Today I'm wondering where exactly in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, or the subsequent amendments does it say that one must present a photo ID to vote. I've been assured by my buddies on the right that they know the Constitution better than anyone and will, under any circumstances, most definitely adhere to to it.
After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of flaunting the founding fathers like Barack X, would they?
42 comments:
I haven't heard anyone on the right claim that it is Constitutionally required. The left seems to think it is Constitutionally prohibited.
I never thought I would hear the words
"where in the constitution"
come out of your mouth.
Now apply that phrase to any number of laws.
Patriot Act?
Plessy v. Ferguson?
'No-Knock' police raids?
War on Drugs?
Ad Infinitum.
I find it inherently contradictory to support many of the government programs/actions you seem to, and yet have the temerity to ask "where in the constitution".
Perhaps you've never really sat and contemplated these words:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Jimmy,
I'd agree with you on the last one on your list without a doubt but you're avoiding my question. Your comment, as with many of those that spew forth from those who claim to be the torch bearers of the Constitution, does not answer the issue of photo ID to vote. Why?
Because it's not in the fucking Constitution...along with many other things...which is why holding it up as some sacred and unbreakable document is ludicrous.
So, if you support photo ID to vote, explain to me how that fits in with the 15th and 19th Amendment. Actually, while you are at it, explain to me all things voting as related to the Constitution. You can start with the 14th Amendment, Section 2.
After that, I'd be happy to have a long discussion about the Constitution and "what it really means."
Well, lets see....
AMENDMENT XIV
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied .....
AMENDMENT XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied .....
AMENDMENT XXVI
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied ....
Hmmm...Lets see....citizens....eighteen or older....hmmmm...what process do we use to verify that such a person is indeed a citizen of eighteen years of age or older?????????????????????????????????
..explain to me how that fits in with the 15th and 19th Amendment.
Seriously?
Both start with..
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
And the 14th section 2:
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
So the 15th amendment addressed race, Nineteenth addressed the sex, 26th dropped age to 18, and yet there still remains the requirement of CITIZENSHIP.
So the constitution sets the requirements for voting and one affirmative requirement remains is that they are citizens (or legal exceptions) and ID provides some accountability to that requirement. So...
So what is your post contending? More strawman arguments again? I doubt anyone anywhere said the constitution provides specific language for Photo ID requirement.
dang, missed by a minute...
"Because it's not in the fucking Constitution"
It's not? Well then:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You can argue the red cunt hairs regarding a 'photo ID'. Personally, I find it meaningless. But don't try -don't you fucking try!- to apply it to one specific issue when it is so plainly written that it should apply to EVERYTHING.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Apparently, Jimmy, you didn't take the time to read 14.2 which 6Kings was so kind to put up. Let's take a look at a few words from that section...
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The consequences are pretty clear.
More importantly, all three of you seem to miss the part (actually in all three aforementioned sections)where it says..
is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
...which tells me that, in all honesty, you aren't the Constitutional experts you claim to be. Instead, you use it as a battering ram for your own ideology and then accuse folks like me of doing it to redirect. Bullshit, really.
So, let's hear some definitions of the word abridged.
And then let's move on to discuss Amendment 24.
Oh, I forgot. Let's remember this other part left out...
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Try not to blow a bowel when discussing it:)
Wait a second. You WERE saying that it isn't in the constitution. Now, you are saying that it IS?
Well then, the tenth amendment doesn't apply.
Just do what the supreme law of the land says.
I wish you would make up your mind regarding which side of the argument you want to be on. I don't care which, but at least be consistent.
What would you consider to be the more restrictive - not abridged or not infringed?
A picture ID can't be construed to be a poll tax or an abridgment unless you are a moron or a Democrat. It is verifying the primary requirement to vote. Now if you were arguing that driver's license or state ID isn't valid determinant of citizenship, I would agree. Especially since a bunch of dipshit politicians relaxed the standards for illegals (Democrats mostly).
