Free govt.-issued ID to all Americans?

[Luna Tick]

Local ordinances and propositions are local, and not federal, which was the point. Your senator has a say on federal laws. Not you directly. We're democratic only in the way that we elect our representatives.

You've contradicted yourself. You've admitted we vote directly for ballot initiatives, but claim we're only a republic. Those initiatives are direct democracy. It doesn't matter if they're local. Actually, many of them are statewide, not just local.

The only people requiring an ID prevents from voting are the ones who are too irresponsible to make sure they have a valid ID, which is a simple task. I just renewed my CA drivers license, which expired in 2009 online just to verify this fact. I haven't lived in California in 7 years, yet thanks to simple technology anyone can use, whether they personally own a computer or not, I'll be getting a new ID sent to my fathers address in an estimated 5-6 weeks. There is absolutely no excuse to not have a valid form of identification by November 6th.

Thus sudden concern for the supposedly rampant voter fraud is just a backdoor attempt to prevent people from voting. They may have promised you 5-6 weeks, but it still may not come that fast. I told you about my ID card that took 2 months. It also wasn't free. A homeless person may have trouble paying it. Even if he has the money, he likely has no address to have it sent to. Of course, one person in this thread (was it you?) said he didn't care if the homeless voted or not. That attitude sucks. The homeless have just as much right to vote as anyone else.

 

[Surtr]

You've contradicted yourself. You've admitted we vote directly for ballot initiatives, but claim we're only a republic. Those initiatives are direct democracy. It doesn't matter if they're local. Actually, many of them are statewide, not just local.

Local government does not equate to the federal government. You know this.

Thus sudden concern for the supposedly rampant voter fraud is just a backdoor attempt to prevent people from voting. They may have promised you 5-6 weeks, but it still may not come that fast. I told you about my ID card that took 2 months. It also wasn't free. A homeless person may have trouble paying it. Even if he has the money, he likely has no address to have it sent to. Of course, one person in this thread (was it you?) said he didn't care if the homeless voted or not. That attitude sucks. The homeless have just as much right to vote as anyone else.

ID's are valid for years. If it concerns you that much, get one now, and you won't have a problem. You're inventing an issue out of nothing. And yes, it was me. The homeless have the right to not be turned away from the polls based on race or gender. If they do not meet eligibility requirements, however, they are asked to leave like anyone else who doesn't meet the requirements. This is as it should be.

 

[Luna Tick]

Local government does not equate to the federal government. You know this.

That makes our state governments democratic republics then. It's also not illegal for the Federal Government to use referendums. To my knowledge, they've never done so, but they could if they wanted to. At the very least, state governments are democratic republics.

ID's are valid for years. If it concerns you that much, get one now, and you won't have a problem. You're inventing an issue out of nothing. And yes, it was me. The homeless have the right to not be turned away from the polls based on race or gender. If they do not meet eligibility requirements, however, they are asked to leave like anyone else who doesn't meet the requirements. This is as it should be.

Oh, sure. The homeless have the same requirements. Just apply for an ID and have it sent to their address. Just one problem: They don't have an address. You cannot get one of these IDs with no address, and it's illegal in most states to use a postal drop box. That equates to denying the homeless the right to vote. I know you've said you don't care if they're denied this right. That's a ****ed up attitude. They deserve to be able to vote just as much as you do.

 

[Surtr]

That makes our state governments democratic republics then. It's also not illegal for the Federal Government to use referendums. To my knowledge, they've never done so, but they could if they wanted to. At the very least, state governments are democratic republics.

The US Constitution does not allow for referendums. Individual states and cities vary, but they are not allowed for on the federal level.

Oh, sure. The homeless have the same requirements. Just apply for an ID and have it sent to their address. Just one problem: They don't have an address. You cannot get one of these IDs with no address, and it's illegal in most states to use a postal drop box. That equates to denying the homeless the right to vote. I know you've said you don't care if they're denied this right. That's a ****ed up attitude. They deserve to be able to vote just as much as you do.

