A Simple 'Fix'.

[Torus34]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

We might as well at this point. SSN was never meant to be what it is used for today.

 

[Glitch]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen.

No, they do not.

If you think otherwise, then cite the specific Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution that gives Congress that specific power. If you can't, then they don't have that power.

We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

Just like Congress does not have the constitutional authority to create a Social Security system.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

You clearly need to read the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Government has absolutely no right to any personal information about anyone, but upon probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.

The US is not some leftist fascist State where government can demand your papers, like the Soviet Union.

 

[tshade]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

All and well IF there was a voter fraud problem. All this will do is make it harder for some to vote. We need to ENCOURAGE MORE voting, not less. Our biggest threat to democracy is LACK of participation, not voter fraud.

 

[OrphanSlug]

The irony is Republicans would complain about costs and government overreach, even though it somewhat solves their other little conspiracy theory about illegal immigrants and dead people voting with Dems voting 40+ times in an election.

 

[Drowning Man]

No, they do not.

If you think otherwise, then cite the specific Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution that gives Congress that specific power. If you can't, then they don't have that power.

Your and my reading of the Constitution, unfortunately, is meaningless. Show me a SCOTUS case that shows that they have interpreted the Constitution that way, and you may have a point.

Just like Congress does not have the constitutional authority to create a Social Security system.

Again, please show where it has been deemed Unconstitutional. The Constitution spells out who has the ability to interpret the Constitution...and it's not you. It's the SCOTUS.

You clearly need to read the Fourth Amendment:


Government has absolutely no right to any personal information about anyone, but upon probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.

Just like all rights, there are limits to all. There may be requirements for someone to prove who they are in order to get access to specific information or use specific services, by the government. SCOTUS has determined that driver checkpoints are valid where you must provide ID. Going across the border, you must provide ID. Etc...

The US is not some leftist fascist State where government can demand your papers, like the Soviet Union.

So, you are against voter ID laws in general? Or just ones where it is a Federal ID?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The US is not some leftist fascist State where government

Damn those leftist facists!

 

[Glitch]

Your and my reading of the Constitution, unfortunately, is meaningless. Show me a SCOTUS case that shows that they have interpreted the Constitution that way, and you may have a point.

First, you have to actually read the US Constitution. Which you clearly haven't.

Second, if you had bothered to read the US Constitution you would know that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution.

Lastly, since you failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the US Constitution, much less provided anything to support your wild and unfounded assertions about congressional power, it can be safely concluded that you are completely clueless on the subject matter.

Again, please show where it has been deemed Unconstitutional. The Constitution spells out who has the ability to interpret the Constitution...and it's not you. It's the SCOTUS.

Really? Where does the US Constitution "spells out who has the ability to interpret the [US] Constitution?" Cite this imaginary source of yours.

You can't because you have never bothered to read the document.

I will save you the trouble, nowhere does the US Constitution say anything about the Supreme Court interpreting the US Constitution. Not one word, anywhere. But since you are clearly uneducated, you wouldn't know that.

Just like all rights, there are limits to all. There may be requirements for someone to prove who they are in order to get access to specific information or use specific services, by the government. SCOTUS has determined that driver checkpoints are valid where you must provide ID. Going across the border, you must provide ID. Etc...

So, you are against voter ID laws in general? Or just ones where it is a Federal ID?

You can't even distinguish between the federal government and State government, which is truly pathetic.

Unless the US Constitution specifically prohibits the States from a certain power, the States have that power - exclusively. That includes education, healthcare, infrastructure, social spending, and anything else you can think of not specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.

You clearly should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination you are spewing, it would have served you better.

 

[Torus34]

All and well IF there was a voter fraud problem. All this will do is make it harder for some to vote. We need to ENCOURAGE MORE voting, not less. Our biggest threat to democracy is LACK of participation, not voter fraud.

Hi, tshade!

I hope you caught the tongue-in-cheek slant of my OP.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[gdgyva]

The irony is Republicans would complain about costs and government overreach, even though it somewhat solves their other little conspiracy theory about illegal immigrants and dead people voting with Dems voting 40+ times in an election.

bullshit

if something like this were to be proposed in congress, the GOP would go for it in a heartbeat

a national ID program....you bet your ass

without it, you dont vote....

if you change address, or state, you just have to update it free of charge

it is exactly what the GOP has been asking for for YEARS

 

[Buckeyes85]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

A simple fix to what, exactly?

