There should be NO PROBLEM with people showing a simple ID to prove who they are when they vote...
It's only people who think so little of the "helpless" people who supposedly can't take care of themselves at all...
I expect more and if others expected more things would get better instead of constantly getting worse...
Monday, April 28, 2008
Court ruling on photo ID fuels debate here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I have no problem with having to show an ID to drive, to buy cigarettes and alcohol, or to get on a plane. I don't have a Constitutional right to any of those things. I do, however, have a Constitutional right to vote, and if I happen to lose my wallet the night before, and you tell me that I can't vote, you've just denied me my Constitutional right.
More on this...
i'm disappointed in the court's ruling, especially given that the opinion was written by stephens. i agree, voting is a right, not a privilege. and there was never any demonstration of widespread voter fraud.
I agree with you - I don't see any issues in showing my photo id before voting. I know it's my right to vote. At the same time, I want to protect the right by denying the same right to someone who doesn't have the legal right to do so! It can lead to voter fraud as we all very well know!
Realism,
Take good care of your wallet. Perhaps your state has an ID available. Here in the People's Republic of Illinois, one can get an ID from the state that looks much like a driver's license, but is only for ID purposes. I believe that would suffice. In your case, you could obtain one and keep it at home, separate from the wallet you fear might be lost at just the wrong moment. There. Problem solved. Proving you are who you say you are isn't such a big deal.
who are all these people trying to vote that don't have a legal right to do so?
The fact that the left even argues this is pure unadulterated BS!
In Georgia, anyone that had no ID was offered a free one, with a free ride, at their convenience! The left were still against the law.
Now, I ask you, what possible objection could the left have? We all know the real reason. Loss of power due to realistic elections!
Actually you are the one that is full of BS.
The Supreme Court case was dealing with Indiana's voter ID law, not Georgia's.
As I pointed out at My Blog, there have only been two cases of voter fraud prosecuted by the Justice Dept in the entire country from 2002 to 2005 that would have been foiled by this law.
Also, this law does nothing to secure Absentee Ballots. If the Republicans are really so concerned about voter fraud, why would they leave this gaping loophole?
Also, even though they were offering free id's, Indiana still has stringent requirements for getting that ID, including a birth certificate (which costs money). A University of WA. study found that anywhere from 13-22% of voting age residents of IN did not have the required papers to obtain an ID.
So really, you are advocating a law that addresses a problem that doesn't exist (people voting at a polling station using another person's name), while ignoring a much more insecure vector for the exact same type of fraud (absentee ballots) and simultaneously disenfranchising people of their Constitutional rights because they can't afford to buy a birth certificate.
I guess you're ok with that, since it's mostly the poor and minorities who would be disenfranchised, you Republicans don't really care about them anyway, right?
Realism,
I’m aware of which state the Supreme Court case was dealing with. But here’s something you apparently don’t know.
In the court system, it is not presumed a law is unconstitutional, and the state must prove it constitutional; it is presumed the law passed by the legislative branch is constitutional and one must prove it unconstitutional. So sorry that’s not to your liking.
I’ll address the rest of your preposterousness later, seems how I’ll be addressing practically every sentence you posted.
Post a Comment