I happen to disagree with your assessment. They can't care for themselves, which brings their competence and mental health into question, and they don't pay federal taxes. They most certainly do not have the same right to vote as a taxpaying citizen of good standing and mental health.

 

[radcen]

I happen to disagree with your assessment. They can't care for themselves, which brings their competence and mental health into question, and they don't pay federal taxes. They most certainly do not have the same right to vote as a taxpaying citizen of good standing and mental health.

Voting is not predicated on tax status or mental health.

 

[Surtr]

Voting is not predicated on tax status or mental health.

I don't view voting as a right. I view it as a service and duty to the nation. If one demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably preform their duty, they should be barred from it. A person in poor mental health cannot possibly be expected to make an informed vote, and a person who does not pay taxes should have absolutely no say whatsoever.

 

[Luna Tick]

The US Constitution does not allow for referendums. Individual states and cities vary, but they are not allowed for on the federal level.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is prohibited from using referendums?

I happen to disagree with your assessment. They can't care for themselves, which brings their competence and mental health into question, and they don't pay federal taxes. They most certainly do not have the same right to vote as a taxpaying citizen of good standing and mental health.

You're just assuming homeless people are mentally ill. You don't know that. And mental illness doesn't automatically make someone ineligible to vote anyway. A person could be a war veteran who suffers from flashbacks. That condition does not automatically make a person incapable of understanding issues. Every citizen should have the right to vote and not be denied that right without an extremely compelling reason. If a person murders a bunch of people and gets thrown in prison, then fine. He can't vote. But a person isn't a criminal just for being homeless. No one's a criminal because of mental illness.

 

[Surtr]

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is prohibited from using referendums?

By having no provision for referendums.

You're just assuming homeless people are mentally ill. You don't know that. And mental illness doesn't automatically make someone ineligible to vote anyway. A person could be a war veteran who suffers from flashbacks. That condition does not automatically make a person incapable of understanding issues. Every citizen should have the right to vote and not be denied that right without an extremely compelling reason. If a person murders a bunch of people and gets thrown in prison, then fine. He can't vote. But a person isn't a criminal just for being homeless. No one's a criminal because of mental illness.

I didn't say they were criminals. I stated that they are incompetent.

 

[Matt Foley]

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is prohibited from using referendums?

Article 1 Section 1

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 4 Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

 

[Matt Foley]

Federal Congress and presidency are not doing their constitutional duty in protecting the states from Domestic Violence. This contract is null and void.

 

[Phys251]

Slow down there Skippy, the SAME classic, state issued, photo ID is NOT only required to vote it is NOW required to buy a gun too, so it is NOT a separate issue. I heard no cry, from YOU, that the right to buying guns or ammo was "infringed" by requiring this ID. This same ID is required to buy alcohol, tobacco, guns, hunting/fishing licenses, ammo and prescription drugs, to cash a lottery ticket (over $600) and for many, many other things (including getting a job or applying for public assistance). Not a peep over these MANY laws that all required this "discriminatory burden" was raised in ANY state, yet suddenly when a red state wants ITS voting ID laws (31 states now have them) then, AND ONLY THEN, is it a constitutional crisis. I can see through these alligator tears, as you have but ONE concern and that is keeping UNIDENTIFIED voters on the rolls in hopes that they vote "correctly" based on their race, ethnicity or income level. You have no REAL concerns over the "rights" of these VERY SAME people to engage in ANY other activity requiring that SAME state issued, photo ID, just NOW you choose to raise a stink if they POSSIBLY now may not vote "correctly". You simply want their political support and never even PRETENDED to care about the MANY other things that not having this ID, has allegedly denied them. Hypocrisy? Hmm...

Just an FYI, attempting to read another person's mind often fails.

Voting rights and gun rights are two separate issues. If gun permits should be free, then we can have that debate.

 

[Phys251]

The cost of obtaining a birth certificate to get an ID is a poll tax?