And GD is asking the key question for you the hypocrite. Guns seem to be a valid target for a ban, tax, limit, restrictions, background check, etc., far more than an infringement. Yet allowing a vote, possibly causing damage for generations, is wide open for no requirement to validate the rules?
"Not infringed" seems to allow for gun bans in your mind; I can only speculate as to what "not abridged" might entail.
It is nice that you actually bother to give a damn about the Constitution in this instance. You should do that more often.
EG, you have to read the whole Constitution and not just the parts you like about State power.
And, to answer your question, it's both. There's nothing about needing to have a photo ID in the Constitution so the insistence to have one isn't Constitutionally valid. Now, if you want to make the argument that there should be a law for a photo ID, that's fine. You just can't fall back on the Constitution because the Constitution has pretty clear directives on voting rights.
GD, infringed.
6Kings, it can be considered a poll tax if the ID costs the prospective voter money. These types of laws are very reminiscent of the shenanigans that went on in the South before the 24th amendment. Even after that, there was still a lot of BS that transpired.
juris, I give a great deal more than a damn about the Constitution. I don't really give a damn to discuss it much with people that are intransigent about it. Honestly, they are ridiculous when you think about it. I wonder how many of them would support a return to a voting age of 21 or unlimited terms for the president.
If I have to mail an absentee ballot, and a stamp costs money, is that a poll tax? It costs a prospective voter money.
I smell lawsuit!
For what it is worth, your response to me makes no sense. But don't try and explain further. As I said, I don't give a shit about your faux constitutional outrage in any case.
Honestly, they are ridiculous when you think about it. I wonder how many of them would support a return to a voting age of 21 or unlimited terms for the president.
There is a huge fucking difference between amending the Constitution and just deciding that the words in it do or do not mean what they used to.
Mark, why does your highlighter only capture portions of the paragraph? (You tell EG he has to read the whole constitution to get it, but you read just 1 paragraph and only highlight what suits you...)
Nuuh-uuh, juris. Amending the Constitution is for poopyheads. It's just too much hard work trying to convince enough people in enough places for that to be viable for lazy people in a hurry. That's why it's now a Living Document. It lives, it breathes, it contorts itself into any shape we need at the court's whim and the drop of a hat. Now it's this, now it's that, now it's something else again. It's like the Nutcracker Suite, but with more conservative and libertarian nuts being cracked! Your nuts are next...
The answer, of course, is that the Constitution is silent on the matter and so whatever measures or standards are taken must be done by the States, barring Constitutional amendment. Certain Amendments place some restrictions and requirements upon the States, but as long as they abide by that, ensuring that the person casting a vote is actually that person is a small, basic first step towards ensuring fair, free elections .
dave, we're talking about voting rights so any paragraph in the Constitution that relates to this issue is relevant. It just so happens we were talking about that part. I've listed others as well.
And, really please, enough with the Rove. That's what you guys are doing, not me.
The answer, of course, is that the Constitution is silent on the matter
Well, that's not true at all. I've listed the very specific instructions by the Constitution on voting. I guess I'd like to hear from you how having a photo ID in order to vote is not abridging someone's right to vote.
Duuuuude, read your posts. You're selectively highlighting only the portions of the paragraph that suit you. Periods have a purpose, Mr Teacher...they encompus an entire thought. The paragraph you quote sure doesn't say that an ID is required, but it also makes requirements that require verification. If you don't like photo IDs, how would you satisfy the requirement?
The answer, of course, is that the Constitution is silent on the matter
Well, that's not true at all. I've listed the very specific instructions by the Constitution on voting. I guess I'd like to hear from you how having a photo ID in order to vote is not abridging someone's right to vote.
Really? Photo ID is mentioned in the Constitution? Because I thought that was the specific point being discussed here. You can mind-read people you've never met, but you can't remember your own fucking posts?
dave, you are always welcome to point out other parts of the Constitution that show that laws on voting are State matters.
