• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Simple 'Fix'.

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.
I presumed that's where you were heading and understand.
But conversely, an effort to create a nationwide voter card mandate might serve to only embolden those with fake mass voting fraud claims. "See, politicians on both sides agree this is a massive problem that requires congressional attention."

Also, who does this apply to? Everyone? New voters?
The 85 year old who proved their citizenship decades ago and has been getting a mail in ballot at the same address for as long as they have existed?

In short, unless/until it is demonstrated that there is actually a large problem to be fixed, a large fix is not needed.
 
I presumed that's where you were heading and understand.
But conversely, an effort to create a nationwide voter card mandate might serve to only embolden those with fake mass voting fraud claims. "See, politicians on both sides agree this is a massive problem that requires congressional attention."

Also, who does this apply to? Everyone? New voters?
The 85 year old who proved their citizenship decades ago and has been getting a mail in ballot at the same address for as long as they have existed?

In short, unless/until it is demonstrated that there is actually a large problem to be fixed, a large fix is not needed.

Hi again!

Years ago I recall a conversation with a refinery engineer. We were discussing scheduled maintenance vs. a 'fix it when it breaks' approach. His statement remains with me to this day. "I never open something up to see why it is working right."

You are correct in implying that politicians can manufacture a 'problem' out of whole cloth, given a gullible audience.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 
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.
You use the word only incorrectly. there isa great deal more latitude than that.

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 why I quoted it. You dropped the ball here.

This is what the Supreme Court thought of your "General Welfare" nonsense in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936):
Like it or not, this is not the current law

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.
Now you are showing contempt for the rule of law as well as the Constitution.

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.
A distinction without a difference. The Supreme Court has the authority to make that decision.

Once again, that is not a power Congress has.
You can make the argument, for what good it does you.

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.
Not true. The federal government has police power, which is limited and defined rather than granted.

As a matter of social theory, every government has the authority to use violence in the furtherance of its objectives. It is the limits and refinements of that power that differentiate free from totalitarian.
 
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.

I don't know how you could "automatically" give an id to every citizen, because at the very least each citizen would have to fill out a form and appear for a photograph.

As for the cost, it's only about $65 to get it the first time, and about $30 to renew it every ten years. I could see waiving that fee for certain people with financial need, but otherwise it's pretty much no big deal for most people.
 
You use the word only incorrectly. there isa great deal more latitude than that.
No, there is not. The federal government ONLY has the power specifically granted to it by the US Constitution and no other powers. Go read the Tenth Amendment and get a clue.

This is why I quoted it. You dropped the ball here.
You quoted it, but obviously didn't read it. What part of "foregoing powers" escaped your grasp? Are you even capable of comprehending the meaning of "foregoing?" It is not a power for Congress to do whatever they please, but only to enact laws that are necessary and proper to accomplish the powers Congress has been granted in Clauses 1 through 17 of Article I, Section 8.

Like it or not, this is not the current law
Of course it is. Social Security is unconstitutional, and always has been.

Now you are showing contempt for the rule of law as well as the Constitution.
No, I'm showing utter contempt for the socialist fascist piece of shit that you admire - FDR.

Not true. The federal government has police power, which is limited and defined rather than granted.
The federal government has police powers over the laws they have the authority to enact. The US Constitution limits the laws Congress may enact by limiting the federal government to very specific powers. So the federal government's police powers only extend to the limited laws Congress may enact.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government, not to grant them unlimited power. That would defeat the purpose of the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court (before the fascist prick began replacing them) has already held.
 
No, there is not. The federal government ONLY has the power specifically granted to it by the US Constitution and no other powers. Go read the Tenth Amendment and get a clue.
It's clear you don't know the theory. Simply put, the Constitution limits and channels what is already there. The government has the power--that's literal--to do whatever it wants. The Constitution and the rule of law limit that power, but they don't initiate it.

You quoted it, but obviously didn't read it. What part of "foregoing powers" escaped your grasp? Are you even capable of comprehending the meaning of "foregoing?" It is not a power for Congress to do whatever they please, but only to enact laws that are necessary and proper to accomplish the powers Congress has been granted in Clauses 1 through 17 of Article I, Section 8.
It is a power, allowed under the general welfare clause. All you have in rebuttal is overturned case law.

Of course it is. Social Security is unconstitutional, and always has been.
Not if you respect the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that and you are not with standing.

No, I'm showing utter contempt for the socialist fascist piece of shit that you admire - FDR.
I don't admire FDR, far from it, but I respect his office and the Constitution that defines it.

The federal government has police powers over the laws they have the authority to enact. The US Constitution limits the laws Congress may enact by limiting the federal government to very specific powers. So the federal government's police powers only extend to the limited laws Congress may enact.
Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is and what is not within the power of Congress to enact. Hence, Social Security is valid, among other issues.

The purpose of the US Constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government, not to grant them unlimited power.
This is true, but you are not thinking it through. The power of any government is limited only by custom--meaning the Constitution and rule of law in our case--and the ability to exert raw force. You will even find case law referring to the Civil War as the governing legal authority.

That would defeat the purpose of the US Constitution. As the Supreme Court (before the fascist prick began replacing them) has already held.
Whomever nominates a Supreme Court Justice is irrelevant. They are a Justice and their voice counts.
 
I don't know how you could "automatically" give an id to every citizen, because at the very least each citizen would have to fill out a form and appear for a photograph.

As for the cost, it's only about $65 to get it the first time, and about $30 to renew it every ten years. I could see waiving that fee for certain people with financial need, but otherwise it's pretty much no big deal for most people.
Its' cost me $100 each of the last 3 times I renewed mine.
 