If so, then... per your unqualified blanket statement... so is every other cost in obtaining an ID. The cost of the stamp to mail away for the BC. The cost of the envelope. The cost of the amount of ink drained from your pen while writing the note and/or check to obtain the BC. The electricity used to power the light so you could see to write the check. The gas to drive to the post office to mail the check... not to mention the cost of gas to drive to the polling station to actually vote.

It's no less absurd than your blanket statement.

You seem to have no problem with people having to pay for a right.

 

[Luna Tick]

Article 1 Section 1

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 4 Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

A democratic republic is a republican form of government. The Federal Government could use occasional referendums without it being unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says anything to the effect of, "Congress is prohibited from using referendums."

I didn't say they were criminals. I stated that they are incompetent.

You're making huge assumptions. You don't know they're incompetent to understand issues. This economy sucks. Many people are homeless through no fault of their own. Frankly, I find it shocking that anyone would support denying them their voting rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is prohibited from using referendums?

A democratic republic is a republican form of government. The Federal Government could use occasional referendums without it being unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says anything to the effect of, "Congress is prohibited from using referendums."

The Constitution doesn't say that the federal government may not use referendums. It also does not say that it may.

The mistake that you are making—that far too many people make—is to assume that if the Constitution does not say that the federal government may not do something, then by default, it may. That's backward. The intent of the Constitution is that if it does not say that the federal government may do something, then the federal government may not do it; in other words, the federal government is only authorized to do what the Constitution explicitly authorizes it to do.

So yes, the federal government is prohibited from using referendums, by virtue of the fact that the Constitution does not contain any language authorizing it to do so.

 

[Luna Tick]

The Constitution doesn't say that the federal government may not use referendums. It also does not say that it may.

The mistake that you are making—that far too many people make—is to assume that if the Constitution does not say that the federal government may not do something, then by default, it may. That's backward. The intent of the Constitution is that if it does not say that the federal government may do something, then the federal government may not do it; in other words, the federal government is only authorized to do what the Constitution explicitly authorizes it to do.

So yes, the federal government is prohibited from using referendums, by virtue of the fact that the Constitution does not contain any language authorizing it to do so.

You've got it backwards. If something isn't prohibited by law, then it's allowed. Marijuana used to be legal by virtue of the fact that it was not illegal. You could not be prosecuted for growing it or using it any way you saw fit before they passed laws against it. The Constitution also doesn't specifically say we're allowed to explore outer space. By your logic, NASA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say we can have an Air Force. It only talks about Armies and Navies. That doesn't make the Air Force unconstitutional. The founding fathers could not have foreseen everything that would would face. We have to make some choices on our own. If Congress wanted to use a referendum, it would need to pass a law saying, "We're going to have the people vote directly on this specific issue." And they could do it. It would be just as constitutional as any state government doing it.

 

[Ontologuy]

Whether physical or electronic, any ID can be forged.

However, we gotta trust something.

So I vote for a combo fingerprint-retinal scan, with readers everywhere, including the company personnel department, the unemployment office, the ER, and the ballot box.

Forgeries of such a combo would be extremely rare .. at least to the comparatively high degree of current paper-document forgeries

The challenge with "everywhere" is if there's a glitch, and you can't buy a hamburger even, well, it would be a bit harder on you than a mere ISP failure.

And, of course, whether or not you're paranoid, if the government's out to gitcha, how easy it would be for it to deny ever having known of your existence.

Still, I think it's worth the risk, as I doubt we'll move forward very much without it.

And, besides, once my political persuasion is in power, how easy it would be at the push of a button to starve out all the Dems and Repubs in merely a week, and they'd never create problems for our nation again.

How great is that!

We don't need no stinkin' bio-weapon.

 

[radcen]

Whether physical or electronic, any ID can be forged.

However, we gotta trust something.

So I vote for a combo fingerprint-retinal scan, with readers everywhere, including the company personnel department, the unemployment office, the ER, and the ballot box.