And where exactly do you see requirements for verification?
In all honesty, though, I wouldn't mind if the Democrats and the Republicans got together and made sure that everyone got a free voter ID. Then we could dispense with the ridiculous myth that armies of illegals are being recruited by ACORN to fraudulently vote.
My original point in bringing all this up is that for a group of people that are so hell bent and foaming at the mouth about the Constitution, it's awfully convenient how it is ignored or not applicable when it suits our issue, now isn't it?
And where exactly do you see requirements for verification
Are you being deliberately dense?
Requirement - US citizen
Requirement - 18 years of age
So to ask you again....
what process do we use to verify that such a person is indeed a citizen of eighteen years of age or older?
awfully convenient how it is ignored or not applicable when it suits our issue
Yes, you are being deliberately dense. Either that or unintentionally stupid.
Show, in really small words so you don't get confused, where the constitution is being ignored or billed as n/a by the posters here.
Show, in really small words so you don't get confused, where the constitution is being ignored or billed as n/a by the posters here.
Well, that's easy. Each section regarding voting has a part which you seem to conveniently miss. Let's go through them, shall we?
14.4 The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
15.2 The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
19.2 Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
26.2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Miss those parts did ya? That's CONGRESS, not the States have the power to enforce voting laws...first, it was for male citizens over 21, then citizens of any race, then female citizens, then everyone over 18.
More importantly, the States can't deny or abridge this right. One could make an argument they are doing this with all of the GOP sponsored laws
Now, if they want to go around and give a free photo ID to everyone who is of voting age and then require it, then that's fine. There are all sorts of ways they could this, wouldn't you agree? But you and I both know that's not what they want to do (see: as obvious as a beer fart in church).
I would also hope this would accomplish the goal of finally illustrating that there aren't massive amounts of illegal aliens voting in elections. Clearly, it seems, that this is your impetus for stressing the citizenship portion of voting rights in the Constitution, no? But in your zeal, I think you have lost sight of who really has the power to regulate this.
It's as plain as day: Congress.
One could make an argument they are doing this with all of the GOP sponsored laws
Well then by all means, make that argument.
Show us how all these people that use ID every day for other purposes are suddenly cut off from the ballot.
Please! Or admit that you and the left are raging frauds about the issue - foaming at the mouth over nothing. Just like you are always saying the right does.
Well, in some ways, I have. But I'm not a Constitutional scholar, juris. Neither are you or any of my other regular posters. There are many constitutional scholars (the ones you think are raging frauds) that making that argument right now. Here's one of them.
http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/second-judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-voter-identification-law
So, are stating that Richard Niess is a raging fraud? He's a sitting judge and you know more than he does about the Constitution?
I'd like to hear from you why you think voter id laws do not abridge the right to vote.
Well, in some ways, I have.
Classic weaseling. Just what you say the other side does. You could just admit you have NOT done this, but you won't. Why?
I'd like to hear from you why you think voter id laws do not abridge the right to vote.
Fuck you. It is your contention that they do - so provide some proof of that.
A state judge in Wisconsin should be ruling on a state law's validity within the context of the Wisconsin state constitution - and I have no familiarity with that. I doubt that you do either. Since his ruling isn't quoted or otherwise available I can't comment on its merits. The plaintiff quoted in the story said exactly what you do - "some people might not be able to vote". Really. Who in the hell is going to be denied a vote that doesn't already have ID for other purposes? Show me a real person - not some imaginary bullshit raging about Republican racism.
Oh fuck you Mark.
Pick a line of argument and stick with it.
You spent the entire first part of this thread trying to argue that showing ID isn't in the constitution. Now your argument is that the federal gov't can make it a requirement but not any particular state? You're full of shit and changing the goalposts again.
Both of you should know that I allow any sort of discussion to occur in comments. In fact, juris has posted several links over his time here that not only move the goalposts but completely change the subject. So, you know, goose...gander...etc.
