Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Seriously, fug this state(voter id)


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#101 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,376
  • Reputation: 2,007
  • LocationAlaska
HUDDLER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 02:50 PM

I would be all for that Voter ID thingy, except for the fact that it is a clear case of "Slippery Slope" as my NRA friends like to tell me. I know all the Cons will agree with me on this one. We should band together in this moment of crisis, when our American liberty hangs precariously in the balance, and organize a picture ID burning day to protest this egregious overreach by state governments everywhere! Who do these power hungry bureaucrats think they are? "Real Americans" will not have the wool pulled over our eyes! We see what is really going on here! Big Government, once again, attempting to undermine an American Citizen's Constitutional right to privacy! What's next, National IDs? Fug you, Lindsey Graham!

#102 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,926
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

The party who wants less government wants to pass a law that will require the government to come up with and provide another form of ID for those who have no DL or state ID....

Keep the hypocrisy coming Republicans. Every day we can count on something to laugh about when it comes to the Glen Becks, Limbaughs and Coulters of this country.



So you believe that the government isn't authorized to determine voter elegibility? If so, who is authorized? I am interested in hearing the explanation for that one.

#103 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,404
  • Reputation: 2,340
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 05:27 PM

I am not arguing for voter ID cards, I doubt that you can find a post that I have made in favor or against them. It's not something that is really important to me.

That said, there are many rules that have been passed down about the right to bear arms, but very few when it comes to voting.

Just pointing out that while many on the left are kicking and screaming about rights being taken away (voter ID) they are also the ones kicking and screaming in favor of taking more rights away (gun law reform).


Yeah, I like to think of it more as "giving more people the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", with an emphasis on the first one.

The idea that people are "in favor of taking more rights away" is silly. People are in favor of "less people getting killed", But since you brought it up, it's interesting to ME that most people that holler about their "gun rights" are the same folks that think that putting more barriers between people that could never afford a gun, nevermind a collection of them, and the voting booth is dandy when they post FB memes about how they can't wait to use their guns to fight against "tyrrany" which appears to be to be defined by them as "people who want to pass gun laws" and that's about it.

If not having VoterID wa partially to blame in the deaths of over a thousand Americans in a month and a half or so, you let me know, OK?

#104 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,513
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:24 PM

So you believe that the government isn't authorized to determine voter elegibility? If so, who is authorized? I am interested in hearing the explanation for that one.


Quite a stretch of an assumption on your part, I'd say. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy on clear display by the Republican party- the party of smaller, less intrusive government- wanting more government intervention in voting rights.

"Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal." Fairvote.org

What I am in favor of is a Constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, which a vast majority of people believe exists in this country when, in fact, it does not. As a matter of fact, the United States is 1 of but 11 democracies in the entire world that do not have the right to vote affirmed by a constitutional amendment.

Once that is in place, voting registration, eligibility and the voting process becomes standardized, thereby preventing what the Republican party attempted prior to the most recent election- voter suppression and are now attempting via gerrymandering.

#105 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,404
  • Reputation: 2,340
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 06:53 PM

Both parties gerrymander, it just gets worse and more craven the more desperate the offending party is. What people don't seem to get in their over zealous defense of the Constitution is that other democracies have taken what we created and refined it, just as we did compared to say, the Magna Carta. A lot of people in our country seem to thing that this document that is over two centuries old is something that is immortal not only in its significance but in its relevance. I have no doubt that the guys who wrote it would look at our world today where blacks are equal citizens, women have the same rights as men, a nation can destroy the entire planet in 20 minutes, and wonder what the hell are we treating them as demigods and their creation as the Last Word for?

#106 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,926
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 02 February 2013 - 07:24 PM

Quite a stretch of an assumption on your part, I'd say. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy on clear display by the Republican party- the party of smaller, less intrusive government- wanting more government intervention in voting rights.

"Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal." Fairvote.org

What I am in favor of is a Constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, which a vast majority of people believe exists in this country when, in fact, it does not. As a matter of fact, the United States is 1 of but 11 democracies in the entire world that do not have the right to vote affirmed by a constitutional amendment.

Once that is in place, voting registration, eligibility and the voting process becomes standardized, thereby preventing what the Republican party attempted prior to the most recent election- voter suppression and are now attempting via gerrymandering.



Both democrats and republicans believe that government should be more involved in some areas, less involved in others. The only difference is which areas they believe government should or should not be involved in. Ignoring the accusations and the usual partisan tripe in your comments, the right of the citizens to vote actually is mentioned in the constitution. 26th amendment specifically names the right to vote.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote


Its also mentioned in the 24th amendment under similar circumstances. So it actually is a named right in the constitution, but the constitution only gives reasons that it can or cannot be restricted. A new amendment might clarify but that would depend on the wording of the amendment.

Fwiw, I doubt you are correct that voting process would become standardized. Many states (red and blue) would see an amendment that would allow the federal government to impose standards on state elections as unwarranted and would never approve the amendment. And an amendment that only guaranteed the right to vote wouldn't necessarily impose those standards.

Btw, gerrymandering is definitely a bipartisan activity. Case in point, NC 12th district.

#107 Anybodyhome

Anybodyhome

    USN Retired

  • Joined: 07-July 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,513
  • Reputation: 2,431
  • LocationWherever I May Roam
HUDDLER

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:31 AM

Ignoring the accusations and the usual partisan tripe in your comments, the right of the citizens to vote actually is mentioned in the constitution. 26th amendment specifically names the right to vote.

Its also mentioned in the 24th amendment under similar circumstances. So it actually is a named right in the constitution, but the constitution only gives reasons that it can or cannot be restricted. A new amendment might clarify but that would depend on the wording of the amendment.


The 26th Amendment does not guarantee the right to vote. It simply establishes the age at which people can vote. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but as any Constitutional law professor or historian will tell you, there is no amendment that clearly establishes the right of any citizen of this country to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation."

And the 24th Amendment? C'mon, the 24th simply says one does not have to pay poll taxes in order to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Sure, there are several "mentions" of the right to vote throughout the Constitution, but to assume it is an inalienable right is simply incorrect. If it were a specific guaranteed right per a Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court in 2000 would not have issued this ruling in Bush v. Gore:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

The last proposed Constitutional Amendment brought by joint resolution of both Houses:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.


`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.




`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.


`Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by approp riate legislation."


Instead of being so concerned with my "partisan tripe" (otherwise known as "opinion") perhaps defending your own opinions, which obviously differ from mine, with actual facts rather than falling into lockstep formation with the conservative lemmings and their distorted view of
the country.

Sorry, it's a message/discussion board. If you don't care for my politics, opinions or thoughts, simply add me to your ignore list. After all, the Republican party seems to find that trait perfectly acceptable- ignoring the will of the people- and the last 2 elections are clear indications of that.

#108 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,120
  • Reputation: 2,946
  • LocationMontford
HUDDLER

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:51 PM

and the merry go round continues....

#109 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 16,817
  • Reputation: 4,794
HUDDLER

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

and the merry go round continues....

Thanks for proving my point.

#110 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,926
  • Reputation: 1,459
HUDDLER

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:31 PM

The 26th Amendment does not guarantee the right to vote. It simply establishes the age at which people can vote. It may be a matter of semantics to some, but as any Constitutional law professor or historian will tell you, there is no amendment that clearly establishes the right of any citizen of this country to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Congress shall have the power to enforce this law through appropriate legislation."

And the 24th Amendment? C'mon, the 24th simply says one does not have to pay poll taxes in order to vote.
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Sure, there are several "mentions" of the right to vote throughout the Constitution, but to assume it is an inalienable right is simply incorrect. If it were a specific guaranteed right per a Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court in 2000 would not have issued this ruling in Bush v. Gore:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

The last proposed Constitutional Amendment brought by joint resolution of both Houses:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.


`Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.




`Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.


`Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by approp riate legislation."


I didn't say that either amendment guaranteed the right to vote, only that the right to vote is listed as a right. So the right to vote doesn't really need to be laid out. Only congressional authority to regulate it might require an amendment. Of course, congress already has some ability to regulate voting requirements. As an aside, it will be interesting to see how the Supremes rule on the voting rights act next month.


As far as voting being an inalienable right, there are restrictions on all rights, whether they are specifically listed in the constitution or not. There are restrictions on the freedom of speech (not many, but there are a few) and on freedom of religion. Even if the amendment passed, states or the feds would still be responsible for determing the definition of elegible voter, and we would still have the voterid debate.


I don't think the amendment listed above would have a chance of passing enough states (red or blue) to become law. I think states such as California and Alabama would be wary of a federal government trying to tell them how to determine if a voter is elegible or now. If they are not, they should be because the political winds in washington change on a regular basis.


But I am curious. If republicans should regain control of the house, senate, and executive, would you be ok with them setting election standards based on that amendment. Or with the current conservative leaning court being responsible for intrepreting that amendment?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users