Forgeries of such a combo would be extremely rare .. at least to the comparatively high degree of current paper-document forgeries

The challenge with "everywhere" is if there's a glitch, and you can't buy a hamburger even, well, it would be a bit harder on you than a mere ISP failure.

And, of course, whether or not you're paranoid, if the government's out to gitcha, how easy it would be for it to deny ever having known of your existence.

Still, I think it's worth the risk, as I doubt we'll move forward very much without it.

And, besides, once my political persuasion is in power, how easy it would be at the push of a button to starve out all the Dems and Repubs in merely a week, and they'd never create problems for our nation again.

How great is that!

We don't need no stinkin' bio-weapon.

I see two big issues with this. 1) It would be extremely expensive, and we can't even keep enough police, fire, and EMTs employed. 2) I don't think we're quite there yet regarding reliability. A system like this would have to work everywhere, even out in the boonies, and life already almost grinds to a halt when the power goes out as nobody knows how to do anything manually anymore.

I think you speak the future, but I think we have some wrinkles still to iron out before we can make it reality.

 

[Ontologuy]

I see two big issues with this. 1) It would be extremely expensive, and we can't even keep enough police, fire, and EMTs employed. 2) I don't think we're quite there yet regarding reliability. A system like this would have to work everywhere, even out in the boonies, and life already almost grinds to a halt when the power goes out as nobody knows how to do anything manually anymore.

I think you speak the future, but I think we have some wrinkles still to iron out before we can make it reality.

I agree.

It ain't easy, cheap, or near to bein' here.

But one day, if we begin work on it now, we'll be there.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You've got it backwards. If something isn't prohibited by law, then it's allowed. Marijuana used to be legal by virtue of the fact that it was not illegal. You could not be prosecuted for growing it or using it any way you saw fit before they passed laws against it.

The most fundamental point on which this nation was founded, and the Constitution written, is that people should be free, and government limited.

This means that a person has a right to do anything, unless there is a valid law that says he cannot, and that government cannot do anything unless there is a valid law that says that it can.

The Constitution, of course, is the highest law of all.

The Constitution also doesn't specifically say we're allowed to explore outer space. By your logic, NASA is unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say we can have an Air Force. It only talks about Armies and Navies. That doesn't make the Air Force unconstitutional. The founding fathers could not have foreseen everything that would would face. We have to make some choices on our own. If Congress wanted to use a referendum, it would need to pass a law saying, "We're going to have the people vote directly on this specific issue." And they could do it. It would be just as constitutional as any state government doing it.

I agree about NASA, but not about the Air Force. Originally, the Air Force was part of the Army, so obviously it would have been covered at that point by even the strictest possible interpretation of the Constitutional mention of armies and navies. It seems to me that “armies and navies” reasonably means whatever military forces are necessary to the defense of the nation, and that even as a separate branch from the Army, the modern Air Force falls under the obvious intent of the mention of “armies and navies” in the Constitution. If there was a serious challenge to the Air Force's existence, on this basis, then this challenge could always be dismissed by a technical reorganization that puts it back under the Army.

NASA is an offshoot of the Air Force, but it seems to me that its purpose is rather far outside that national defense. I think I have to agree that it is unconstitutional, and that we ought to have Amended the Constitution to allow a non-military space program if we were going to have the federal government operate one. I suppose it's something of a dark-grey area; our space program does have some significant and important military applications, but the bulk of its purposes and benefits are far outside of the area of national defense.

 

[Luna Tick]

NASA is an offshoot of the Air Force, but it seems to me that its purpose is rather far outside that national defense. I think I have to agree that it is unconstitutional, and that we ought to have Amended the Constitution to allow a non-military space program if we were going to have the federal government operate one. I suppose it's something of a dark-grey area; our space program does have some significant and important military applications, but the bulk of its purposes and benefits are far outside of the area of national defense.

