Tell me Tom what amendment says photo ID is required?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
Tell me Tom what amendment says photo ID is required?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nothing has changed . The Constitution gives the States the power to decide issues like photo id. Remember ,there is no national election . We select electors who vote on the Presidency.
The Federal role was expanded with the 14th,15th,19th,23rd,and 24th and 26th amendments . But issues like voter ID are state issues .
Yes, but isn't this the very reason why you have a history of disenfranchisement?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tut
One could make the same claim about your country since the rights have expanded at roughly the same time line ,give or take a few years. The fact is that there was no such a concept as "universal suffrage' prior to the 20th century. Our amendments to expand the franchise have followed the Western world .
Not saying that at all. I'm saying that if the franchise was so important to Americans ,more than 50% would show up to vote;and they would endure minor inconveniences like securing an id card that proves eligibilty .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The question at hand, is whether the inconveniences/roadblocks ARE, indeed, minor. You say they are. I say they aren't. The state COULD solve that issue by putting the onus on itself to provide the ID's. That would ELIMINATE the suppression question altogether. If it's simply an "inconvenience" for the voter, wouldn't it simply be an "inconvenience" for the state as well?
excon
So you are saying the feds give us all the right to vote, and states can make it harder to exercise those constitutional rights?
No wonder you guys, good ideas not withstanding, don't have a clue between an inconvenience, and a hardship! The funny part here in this whole debate is how when we agree you guys still ain't happy unless its a complete and total push for YOUR way only. "others need not apply"!!!
No I'm not saying the Feds give us the right to vote. I'm saying the Constitution gives the States the power to run elections. Maybe you should learn our system. Do you know how many elections the Federal Government runs ? ZERO
That's my point, state legislatures are RESPONSIBLE for FAIR elections. Its also my point that REPUBLICAN run legislatures are the ones rolling out new laws with no regard for cause and effect, or proper procedures that help make them FAIR to ALL its citizens.
That has national, and local implications. I know how the system works very well, and know how YOU want it to work even better.
Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote
Yes, I understand that, but the question I was really wanting to ask is this:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If a need a photo I.D. to vote then it is up to the particular state to issue me with a photo I.D. However, if I am eligible for a photo I.D. in my state and I decide to move states does this mean that it is possible I may not meet the ordinary requirements needed in my new state to vote?
I have a history of mental illness,but my state still issues me with an I.D. because it is not a an issue. But what if I go to a state which excludes people with mental disorders from voting?
This is probably not the best example, but I am sure that when it comes deciding who should be disenfranchised different states have different criteria. I also understand that your Constitution would have some type of general definition for voter eligibility, but such a definition would not cover such things as registered and unregistered voters felons the mentally ill, etc etc.
Tut
I will try to answer this. As far as changing states goes the answer is yes. You lose the right to vote in the current state until you become a resident. In most states that is a 3 to 6 month residency requirement. Where you do maintain the right to vote is in your previous state. You may request and absentee ballot (voting by mail) so your vote can still count.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
There is a legal definition for the mentally ill. If the line is crossed to where a person can no longer make decisions on their own then they lose the right to vote because they can not make an informed decision. They lack the capacity to do so.
ID's are issued by most states at a minimal cost. Im sure if someone couldn't afford it someone else would step in to pay the fee or an added tax would step in so it can become free when the qualification is met. We already do that with telephone services in this country and with utilities. Most communities have assistance programs and outreach programs of some kind including legal aid that can assist in getting everything needed to qualify for a state issued ID.
You miss the point . 1 almost all elections are local. 2 even the one national election for President is not really a national election. We are technically NOT voting for a candidate . We are voting for an elector who will vote for a candidate for the Presidency. We live in a Federal Republic .Quote:
Seems to me the system is broken or at least fractured. In the days of distance and poor communication it is possible to see why elections needed to be organised at a local level, but this is the twenty first century, a time when time and distance are transcended and all people should have equal right and access to vote
The remedy as you know ;if you think the system is out of date is contained in the amendment process to the Constitution.
