RE: photo id required

RE: photo id required (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 4:00:19 PM)
Hey, they are legal and citizens and in TX Here are the numbers doj letter You'll not TX showed ZERO issues with fraud if they had shown there was cause I'd agree with the law. All it does is disenfranchise and flush taxpayer dollars down tube. Voting is a right.

thompsonx -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 4:11:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I should say that some crimes should require a forfeiture of the right to vote. Which crimes would you think merit the stripping of our most basic right from a citizen?

jlf1961 -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 4:55:51 PM)
murder, sexual abuse of a child, are two good examples

fucktoyprincess -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 5:08:06 PM)
FR Can the original poster, or anyone, please, show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to participate in a private political party's caucus? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Unless someone can demonstrate that the right to participate in a private political party's caucus is a constitutionally mandated right we cannot analogize to voting rights (which ARE a constitutionally mandated right, and therefore interference with voting rights are subject to different standards by law).

searching4mysir -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 5:10:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms Hey, they are legal and citizens and in TX Here are the numbers doj letter You'll not TX showed ZERO issues with fraud if they had shown there was cause I'd agree with the law. All it does is disenfranchise and flush taxpayer dollars down tube. Voting is a right. Correction, voting is a right for CITIZENS over the age of 18. It is not a right for everyone.

Raiikun -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 6:01:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms All it does is disenfranchise and flush taxpayer dollars down tube. Voting is a right. I disagree that showing you are who you claim to be "disenfranchises" anyone. The same individuals still have the right to vote, it's just their responsibility to do what needs done to exercise it. The right to bear arms is also a constitutionally protected right, so it amuses me when I see some of the same people argue that you should exercise responsibility in exercising that right, then argue that they shouldn't be required to just simply get an ID to vote. If people feel there's a problem with ease of getting an ID, that's a separate issue, and that should be worked on.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 6:34:56 PM)
quote: If that is the reason for requiring id, why is everyone making excuses when the left does the same thing? Not the same at all. The Left does not demand ID for VOTING. I think this was mentioned earlier in the thread. Can you not see the inconsistency in your position? Boi is either being obtuse or we're maybe just not explaining it. I'll say it again if it's before the general election, especially THIS TIME IN THE ELECTION YEAR, all kinds of ballot petitions are around and there are LOTS of reasons to need ID ... but by NO MEANS can anyone hang this on a party, ANY PARTY, it's usually to meet requirements imposed on the petitioning process by the local, state or county election rules.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 6:42:39 PM)
quote: Which crimes would you think merit the stripping of our most basic right from a citizen? Some states used to (I have no idea about the present day) used to suspend all privileges of citizenship. That included voting. And I think that in RI anyway, it was if you got a felony conviction with a term of imprisonment. ...HOLD THE PRESSES... I just found out Rock The Vote Tracks this very issue... http://www.rockthevote.com/election-center/voting-ex-felon/ BTW - In RI, they are restored immediately upon release.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 6:45:34 PM)
quote: Correction, voting is a right for CITIZENS over the age of 18. It is not a right for everyone. Which most people who are adults and of age of majority already understand. I think perhaps the poster means as applies to present company.

thompsonx -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 7:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 murder, sexual abuse of a child, are two good examples What is the relationship between those crimes and the stripping of the most basic right of our republic? What if the murder victim is a child molester? Boyfriend 17/girlfriend 16...next year he is 18 and a child molester? Treason gets a conditional vote from me but even that is has issuses, consider ace mc cain/pfc. bobby garwood

jlf1961 -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 7:28:54 PM)
Thompsonx, there are some offenses that I believe should strip rights from an individual. Your example of a 17 year old and sixteen year old implies that the girl will remain 16, in one year they both age and the age of legal consent in most states is 16 anyway, with few exceptions. Some crimes are so heinous that disenfranchisement should be mandatory. But then I support the death penalty in certain circumstances.

littlewonder -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 7:30:30 PM)
There are quite a few states where a felony makes you ineligible to ever vote again. I would guess if you're a felon and you want to vote, move and register somewhere else.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 7:32:15 PM)
quote: If people feel there's a problem with ease of getting an ID, that's a separate issue, and that should be worked on. Yeah, voting in a free election is one of the MOST constitutionally defined rights of all. And if you want the requirement of an ID in the actual election or IMPLY those who know differently than you are somehow ignorant of something... Then perhaps you could read all the associated constitutional law surrounding the vote. I found a great consolidation of those rights and the amendments that create them in wiki... Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

