As long as an ID is provided free of charge and acquiring one is easy, I have no problem with requiring proof of one's identity and place of residence. The problem is making them pay for it. That is, in effect,a poll tax. Poll taxes were declared to be unconstitutional in 1966.
Do I get to ask a question now?
I'll take the silence as a yes. I have more than one.
Why do "conservatives" insist on tightening up perceived loopholes in voter registration in the absence of evidence of voting fraud? What are they afraid of? Aren't they the first to holler when government dollars are spent unnecessarily?
Why is voter registration and voting so restricted in the first place?
This article has some great ideas using existing technology and data.
Quote:The constitution makes it clear what is not specifically designated as a federal power is differed to the states, see the 10th Amendment. So wanting States to control their own education, transportation, welfare, budget, and so on isn't to pit state against state, it's to keep an ever growing political class in check.
You're misguided. The 10th amendment is a toothless lion. The legislature's power is practically limitless according to the constitution itself. The only thing limiting it is the desire of the people for it to be limited.
The 10th amendment was a placation toward the southern states and their desire to try maintain the ownership of other human beings.
Quote:You're misguided. The 10th amendment is a toothless lion. The legislature's power is practically limitless according to the constitution itself. The only thing limiting it is the desire of the people for it to be limited.
The 10th amendment was a placation toward the southern states and their desire to try maintain the ownership of other human beings.
.gif "Laughing")
it always goes back to racism huh? I've heard it all now the 10th amendment was because the south wanted to keep their slaves, oh boy.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the purpose of the 10th amendment was to affirm the decentralized nature of the founders intended form of government. At least that's how I it was taught to me.
It affirms the right's of states to govern in all matters not given to the federal government by the representatives of the people.
Quote:As long as an ID is provided free of charge and acquiring one is easy, I have no problem with requiring proof of one's identity and place of residence. The problem is making them pay for it. That is, in effect,a poll tax. Poll taxes were declared to be unconstitutional in 1966.
Do I get to ask a question now?
I'll take the silence as a yes. I have more than one.
Why do "conservatives" insist on tightening up perceived loopholes in voter registration in the absence of evidence of voting fraud? What are they afraid of? Aren't they the first to holler when government dollars are spent unnecessarily?
Why is voter registration and voting so restricted in the first place? This article has some great ideas using existing technology and data.
There isn't an absence of voter fraud. There are numerous examples of voter fraud in recent elections. The problem here is that none of it is being investigated because the justice department has made it clear that they will stand on race when it comes to this issue. Liberals love to use the term "widespread" as if that somehow diminishes voter fraud at any level. Even in the article you posted, the good lib who wrote it used the term. So, does that mean democrats are okay with a lot of fraud as long as it's not wide spread?
I'm curious. How is it a poll tax to charge for a state ID for minorities, but it's not if it's a white paying that same fee? I'm pretty sure white folks are expected to pay for their IDs just like everyone else, right? This notion that requiring IDs to cast a ballot is racist has other ramifications that liberals love to ignore. You need an ID to get social security. You need an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to gain access to government facilities. You need an ID for hundreds and thousands of tasks we perform on a daily basis. Is all of that racist too? Or, is it just when you talk about expecting someone to have an ID to vote?
If having an ID helps reduce voter fraud, no matter how rampant or not it is, then it makes election results more legitimate.
As far as the technology goes, your lib writer evidently knows nothing about identity fraud that IS a rampant problem on the Internet. He must have missed the many stories of systems being hacked and customer's personal information being stolen from retailers like Target among others. Yes, billions of transactions take place over the interwebs on a daily basis. It's reported that 1% of those transactions result in fraud. Now, if 125 million votes are cast in a presidential election, and we use his dismissive comparison to Internet fraud, you're talking about 1.25 million fraudulent votes being cast in 2012. Feel free to dismiss that. I won't.
I do agree that there are probably more efficient, effective ways to cast ballots in elections. I just don't trust the government to be the architect for that system.
Quote:I've never heard a liberal say that they think identification to vote is bad, but I have heard of some liberals that don't like the republican sponsored ID voter laws that are designed to attempt to disenfranchise people who are more likely to vote dem than repub.
A good example is that in most states gun permits count as positive ID but state institution issued student IDs don't count as ID.
Of course there is also the 14th and 15th amendment issues along with a significant history of case law essentially declaring any sort of poll tax illegal, and making people need an ID that costs them either in actual money or causes them to need to miss work in order to get one is arguably afoul of the constitution and established case law.
Of course the biggest issue is in what the laws are intended to do. There's never been any evidence of significant in person voter fraud, most of it appears to happen via absentee, something these laws doesn't address at all.
So if the effect of the law is to disenfranchise groups likely to vote in a certain political direction and doesn't address the most significant avenue of voter fraud then what was the law really passed for?
