SadistDave
Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: SadistDave
Let's start with the easy issue. Since you seem to think that requiring ID to vote violates the 4th Amendment, then it must therefore violate EVERY Americans 4th Amendment rights.
Please link the SCOTUS ruling that supports your nonsensical opinion and explain in detail why voter ID laws have not been struck down universally in every state for being unConstitutional. If you can provide this information, which is pretty central to your argument, then it might make your continued rants on the subject less clownish. Please don't waste your time and mine with penny-ante state rulings as evidence of Constitutionality, unless of course you intend to take the idiotic position that Constitutional rights vary from state to state.
We can get to the voter fraud issue after we wade through this.
So if I understand your lame attempt at a counter argument...
....No one argument could be heard in a court room, unless a previous argument of the same type was made in the same court room? You can understand how illogically that is, right?
The 4th amendment protects against "...unreasonable search and seizure..." by the Government of citizen's "...person, houses, papers, and effects...". Unless by probable cause. The probable cause part is the problem you have to make an argument on. To say that voter photo ID laws are required to prevent voter fraud from taking place. However, existing laws seem to do a very good job of keeping that potential voter fraud rate so low as to be irrelevant. Not one argument has been made to show with undeniable evidence, that voter fraud is anywhere on the level those pushing for these voter photo ID laws claim. Time and again, each and every argument made by these individuals and groups, has been shown to be false under legal and unbiased researched. Probable cause as a concept is only able to be used when wrong doing is suspected to have taken place. Meaning someone is accusing someone else of wrong doing. At which point, a law enforcement officer (they don't handle voting work directly, but usually stand in the same room), can intervene to determine if possible wrong doing has indeed occurred. Without violating the accused 5th amendment rights, and with the aid of technology (i.e. a smartphone that most municipalities use now) can quickly do a search on a state's registry of motor vehicles and/or voting registry to find an image of the person and other personal information. Using that information, an officer can ask two questions: A ) What was the name stated. B ) What is the address stated. If the accused gave both things correctly, the law enforcement officer hands them a ballot and apologizes for the inconvenience. If one or both things is wrong, does not necessarily mean the person is committing a crime. There could be hundreds of reasons, all plainly understandable. People can spell their name differently than what is on the registry; they might be at the wrong polling station.
Voter Photo ID laws have not be struck down, because the argument has not be presented yet. Many religious conservatives all partied hard when anti-gay marriage laws including the 'Defense of Marriage Act' (or DOMA) was put into law. Years later, Vermont and Massachusetts struck those laws down thanks to an argument being made in a court of law. Other states have since been following suit. The US Supreme Court has even weighed in on the matter. Photo ID laws in the same way, will be destroyed as violations of American's right to practice freedom and liberty. Was voter fraud rampant back in the 19th century? 20th century? Or where the laws such that the 'profit to penalty' ratio was so bad that only an idiot would try for it? As I stated, the actual number of unbiased voter fraud cases is measured in the 'tens' unit. State and federal elections have been different at the tens of thousands if not millions of votes. Go right ahead and state a mere 64 fraud votes would have made Mitt Romney, President of the United States in 2012...
An I or anyone else can take the matter to court under the 1st amendment. It does not have to be due to a 'argument' at a poll station on election day either!
I would think conservatives would be against such laws coming into practice, since they are so in favor of that 'limited government' they bitched about with the Affordable Care Act in 2010 onto the present. Yet, they are for such laws on the belief it will help the Republican/Tea Party win seats in our nation's government. A sort of 'underhand politics' that has come to define the conservative philosophy all to well. The only people that could in all honesty be in favor of voter photo IDs and NOT as a 'low information voter' are those that gain from low amounts of people voting. When low amounts of people vote, the special interest groups in America win (because its in their best interests). When many people vote, America wins!
