Now, if a state WANTS a requirement of a photo ID, then the state needs to make sure all residents of the state have a Photo ID. But if that’s not required, then the law is discriminatory.

Not every citizen has a picture ID. Drivers licenses aren’t a requirement. Black and Hispanic voters are statistically far more likely to not have a photo ID but they are valid citizens.

Now, if a state WANTS a requirement of a photo ID, then the state needs to make sure all residents of the state have a Photo ID. But if that’s not required, then the law is discriminatory.

==

Denying access of legitimate citizens to their voting rights is fundamentally wrong and at a higher level of importance than data validation.

If they want better data validation methods, then they need to implement them in a method that is not only accessible to all citizens but given to all citizens, whether they seek it out or not.

There should be no barriers for a citizen to be able to vote in the USA.

===

They go in with an ID. It’s the photo ID that’s the issue. Not everybody has a photo ID.

===

It’s a barrier. They’re already citizens. They can already vote. They’re over 18 years of age. They’re citizens of the USA.

If a state wants to ADD MORE requirements than that to the constitution then THEY have to issue state photo IDs. It’s that fundamental a right.

===

I’ll put it another way: The state is REQUIRED to allow every citizen to vote.

====

Let’s go into our inevitable microchip future: Most citizens get an RFID implanted under their skin. That RFID chip is used to identify you by the police, getting on airplanes, things like that.

But for whatever reason, you don’t have an RFID chip implanted in you. You have some more basic ID but not the RFID chip.

You’d still have the right to vote.

Now if a state decides, “only citizens with RFID chips implanted are allowed to vote” that would be going against the constitution of the usa..

===

t’s not a citizen’s fault that the state has a shitty data verification system. They don’t lose their rights based on shoddy security measures.

===

I was fine ’til you said, us poor white people don’t get to do this stuff too. Sounds like envy. and you’re complaining now just like them.

Constitutional rights existed before cameras. They’ll exist when new security measures come up for identify verification.

Today’s technology solutions for voter identification mean nothing for someone’s rights.

Constitutional rights are pretty deep things. They have nothing to do with people screaming racist or with people afraid that thousands of illegals are suddenly going to vote in a bloc or something.

===

Also, cursing doesn’t enhance an argument. It adds emotional content but nothing to its substance.

===

WHY does judge after judge after judge rule that the Photo ID requirements are Unconstitutional?

Because: They are Unconstitutional.

When the State automatically issues them, then the State can require them.

===

It doesn’t matter if their decision is informed or not. It doesn’t matter if they’re lazy or not. It’s still each person’s right as a citizen of the USA.

Voting is THAT important that it can’t be mucked about with based on some novel identity requirement.

===

If you’re not a citizen you can’t vote.
If you’re a citizen in prison you can’t vote.
If you’re a citizen under 18 you can’t vote.

Otherwise? You can vote.

====

There’s virtually ZERO examples in the history of the USA in voter registration fraud.

That’s the #1 reason it gets overturned – judges often don’t have to go any deeper than that..

But let’s go further: Are homeless people citizens of the USA?

Do homeless people have the right to vote as citizens of the USA, over the age of 18, not in prison?

This is just one example.

===

The right is GUARANTEED. Period.
“Rules everybody needs to follow” are add-ons.

===

The right is GUARANTEED. Period.
“Rules everybody needs to follow” are add-ons.

If the rules interfere IN ANY WAY with a citizens right to vote, they’re thrown out as unconstitutional.

===

It’s not a strawman argument.

There ARE people with nothing that still can’t be denied the right to vote.

===

“They won’t vote anyway” btw is a lame excuse. It doesn’t matter if they do or not. They should not be impeded.

If they are, you create a second class of citizens who lack fundamental constitutional rights.

===

You found three people among MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people who’ve voted over the past two centuries.

Contrats. Let’s change the laws now.

You can continue to believe as you do, but you’d be wrong. I understand why being wrong is boring.

====

Look, I’m a Constitutional Rights nut. If you are a citizen, you got the right to vote. I don’t like people playing with the Constitution. It’s annoying and gets my goat.

===

I don’t know much about the racist arguments: I don’t follow that news. But I can tell when citizen’s rights are being abused by an unconstitutional law, and Photo ID laws as they stand are one of them.

I was thinking more in terms of homeless people: they got things bad enough without voting rights being taken away too just because they’re not like us.

If people are using it as an example of racism, they’d better have buttloads of statistical proof to back it up, and even THEN, they’d need more evidence than that.

Maybe they are racist laws. I don’t know. I don’t care really. I just know that nothing should impede a citizens right to vote, no matter how reasonable the impedement seems to be. An impedement is an impedement. It’s the States job to make the process run smoothly for all citizens.

====

I want to thank you three for helping me clarify my own stance on this issue. Writing it out was helpful. I now have better ammunition in these ideological battles which I run across now and again. [I have friends that are on the alt.right and we debate a lot]

====

It seems like I’m arguing for argument’s sake but I’m not. There can be no barriers to voting. The Photo ID laws they tried to put into place, FAILED because they placed barriers to voting.

If they come up with BETTER Photo ID laws that AREN’T barriers, then it’d be fine.
===

Yes. However: The burden of photo ID is on the state, not the citizen. Voting is a VERY basic right, more basic than most. State militia is not the cornerstone of democracy but voting rights are. It’s in the definition of democracy. It has a higher status. I’m sorry but it does.

An International perspective:
” In Spain, Greece, France, Belgium, and Italy, a government-issued photo ID is required to cast a ballot. However, all citizens in these nations are automatically provided with a photo ID upon reaching adulthood”

If the State issues a photo ID upon adulthood to all citizens then it becomes a valid requirement.

==

Oh of course. I think privacy rights advocates would have a fit; I’m thinking the McAfee Libertarian might have a problem with citizen fingerprinting. But I’d be ok with it. [I have some libertarian leanings but I also don’t have a problem with centralized databases]

====

There is far more voting fraud taking place in the system itself.

Just see: DNC vs Bernie Sanders for one recent example.

I’m fine with reasonable Photo ID laws in place which do not present barriers to voting.

But the Photo ID laws that were struck down, were struck down because they placed barriers to voting for some citizens.

Citizens.

Make the laws better? Then you can have your Photo IDs.

But shitty security methods shouldn’t take away rights that are Constitutional.

Get better security methods that DON’T violate Constitutional rights.

===

There’s more important fish to fry that DON’T violate Constitutional rights of citizens.

====

Let’s institute fingerprinting. That’d be a good method.
Or issue Photo IDs to ALL citizens with verified social security numbers.

You’re complaining about a couple of shitty laws that were badly written being struck down.

There’s other ways to verify identity that work. Use them. Or write better laws that AREN’T unconstitutional.

====

I don’t want to throw out the Constitution based on 37 people who impersonated other people and committed the kind of fraud these unconstitutional laws are addressing.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


eight − 6 =

Leave a Reply