I don't know for sure if a concealed carry permit actually does count as a positive ID, but I would guess that the difference is this. In order to get a concealed carry permit, a background check is required including fingerprints. Also, the perspective concealed carry permit holder must present
positive ID when applying.
I'm going to guess that that to obtain a student ID, one must not go through as much of a process including
providing positive ID. I'm not saying that's a fact, that's just a guess.
Also, I would bet that the ability to forge a concealed carry permit is FAR harder to do than forge a student ID.
With regards to absentee ballots, I think that there should be tight restrictions as far as this goes. Priority should be given to service members serving over-seas or out of their respective districts. Next Government Contractors and Government Employees serving out of their respective districts. The ability and privilege to vote via absentee ballot should not be a "convenience" to anyone wishing to do so.
Quote:As long as an ID is provided free of charge and acquiring one is easy, I have no problem with requiring proof of one's identity and place of residence. The problem is making them pay for it. That is, in effect,a poll tax. Poll taxes were declared to be unconstitutional in 1966.
Do I get to ask a question now?
I'll take the silence as a yes. I have more than one.
Why do "conservatives" insist on tightening up perceived loopholes in voter registration in the absence of evidence of voting fraud? What are they afraid of? Aren't they the first to holler when government dollars are spent unnecessarily?
Why is voter registration and voting so restricted in the first place? This article has some great ideas using existing technology and data.
A person has to pay for many things in order to function in life. You have to pay for a driver's license, a fishing license, a hunting license, etc. You must have some form of Government issued ID in order to board a plane, and I assume the same goes for boarding a train or a bus.
An ID is required to cash a check, open a bank account, get a job, etc.
It's not like anyone walking around that is of voting age can function without some sort of valid ID. I just recently started a new job. I have held a security clearance with our Government for well over 10 years. In order to get the job, I had to do a urinalysis, and when I did so, I had to provide a
valid photo ID. Also, on my first day of employment, I had to provide either a
valid State Issued ID (driver's license)
AND a
Social Security card OR a passport (I happen to have all of those).
I would tend to think that if somebody wanted a job they would posses some of that documentation. I don't think that it's too much to ask that they present something like that to vote.
Quote:I don't know for sure if a concealed carry permit actually does count as a positive ID, but I would guess that the difference is this. In order to get a concealed carry permit, a background check is required including fingerprints. Also, the perspective concealed carry permit holder must present positive ID when applying.
I'm going to guess that that to obtain a student ID, one must not go through as much of a process including providing positive ID. I'm not saying that's a fact, that's just a guess.
Also, I would bet that the ability to forge a concealed carry permit is FAR harder to do than forge a student ID.
With regards to absentee ballots, I think that there should be tight restrictions as far as this goes. Priority should be given to service members serving over-seas or out of their respective districts. Next Government Contractors and Government Employees serving out of their respective districts. The ability and privilege to vote via absentee ballot should not be a "convenience" to anyone wishing to do so.
That, and the fact that you don't have to be a citizen to attend college in the US. A student visa will get you a student ID.
Quote:As long as an ID is provided free of charge and acquiring one is easy, I have no problem with requiring proof of one's identity and place of residence. The problem is making them pay for it. That is, in effect,a poll tax. Poll taxes were declared to be unconstitutional in 1966.
Do I get to ask a question now?
I'll take the silence as a yes. I have more than one.
Why do "conservatives" insist on tightening up perceived loopholes in voter registration in the absence of evidence of voting fraud? What are they afraid of? Aren't they the first to holler when government dollars are spent unnecessarily?
Why is voter registration and voting so restricted in the first place? This article has some great ideas using existing technology and data.
I advocate a Voter License, that's right I don't believe everyone has the "right" to vote and I don't believe everyone should vote.
I'll take this time to expand on this thought,
If the goal of a representative government is to represent the people the goal of free elections should be to elect the best possible candidates to make the choices of representing the people. Therefor on that premise it's fair to say that the quality of votes is more important than the quantity of votes.
To stay within the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which I support, a voters license would be made available to everyone and it would be tax payer funded or free of charge. But to vote you should be required to take a basic education course, a course explaining the process of government. You should be able to explain the three branches of government and their roles. You know how many pure idiots vote on both sides of the isle? It's how we end up with horrible choices year after year.
The right to vote isn't in the constitution, the protection from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, or financial ability to pay a poll tax are prohibited but no where in the constitution does it every say everyone has a right to vote.
When it comes to voting there's a reason we are a representative government and not a democracy.
So, from what I gather so far is that even though the rest of the civilized world does it, they're just dumber than the US. They're just racist and backwood hicks. If all else fails, cry racism.......
Quote:So, from what I gather so far is that even though the rest of the civilized world does it, they're just dumber than the US. They're just racist and backwood hicks. If all else fails, cry racism.......
