|
joether -> RE: Voting thoughts (7/24/2015 2:40:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
The voter ID assumes the position that a person is guilty of wrong doing,
Blatantly false, like saying that when someone has to show ID to get a license they are assumed guilty of wrong doing.
I did point out the instance of someone buying something that required to show a license (i.e. buying beer). That the clerk is not directly part of the government and therefore, not a violation of the 4th amendment (yes, the courts have upheld this view if your wondering). Showing a Photo ID is not required to obtain the job. However, the employer is not required to hire you, unless you voluntarily show your Photo ID to the Human Resource person. Yes, that too is not a violation of the 4th amendment (the idea upheld in the courts as well).
The reason why you get carded, even though you might look well above the age of 18 (the grey hair is a give away....); is because the clerk can not discriminate on the basis of age. That's not something the government technically requires, but its the company lawyers that do require it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Apparently you are letting the Democratic part think for you or you would see through this childish set of arguments.
Yeah, that is a pathetic and silly argument your trying to make. Just because you accept what your told 'hook, line, and sinker' does not mean that's the same for everyone else. There are many things I disagree with Democrats about. I disagree with Mrs. Clinton from time to time.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
I am surprised you can read the 4th amendment, the thought that you could have written anything like it never occurred to me, in fact that comment means that in this post alone you have three hall of fame stupid comments.
Dude, in a quiz on constitutional law, I could own you! President Obama could own me! What do you think President Obama's chances are of owning you in a constitutional law quiz?
While your thinking on that answer, consider this....
I didn't write the 4th amendment. Whether we disagree or not with an amendment's words, we have to follow the full law. I have disagreements about the 22nd amendment; but I like any other American have to follow the full text of the amendment. That you try your best to ignore the first half of the second amendment, does not mean the first half of the second amendment neither exists or doesn't apply. Just as the Bush administration is at odds with the 8th amendment during its first and second terms in office.
You do understand that
A Voter Id just verifies the ID you had to show when you registered
and
B That your computer suggestion is the same thing, unless the system goes down, then nobody can vote.
A ) Explain how we combat fake IDs that look like the genuine article?
I have previously argued that most people in the nation do not have the training to spot forgeries. Most poll station workers are not professional forensics experts. Being able to spot the one fake out of a thousand true IDs is not an easy task. Why do fake IDs keep turning up in Boston pubs during the winter and spring semesters of college? Even though bartenders are required both by their company and the state to pass courses to identify the fakes from the real IDs. We going to give that level of training to all the poll station workers in the United States of America?
Bartenders get experience with spotting the 'mid-level' fakes. Poll station workers are lucky if they spot the 'low level' fakes. How well do you think they would do at the mid or high level of expertise?
B ) The only way for the system to go down, would be for multi cell towers to go down at once. The only way to do that short of a terrorist attack, is a naturally occurring EMP explosion. For that to happen, would take several lightning bolts hitting all the towers in the area with enough force to override the shielding such towers have, at the same time. Yes, it it theoretically and mathematically possible. But then it is theoretically and mathematically possible for Sarah Palin to become president in 2016.
Many polling stations would not be down for long. Others, would have a landline which could ignore the effects of a lightning bolt for the most part.
Under the law (including photo ID laws) still requires someone to make an accusation that the person in question is:
A ) Not whom they say they are
B ) Do not live where they state they live
C ) A combination of A and B
The Photo ID laws basically accuse the person. In effect, the the state is accusing the person of a crime. And the person has to prove their innocence. Not one person has made a good argument for how this is allowable, given the nature of our criminal system.
Which means the suspect person does not have say or give any further information. That is their 5th amendment right. Nor even acknowledge they have a Photo ID on them. The police officer, using a smart phone, could obtain the person's information through multiple sources: The RMV, the register, and the police database. This would show the photo, address, and name of the person. To which the officer would have to make the determination if the person before them is the same individual.
NOTE: At no time is the police officer forced to show any of this information to the accuser or the accused. That protects the accused's 5th and 6th amendment rights if arrested.
At this point, if the police officer can not make a reasonable determination of fact, can, and legally, demand the person show a photo ID. Or be able to prove what they stated is true to the best of their knowledge and in good faith with concern for the law (both points have to exist, or the possibility they exist). Court cases have been lost because of technicalities. That is why the legal system is forced to do things in this particular way.
While I dislike voter fraud the same as the next, BamaD, Photo ID laws do nothing to accomplish this task, nor enhance the voting system or turn out.
|
|
|
|