 

[Torus34]

A simple fix to what, exactly?

Hi, Buckeyes85!

I needed a subject line and that came to mind. It might, just might reduce somewhat political palaver about individual voter fraud, which has not been shown to be a problem anyhow. It would give the politicians a chance to say they were doing something when they were, in fact, doing nothing.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

We already have that. It's called a passport card. Every American citizen can get one.

 

[Jay59]

No, they do not. If you think otherwise, then cite the specific Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution that gives Congress that specific power. If you can't, then they don't have that power.

Article I - The Legislative Branch​

Section 8​

• Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• ...
• Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Just like Congress does not have the constitutional authority to create a Social Security system.

It was confirmed by SCOTUS

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

You clearly need to read the Fourth Amendment:

The key word is unreasonable. It is arguable that this is a reasonable measure to promote the general welfare.

Government has absolutely no right to any personal information about anyone, but upon probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.

This is false. The government's police power allows a great deal of information to be compiled, so long as it is reasonable to do so.

The US is not some leftist fascist State where government can demand your papers, like the Soviet Union.

At least you have the connection between leftist and fascist correct. This is indeed the sort of thing fascist countries did to gain and enlarge control.

Professor Charles Xavier: ...will locate and identify all the mutants.
Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto: Yes. That was always the first step.
X-Men: First Class

 

[Drowning Man]

First, you have to actually read the US Constitution. Which you clearly haven't.

Second, if you had bothered to read the US Constitution you would know that the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution.

Lastly, since you failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the US Constitution, much less provided anything to support your wild and unfounded assertions about congressional power, it can be safely concluded that you are completely clueless on the subject matter.

Again, the 10th is up to interpretation... Who decides the bounds? The SCOTUS.

Your reading of it is worth as much as you print on toilet paper daily.

Really? Where does the US Constitution "spells out who has the ability to interpret the [US] Constitution?" Cite this imaginary source of yours.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

www.supremecourt.gov

You can't because you have never bothered to read the document.

I will save you the trouble, nowhere does the US Constitution say anything about the Supreme Court interpreting the US Constitution. Not one word, anywhere. But since you are clearly uneducated, you wouldn't know that.

Article 3, section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

You can't even distinguish between the federal government and State government, which is truly pathetic.

Unless the US Constitution specifically prohibits the States from a certain power, the States have that power - exclusively. That includes education, healthcare, infrastructure, social spending, and anything else you can think of not specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.

You clearly should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination you are spewing, it would have served you better.

Sigh... You really don't care about voter integrity, do you?

You're just looking for a way to make it harder for poor people (black people) to vote. A federal card would probably be free to everyone. If you use a driver's license, you can still restrict access to the DMV and charge fees.

And that's what it's really about.

 

[independentusa]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Actually to insure that the card used was real, we should include a thumb print data base. If you want to get a job, rent or buy a house, buy a car, get a license of any kind, open a bank account, etc, you would have to show your card and then place your thumb on a reader and they had to match. KNowing who you are, readers would be cheap and easily identify the person. the data base could not be used by police. Anyone not following the law including business, could be fined or their company or house or whatever confiscated by the government.

 

[Torus34]

We already have that. It's called a passport card. Every American citizen can get one.

Hi, Tlrmln!

Passports are fine, whether book or card, but they're not A) automatically given to every citizen and B) free. I suspect that if you check passport ownership vs. wealth, there might be a scarcity at the bottom of the pile.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Torus34]

Actually to insure that the card used was real, we should include a thumb print data base. If you want to get a job, rent or buy a house, buy a car, get a license of any kind, open a bank account, etc, you would have to show your card and then place your thumb on a reader and they had to match. KNowing who you are, readers would be cheap and easily identify the person. the data base could not be used by police. Anyone not following the law including business, could be fined or their company or house or whatever confiscated by the government.

Hi, independentusa!