We as a country should always be striving to get MORE people to vote rather than LESS. Voter Photo ID laws have not shown to increase voter participation in elections; but have been shown to decrease them. President Obama lost in the four states that had photo ID laws in 2012, and lost many others that did not. And the number of actual cases of voter fraud from state and federal elections since 2000? About sixty-four. You can find the source in one of my previous posts on this thread. Your going to tell me, that those 64 votes, which all took place in different polling locations, would have had a real effect on any of the elections? Their effect was like noting a grain of sand on a hundred miles of asphalted highway!
Would you favor a law that was based on lies? Were the facts and evidence do not support the law?
So... clearly, we agree that at this time, the Supreme Court considers the requirement to show photo I.D. at polling stations legal and Constitutional under the right circumstances. Therefore, we can conclude that your b.s. about the 4th Amendment doesn't hold water. I think it's a safe bet that the reason your 4th Amendment argument has never been tried is that they don't give out law degrees at the Clown College.
While you seem to be hung up on the word "papers" (as it relates to search and seizure) you seem to have completely overlooked the word "unreasonable". Since the Supreme Court has sanctioned Voter I.D. laws that do not keep citizens from voting, then they clearly deem the requirement to show I.D. to vote reasonable.
As far as voter I.D. laws are concerned.... As has already been demonstrated, opening a bank account, cashing a benefit check, getting on government assistance, buying and insuring a car, renting a home and turning on utilities, and all manner of things people have to do every day require basic identification papers. I don't know why this is so fucking difficult for you to understand.
Here's the sort of crap that people on the left buy into wholesale: Recently MSNBC did a story about a 93 year old who allegedly did not have the proper I.D. to vote. Oh the horror! Oh the sadness! Oh the melodrama!
Yet mysteriously this 93 year old man is able to provide for his own welfare somehow, register to vote, get a ride to the polls, etc., etc. all without a single piece of identification that will allow him to cast a vote. In case you want to know what they might be I lifted this list from the states registration page.
Valid Driver's License
Valid Non-driver ID
Valid Alabama Photo Voter ID
Valid State Issued ID (Alabama or any other state)
Valid Federal Issued ID
Valid US Passport
Valid Employee ID from Federal Government, State of Alabama, County Government, Municipality, Board, Authority, or other entity of this state
Valid student or employee ID from a college or university in the State of Alabama (including postgraduate technical or professional schools)
Valid Military ID
Valid Tribal ID
How, you may well wonder, is that even possible? After all, in Alabama you can get a Valid Alabama Photo Voter ID FREE which will allow you to vote if you don't already have a valid I.D.. So, if this 93 year old man can find the means to cash his SSI checks, register to vote, shop, see his doctor, and do whatever it is that a 93 year old man needs to do to simply not die, then surely he can find a way to go pick up his FREE voter identification card.
The real lie is that voter I.D. laws make it harder for people to vote. Being lazy makes it harder for people to vote.
As for voter fraud, the Democrats seemed to think there was voter fraud in the 2000 election. If memory serves, SCOTUS eventually had to step in to decide the issue and liberals were whining that Bush stole the election in Florida for several years after the fact. That was a different situation, but clearly libs think voter fraud exists. Since the Democrats believe that voter fraud has altered elections, then it ought to be in their best interest to stamp it out wherever possible.
Every time a fraudulent vote is cast, it negates a legal vote. Some of the numbers you've left out is that felons and non-citizens voting makes up the lions share of voter fraud. The laws (and therefore the effects) of this sort of voter fraud vary from state to state. In 2008 there were 33,000 felons illegally registered to vote in the state of Florida. If they were to actually cast ballots it would negate 33,000 legal votes.
On the off chance that any of this might sink in, I submit the following: In 2000, the final count officially showed that Bush won the election in Florida by 537 votes.
-SD-
< Message edited by SadistDave -- 6/7/2014 1:58:53 AM >
_____________________________
To whom it may concern: Just because someone is in a position of authority they do not get to make up their own facts. In spite of what some people here (who shall remain nameless) want to claim, someone over the age of 18 is NOT a fucking minor!
|
RE: Oops. Voter ID advocate Asa Hutchinson forgets Vote... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread