bandit0013 wrote:I guess I also have a right to bear arms, and no barriers should be put in the way to exercise that right?
As I said earlier:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:I'd contend that voting isn't a basic right. It is, after all, not in the Bill of Rights--the founders debated if those first 10 amendments a necessity, or if they just made explicit things that the rest of the Constitution implied. Obviously, there are later amendments that extended voting rights, but they don't come up in the Bill of Rights, because unlike the freedoms of speech, assembly, due process and so forth, voting wasn't implied in the Articles, is was directly stated.
So, voting isn't a basic right, it's a foundational concept upon which our nation was built. As such, we really shouldn't put barriers around it--no matter how insignificant that barrier may seem to a limited imagination.
okay, before we go down this rabbit hole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...
Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys.
Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys. :)
I think you hit up the wrong thread
momgamer wrote:Thank you Eldon_of_Azure, for Rock of Ages, and thank you Monkeyboy for all the monkeys. :)
I think you hit up the wrong thread ;)
Oh, Bother! What I get for trying to post while my daughter's daffy cat is wigging out in my office.
To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
2 & 6 are proved with identification when one registers to vote. Why must they be proved again when one is at the polls?
And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.
Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?
This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.
Rosenhane, even the Republicans who were fire-eating on the topic could not find enough evidence to pass *anything* to law enforcement, beyond a few hundred people with the names of felons who voted or attempted to vote. As I said, .0038% of the voters were convicted. The current system worked fine; it's more reliable than many other things we deal with in daily life (your *bank* probably has more computer outage time per than that, for example.)
Is this really enough of a crisis to claim that the system doesn't work, and instead of just fixing the actual problem (people with names matching felons voting) with changes to internal procedures at much lower cost and disruption. How is issuing ids to everyone going to work better than the system we have now? How many of those felons voted under false ids or names? (The answer right now seems to be none...)
The biggest worry is mail-in votes. ID does nothing to prevent mail-in vote fraud.
We live in a wonderful post war era without problems. TSA policy is informed by Die Hard With a Vengeance for Christ's sake. And when a genuine problem pops up so often, we address the made up ones so we can make sure that everyone knows Iowa is safe from tiger attacks.
... that everyone knows Iowa is safe from tiger attacks.
You joke, but statistically? It's a jungle out here!
bandit0013 wrote:To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.
Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?
This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.
Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.
Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.
Is it sufficiently available to those who might not have transportation or who might work at the hours the ID office is open?
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
No, I don't. You must prove you're 18 to register to vote. If your college ID did not have your date of birth on it, you would require another form of identification that does.
bandit0013 wrote:Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.
Is it sufficiently available to those who might not have transportation or who might work at the hours the ID office is open?
Are you suggesting a reality where someone can't travel to the BMV in the 700 days between elections but can somehow get to the poll on the 5th?
Are you suggesting a reality where someone can't travel to the BMV in the 700 days between elections but can somehow get to the poll on the 5th?
For starters, yes, actually, that's why they have such a thing as absentee ballots isn't it?
Secondly, part of the problem with the laws being proposed is that depending on when they would go into effect they might leave people with far less than 700 days to get these IDs.
DMV locations are typically convenient to people with cars, strangely enough. Not so convenient to other people.
And yeah. 750,000 people who do not have photo ID in Pennsylvania today will need them if they wish to vote in November. That's ~120 days left in which to make sure that everybody who wishes to vote has all of their documents together and gets to the DMV for their photo ID.
(Not to mention that it's still not clear what will happen with legal challenges, which just leads to more confusion.)
(P.S. Good luck if you have misplaced your social security card. That's going to be a different set of documentation taken to a different location, and a significant wait for the card by mail before you can take it to the DMV to get your ID.)
Per this, regarding how it's not that hard to get ID...
But a legal challenge presses on. 93-year old Germantown resident Viviette Applewhite, who has been unable to obtain a Pennsylvania birth certificate, is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU and NAACP lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include “three elderly women who say they cannot obtain necessary ID because they were born in the Jim Crow South, where states have no records of their births.”
Oh, the irony.
KingGorilla wrote:And as we discussed earlier on. The majority of us pay for these photo IDs. One degree removed or not, requiring a license or a passport is my paying to vote.
Question for the anti ID folks. Would you have this issue if your driving license or state ID were free for all?
This is not a crazy thought either. Social security cards and replacements are free.
Doesn't require a DL, requires a state issued photo id. All states enforcing voter ID have free non driver state ID available to the poor.
Members of occupy attempted that in Kansas.
http://occupy316.org/2012/01/12/kanv...
Similar problems were presented when the Justice Department halted implementation of Texas' ID law.
The law is all well and good, as is the system of free IDs. Seems Wichita cannot cope with 40-50 people at once.
CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.
Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...
bandit0013 wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.
Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...
26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.
CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.
Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.
No, I don't think it did. It set the maximum age for denying the right to vote on account of age. There's a difference between "you must be 18 to vote" and "if you are 18, the fact that your are 18 means you must be allowed to vote."
It's the STATE constitutions that say 17 year olds and foreigners can't vote.
bandit0013 wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:CheezePavilion wrote:bandit0013 wrote:To expound, if you want to get all constitutional, this is what the constitution has to say about voting:
1. No religious test
2. Must be born or naturalized US Citizen
3. Can't deny on sex, race, color
4. Washington DC can vote in presidential elecitons
5. Can't have a poll tax
6. Must be 18 years of age.I welcome your thoughts on how one can prove 2 and 6 without some form of identification.
Washington never would have been elected if it wasn't for all those 17 year old Canadians.
I did post-secondary in high school and as such had a photo college ID at 16. Some people think that ID is good enough for voting... See the problem?
I was originally trying to make the point that "if you want to get all constitutional" you have to consider how could you actually prove your age and citizenship in the late 18th century.
Now, however, looking into it, are #2 and # 6 cases of "Must..." or are they 'floors': in other words, where does it say in the Constitution a 17 year old legal foreigner can't vote? I know it says an 18 year old citizen can vote, but where does it say voting is exclusive to that class?
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...
http://web.archive.org/web/200706090...26th amendment set the minimum voting age at 18.
No, I don't think it did. It set the maximum age for denying the right to vote on account of age. There's a difference between "you must be 18 to vote" and "if you are 18, the fact that your are 18 means you must be allowed to vote."
Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.
Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.
Since when do you have to show ID to exercise any of the other constitutional rights?
bandit0013 wrote:Ok, I see your point, but it doesn't change the fact that to prove that I'm exercising my constitutional right to vote showing that I am indeed 18 years old is part of the "you have to constitutionally let me vote" card.
Since when do you have to show ID to exercise any of the other constitutional rights?
More, we check ballots. If you fill out a ballot and are under aged, the count will show you as a fraud.
You might as well ask what stops a person from sending a letter bomb with their actual return address. It is a boneheaded thing to do. Are we genuinely concerned of people committing and admitting to a crime at the same time?
Bruce Schneier posited something interesting the other day: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...
We're at a unique time in the history of surveillance: the cameras are everywhere, and we can still see them. Fifteen years ago, they weren't everywhere. Fifteen years from now, they'll be so small we won't be able to see them. Similarly, all the debates we've had about national ID cards will become moot as soon as these surveillance technologies are able to recognize us without us even knowing it.
Voter ID laws will be Overcome By Events as they say in gov't land.
I thought the Justice Dept also won a federal injunction against Wisconsin.
So the University of Delaware just published the results of a national survey that revealed that support for voter ID laws are highest among Americans "who harbor negative sentiments towards African Americans."
Pages