thompsonx -> RE: photo id required (5/6/2012 7:52:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Thompsonx, there are some offenses that I believe should strip rights from an individual. Your example of a 17 year old and sixteen year old implies that the girl will remain 16, in one year they both age and the age of legal consent in most states is 16 anyway, with few exceptions. Some crimes are so heinous that disenfranchisement should be mandatory. But then I support the death penalty in certain circumstances. My example did not imply anything. It stated that a 17/18 relationship made the 18 a child molester. I live in california where the legal age used to be 14 but after mr. polanski it was raised to 18. In states where the age is lower just adjust the ages to get my point. Since in california that constitutes child molesting I do not see the relationship to the stripping of rights. If a person has been convicted of using a firearm to commit a crime, I can see in some circumstances where that person might be subject to the the restricting of some or all of his 2nd. ammendment rights. I can understand your sentiment but I fail to see any connection between the crimes you list and the extrajudicial removal of that persons right to vote. On this same line of thought what other rights do you think should be removed from those two classes of felons?

joether -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 3:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Can the original poster, or anyone, please, show me where in the constitution it says you have the right to participate in a private political party's caucus? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Unless someone can demonstrate that the right to participate in a private political party's caucus is a constitutionally mandated right we cannot analogize to voting rights (which ARE a constitutionally mandated right, and therefore interference with voting rights are subject to different standards by law). How 'private' is the political party's caucus? How are you defining it? I cant speak for other states, but in Mass, one can vote in a political party's caucus if A) They are the same political party or B) they are unafflitated/unenrolled (since there is an Independent Party in Mass). The question to counter yours is, is the political party open to the idea of an individual's wish to remain private but vote for a particular canidate on that ballot (assuming they are registered 'unenrolled')? And your assuming a 'caucus' and not a 'general election' for the purpose of your question, right?

Moonhead -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 4:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I should say that some crimes should require a forfeiture of the right to vote. Wasn't that one of the GOP tactics there was such an objection to in Florida?

jlf1961 -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 5:28:15 AM)
In the past, a convicted felon lost the right to vote. In some states they get that right back after serving complete sentence, jail time and or probation or parole. In others, the convicted felon has to apply to get the right to vote back. In some states, a felon can actually vote from prison. I just feel that there are some crimes that by their very nature should mean a complete forfeiture of the right to vote, among other rights.

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 5:33:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I should say that some crimes should require a forfeiture of the right to vote. Wasn't that one of the GOP tactics there was such an objection to in Florida? yes because in 2000 the estimate was 12000 african americans were wrongly stricken frm the roles for being felons. In 2004 FLA was forced to do way with the list because of over reach. hanging chads aside with that one act the election results o natioanlly were changed . It was an act done with malice of forthought. Om 2004 the list was so flawed they were foced to abandon it becaudse the public awareness is so much higher after 2000 I am not for or against disenfranchisng actual felons I think the problem is that it has become a way to strike valid voters. In FLA where the law ghas been so disabused for partisan gain rather than fix the broken lists they expanded them.

Moonhead -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 5:42:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In the past, a convicted felon lost the right to vote. In some states they get that right back after serving complete sentence, jail time and or probation or parole. In others, the convicted felon has to apply to get the right to vote back. In some states, a felon can actually vote from prison. I just feel that there are some crimes that by their very nature should mean a complete forfeiture of the right to vote, among other rights. Isn't that why certain crimes carry the possibility of a death sentence? That's a pretty fundamental revocation of rights, I'd have said...

Dom4subssub4doms -> RE: photo id required (5/7/2012 5:43:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Dom4subssub4doms All it does is disenfranchise and flush taxpayer dollars down tube. Voting is a right. I disagree that showing you are who you claim to be "disenfranchises" anyone. The same individuals still have the right to vote, it's just their responsibility to do what needs done to exercise it. The right to bear arms is also a constitutionally protected right, so it amuses me when I see some of the same people argue that you should exercise responsibility in exercising that right, then argue that they shouldn't be required to just simply get an ID to vote. If people feel there's a problem with ease of getting an ID, that's a separate issue, and that should be worked on. If there was evidence the id check would eliminate fraud I would agree. There is no evidence of fraud. The id check will do as much to eliminate non existent fraud as demandingthey wear green shirts. it's non value added to the election processs. it prevents votes and doesnt stop fraud. You cant stop what uisnt happening. If smeoneis a citizen and youdeny them the right to vote by virtue of not having a photo id it is the dictionary definition of disenfranchisement. the fact these laws are most strict and mst prevalent where jim Crow existed isnt an accident. why isnt an electric buill with an asddress enough to verify against voter roles? Why the need for a photo? what does the photo id fix that is broken?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625