What we are seeing is that some states have committed to having their electors vote for the candidate that wins the plurality . That is their choice..
As far as "all people should have equal right and access to vote "... there are already restrictions on voting based on age and other factors not regulated by the Constitution. As long as there is no denial of the franchise for those covered under the Constitution ,and the requirements are the same for all eligible voters in the states ,then there is equal rights and access.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
It WOULD be equal, IF you didn't throw down some "inconveniences" in front of a bunch of voters... But, you did, so it isn't.
excon
The inconvenience is for all voters .
Still with that straw man. You don't want the law to apply equally, you want preferential treatment for some.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The inconvenience is to voters who have voted before to meet new requirements that a partisan legislature deems necessary, without proper procedures to in place to address them having access to government.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As in getting to a DMV 50 miles away or even being aware that they have to acquire new or different documentation. Making it necessary for the looming election instead of taking TIME to make insure the news is both wide spread, and proactive where to go and what to bring.
This and eliminating early voting sure looks like the FIX is in for this election, coupled with admission that it IS a partisan fix for political advantage and gain.
Obvious suppression and obstruction is NOT fair to voters, and indeed a manufactured straw man argument based on not FAIRNESS but willful desperation to control a process and ensure an outcome.
The fact you guys dress up and support such blatant suppression and obstruction in the name of a fair election with integrity frankly boggles the mind as you holler about the right of YOUR church, and YOUR rights as you SUBVERT the rights of others as guaranteed by the constitution.
You cannot hide behind the insulting claim that any dissent of your positions is a "straw man argument". That's a cop out in light of FACTS!!
Actually it's Romney that wants the preferential treatment for some:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitt Romney
Hello NK:
He DID say that.. I heard it with my very own ears... Yes, there's some CONTEXT there that changes the meaning of what he said, but if CONTEXT doesn't matter for one, it doesn't matter for all.Quote:
“I'm not concerned about the very poor.”
Excon
That's exactly what I was thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
And around and around we go, when y'all will stop nobody knows. Al of your objections have been satisfied which just goes to show you'll never be satisfied... or come up with something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That pretty defines politics on the Current Events board doesn't it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
"I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
Your problem with that is what? He acknowledged all the aspects you apparently care about, making sure the poor have their safety net, not worrying about the rich, but shoring up the middle back. Obama just thinks "the private sector is doing fine."
Wait a minute... now context matters??
YOU said it doesn't matter:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3242846
Context or not that was a stupid and insulting line. Deal with it.
I have never said context didn't matter. Obama and Biden's context doesn't alleviate the sting of their lines, Romney's does.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Then go to our other great debate, and explain why your new VP candidate supported the Bush stimulus 3 times and opposes them now while taking the money and calling them a failure!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...an-692749.html
I mean since this one is over and there is nothing new going on.
Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...mq9X_blog.html
Or the behavior of republican house members.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/fbi-prob...lilee-politico
Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.
Again, acknowledged, what else do you want?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Quote:
Or start a new one about the lies Romney tells of the president not requiring work for welfare recipients.
Why Romney keeps lying about Obama and welfare - The Plum Line - The Washington Post
Answered. And it's an opinion piece, that doesn't make it gospel.
Why is the FBI investigating congressmen taking a swim? Is there some crime involved here? Plus, this was dealt with a year ago.Quote:
Or the behavior of republican house members.
Newsy | Multisource Video News
Let see how fast you condemn them, or ignore the facts, or call it more left wing straw arguments.
Like I've said over and over, we police our own. When will your side do the same?Quote:
But Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who was the senior most GOP lawmaker in Israel on the trip, was so upset about the antics that he rebuked the 30 lawmakers the morning after the Aug. 18, 2011, incident, saying they were distracting from the mission of the trip.
Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was also on the privately funded excursion, which means two of the three top House Republicans were a part of this trip. Neither Cantor nor McCarthy went swimming that night, the sources said. Some of their staff did.
