Featured Ohio Republicans want voters to pay to get special ID cards

I'll strip out the legalese and leave behind the relevant parts.

But when the right to vote [...] is denied to any of the male being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime...

Says IF the right to vote is denied or abridged for any reason other than rebellion or a crime THEN the state apportionment of representatives might be adjusted.

 

Exactly. You've just made my point. It doesn't guarantee a right to vote. It defines a consequence for not allowing people to vote.

 

What does the phrase, "but when the right to vote is denied" mean in your world?

 

In it's simplest form, this section says "If a state doesn't let someone vote, then their representation will be lowered.".

How does that guarantee someone's right to vote? If simply spells how how the issue will be dealt with if, and when, a state doesn't let someone vote.

 

OK, I see how it could be interpreted that way. But the clause starts out with, But when the right to vote...

So apparently we have the right to vote unless the state denies us that right, whereupon they are subject to a potential penalty. And since this amendment specifically lays out that a state may deny the right to vote in the case of rebellion and crimes, those are the only actions by people that states have used to deny people the right to vote.

However, the right to vote is stated many times elsewhere in the Constitution.

 

Part and perhaps all of this is untrue. Any changes to her SS would require that she show the card. Most places and all banks require a driver's license to make transactions unless she only used ATM's. She definitely would need to have her insurance card replaced. On at least an annual basis, providers have to check to make sure they are current.

I'm sorry if your grandmother truly had to go to this one time inconvenience. However it is COMPLETELY worth it if it preserved the integrity of the vote. It should not be acceptable to you, me, or any other legitimate voter that even ONE legitimate vote be cancelled by a fraudulent vote. NOT ONE.

"More burdensome"? It would be less burdensome to many if two forms of ID weren't required to prove eligibility to work in the US. But according to you, it is OK for the folks who actually pay the bills (including your "free" ID's) to be burdened and inconvenienced, right?

You KNOW every bit as much as I do that the groups MOST "burdened" by voter ID laws are those who would violate the law. Law abiding people simply don't whine the way you are about a minor inconvenience like this.

 

FTR, the USC DOES NOT nor can it guarantee the opportunity to vote. Gov't simply doesn't have and shouldn't have the power to remove all of the things that can happen to prevent you from voting.

Voter ID laws neither deny nor abridge the right to vote. There is NO reasonable argument to suggest that it does. Even the ones you've attempted will be taken as special cases in virtually every state by the PROPONENTS of ID laws. WE... WANT all legitimate votes to be take and to count... ONE TIME.

Did someone suggest that women should not be able to get an ID to vote?

No one is proposing a tax of any kind to vote. No one is saying who must pay for an ID... only that a valid one must be presented.

You posted all this and NOT ONE WORD supports the idea that requiring a voter to prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote is unconstitutional. In fact, every one of the Amendments you cited ASSUMES that a voter's eligibility can be verified.

 

And Zaac knows that what he said is a bald-faced lie used to cover efforts to assure that fraudulent voting that largely supports Dems is not stopped.

I want EVERY legitimate vote to be taken and to count ONE TIME.

There is a reason that Zaac and the minority who oppose voter ID laws cannot cite real world examples where people cannot vote because of these laws. Because they KNOW that if someone really wants to vote then this isn't a very big obstacle. They KNOW that the very same people endure much more difficulty going to the doctor or most anywhere else. They KNOW that no one is so poor that they cannot afford an ID that costs $8 every 10 years.

But when you are desperate to keep an unlawful, immoral, and completely illegitimate advantage... you'll promote even the most irrational excuses.

 

I see, so I'm a liar. I assure you I didn't need to show her SS card to open a new checking account and transfer her old account into it.

What changes to her SS card. There were no changes.

OK, I see you don't know what you're talking about.

For the third time, it was my MOM, not my grandmother. Pay attention.

 

My, but you do enjoy calling people liars.

Why don't you list all the real world examples of voter fraud that has occurred in the U.S. in the past several election cycles. Not voter registration fraud, actual fraudulent votes that were cast. Come back and report your findings. Then ask yourself if this is a real problem that needs addressing.

In most cases no, it's not. But there are millions of people where it would be a hassle and would be a deviation from how they have been voting all their lives.

Before you assert that there is an illegitimate advantage gained by not having photo voter ID laws, please post the number of fraudulent votes cast in the past several election cycles. While you're at it, post how these photo voter ID laws would have stopped these illegal votes.

 

I needed a photo ID and a piece of mail with my name and physical address on it in order to get a library card. :BangHead:

 

Bottom line. Voter ID laws, when properly written, are legal and constitutional.
SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld them.

Get over it.

 

Who me? Yes, they have been ruled constitutional. If a state wants to pass photo voter ID laws, that's up to them. I don't think they are needed and they are burdensome.

 

Not just you. But...

A lot of reasonable people disagree.

Including SCOTUS.

 

Even one is too many.