next »

[sly fox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/justice-dept-blocks-texas-photo-id-law.html?_r=1&ref=us

. . . The decision, which follows a similar move in December blocking such a law in South Carolina, brought the Obama administration deeper into the politically and racially charged fight over a wave of new voting restrictions, enacted largely in recent years by Republicans in the name of combating voter fraud.

In a letter to the Texas state government, Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said that the state had failed to meet its requirement, under the Voting Rights Act, to show that the measure would not disproportionately disenfranchise registered minority voters.  . . .

The section of the Voting Rights Act that puts extra burdens on jurisdictions with a history of suppressing minority voting does not apply to others that lack a discriminatory past, giving the Justice Department less power to intervene in other states that have enacted such laws.

Still, this month, a state judge in Wisconsin issued a temporary injunction blocking that state from enforcing a similar new statute, saying its restrictions would disproportionately prevent elderly, indigent and minority voters from participating in an coming election.

[BGuttman]

Actually, when you look at what the new regulations attempt to achieve, it is remarkably close to the government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, where only people of property could vote.  So our Conservative friends are actually correct in their assertions that they are trying to create the system as established in 1787.

But you can't label this a "democracy" when large numbers of citizens become disenfranchised.

Wonder if they will try to re-establish slavery?   Separate but Equal?

[SensitiveJohn]

The more people that are disenfranchised, the better it is for the Republican devil.

[BGuttman]

I'm waiting for them to declare that you get "share votes" based on your income (not taxes, mind you; just income).  So a corporation that they call a "person" would have voting rights based on gross income.  Thus BP, Exxon, etc. can have more say in the Government than somebody who earns minimum wage.

Imagine if the company dumping tons of mercury into the air in a coal-burning power plant has the right to vote on the pollution regulations.  Or can decide that they really don't want to provide health care coverage for workers or any other benefits since they don't provide any payback.  Or that the anti-collusion laws should be repealed so they can form a cartel to fix prices.  Gee, that would look a lot like China, wouldn't it?

[TillerTrom]

Where is the consistency? You all get upset if you are not allowed to vote without photo I.D., so why are you not protesting and filing lawsuits against other entities that require photo I.D. to conduct business?

The Secret Service would NEVER allow a person onto the grounds of the Whitehouse without photo identification. Does this mean the Obama Administration is racist and targeting minorities?
 
You need a photo I.D. to get a library card, purchase a firearm, purchase cigarettes, purchase alcohol, drive a car, get access to some government facilities, cash a check, open a bank account, buy a home etc. Why does this issue only ruffle people's feathers when it comes to voting?

The left in this nation know full well what they are supporting. Voter fraud can happen on both sides, but we all know 80% of it favors the Democrats.

[BGuttman]

Where is the consistency? You all get upset if you are not allowed to vote without photo I.D., so why are you not protesting and filing lawsuits against other entities that require photo I.D. to conduct business?

The Secret Service would NEVER allow a person onto the grounds of the Whitehouse without photo identification. Does this mean the Obama Administration is racist and targeting minorities?
 
You need a photo I.D. to get a library card, purchase a firearm, purchase cigarettes, purchase alcohol, drive a car, get access to some government facilities, cash a check, open a bank account, buy a home, etc. Why does this issue only ruffle people's feathers when it comes to voting?

The left in this nation know full well what they are supporting. Voter fraud can happen on both sides, but we all know 80% of it favors the Democrats.

I don't have a constitutional right / civic obligation to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, get a library card, enter White House grounds, open a bank account (incidentally, there are ways to get the equivalent of a bank account without photo ID), or buy a home (incidentally, you don't need a photo ID to buy a house in my state either; you just need a thick wad of cash).  I do  have a constitutional right / civic obligation to exercise my franchise and vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with photo ID for voting if it were not shown to be discriminatory against certain classes of people.  You Conservatives are "fat, dumb, and happy" since it doesn't seem to apply to you.  I'd bet you'd change your tune if the shoe were on the other foot.

My other complaint is that the type of voter fraud that would be eliminated by photo ID is insignificant in the scheme of things.  The real  voter fraud is ballot tampering, count tampering, and other things that are generally done with collusion from Election officials.  And you Conservatives who are so concerned about shaving costs realize that providing ID for those who don't have it will add to the cost of doing Government.  I just don't see the Return on Investment here.

[Russ White]

Where is the consistency? You all get upset if you are not allowed to vote without photo I.D., so why are you not protesting and filing lawsuits against other entities that require photo I.D. to conduct business?

The Secret Service would NEVER allow a person onto the grounds of the Whitehouse without photo identification. Does this mean the Obama Administration is racist and targeting minorities?
 