... and then we don't achieve one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race, the Apollo moon landings. I'm glad we haven't been using your straight jacket interpretation of the Constitution. There would have been no NASA, no National Parks Service, etc.

If we wanted to take the straight jacket it to an absurd level, we could interpret the 2nd Amendment that way. It gives citizens the right to own firearms. However, we've invented a lot of new ones since then. If we can only do things that are specifically permitted, then the 2nd only applies to guns that were available at the time. We would have to defend the country by shoving black powder down the barrel of a musket because the M-16, the M1, etc. were not yet invented and are therefore unconstitutional to be owned by the government or by citizens. However, we're smarter than that. We're able to handle things that the founding fathers did not have.

If it's not mentioned in the Constitution, for or against, then it's a decision to be made by contemporaries. The founding fathers couldn't spoon feed everything to us.

 

[Phys251]

The Constitution doesn't say that the federal government may not use referendums. It also does not say that it may.

The mistake that you are making—that far too many people make—is to assume that if the Constitution does not say that the federal government may not do something, then by default, it may. That's backward. The intent of the Constitution is that if it does not say that the federal government may do something, then the federal government may not do it; in other words, the federal government is only authorized to do what the Constitution explicitly authorizes it to do.

So yes, the federal government is prohibited from using referendums, by virtue of the fact that the Constitution does not contain any language authorizing it to do so.

By this logic, the DEA should be abolished, and drug laws should be set at the state level.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

... and then we don't achieve one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race, the Apollo moon landings.

I have to disagree that it was “…one of the greatest achievements in the history of the human race…” Sure, it was an impressive achievement, never again repeated. Human beings setting foot on a planet-like object other than the Earth. But now, forty-three years later, how is humanity really affected by the fact that some of us have set foot on the moon, and left some artifacts there? Surely there are many, many things that have happened here on Earth before and after the Apollo program, and unrelated thereto, that have had much more profound effects on humanity.

I'm glad we haven't been using your straight jacket interpretation of the Constitution. There would have been no NASA, no National Parks Service, etc.

So what? The vast majority of what the federal government now does is blatantly unconstitutional, and unnecessary anyway. For those few things that are necessary for the federal government to do, we could and should have amended the Constitution to grant it those specific authorities. But ever since the FDR administration ****ed things up, the federal government has no longer felt a need to be constrained to its legitimate Constitutional limits. Consider when Prohibition against alcohol was enacted, it was clearly understood that the federal government had no such authority, and that the only way to give it that authority was to amend the Constitution. That was, of course, before FDR. Now, the federal government claims much more invasive and abusive powers, without seeing a need to amend the Constitution as necessary to legitimize those powers.

If we wanted to take the straight jacket it to an absurd level, we could interpret the 2nd Amendment that way. It gives citizens the right to own firearms. However, we've invented a lot of new ones since then. If we can only do things that are specifically permitted, then the 2nd only applies to guns that were available at the time. We would have to defend the country by shoving black powder down the barrel of a musket because the M-16, the M1, etc. were not yet invented and are therefore unconstitutional to be owned by the government or by citizens.

Nonsense. Nothing in the Constitution species what technology may or must be used to defend the country, or what citizens have the right to keep and bear under the Second Amendment. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution of such specific things as sailing ships or muzzle-loading muskets, such that it can be said to exclude modern counterparts based on modern technology.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By this logic, the DEA should be abolished, and drug laws should be set at the state level.

Yes. Absolutely. Either that, or amend the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to regulate such things at the national level.

As things currently stand, yes the FDA is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Thunder]

Yes. Absolutely. Either that, or amend the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to regulate such things at the national level.

As things currently stand, yes the FDA is blatantly unconstitutional.

why was the Louisiana Purchase.

 

[Phys251]

Yes. Absolutely. Either that, or amend the Constitution to give the federal government the authority to regulate such things at the national level.

As things currently stand, yes the FDA is blatantly unconstitutional.

I said the DEA, not the FDA.