In addition, you should go back and read the comments in this thread. My posts were in response to other comments that were made. So while my initial argument was wondering where voter ID was in the Constitution, it evolved into something else in addition to my original thought. That's called a DISCUSSION with NEW INFORMATION. I know it's hard to get our head around this concept but please try.
Of course, the entire discussion did pretty much stick with voter rights and voter ID law and the exact legality of each so I did, in fact, pick a line of argument and stick with it. There is nothing in the Constitution about requiring a voter ID and the federal government is in charge of voting, not the states.
and the federal government is in charge of voting
Oh really? You mean your state doesn't run its own elections? Your local precinct is set up under federal authority?
We've discussed this - there is neither requirement nor prohibition in the U.S. Constitution on voter ID. The charge from the left is that it is an unConstitutional denial of the right to vote - yet they can't point to HOW it denies people. That might be because it is total bullshit that people don't have ID. Sooner or later you are going to have to shut up about it or just admit that you don't have any evidence but because it came from the other side it must be bad.
Voting rights, juris. That's what we are talking about here and the Constitution is very clear on this matter. I'm sorry if you don't like it.
yet they can't point to HOW it denies people
If a photo ID costs money, that's abridging the right to vote and that's a poll tax. If it's difficult to obtain the photo ID, that's also abridging the right to vote. As I have said many times in this thread, if the Democrats and Republicans organized photo ID handouts and made it easy to get them, then you would be correct.
But that's not what's happening and I'm real tired of your babe in the woods bullshit. You know full well why they are doing it and it's about as obvious as the smell of manure. They've created (again!) this paranoid and distorted view of poor people and accused them of all being illegal immigrants attempting to vote. In reality, this isn't true at all. There are many poor people who don't drive and, thus, do not have photo IDs. They might have a SS card but there's no photo on that. Obviously, many are elderly and people of color.
And who are the people who judge the photo IDs? Does it have to be a state issue ID? Or can it be a passport? Or a student ID? If the state requires a state issue ID, then isn't that abridging the right to vote for someone who has a photo ID but not a state one?
If a photo ID costs money, that's abridging the right to vote and that's a poll tax.
That's a very big stretch. Considering all the things in everyday life you need ID for, it seems this would adversely impact a tiny fraction of the population.
In CA, seniors can get the state ID for free. The standard fee is $26 but there is also one for $7 (I guess for low income earners). So worst case, $26 for an ID that you need for many other things and would be usable for voting.
This is faux outrage on the part of you and the liberal/left. Or, you actually believe you benefit from illegal voting by ineligible people and you don't want to lose that. Kinda like how the dead vote in Chicago - and sure enough they all vote Democrat.
A Photo ID is not a poll tax for three reasons: 1. ID cost isn't specific only to voting. 2. It isn't a uniform cost across all people. 3. It isn't a tax!
"A poll or head tax is one imposed equally on all adults at the time of voting and is not affected by property ownership or income."
from - http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h425.html
Here is a great take on Voter ID and your dumb ass and regurgitated argument against it:
"As for the argument that voter ID discriminates against minorities - that itself discriminatory - it's downright racist. It's saying that black Americans and Hispanics are too dumb and incompetent to handle getting ID like everyone else in America.
Think about it for a moment:
You need ID to get welfare.
You need ID to get unemployment.
You need ID to get food stamps.
You need ID to qualify for government assisted housing.
You need ID for Medicare
You need ID for Social Security
You need ID to cash a check (including a welfare check)
As pointed out at Stand Up For America, all of these programs designed to help those same poor potential voters require that you have a government issued ID in order to use them ... and the reason is, of course, to eliminate fraud. This makes perfect sense to any reasonable person, yet the lefty Democrats claim that those same people using ID to access these programs don't have ID in order to vote. This, despite the fact that you don't hear the left clamoring about that requiring an ID to qualify for welfare is an undue burden on the poor who require it. After all, if they want the assistance, they will get the ID. And if they want to vote, they will get the ID (or use the one that they are using for government programs)."