I wouldn’t oppose such a thing.
 
Obviously not, it looks like the fee has increased to $110 as of Jan 2021.
IMO, once you reach the age of life expectancy, your passport should be valid until death.

That's the fee to renew a passport BOOK, not a passport CARD.
 
That's the fee to renew a passport BOOK, not a passport CARD.
That's correct, I live and travel abroad, so I've done nothing wrong.
 
That's correct, I live and travel abroad, so I've done nothing wrong.

The thread is about personal identification for all Americans, not living and traveling abroad.
 
The thread is about personal identification for all Americans, not living and traveling abroad.
I was just responding to your claim that I must have done it wrong.
I vote from abroad.
But, we have elections for local, State, and Federal government.
To vote for President requires on being a U.S. citizen, age 18 or more.
For other candidates, residency also becomes an issue.
A Smart card National ID replacement for our current Social Security card would go a long toward resolving both current and future issues.
Progress, IMO, should require us to take advantage of technology that has existed for quite some time now. Other countries, such as Belgium, are doing so.
 
I was just responding to your claim that I must have done it wrong.
I vote from abroad.
But, we have elections for local, State, and Federal government.
To vote for President requires on being a U.S. citizen, age 18 or more.
For other candidates, residency also becomes an issue.
A Smart card National ID replacement for our current Social Security card would go a long toward resolving both current and future issues.
Progress, IMO, should require us to take advantage of technology that has existed for quite some time now. Other countries, such as Belgium, are doing so.

And I was pointing out that we already have a national ID card. You can get one for $65, and renew it for $30.
 
And I was pointing out that we already have a national ID card. You can get one for $65, and renew it for $30.
And I was suggesting a better solution, which would cover not only identification for the purpose of voting in Federal elections, but State and local also. And, IMO, should be provided free at birth, or initially, with perhaps a small charge for a replacement if lost or damaged.
It could be put to use in a great many other ways as well.
 
And I was suggesting a better solution, which would cover not only identification for the purpose of voting in Federal elections, but State and local also. And, IMO, should be provided free at birth, or initially, with perhaps a small charge for a replacement if lost or damaged.
It could be put to use in a great many other ways as well.

Nothing provided by the government is "free." It would just be paid for by taxpayers. Better to eliminate the middleman and let people pay for it themselves. It's a trivial amount of money.
 
Nothing provided by the government is "free." It would just be paid for by taxpayers. Better to eliminate the middleman and let people pay for it themselves. It's a trivial amount of money.
Ye, I agree, there is a cost to most everything, but in this case I feel it's worth it.
What does it cost to perform the census every 10 years?
 
Ye, I agree, there is a cost to most everything, but in this case I feel it's worth it.
What does it cost to perform the census every 10 years?

I don't know, nor do I know what that has to do with IDs. You can't very well charge people for answering the census. They just wouldn't answer.
 
I don't know, nor do I know what that has to do with IDs. You can't very well charge people for answering the census. They just wouldn't answer.
A National ID, if properly maintained by law if necessary, could provide an annual census of the population, more secure online banking, or any other way or time identification is required to proceed.
The cost of one census taking would cover the cost of a National ID card for all citizens, is all I was trying to point out. Refusing to answer the census could result in a fine of $100 or more.
 
A National ID, if properly maintained by law if necessary, could provide an annual census of the population, more secure online banking, or any other way or time identification is required to proceed.
The cost of one census taking would cover the cost of a National ID card for all citizens, is all I was trying to point out. Refusing to answer the census could result in a fine of $100 or more.

So you want to mandate that everyone have an ID, not merely provide one to everyone who wants one?
 
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.
I think the Real ID Act scraps all of that, though.
 
So you want to mandate that everyone have an ID, not merely provide one to everyone who wants one?
Every citizen is currently provided with a unique numbered Social Security card at birth. They would instead be provided with a National ID card at birth, and all others would be required to acquire a National ID card replacement over a predetermined period of time, whether they want one or not, and after that period of time ended the National ID card would be the sole accepted form of ID to vote, open a bank account, file taxes, etc.
 
I think the Real ID Act scraps all of that, though.
How so?

Real ID are federal requirements for State-issued driver's licenses and IDs. The federal government may not have the constitutional authority to issue a national ID, but there is nothing that prohibits States from issuing State IDs for those who want them. Congress also does have the constitutional authority to determine the manner and effect of all public acts shared between States (driver's licenses, marriages, divorces, etc.) under Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Real ID law because it is still the States, and not the federal government, issuing the IDs and the IDs are not mandatory. Congress is merely establishing the minimum standard that all States must use to have their State driver's licenses recognized outside of their State.
 
Every citizen is currently provided with a unique numbered Social Security card at birth. They would instead be provided with a National ID card at birth, and all others would be required to acquire a National ID card replacement over a predetermined period of time, whether they want one or not, and after that period of time ended the National ID card would be the sole accepted form of ID to vote, open a bank account, file taxes, etc.
One small problem. The US Constitution does not give the federal government that authority. Unless a power is specifically granted to the federal government by the US Constitution the federal government does not have that power. The purpose of the US Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government. Not make it an all-power government entity that can do whatever it pleases without restraint.

Since the States are not prohibited from issuing a State ID by the US Constitution, the States have the constitutional authority to issue IDs, but the federal government does not. Which makes any notion of a "National ID" unconstitutional.

The whole "[e]very citizen is currently provided with a unique numbered Social Security card at birth" is a relatively new thing. I didn't obtain my Social Security account until I turned 14 and got my first paying job. I also know a few people who have never created a Social Security account. They have been living under the table and avoid earning "income" their entire lives.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom