All Forums | Politics

Voter ID

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 2639
Posts: 104
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #51
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

We are getting somewhere. Let's roll with this.

There is no collective right in society, only individual rights. The collective rights are accounted for by laws being enacted that infringe on individual rights, which must face strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored.

So assuming the above is true, cannot a gun control advocate use the same response to argue for gun control that a voter ID proponent can use?


The answer is yes. But I am not convinced that forcing someone to produce an id to prove that they are a citizen is an infringement on any right to vote. Clearly, all citizens have the right to vote after 18 so that would mean there is a need to show age and citizenship. No?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #52
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:


The answer is yes. But I am not convinced that forcing someone to produce an id to prove that they are a citizen is an infringement on any right to vote. Clearly, all citizens have the right to vote after 18 so that would mean there is a need to show age and citizenship. No?

No. 

In order to vote, one must be registered. The registration process, in nearly all areas, involves some form of identification.  
 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #53
But,the person that votes does not have to be the same one that registered to vote..
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2620
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Other than the fact that I raised an issue to which not one of you right wingers has been able to respond to, you are exactly right.



My point in Post # 37 about the need for narrowly drawn legislation came well before you ever raised it....or knew about it. But thanks for regurgitating it as your own in LATER posts.Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.  Are you going to deny that ? Answer the question. Because you know you did exactly that.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2005
Posts: 7317
Posted: #55
US justice department is the main challenger of voting ID laws that discriminate against voters and violate the constitution.  Federal courts have blocked ID laws in Kansas, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Texas.  More cases are pending in Alabama, Ohio, Virginia and other States.

Courts don't buy the argument that ID laws are necessary to prevent fraud.  They realize that the harms of ID laws far outweigh any tiny benefit.  According to Center for American progress, bad laws keep getting struck down by the courts.  .

Despite having multiple ID, eligible voters still cannot vote.  Problem is that not every eligible voter has government photo ID required and easy access to documentation.  According to New York university, 11% of eligible voters lack such ID.  In Texas, over 600,000 voters don't qualify.  In Wisconsin, almost 300,000 voters. 
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:



My point in Post # 37 about the need for narrowly drawn legislation came well before you ever raised it....or knew about it. But thanks for regurgitating it as your own in LATER posts.Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.  Are you going to deny that ? Answer the question. Because you know you did exactly that.


You did well. After I brought up strict scrutiny, you googled it and learned that such laws must be narrowly tailored and added that component. 

We make a great team. 
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2620
Posted: #57
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:



You did well. After I brought up strict scrutiny, you googled it and learned that such laws must be narrowly tailored and added that component. 

We make a great team. 


I didn't google it; I teach it. But you are a capable student.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:



The same argument for voter identification laws can be used for gun control, which was my point before you engaged in personal attacks, to which you frequently do but cry when anyone responds.


Wrong. Damn you're always wrong. What a stupid argument. The Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to vote. Nothing. Americans possess no affirmative right to vote. NONE! Period!

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2007
Posts: 33996
Posted: #59
How different America would be if,,we stuck to the Constitution and allowed voting to be restricted to property-holding white men.


 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #60

Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:



I didn't google it; I teach it. But you are a capable student.

I'm always happy to see that elementary schools are teaching civics and laws. Education is really the only way to defeat right wing extremism.

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #61

Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

Wrong. Damn you're always wrong. What a stupid argument. The Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to vote. Nothing. Americans possess no affirmative right to vote. NONE! Period!

Relax_Dude!

You mean outside of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, which all guarantee the right to vote? And there are more Amendments addressing the right to vote than any other right. Surely the teacher above will agree.

Beclowned.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2620
Posted: #62
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Relax_Dude!

You mean outside of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, which all guarantee the right to vote? And there are more Amendments addressing the right to vote than any other right. Surely the teacher above will agree.

Beclowned.



You are wrong, as usual.

The amendments you cite do NOT "guarantee the right to vote."
Those amendments simply say you can't be denied voting rights because of race, gender, age, or non-payment of a poll tax.

Do you understand the difference ?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #63

Quote Originally Posted by 1129ken:



You are wrong, as usual.

The amendments you cite do NOT "guarantee the right to vote."
Those amendments simply say you can't be denied voting rights because of race, gender, age, or non-payment of a poll tax.

Do you understand the difference ?

If you were really a teacher who understood the Constitution, you would realize that it is a 'negative rights' document meaning all of the amendments create 'fundamental rights' that cannot be interfered with by Congress but for strict scrutiny of such laws.

For example, the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..."

The Second ends with "shall not be infringed" and so on.

Don't worry though, I'm sure your elementary students are in awe of your intellect.

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 2620
Posted: #64
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

If you were really a teacher who understood the Constitution, you would realize that it is a 'negative rights' document meaning all of the amendments create 'fundamental rights' that cannot be interfered with by Congress but for strict scrutiny of such laws.

For example, the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..."

The Second ends with "shall not be infringed" and so on.

Don't worry though, I'm sure your elementary students are in awe of your intellect.



I respect teachers, regardless of the educational level they find their vocation. Your repeated elitist comments attempting to belittle me by suggesting I teach "elementary" school say a lot more about you than they do about me.

You can have the last word.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Relax_Dude!

You mean outside of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, which all guarantee the right to vote? And there are more Amendments addressing the right to vote than any other right. Surely the teacher above will agree.

Beclowned.



15th is about discrimination
19th is about sex discrimination
24th is about poll taxes
26th is about age discrimination

Still waiting for you to provide "the right to vote amendment."

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10738
Posted: #66

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

19th:

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote.

24:

The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

What right to vote are they talking about?

26th:

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old.

Not that hard to figure out really.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #67
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
19th:
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote.
24:
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
What right to vote are they talking about?
26th:
The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old.
Not that hard to figure out really.

No, son. Those are conditions for the voting process. There are 27 amendments. Where is the right to vote amendment? The words right to vote are used indirectly. Which one directly states that voting is a right? Read this very slowly ok.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #68
Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
19th:
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment guarantees all American women the right to vote.
24:
The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.
What right to vote are they talking about?
26th:
The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old.
Not that hard to figure out really.

No, son. Those are conditions for the voting process. There are 27 amendments. Where is the right to vote amendment? The words right to vote are used indirectly. Which one directly states that voting is a right? Read this very slowly ok.
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:


No, son. Those are conditions for the voting process. There are 27 amendments. Where is the right to vote amendment? The words right to vote are used indirectly. Which one directly states that voting is a right? Read this very slowly ok.

You're lying.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #70
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

No, son. Those are conditions for the voting process. There are 27 amendments. Where is the right to vote amendment? The words right to vote are used indirectly. Which one directly states that voting is a right? Read this very slowly ok.
You're lying.

You're delusional. There is no right to vote amendment. There are amendments with the words right to vote but no actual amendment that establishes voting as a constitutional right. That's a fact little boy. Prove me wrong kid. Tell me which amendment that directly establishes voting as a constitutional right. The right to vote amendment is what number? Is there a 28th amendment is liberal land?
 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #71
Quote Originally Posted by MoneySRH:

You're lying.
You're delusional. There is no right to vote amendment. There are amendments with the words right to vote but no actual amendment that establishes voting as a constitutional right. That's a fact little boy. Prove me wrong kid. Tell me which amendment that directly establishes voting as a constitutional right. The right to vote amendment is what number? Is there a 28th amendment is liberal land?

By you're adolescent reading, there is also no right to speech nor bear arms. As I stated before, the Constitution decrees what the government cannot take away from you (like the first words of the 1st Amendment enumerate). Only a right wing extremist like yourself fails to grasp that. 

It is a negative rights document.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 8480
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:


By you're adolescent reading, there is also no right to speech nor bear arms. As I stated before, the Constitution decrees what the government cannot take away from you (like the first words of the 1st Amendment enumerate). Only a right wing extremist like yourself fails to grasp that. 

It is a negative rights document.
You’re like a child. No, there is a right to free speech. That’s the first amendment. It clearly states that the first amendment prohibits any law that abridges freedom of speech. The right to bear arms is the second amendment. It clearly states that the second amendment gives the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Look son, throwing a hissy fit and using a bunch of opinionated babble doesn’t change the fact that there is no amendment classified as the right to vote amendment. Either there is a right to vote amendment or there isn’t. You fail to grasp that.

I live in the real world. You live in liberal imagination land. In your liberal bubble world the discrimination amendments equate to a right to vote. I believe that YOU believe there is such an amendment. I can’t win this debate because it’s hard to win an argument that’s based entirely on your opinion and your imagination.

I know you’re going to come back without providing an actual right to vote amendment and your post is going to be witty and filled with sarcasm. Debating a liberal is like playing chess with a penguin. In the end the penguin is going to knock all the pieces over and crap all over the board and claim victory.

 
Covers Referee
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2004
Posts: 15596
Posted: #73
Using words like liberal and penguin doesn't change the fact that the first amendment begins with "The government shall not" the second ends with "shall not be infringed" and all the voting amendments do the same.

But by all means, please keep arguing that the ski is green.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2015
Posts: 5833
Posted: #74
I copied and pasted this from another topic.

The Wisconsin voting restrictions were overturned:
https://politicalwire.com/2016/07/29/wisconsin-voting-restrictions-overturned/

Wisconsin is neither Blue nor Red.  It has been carried by the Democratic Presidential candidate in every election since Reagan carried it in 1984.

Wisconsin's Republican governor and Republican state legislature imposed those restrictions which were overturned.

Voter ID laws impact minority turnout:

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/voter-id-laws-minorities-111721

In 2012, an uncommonly frank GOP politician admitted that voter ID laws were intended to suppress Democratic turnout:

This weekend, Pennsylvania Republican House Leader Mike Turzai (R-PA) finally admitted what so many have speculated: Voter identification efforts are meant to suppress Democratic votes in this year’s election.

At the Republican State Committee meeting, Turzai took the stage and let slip the truth about why Republicans are so insistent on voter identification efforts — it will win Romney the election, he said:

https://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/

Most of the states that imposed voter restrictions are conservative:

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Restrictive_Appendix_Post-2010.pdf

The Rhode Island law was fairly broad and accepted a wide range of ID's.

 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2015
Posts: 5833
Posted: #75
I salute Mike Turzai for admitting the unvarnished truth about the GOP's anti-democratic vote-suppression tactics.
All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2025 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.