It's always worked for them before...
i have no use for a liberal
Ultrasound is more accurate. Forcing pregnant women to have one is still big government playing the role of the morality police. Not their body and they sure as heck aren't going to provide for that unwanted child. It's a woman's choice regardless of how appalling one may find her decision.
As for voter fraud, the only cases I recall hearing about in the 2012 election were a woman in Nevada who tried to vote twice and a poll watcher in New Mexico who claimed (when busted for trying to vote twice) he wanted to test the system. Both were Republican.
Quote:Ultrasound is more accurate. Forcing pregnant women to have one is still big government playing the role of the morality police. Not their body and they sure as heck aren't going to provide for that unwanted child. It's a woman's choice regardless of how appalling one may find her decision.
Personally I'm as pro-life as it gets. I've stood in the protest lines, I've held the signs on the side of highways, I've donated more to pro-life charities than any other cause by far. However on some level I have to admit that yes you are correct, forcing ultrasounds or any medical procedure is government playing the morality police.
I had to think this one out as a libertarian several years ago, our movement is pretty much split right down the middle on the issue. I'll start with abortion absolutely shouldn't be tax payer funded in any way shape or form. Secondly I can compromise with making it a state issue, let individual states decide what is legal and what is not. One a realistic level I support at least ending late term abortions and believe the post birth abortion is straight murder where all involved should be prosecuted.
Quote:Personally I'm as pro-life as it gets. I've stood in the protest lines, I've held the signs on the side of highways, I've donated more to pro-life charities than any other cause by far. However on some level I have to admit that yes you are correct, forcing ultrasounds or any medical procedure is government playing the morality police.
I had to think this one out as a libertarian several years ago, our movement is pretty much split right down the middle on the issue. I'll start with abortion absolutely shouldn't be tax payer funded in any way shape or form. Secondly I can compromise with making it a state issue, let individual states decide what is legal and what is not. One a realistic level I support at least ending late term abortions and believe the post birth abortion is straight murder where all involved should be prosecuted.
Excuse my ignorance Eric but what is post-birth abortion? Like, actually after a birth of a child? I've literally never heard that term before.
Quote:Excuse my ignorance Eric but what is post-birth abortion? Like, actually after a birth of a child? I've literally never heard that term before.
the actual term is <b><i>infanticide </i></b>and Obama voted for it twice I believe while a senator. In short it's when an abortion is botched and the child is born alive they still kill the child. I don't suggest googling it, it's gut wrenching but it's happening.
Like I said I'm as pro-life as it gets, I just try and find solutions that are plausible and I think revoking roe vs wade is a long shot at this point, I'd settle for making it a state issue and ending tax payer funding.
What Kermit Gosnell did is criminal and heinous. But I don't peronally agree with those who protest abortion clinics or do what TX did by shutting a lot of them down. Late term abortions are actually slightly upticking there now. All shutting them down does is drive that sort of procedure back to the alley ways which are far less humane for the mother or create an inconceivable abortion tourism industry. For Texans probably to Mexico. I am no fan of abortion. But I cannot imagine any pregnant woman decides to have one without thinking it through. There is enough mental anxiety going through her head which doesn't need to be amplified by a group of people publicly shaming her or worse. I loathe that the abortion card is used as a political bargaining chip as it has no bearing on how effective or honest a leader is. I know a woman who got pregnant at 13 and kept the baby. She went on to lead a productive life and her daughter is now a mom. But I also know most young women who get pregnant do not have the same support and discipline she had. While abortion is truly horrible to think about, if it isn't your body, I am of the opinion you should stay out of it. If you are pro-life, do not have an abortion. But you have no right to tell someone else they cannot.
Quote:i have no use for a liberal
I have a lot of uses for them. None of them happen to be legal so in the meantime, I just point out to them that liberalism is a mental disorder.
Quote:May I ask why you, as a libertarian, feel like a woman shouldn't have the right to terminate her prenatal pregnancy?
In my case it's the simple belief that our inalienable rights are extended, as the Founding Fathers wrote, to ourselves and our progeny. As such, children in uetero are entitled and deserving of the right to life, regardless of the circumstances of their conception. The argument has always been about whose rights do we exert when the woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, and as a result the child has been renamed and de-humanized to the point that many consider them to be without personhood until they are born (for some even that isn't sufficient.). Anyone who is honest knows that an abortion is the killing of a human life, but either they change to terms to assuage the conscience or, like Kermit Gosnell and the rest of the rabidly pro-abortion left, they simply don't care. Government's role is centrally about protecting the rights of individuals, therefore unborn children fall under that umbrella of protection. Of course this view is informed by cultural and religious beliefs too, so they are incompatible with many of the other views that exist. One of the great and lasting divides in this country and I certainly don't have the answers. Except, you know, it's pretty easy to get and use contraception in this country. That might be a great start, thought certainly not complete, to eliminating the need for abortion.