You need a photo I.D. to get a library card, purchase a firearm, purchase cigarettes, purchase alcohol, drive a car, get access to some government facilities, cash a check, open a bank account, buy a home etc. Why does this issue only ruffle people's feathers when it comes to voting?

The left in this nation know full well what they are supporting. Voter fraud can happen on both sides, but we all know 80% of it favors the Democrats.

Horses**t, Those are privileges, not a "right/ obligation". Bruce is spot on. And, we have seen in the Republican nomination process why they might feel there is a problem with voting activities in this country, but the ones they are trying to fix don't exist. The problem is the same that exists when they run the economy. They are incompetent.

[TillerTrom]

Horses**t, Those are privileges, not a "right/ obligation". Bruce is spot on. And, we have seen in the Republican nomination process why they might feel there is a problem with voting activities in this country, but the ones they are trying to fix don't exist. The problem is the same that exists when they run the economy. They are incompetent.

I beg to differ.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That is a Constitutional right. A right that only with a valid, photo I.D. I am allowed to exercise.

[Baron von Bone]

Where is the consistency? You all get upset if you are not allowed to vote without photo I.D., so why are you not protesting and filing lawsuits against other entities that require photo I.D. to conduct business?

Are you suggesting conducting business with such other entities is on par with voting? Should everyone necessarily have the right and even the duty to do business with these other entities? Sounds like you're stretching to create an inconsistency that's not really there ( ... or perhaps one that may just be on your side of the net instead).
 

The Secret Service would NEVER allow a person onto the grounds of the Whitehouse without photo identification. Does this mean the Obama Administration is racist and targeting minorities?
 
You need a photo I.D. to get a library card, purchase a firearm, purchase cigarettes, purchase alcohol, drive a car, get access to some government facilities, cash a check, open a bank account, buy a home etc. Why does this issue only ruffle people's feathers when it comes to voting?

All good examples of the same issues as above (any questionable examples aside).
 

The left in this nation know full well what they are supporting.

Yup ... and we also all know that reality is rarely as hard core conservatives choose to perceive it (unfortunately their ranks seem to be far thicker than most with those whose perceptions are far more subject to their personal sensibilities than to any attempt at careful observation or objectivity).

Voter fraud can happen on both sides, but we all know 80% of it favors the Democrats.

Got a mouse in your pocket?

[ronkny]

I don't have a constitutional right / civic obligation to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, get a library card, enter White House grounds, open a bank account (incidentally, there are ways to get the equivalent of a bank account without photo ID), or buy a home (incidentally, you don't need a photo ID to buy a house in my state either; you just need a thick wad of cash).  I do  have a constitutional right / civic obligation to exercise my franchise and vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with photo ID for voting if it were not shown to be discriminatory against certain classes of people.  You Conservatives are "fat, dumb, and happy" since it doesn't seem to apply to you.  I'd bet you'd change your tune if the shoe were on the other foot.

My other complaint is that the type of voter fraud that would be eliminated by photo ID is insignificant in the scheme of things.  The real  voter fraud is ballot tampering, count tampering, and other things that are generally done with collusion from Election officials.  And you Conservatives who are so concerned about shaving costs realize that providing ID for those who don't have it will add to the cost of doing Government.  I just don't see the Return on Investment here.

The dems are just pandering to the poor helpless Latinos who could not possibly figure out how to get an ID to vote.  The Latinos need the dems.     The dems thrive on it.
2005Carter-Baker Commision recommends ID to vote.
2008 Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter ID law with the majority decision written by ultra right ( ) Justive Stevens.

[TillerTrom]

Are you suggesting conducting business with such other entities is on par with voting? Should everyone necessarily have the right and even the duty to do business with these other entities? Sounds like you're stretching to create an inconsistency that's not really there

I think we need to define what a right is, and then decide that if something is deemed a right does the government have an obligation to provide it instead or protect and preserve the right as was intended.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a document that strictly listed and enumerated rights and powers of the federal government, state government and individuals? Oh wait, there is; the Constitution.

When we debate healthcare, we are told that it is a right. Therefor since it is a right, our Federal overlords declare it must be paid for and provided by the government by stealing the wealth and prosperity of some citizens. Failure to do hand over the aforementioned confiscated funds will end with the potential seizure of private property and imprisonment, both enforced by the barrel of a gun.

As for rights, the 2nd amendment preserves my right not only to keep arms, but to bear them. If I apply the same argument the left uses for healthcare and voting, then the government should provide all citizen's of legal age, in good mental health, and clear of felony convictions a brand new firearm whether they want it or not. Afterall, it is a right, correct? Of course this is preposterous because as logical people we inherently understand that the government preserves and protects inalienable rights, not provides the means to obtain them. All because we have a right to something, does not mean we have the right to raid the treasury and monetarily provide it.

The voting I.D. act does not prohibit anyone of the right to vote, just as being asked to present a photo I.D. to a TSA agent at the airport, or FFL to buy a firearm prohibit you from flying or buying a gun. In those cases we all agree that asking someone to present a valid photo I.D. is a reasonable precaution to take against someone wishing to due harm to others, who is prohibited from flying or buying a firearm from doing so. Why can we not ask the same thing of our fellow citizens when it comes to using it as a reasonable precaution to help prevent harm being done to the fabric of our republic? The free and open elections void of fraud and disput is a reasonable expectation. Arguably that is a more noble cause and our duty as citizens of a free society, is it not? Allowing people without valid I.D. to vote, or improprieties such as dead people and felons from voting fractures our confidence in the electoral system. These fractures can sew the seed of insurrection and rebellion. Would you really want to live and pay taxes in a nation where we can not even verify who is voting in the people confiscating your wealth, property for the "common good" of those you are unable to verify as actual citizens? When that kind of confidence erodes away our civil society, you will have more to worry about then just this.

This law does not impose a "poll tax" or other unreasonable action to be able to vote. It is your right to own a gun (2nd amendment), but you need a photo I.D. (sometimes two) to buy and carry one. It is your right to purchase alcohol (21st amendment), but you are required to present photo I.D. to purchase and possess it. No one blinks an eye.

I have listed two examples of enumerated Constitutional rights that require photo identification for you to exercise. Why do we not want to be consistant and apply the same expectation, application and enforcement to 15th and 19th amendment? It is not radical, it is reasonable.

[Baron von Bone]

I beg to differ.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
That is a Constitutional right. A right that only with a valid, photo I.D. I am allowed to exercise.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that's guaranteed We the People by the Constitution, yes, but it's clearly not the same as the "right/obligation to vote" that Bruce and Russ are talking about. It's not reasonably considered a duty as voting very often is. I don't personally agree that voting is a duty, at least not in the same sense most seem to argue (e.g. I certainly don't think it's reasonable to argue that those who didn't vote have no moral/ethical right to complain about injustices related to election issues), but it's pretty clear that keeping and bearing arms isn't reasonably considered a citizen's duty--that a citizen who "fails" to keep and bear has no moral/ethical right to complain about injustices related to not having a firearm.

[Baron von Bone]

I think we need to define what a right is, and then decide that if something is deemed a right does the government have an obligation to provide it instead or protect and preserve the right as was intended.

I think the issue of contention is more about what "protect and preserve" means in practice. Clearly it's quite different regarding guns vs. health care. There's also some question regarding "as intended" and how that applies.
 

Wouldn't it be great if there was a document that strictly listed and enumerated rights and powers of the federal government, state government and individuals? Oh wait, there is; the Constitution.

Good. Now that you're aware of this, maybe we can get somewhere in terms of helping you to actually understand it.
 
Your attempt to argue guns are analogous to health insurance policies fails to account for the fact that everyone is quite directly effected by applied healthcare costs. IOW, if you don't have health care and you find yourself in the ER, we're all paying for it, and it's threatening the entire industry.
 
If you're assaulted and you're unable to defend yourself the same arguably holds true for a small number of other people (future victims of the assailant), but relatively few people (particularly innocent people), and whether or not any given intended victim, or even most or all of them, put up significant resistance or not has little bearing on overall society--everyone isn't going to suffer from violence if some, many, most or even all civilians don't carry guns as they will, and do, suffer serious harm to their health because of a failing healthcare industry.
 
With a defensive firearm we're also talking about applied tactical capacity and imposed responsibility (i.e. you can't leave a gun lying in plain sight on your porch every day and expect no repercussions), and unless we want to require everyone to take at least some first aid/first responder training and to adopt some sort of fitness regimen (you can plant your arse on your porch every day consuming an unending flow of bon-bons and display the fruits of your sitting in plain sight). If you don't defend yourself with a gun in an assault/mugging/whatever you can't impose the cost of the results upon society, and it's not likely to be a 5-6 figure number. If you can't maintain your basic health, however, you will very likely end up in a hospital with serious health issues, those costs are very likely to be at least a 5 or even a 6 figure number, and that will be imposed upon society if you don't have the capacity to cover it.
 
But the issue here is voting rights anyway ... no? Kinda forgot there for a bit, after chasing this rabbit around for a while.
 

The voting I.D. act does not prohibit anyone of the right to vote ...

Presuming your conclusion as a premise doesn't make for a very solid argument. In any case I'm not very invested in the voter ID issue, but I tend to agree that when there's no problem to fix or a "fix" pretty much fails, utterly, to even actually address the actual problem (much like most gun control measures), it's not a good idea, and there's pretty much always an ulterior motive behind efforts to get it done. Personally I tend to be suspicious of such efforts, and since they actually accomplish nothing, I'd say it's probably best to pass. From what I can tell by considering exactly how that would work in practice, not just in theory, a voter ID would do little if anything to prevent voter fraud, but it would pretty clearly make voting significantly more difficult for some. So far Republicans have failed to make much of a case, and if we go by how much of an inconvenience a "preventative" measure poses, then I'm quite certain the GOP will take precisely the opposite position regarding gun control measures--quite vociferously so, in fact. I can imagine the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth quite easily ... just by looking at whatever current Most Serious Threat to Our Gun Rights We've Ever Faced!!!™ the NRA is on about this week.

[BGuttman]

The dems are just pandering to the poor helpless Latinos who could not possibly figure out how to get an ID to vote.  The Latinos need the dems.     The dems thrive on it.
...

Poor non-English speaking Latinos don't need ID's.  They aren't citizens and can't vote.  In case you forgot, the only people who can be citizens and also speak only Spanish are Puerto Ricans.  And they can vote in Spanish -- in Puerto Rico.

Note that there are countries where you are issued a photo ID that you better  carry around with you always.  Is this what you really want?

[SensitiveJohn]

Puerto Rico is not a state.  They get to vote in primaries, but not the general election for president.  Their elected member of congress doesn't get a vote either.

[sly fox]

. . .  Voter fraud can happen on both sides, but we all know 80% of it favors the Democrats.

I challenge you to name one case of voter fraud, where someone voted illegally using a false address

stumped

well, the current Secretary of State of Indiana, a GOPer, was recently sentenced for doing exactly that in the last election.  He was caught voting using his ex wife's address for his own.

by the way, the current US Senator from Indiana, Richard Lugar, another GOPer, has admitted that he doesn't live in Indiana yet his listed voting address is a house in Indiana he once owned over 15 years ago.

now, list some Democrats convicted of such crimes please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-rules-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/2012/03/12/gIQA8m8D8R_story.html

. . . The Virginia legislation — a solution in search of a problem — is purely political, designed to give Republicans an edge in a swing state ahead of the fall elections by making voting more difficult for minorities, the elderly and youths — groups that tend disproportionately to lack IDs and to vote for Democrats. And Virginia Republicans barely pretend otherwise.

In a conversation with senior Virginia GOP lawmakers recently, we asked if there was any evidence of a pattern of voting fraud in state elections that would justify more stringent voter ID rules. One state senator said he had “heard” of instances of fraud. We asked our question again: Was there a pattern of fraud that would raise systemic doubts about the integrity of Virginia elections? The senator said no. None of his fellow Republicans contradicted him
 . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-vote-against-voting/2011/06/20/AG9es1eH_story.html

the contrary viewpoint from an person I wouldn't trust to draw up a receipt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html

[ronkny]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/OKeefe%20Video%20Exposes%20Voter%20Fraud-Friendly%20Policies%20in%20Vermont

[sly fox]

I wonder what is left on the cutting rooom floor????

isn't that his Modus Operandi

to edit his films to show what he wants as oppose to reality????

[B0B]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/OKeefe%20Video%20Exposes%20Voter%20Fraud-Friendly%20Policies%20in%20Vermont

I don't believe primaries are even run by their state government, so much as the party.

Even if that story were true, whoop-die-freakin-doo... primaries are essentially meaningless popularity contests and not real votes in any way shape or form. To declare any part of it "voter fraud" is utterly ridiculous, no matter what happens.

[ronkny]

I challenge you to name one case of voter fraud, where someone voted illegally using a false address

stumped

well, the current Secretary of State of Indiana, a GOPer, was recently sentenced for doing exactly that in the last election.  He was caught voting using his ex wife's address for his own.

by the way, the current US Senator from Indiana, another GOPer, has admitted that he doesn't live in Indiana yet his listed voting address is a house in Indiana he once owned over 15 years ago.

now, list some Democrats convicted of such crimes please.

http://nation.foxnews.com/voter-fraud/2012/01/19/ny-democrat-voter-fraud-normal-political-tactic
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25349
http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/democrats-arrested-andor-convicted-of-voter-fraud/