Apparently, 75% of Americans want to be Dragged Back to the Jim Crow Era

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is a photo ID required for voting written into the Constitution?

Is a photo ID required for purchasing/owning/carrying a firearm written into the constitution, even though the 2nd amendment is much higher up in importance than the 12th?

I rest my case.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Either you're for freedom or you're not...can't pick and choose.

I suppose in a simplistic world with simplistic viewpoints, that may be. In reality, however, there are two types of rights that must be considered. One is the individual right to vote. The other is the collective right of the entire citizenry to a free and fair election. The question is, if there is reason to believe that rampant vote fraud occuring, at what point does an individual's right to vote with minimal government intrusion infringe upon the public's right to a free and fair election?

Again, this all goes back to the principle of 'reasonable restrictions' on your constitutional rights as an individual. We can argue all day about what constitutes reasonable, but it is an undeniable fact that the government can limit certain individual freedoms in order to protect the rights of others. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, for instance. You can't slander someone without legal repercussions. You can't set up a few empty beer cans and have a target practice session in the middle of the street in NYC. All these are reasonable restrictions on your individual rights placed in order to protect collective rights. And maybe, just maybe, you need to be able to conclusively prove your identity in order to ensure a fair electoral process for the public as a whole. That's the question here.

Originally posted by deesul69

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is a photo ID required for voting written into the Constitution?

Is a photo ID required for purchasing/owning/carrying a firearm written into the constitution, even though the 2nd amendment is much higher up in importance than the 12th?

I rest my case.

edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

So you are saying you dont believe we should follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but rather can make changes to it as time goes on?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


No, we definitely should. But, obviously we are not. And even though I am a Libertarian and beleive the constitution should be strictly adhered to as it was originally written, times do change, and certain changes unfortunately are required, that's why the system was designed the way it was originally. It's not that big of a deal to verify you're identity if you are going to vote.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So you are saying you dont believe we should follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but rather can make changes to it as time goes on?

I don't think it really matters what any of us believe. As a practical matter, his example proves the point conclusively. The precedent has already been set.

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

No, we definitely should. But, obviously we are not. And even though I am a Libertarian and beleive the constitution should be strictly adhered to as it was originally written, times do change, and certain changes unfortunately are required, that's why the system was designed the way it was originally. It's not that big of a deal to verify you're identity if you are going to vote.

So you believe we SHOULD follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, except when it suits your needs? And then it's okay, because we should be able to make changes to the Constitution that are 'no big deal' even though we should follow a STRICT reading of the document.

So, in other words, it's wrong when 'they' do it, but since they do it we should too. But we should still claim we believe in a strict interpretation.

I'm getting that you dont notice the hypocrisy and contradiction in your statement.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


It's not my needs to require voter identity verification, but the people's.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I wish it were that way!! I would want an amendment that gives me 1000 oz of gold!!

That would definitely serve my needs.

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

It's not my needs to require voter identity verification, but the people's.

I said nothing about anyone's 'needs'. I asked why you say you believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, only sometimes.

Originally posted by deesul69
This should be such a non-issue!! Every time I vote, I ask if they'd like to see ID, and I'm appauled by the fact that you don't need ID to vote. It should be a requirement to show a photo ID to vote.

Are you kidding me? This is the 21st century. What legal, functioning citizen doesn't have a photo ID?

Just as an example, how many of you posting on this thread do not have a valid photo ID?

And don't give me that crap that it goes against the poor. You mean to tell me that somebody can't afford the $10 to get an ID? I bust my ass for over 60 hours/week to provide a good life for my family!! Maybe they should get off their ass and WORK!! Then they can afford an ID!!

I'll tell you what. If it's required to show a photo ID to purchase a firearm, it should definitely be required to verify your identity, which is way higher up on the list than voting (2nd amendment vs 12th). The 2nd amendment gets stepped on all the time, and just because somebody makes a law (which shouldn't be anything new) about simply verifying you are who you say you are in order to vote, all the bleeding heart liberals get their panties in a bunch!!

List of things you need an ID for:
1- firearms purchase
2- driving
3- buying alcohol
4- buying cigarettes
5- getting a job
6- requesting certified copies of documents (birth/death/marriage certificates, etc.)
7- receiving welfare
8- shipping/receiving certain types of packages
9- receiving health care
Among many others!!

If you do not have a photo ID, you obviously are not enough of a functioning member of society (probably a crackhead) to decide who should be running the show, anyway, and we're better off without your vote.

I am absolutely not racist, and beleive that every citizen has the right to vote, and definitely should exercise it!! But you should be required to prove your identity to do so. There are 3 year old children that have state ID's. Let's get real here, people, and use some common sense.

edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

I guess I am more libertarian than you... I don't believe in empowering government to require such things,
I.Ds and credentials are a way to keep big government, big. You big government people are in turn forcing
people to be on the radar, regardless of their liberty. Voting is an act of free speech and expression,
government cannot regulate this act of expression.

Sounds good to me. Prove you're an American before you can have your American rights. Simple, and only discrims against illegals or forgetful people.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

No, we definitely should. But, obviously we are not. And even though I am a Libertarian and beleive the constitution should be strictly adhered to as it was originally written, times do change, and certain changes unfortunately are required, that's why the system was designed the way it was originally. It's not that big of a deal to verify you're identity if you are going to vote.

So you believe we SHOULD follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, except when it suits your needs? And then it's okay, because we should be able to make changes to the Constitution that are 'no big deal' even though we should follow a STRICT reading of the document.

So, in other words, it's wrong when 'they' do it, but since they do it we should too. But we should still claim we believe in a strict interpretation.

I'm getting that you dont notice the hypocrisy and contradiction in your statement.

edit on 11-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

It's not my needs to require voter identity verification, but the people's.

I said nothing about anyone's 'needs'. I asked why you say you believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, only sometimes.

UMMM, it clearly says "So you believe we SHOULD follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution, except when it suits your needs?"

so, yeah

Originally posted by deesul69

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Is a photo ID required for voting written into the Constitution?

Is a photo ID required for purchasing/owning/carrying a firearm written into the constitution, even though the 2nd amendment is much higher up in importance than the 12th?

I rest my case.

edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)

This is a 1st amendment issue

Voting was allowed before 1803, voting existed before the 12th

Voting was established here;

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3,

Clause 3: Electors
“ The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.

your argument is based on a false premise

reply to post by Janky Red


I agree, and you may be more of a libertarian. I just think that voting is very important, and that it should be verified that the person voting is who they say they are.

Voting is free expression, and should not be regulated, but verification of identification, I think, is not asking too much.

reply to post by Janky Red


The 12th amendment superseded Article 2 Section 1, but good job anyway. You get a star.

Too bad all of this applies to Electors, not voters. Voting is a state matter. You probably should have read clause 2.

I still gave you a star

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I do beleive in a strict interpretation of the constitution, but unfortunately times do change. I'm sure if they had photographs, let alone photo ID, and the number of citizens we do today, it's common sense to beleive that our founding fathers would want to make sure that the voters are who they say they are. The constitution is an open ended document for reasons such as this.

The point I was trying to make earlier is that sometimes common sense needs to be applied to even the most important rights guaranteed to us.

Just as Identification and verification that you are not a felon is required to purchase a firearm, it should be required to verify your identity to vote.

By attacking my views and worrying about who interprets the constitution correctly and who is more of a libertarian is a bit off topic, as this thread is not about me.

So you're saying that an illegal immigrant, or felon, or somebody too lazy to register to vote should be able to walk in to a polling place, lie about their identity and cast a vote in somebody else's name?

Maybe I'm so skeptical because I'm from Chicago, the fraud capitol of the world!!

reply to post by DZAG Wright

I'm sorry, but I'll use your post as an example.

Are you STUPID or something? I mean this earnestly!

Do you REALLY, I mean, REALLY, think an illegal would have nothing better to do than spend all day casting what....20 votes for his/her candidate? Do you really think that happens? Do you know of anyone that would take the time to do this? If so, you probably know a mentally ill person.

You're pretty rude. You're also uninformed. Illegals do it for money and to keep their jobs.

WHO THE **** is going to go from poll to poll voting for their guy, as if anyone would think that would make a dent?

Do you know how many elections are decided by very close margins?

Ladies and gentleman this is what we are up against. This is why we can't get anything done with our country. I'm neither Left nor Right, but I can guarantee that you are Right even though you will probably deny it. This is how Conservatives and other Right leaners think! This is the paranoia they suffer from.

I'm conservative and have never tried to hide it. You, however, are a screaming lib who is ashamed to admit it. You employ typical lib tactics of casting insults when your 'logic' fails you.

This person and probably many other Rightwingers, actually have it in their heads that Dem's want welfare so bad that they will go from poll to poll voting for a Dem! As if people aren't more concerned with everyday life!

You are really ignorant. Do you know who are one of the biggest defrauders? Your precious unions.

How many of you in here thought of going from poll to poll voting for Obama or Mccain? I honestly want someone to answer this. How many of you think Welfare Willy, has nothing better to do (never mind he lives in an abandoned house and eats out the trash can) than go from poll to poll voting for a Dem in the hopes he will be given some extra welfare?

My God, you are naive.:shk: You have no concept of election fraud and who conducts it.

See how STUPID some peoples are?

After reading your post, I think we all know.

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I do beleive in a strict interpretation of the constitution, but unfortunately times do change. I'm sure if they had photographs, let alone photo ID, and the number of citizens we do today, it's common sense to beleive that our founding fathers would want to make sure that the voters are who they say they are. The constitution is an open ended document for reasons such as this.

You're still contradicting yourself; Either you DO or you DONT believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

You realize you are using the VERY SAME JUSTIFICATION for changing the Constitution that gun rights advocates use, right?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


Lets face the facts, Democrats like their illegal voters.
Why lie?

And Republicans like the cheap labor.
Just had to put the other end of that equation out there.
Not a slam on either party. Just the facts. They're both messed up.
Why lie?

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
That's the problem KJ. A lot of people on this thread don't want people to vote for free. Some of them (I guess), just don't like the idea that poor people have as much right as them to vote.
That being said, michigas has said that some states provide voter id cards for free, which is good. All states should do that.

It seems pretty clear that rights should come with no cost, and I've yet to hear any convincing argument that says otherwise. Last time I checked, voting was the right of all free people.

For those who can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that not everyone wants to pay the government to exercise their rights, then you really need to come up with a convincing argument as to why.

Americans are, and should be, wary of government and it's ability to know things about you. I have the distinct impression that oppressive government is in line with many of your views and many others don't know jack about freedom.

Peace
KJ