- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 9,361
- Reaction score
- 3,238
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So... does this mean you can't cite the specific constitutional provision that guarantees a blanket right to vote like I asked? Perhaps because (like I said already) it simply doesn't exist?In how many places is the right to bear arms mentioned in the Constitution?
In how many places is freedom of speech mentioned in the Constitution?
In how many places is freedom of the press mentioned in the Constitution?
In how many places is the right to vote mentioned in the Constitution?
Most right wingers I have encountered cannot even properly regurgitate the extremist argument about "there is no right to vote". All they do is repeat what some radio shock jock said. Its really sad.
In order to justify your belief you use a quote from Thomas Clough, a man who said Kwanzaa is "the black anti-Christmas" and "history’s most pathetic holiday"?
I don't believe that all convicts are "proven enemies of our society".
Fine, those who are not recidivous scum, then by all means when they complete their debt to society and demonstrate that they are now not anti social predators, then restore their right.
The very definition of 'convicted' is to be deemed guilty by a panel of ones peers. And constitutionally in this country you then give up your right until you have paid your debt to society.
No system is perfect, but ours is the best.
You either believe in the rule of law, or you don't....
I don't believe that a murderer, pedophile, or rapist deserves any rights.
You shouldn't use things like the word of God that you hold no belief in. That is a hack move.
j-mac
You raise a very good point. I was trying to think of how to make this point myself, and not coming up with a very good way to express it.
I think there is a problem with imposing any burden—with requiring any person to jump through any hoops—in order to exercise a right. On this principle, any person who is entitled to vote, ought to be able to do so without bearing any additional burden of proving that he is entitled to that right.
On the other hand, the danger of voting fraud is very real; and if it is allowed to happen unchecked, then it undermines the right of valid voters to have their votes properly counted.
It seems to me that a valid voter having his vote diluted because of fraudulent votes cast by those who are not entitled to do so, is a greater violation of the right to vote than would be any reasonable requirement for a voter to provide identification.
Great! Then you have no objection to identity cards to ensure that no one will vote who is ineligible.
Is that correct?
So... does this mean you can't cite the specific constitutional provision that guarantees a blanket right to vote like I asked? Perhaps because (like I said already) it simply doesn't exist?
You can prattle on all you want about "extremist argument" but at the end of the day, not only is there no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing a blanket right to vote, but there is a provision that specifically spells out the consequences for a state's representation if it decides to limit the franchise. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. If the Constitution says the states will suffer a loss of representatives in the House if they limit voting, how is that anything but an admission that the states can do exactly that if they are willing to accept the consequences?
You see? Nothing extreme about it. It's all about reading.
Then shouldn't you also be against black box voting? Watch the documentry Hacking Democracy if you want to know where to direct your anger. Also Black Box Voting - America's Elections Watchdog Group
Are your speaking of the way in which votes are counted" That is hard to address since there are so many ways and there is no one standard.
Absentee ballot
Chad
DRE voting machine
Electronic voting
Optical scan voting system
Provisional ballot
Voting machine
Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail
Vote counting system
I prefer paper ballots of some sort so they can be verified (this includes optical scan voting) I am very weary of computerized voting as there are so many things that can go wrong accidentally or purposefully.
15th Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race
color or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
26th Amendment
Section 1
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.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
15th Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race
color or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
26th Amendment
Section 1
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.
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This issue defines the transparency of liberals and their true character like none other.
How can you possibly argue that, in order to vote, a person must prove who in the hell they are? Duh.
There is only logical argument against it, and it is that you intend to cheat an election. Period.
That's not the issue. The issue is being required to have one to vote, which is in effect a violation of the 24th Amendment unless those cards are free. If the states that want a photo ID would provide said ID for free then there wouldn't be an issue.It is hard to get by in the modern world without picture ID. Honestly, how many people do you know that don't have some kind of ID?
(c) The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.
That's not the issue. The issue is being required to have one to vote, which is in effect a violation of the 24th Amendment unless those cards are free. If the states that want a photo ID would provide said ID for free then there wouldn't be an issue.
The correct Supreme Court ruling is CRAWFORD et al. v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD et al.
Let the States put up or shut up. Indiana manages to issue free photo ID cards for voting, why can't others?
There are about 30 pages of posts explaining in depth why your argument holds no water.
It doesn't take 30 pages to explain the painfully obvious. I know you guys like to wrap War and Peace around everything in order to convince yourselves you have a point, but water is wet, and Voter ID is the most obvious.
I'll give you the nutshell version, then: there is no problem in this country with voter impersonation, so there is no need for voter ID laws. Republicans only push these laws to supress Democratic voter turnout, which is despicable.
I'll give you the nutshell version, then: there is no problem in this country with voter impersonation, so there is no need for voter ID laws. Republicans only push these laws to supress Democratic voter turnout, which is despicable.
And how would it supress a perfectly eligible voter from turning out to vote?
And how would it supress a perfectly eligible voter from turning out to vote?
Really? No problem? Then how come, year after year, in one state or another, a bunch of dead people usually show up to vote?
If it ensured that, it would be great. Unfortunately, it won't. Ever hear of a "fake ID?" Maybe you had one in college so you could buy booze. Not that hard to get. By a longshot.
Again, this is perfectly obvious. It places an additional burden on voters that wasn't there before. Statistically this has been shown to reduce turnout by around 2%. In the aggregate that turns out to be millions of people.
So what?
If people are too stupid or incompetent do get the ID necessary to vote perhaps its best that they stay away from a voting booth.
Please support your claim with facts. If you can back up your claim you can make some bucks courtesy of the ACLU! ACLU Offering Reward for Evidence of Voter Impersonation - NYTimes.com
In fact, while these sorts of *claims* are often made, they almost never turn out to be true. And in the vanishingly small number of cases where it does turn out to be true, it is almost always the result of poll worker error or mischief, and almost never the result of voter impersonation. In other words, voter ID laws would do nothing to diminish what is already a virtually nonexistent problem. But they would keep millions of people from voting if done on a large scale.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?