• 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!

Can the government require you to have an ID to exercise your rights?

All rights come from the governments that have authority to enforce them within their jurisdictional boundaries.

Yes, and to be a right, it must be codified in law.

So if a state doesn't grant a right within its borders you don't have that right within its borders.

Correct.

They are not taking away anything, they aren't granting it.

But when a right is given (and backed up by law) it can only be taken away by law

So if you're granted a right (in law), and a local or subsequent government/administration tries to prevent you from exercising it (without repeal/subsequent law etc), you ***STILL*** have it. Which is where you were wrong earlier in the thread.
 
Yes, and to be a right, it must be codified in law.



Correct.



But when a right is given (and backed up by law) it can only be taken away by law

So if you're granted a right (in law), and a local or subsequent government/administration tries to prevent you from exercising it (without repeal/subsequent law etc), you ***STILL*** have it. Which is where you were wrong earlier in the thread.

Certain states never granted certain rights. Not sure what you are talking about.
 
Certain states never granted certain rights. Not sure what you are talking about.

I'm talking about when citizens ***ARE*** granted rights (by law)

Local or subsequent governments cannot take those away, without recourse to the law.

So if they try to prevent citizens from exercising said right, those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it
Which is contrary to what you previously said.
 
I'm talking about when citizens ***ARE*** granted rights (by law)

Local or subsequent governments cannot take those away, without recourse to the law.

So if they try to prevent citizens from exercising said right, those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it
Which is contrary to what you previously said.

No, I never said anything of the sort.
 
No, I never said anything of the sort.

Yes you did. Post#221 you said:
....you don’t have a right if you can’t exercise it


But you ***DO*** have a right even if you can't exercise it (if it's been previously granted by law
Local or subsequent governments cannot take a right away, without recourse to the law.

So if they prevent citizens from exercising a right (granted by law etc), those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it

Try to remember what you wrote going forward.
 
Yes you did. Post#221 you said:



But you ***DO*** have a right even if you can't exercise it (if it's been previously granted by law
Local or subsequent governments cannot take a right away, without recourse to the law.

So if they prevent citizens from exercising a right (granted by law etc), those citizens ***STILL*** have that right even though they're prevented from exercising it

Try to remember what you wrote going forward.

It is simply saying that rights that cannot be exercised are not rights. You read more into it.
 
Having a strict ID requirement inhibits the ability to vote more than once during a given election cycle or as (or on behalf of) multiple (other) people. ;)
that's liberal propaganda. You have an ID to get government services and benefits so why would you not have one to vote? Those who don't want to protect the vote with ID's must want to cheat. You have to have ID to get drivers license, welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, hunting license, marriage license. Stop with the infringment of voting rights because you have to register and have ID.
 
It is simply saying that rights that cannot be exercised are not rights. You read more into it.


No, you originally said:
American rights should apply across the board in the entire country. This would settle the matter once and for all.


Then when advised that they do, you denied this was the case:
Not if it is left up to individual states, they don’t.
So you're clearly referring to NATIONAL rights that (backed by LAW), that are restricted, or outright denied, in certain states



Then when I tried to clarify:
"I think what you're trying to say is that people have the same rights across the USA, but their ability to exercise those rights vary from state to state."
You said:
No, because you don’t have a right if you can’t exercise it.
So, you're clearly saying that a right given nationally (and backed by law), when restricted or denied by local government, means that right doesn't exist (in that local area/state) - because the people there cannot exercise it
And that is wrong.



Now stop wriggling and trying to backtrack. You were wrong so just admit it.
 
Get back to the forum when you actually know what debate is and learn the humility to admit when you're wrong.
If I were wrong, I would be happy to admit such. It's you that wrong and sadly your damaged ego will not let you admit it.
 
No, you originally said:



Then when advised that they do, you denied this was the case:

So you're clearly referring to NATIONAL rights that (backed by LAW), that are restricted, or outright denied, in certain states



Then when I tried to clarify:
"I think what you're trying to say is that people have the same rights across the USA, but their ability to exercise those rights vary from state to state."
You said:

So, you're clearly saying that a right given nationally (and backed by law), when restricted or denied by local government, means that right doesn't exist (in that local area/state) - because the people there cannot exercise it
And that is wrong.



Now stop wriggling and trying to backtrack. You were wrong so just admit it.

American rights are only those that apply across all states. Unfortunately, some see certain rights not as American rights but as states rights and treat them that way. And many rights are treated that way because no one can agree on what constitutes an American right. So the states did not take those rights away, they did not consider them American rights in the first place. It is the ongoing debate in this country.
 
If so then why don't we have a single mandatory universal national ID system? It would save billions and simplify everything.
Why does one follow the other? You make such sweeping generalizations it's hard to discussion
 
American rights are only those that apply across all states.

No, they are rights support by LAW.

Unfortunately, some see certain rights not as American rights but as states rights and treat them that way. And many rights are treated that way because no one can agree on what constitutes an American right. So the states did not take those rights away, they did not consider them American rights in the first place. It is the ongoing debate in this country.

But if a right is supported by law, citizens still have it, regardless of attempts to restrict/deny (by states/counties) it. Which is contrary to what you said.

You're wriggling again, rather than admit you were wrong.
 
Basically, any law that demands a citizen identifies himself/herself to any LEO, is wrong.
 
Basically, any law that demands a citizen identifies himself/herself to any LEO, is wrong.
Huh. I thought that WAS a law -- that you had to identify yourself -- regardless of circumstance. Apparently that's not the case (if wikipedia is correct).

"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to identify themselves, even in these states.

Of course, if you're driving a car, you need to show your license. BUT a person cannot be pulled over without a reason.
 
Huh. I thought that WAS a law -- that you had to identify yourself -- regardless of circumstance. Apparently that's not the case (if wikipedia is correct).

No, not unless the police arrest you for a crime.
And even then you can demand to wait for your lawyer to be present.
 
Back
Top Bottom