Funny how that works. An ID is required to help eliminate....FRAUD and participate in government programs for the poor.
This is faux outrage on the part of you and the liberal/left.
Well, it's not really outrage. I'm simply pointing out the Constitution and its meaning. The only outrage around is people on the right trying to come to grips with the fact that they are flaunting the Constitution...something they accuse the left of doing all the time.
6Kings, if you have to pay for an ID to vote, it's a poll tax if the only reason they are getting a photo id is to vote.
It's saying that black Americans and Hispanics are too dumb and incompetent to handle getting ID like everyone else in America.
See, this is why you guys lose elections....absolute tone deafness. Sheesh...
As I have said now many times, I have no problem with a drive to issue photo ids to those who do not have them. The good thing about this is that we would finally be able to see how ridiculous the claims of fraud are that are being pervaded by folks like you.
And this last gasp of an attempt at suppressing the minority (although not for long which is what this is really about:)) vote will be gone, thankfully.
Well, it's not really outrage.
Glad you aren't disputing the faux part. I guess this is so lame that you can't personally work up a sense of outrage. Don't worry, I can find other lefties to rub your nose in that are ALL outrage. And according to M's theory of everything - if someone I don't like stinks like shit then M must stink just like that.
that they are flaunting the Constitution...
No they aren't; no matter how many times you repeat that lie - it will not make it true. If you had any sense of shame you would stop trying to peddle such a pathetic and stupid lie.
Rest assured, juris. This won't be my only example:)
6kings is right. Look at the definition of poll tax markadelphia.
Why we lose elections? Like 2010?
It must be a strange world you live in if you think you won in 2010. The House did indeed turn for the GOP but the Senate stayed Democratic, thanks to the antics of what your base has become (Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle. How is losing (again) to Harry Reid a victory? At best, you'r talking a half win, half loss.
My point in my comment above was that our country is becoming more and more diverse. Continue to be completely brain dead and say stupid shut about non whites and you will continue to lose elections. After all, how did the president carry Virginia and North Carolina in 2008 and is now making Arizona competitive?
Yeah where in the constitution does it say many things, like you have the reproductive rights? Extrapolated from other explicit rights....I disagree with motor voter laws which would require driver's licenses, or even state issued IDs, to vote. All that is necessary is that you provide evidence of proof of citizenship and age in order to vote constitutionally. Like in Minnesota, you can have a neighbor vouch for your identity as a Minnesota resident and US citizen, which I did in an election where I had my Illinois driver's license. The more onerous we make the requirements, like the old poll taxes, the more we dilute the constitutional right to vote until it becomes violated. I believe requiring a driver's license is onerous obviously, since not everyone has one and disproportionately it's the poor people and people of color who do not, but requiring a photo id I am not so sure about. I think it should be left up to the states, which could have very minimal requirements, if just a neighbor vouching for you, or perhaps have a state photo ID requirement. Not sure that would be unconstitutional.
Yeah where in the constitution does it say many things, like you have the reproductive rights? Extrapolated from other explicit rights....I disagree with motor voter laws which would require driver's licenses, or even state issued IDs, to vote. All that is necessary is that you provide evidence of proof of citizenship and age in order to vote constitutionally. Like in Minnesota, you can have a neighbor vouch for your identity as a Minnesota resident and US citizen, which I did in an election where I had my Illinois driver's license. The more onerous we make the requirements, like the old poll taxes, the more we dilute the constitutional right to vote until it becomes violated. I believe requiring a driver's license is onerous obviously, since not everyone has one and disproportionately it's the poor people and people of color who do not, but requiring a photo id I am not so sure about. I think it should be left up to the states, which could have very minimal requirements, if just a neighbor vouching for you, or perhaps have a state photo ID requirement. Not sure that would be unconstitutional.
Post a Comment