The account of that August 2011 night in Israel was pieced together for the first time by POLITICO based on interviews with more than a dozen sources, including eyewitnesses, as well as public records of the trip.
A Cantor spokesman confirmed that the majority leader dressed down his Republican colleagues and that a staffer was later interviewed by FBI agents.
“Twelve months ago, [Cantor] dealt with this immediately and effectively to ensure such activities would not take place in the future,” said Doug Heye, Cantor’s deputy chief of staff.
Well that was easy, next?
Yeah I recall all the Dem outrage over the antics of Anthony Weiner .As I recall ,the vitriol went after Andrew Breitbart ,who broke the story.
Weiner is no longer in congress, seems the FBI has found no wrong doing, with the rollicking congressmen who took a swim, so that leaves what you are acknowledging about Ryan and his flip flop on stimulus spending when Bush was the prez, and his lies about it didn't work, except like all the repubs who said it worked for their constituents, and took credit for bringing home the bacon.
And we can add to that hypocrisy by debating the attempts to redefine rape. Police him too while you are policing your own.
I see the repubs on this board are taking a 'wide stance' on this.
Now karma what could that possibly mean
I'll let you research it. :D
That's not all NK as I am researching more hypocrisy with the Ohio voter suppression efforts as they rollback early voting in densely populated urban areas, in an effort to seem fair,while there is a lot less need for early voting in rural much less populated areas of the state.
My premise, why do less populated areas have the same number of voting machines as the urban areas? Still working!
A note for the Canadians- In the US, not only is Jim Crow* alive and well, but separate but equal** is too.
*Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal
Edited premise- early voting the same for both counties with 13,000 residents as for 1.4 million.
Where are the longest lines going to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
From the information I have gleaned here I would say you have equal rights, but not equal access.
Equal access would only apply if all states subscribed to a universal eligibility criterion; or, all states happen to exercise the same eligibility criterion.
From the information gathered here it would seem that equal rights do apply, but equal access doesn't.
Tut
In a federal system all states subscribe to a universal eligibility criterion, they align their legislation with federal legislation or they adopt federal legislation. What we have here as has been pointed out is not a federal system but some sort of loose confederation where the only universal eligibility criterion is you can't susceedQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
BS... the criteria has been established in the various amendments I've already documented. Everything else is subject to the 10th amendment .
There is only one national election... and in that election , the electorate is NOT electing a President... they are selecting electors . EVERY other election in the country is a state matter subject to Constitutional standards that are equal .
So long as access is uniform within the state ;and state laws comply with the Constitutional criteria ,then it is just not a fact to make the claim that rights are being violated .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
You are firming up what I have already pointed out. Namely: equal rights.
Just because state electoral laws fall in line with Constitutional criterion doesn't guarantee equal access. Equal access is only guaranteed if all state laws fall under a universal criterion of eligibility.
So you can tell me that all states have exactly the same eligibility criterion?
If you can't then there is no equal access.
Tut
Tut , Tom is caught in an eighteenth century time warp and he and his ilk have trapped the county there for over two hundred years. In that time no one has been allowed to have an original idea because dissent must be suppressed. Tom thinks his constitution is sacrosanct and must not be interferred with. He tells us there is an amendment process but you can be sure he would violently oppose it. The last time some one had an original idea they had a civil war which cost hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of lives. I can understand his caution but it is time to move on
All State laws must be Constutitutional . So long as there is equal access within a state there is equal access . Period . If a State decides to have voter id and the law within the state applies equally then there is no issue. If a state determines that it doesn't need voter id then that is their business (although I think it compromises the integrity of the franchise... which is as important in my opinion as equal access) .
Equal access is not part of the original concept, it is an unfamiliar concept to the writers of the constitution who formed a gentleman's club to run the country and keep all those poor people in line, and it seems it is an unfamiliar concept today. Civil rights was an unfamiliar concept until people took to the streets and forced those states to change, perhaps it will take that again
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 AM. |