state, yet they have no voting representation in Congress.

This right to vote thing is in the imagination of folks who don't acknowledge the truth. And the truth is that there is no Constitutional guaranteed Right to vote.

A guarantee means it's yours and can't anybody take it away. That's not so for voting.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?pagewanted=all

I'm sure they exist. I was referring to opposition to regulations like waiting periods, limit on the number of guns you can purchase in a given time period, or bans on so-called "assault guns". I should have been more specific.

The fact is if photo voter ID laws are implemented, it will cause some people to just not go through with the added requirements.

Any person that does not have a driver's license would need to get a state approved photo ID. Certainly the state is going to administer that, aren't they?

This is what I'm talking about when I say these laws would add strings to the right to vote. These laws would make the assumption that everyone is a potential fraudulent voter. The requirement of stating your name, your address, and putting your signature on voter rolls is no longer sufficient proof.

This simply isn't happening. Please point me to proof that illegal immigrants are voting.

You say that voter fraud occurs but apparently you don't believe that voting twice is voter fraud? Help me to understand why this form of voter fraud is baloney but the other types (dead people voting for example) is not baloney?

What about handicapped people? Grandma no longer drives and has arthritic knees. Now we require her to get a photo ID to vote. After voting in the past 16 presidential elections Grandma just fine, she now has to find a way to get to a state-run building where she can have her picture taken, then carry that picture to the voting booth.

Anyone that doesn't have a driver's license would need to obtain a government approved photo ID. I presume the government would be the administrator of that program. There would be costs with it.

Furthermore, voters without ID's would vote with a provisional ballot. These would need to be designed, created and printed, used by voters and then stored somewhere for safe keeping. Election judges would need to be trained in the new laws.

 

If it can be adjusted or taken away, it's not a right. If the federal government can dictate that you have to be 18 to vote, then there is no constitutional right to vote, just like there's no constitutional right to drive.

 

Because it's not a right.:laugh:

 

From your link:

"about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year."

Your examples are not equal or fair. Your argument here fails due to the fact that one must have an 'I.D" to get a gun.

That is their choice and laziness

That is already set up. Nothing new needed there.

You make the word "strings" plural and it is false.

So why does "stating your name" not assume you are a potential fraud?

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=691

I did not say anything like that.

Does she not ever leave the house? I reject your example as an exaggeration which is unnecessary.

Again it is already set up and active.

Again already set up and active. But in the end the resolution is to go get and I.D.

 

The complaint here in PA coming from the Dems is that the ID law will supress the traditional Dem vote - blacks, ethnic minorities, the poor.

That is absurd, of course, seeing that one is carded when buying cigarettes or alcohol, or just about anything else where a legal transaction is at stake.

 

Have you ever heard of the 15th Amendment?

Have you ever heard of the Voting Rights Act?

 

You know you old regulars have a hard time getting past what you don't know. :laugh:

The 15th amendment is not a right to vote amendment. It's a right to prohibit someone from voting based upon one of those protected statuses.

If a state wants to decide "Blacks will not be allowed to vote in this state" they couldn't because the Constitution prohibits it.

But if the state wanted to legislate that all the folks who wear a certain type shoe cannot vote, they could as long as there wasn't prima facie evidence that such a law created a discrimination toward a protected group.

The Voting Rights Act outlawed discriminatory voting practices. And all that again says is that the state can't, i.e. prohibit Blacks from voting, but they can pass a law that says no one can vote.

There is no Constitutional Right to vote.

 

That was over a 5 year period. Also from the link:

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

My point was that conservatives holler whenever another regulation is put on their 2nd amendment rights, such as a ban on assault weapons, limits on number of gun purchases per year, waiting periods, etc., yet when it comes to interpreting the constitution as to voting rights, they are OK with adding regulations.

Please tell me what state government agency is already set up to process citizen's photos and issue a voter ID card. The DMV? Oh boy, sounds like fun.

You're right, it doesn't. But following it up with "please show me a photo ID" certainly elevates the assumption that you are a fraud.

Actually, yes, my mother fits the category. She's been out of the house three times this year and is incensed that she would have to go get a photo ID to vote.

 

Mexico requires photo ID. Ironic, aint it?

 

Crazy ain't it? Their immigration laws are tougher and their voter id laws are tougher.

 

Then why is it called a right and not a privilege?

 

The point I was trying to make was that the use of the word right makes it so.

 

Good enough

How convenient that you try to compare one single issue against a broad term like "regulations". When I make this comparison I use the fact of one single issue in both voter I.D. and gun regs. In both cases I compare apples to apples. No one objects to I.D's for either gun regs or voting on the conservative side.

A valid DL or state issued ID which already gets issued.

Now you are just being over sensitive

Few and far between. You say the few occurrences of fraud that happen are not worth voter ID laws. I saw the few occurrences of situations like you mom are not enough to stop voter ID laws.

 

Because the right to not have voting ability removed because of one of those protected reasons IS a Constitutional right. Discrimination against protected groups keeping them from voting is prohibited. Keeping everyone from voting IS allowed because the Constitution doesn't grant the right to vote.

It's the same thing that the SCOTUS determined after the 2000 Presidential election.

 

I apparently stand corrected.

 

Good idea.

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html/

Notice the qualifying statement as it relates to Bush v. Gore. There is no constitutional right to vote for Presidential electors in Florida because that is not how Florida has their presidential electoral system set up. That's it. Not a sweeping general statement about the right to vote in elections.

Any person that doesn't have a driver's license would need a photo ID to vote. Race doesn't enter into it. But since you brought it up--What about the case of older minorities that don't have a driver's license or a birth certificate? Getting a photo ID would be a burden. Are they too stupid or old?

My point was to show that conservatives are very rabid about protecting the 2nd amendment but seem OK with adding regulations to the 15th amendment (and others.) I simply found it inconsistent.

But up until now you didn't need these things to vote.

Now this I could support. Going forward all new voter registrations must include a photograph and every time the voter has to re-register, for example after moving to a new house, a new photo must be taken. For those voters that don't move they must re-register every 12 years or so and new photo taken.

 

Apparently not. See my previous post.