A reasonable idea, if the base is established in a way convenient to all. Many of us, for any number of reasons, already have our fingerprints on file.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Individual]

No, they do not.

If you think otherwise, then cite the specific Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution that gives Congress that specific power. If you can't, then they don't have that power.


Just like Congress does not have the constitutional authority to create a Social Security system.


You clearly need to read the Fourth Amendment:


Government has absolutely no right to any personal information about anyone, but upon probable cause that a crime has been, will be, or is in the process of being committed.

The US is not some leftist fascist State where government can demand your papers, like the Soviet Union.

Although I would like to agree with you on the emboldened above, I feel the SCOTUS would disagree based on Article 1, Section 8, cl. 1, along with the 17th amendment.

And I strongly support a National ID card, which would be a smart card replacement for our current Social Security Card, issued at birth

 

[Glitch]

Article I - The Legislative Branch​

Section 8​

• Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• ...
• Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

You will have to do much better than that. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 gives Congress the power to tax. It does not give Congress the power to do whatever they please to "provide for the common Defence or general Welfare," but only to levy taxes for that purpose.

Apparently you did not read Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, because it specifically states that Congress has the power to enact laws "which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Once again the clause does not grant Congress the power to do whatever they please, but only to enact laws in accordance with the powers granted to them from Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 17.

This is what the Supreme Court thought of your "General Welfare" nonsense in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936):

If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.

This was also the decision that set off the insane madman FDR and his campaign to replace the entire Supreme Court and make them his puppet. Nothing the Supreme Court decided between 1937 and 1945 (the year of FDR's death) can be trusted as constitutionally valid.

It was confirmed by SCOTUS

Social Security History

www.ssa.gov

No, it wasn't. It was confirmed by a court under serious duress by a fascist President who had no problem replacing Justices who disagreed with him.

The key word is unreasonable. It is arguable that this is a reasonable measure to promote the general welfare.

Once again, that is not a power Congress has.

This is false. The government's police power allows a great deal of information to be compiled, so long as it is reasonable to do so.

At least you have the connection between leftist and fascist correct. This is indeed the sort of thing fascist countries did to gain and enlarge control.

Professor Charles Xavier: ...will locate and identify all the mutants.
Erik Lehnsherr / Magneto: Yes. That was always the first step.
X-Men: First Class

The federal government has only the powers the US Constitution specifically grants it, nothing more, and issuing a National ID is not one of those powers.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The Congress of the United States of America has it within its purview to legislate a system of personal identification for every American citizen. We already have something close to that with our social security number system. The identifying document could be in the form of an easily carried and hard to counterfeit card.

The personal identification system would go far toward eliminating the possibility of individual voter fraud at the ballot box. It would, however, leave intact the possibility of massive fraud by state legislatures and the election officials of both parties. This would be a distinct plus in favor of bilateral [Ed.: and bicameral,] passage.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Too big brother for my tastes.

 

[Torus34]

Too big brother for my tastes.

Hi, NolanVoyd!

Thank you for taking time to respond.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Interesting analysis by an actual lawyer who is not a random survivalist in Alaska.

 

[Individual]

Actually to insure that the card used was real, we should include a thumb print data base. If you want to get a job, rent or buy a house, buy a car, get a license of any kind, open a bank account, etc, you would have to show your card and then place your thumb on a reader and they had to match. KNowing who you are, readers would be cheap and easily identify the person. the data base could not be used by police. Anyone not following the law including business, could be fined or their company or house or whatever confiscated by the government.

I agree, except for the emboldened.

 

[Glitch]

Again, the 10th is up to interpretation... Who decides the bounds? The SCOTUS.

Your reading of it is worth as much as you print on toilet paper daily.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation

www.supremecourt.gov

Article 3, section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.



Sigh... You really don't care about voter integrity, do you?

You're just looking for a way to make it harder for poor people (black people) to vote. A federal card would probably be free to everyone. If you use a driver's license, you can still restrict access to the DMV and charge fees.

And that's what it's really about.

You did not need to go to all that trouble of copy/pasting something you clearly have never read.

Nowhere does the US Constitution grant the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the document. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

You clearly don't care about the US Constitution, since you haven't even bothered to read it.