Opposition to Vote ID

[DrDoomNGloom]

SC Ruling ..

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments


Privilege.

Sorry but the Bill of Rights says its a right. States may determine the rules but they cant do so and keep others from voting. Everyone has the same right. They cant for instance say only people with green houses can vote. That would be a privilege.

See you understand but you don;t , states have the right to determine an ID is required to vote ............... kind of like determining about legalization of marijuana and gay marriages, states are ignoring federal law more and more and determining what is best for their constituents.

I think you got so caught up in avoiding my request to post a link you forgot the OP. No one is arguing about if its a state right or not to determine the . We are talking about why some people dont want it as a requirement to cast a vote. As a right it shouldnt be contingent on presenting an ID. If you are already registered you should have no need for it. I like the suggestion posed by Candycorn.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

I know you have comprehension problems, so once again from Wikipedia ...........

You want to keep arguing it's a right, it is not ....................

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

SC Ruling ..

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments


Privilege.

Sorry but the Bill of Rights says its a right. States may determine the rules but they cant do so and keep others from voting. Everyone has the same right. They cant for instance say only people with green houses can vote. That would be a privilege.

See you understand but you don;t , states have the right to determine an ID is required to vote ............... kind of like determining about legalization of marijuana and gay marriages, states are ignoring federal law more and more and determining what is best for their constituents.

SO WHY DO YOU NEED A VOTER ID CARD ? you never have had to before for a State to determine your voting status?

Most states don't require a "voter ID card" , drivers license or state issued ID card will suffice ......................
you act like we gonna make them niga's get special cards to vote ............ grow the fuck up and realize its the same form of ID needed to cash their welfare checks!!!!

No wonder you are so dumb. You are a cave monkey.

Apparently I got your cave monkey hanging ...................

 

[Camp]

If it's only about ID, why do the voter ID laws come with all the attachments to it, like no Sunday voting and shortened early voting?

Got a link???
Which laws do you reference??

So you are not opposed to showing ID??

I mean these sound like great questions, perhaps you could not be so vauge and elaborate a little on the issue for us..........

time.com/3269532/ohio-early-voting-aclu-holder/

diversityinc.com/news/federal-judges-block-n-c-s-discriminatory-voting-rights-laws/

Both of those pieces deal with "voter restrictions", a totally different horse than we are currently riding, but I understand one has to be slightly intelligent to understand the difference ........

So once again you are trying to tie the two together how??

I am not the one trying to tie the two together. The state legislatures did that. That is why the federal courts are upholding and denying portions and parts of the legislation when it comes before them.The restrictive portions of the legislation are so blatantly discriminatory that they are being included with the ID laws which are more palatable to the public.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

If it's only about ID, why do the voter ID laws come with all the attachments to it, like no Sunday voting and shortened early voting?

Got a link???
Which laws do you reference??

So you are not opposed to showing ID??

I mean these sound like great questions, perhaps you could not be so vauge and elaborate a little on the issue for us..........

time.com/3269532/ohio-early-voting-aclu-holder/

diversityinc.com/news/federal-judges-block-n-c-s-discriminatory-voting-rights-laws/

Both of those pieces deal with "voter restrictions", a totally different horse than we are currently riding, but I understand one has to be slightly intelligent to understand the difference ........

So once again you are trying to tie the two together how??

I am not the one trying to tie the two together. The state legislatures did that. That is why the federal courts are upholding and denying portions and parts of the legislation when it comes before them.The restrictive portions of the legislation are so blatantly discriminatory that they are being included with the ID laws which are more palatable to the public.

Not at all this thread deals with voter ID laws not voter restriction laws, saying one goes hand in hand with the other is simply a blatant lie!!
Now I know you lack both intelligence and comprehension but you are trying to equate the two as being equal, wish is both stupid and simply a parroted talking point which is meant to incite your base ...................

 

[Camp]

If it's only about ID, why do the voter ID laws come with all the attachments to it, like no Sunday voting and shortened early voting?

Got a link???
Which laws do you reference??

So you are not opposed to showing ID??

I mean these sound like great questions, perhaps you could not be so vauge and elaborate a little on the issue for us..........

time.com/3269532/ohio-early-voting-aclu-holder/

diversityinc.com/news/federal-judges-block-n-c-s-discriminatory-voting-rights-laws/

Both of those pieces deal with "voter restrictions", a totally different horse than we are currently riding, but I understand one has to be slightly intelligent to understand the difference ........

So once again you are trying to tie the two together how??

I am not the one trying to tie the two together. The state legislatures did that. That is why the federal courts are upholding and denying portions and parts of the legislation when it comes before them.The restrictive portions of the legislation are so blatantly discriminatory that they are being included with the ID laws which are more palatable to the public.

Not at all this thread deals with voter ID laws not voter restriction laws, saying one goes hand in hand with the other is simply a blatant lie!!
Now I know you lack both intelligence and comprehension but you are trying to equate the two as being equal, wish is both stupid and simply a parroted talking point which is meant to incite your base ...................

I was pointing out that if the voter ID law had been submitted or was being debated on it's own, without being tied and debated with the attached voter restriction measures it would not be getting the kind of negative response it gets. I understand why the pro ID proponents want to ignore the poison pills included in the ID legislation, but that is the way legislation often comes about. A reasonable bill is introduced, but special agenda amendments are added. Those are the poison pills. They are legislative measures that could never pass on their own. Do you think a bill killing early voting or Sunday voting would pass if they were submitted by themselves?

 

[Asclepias]

SC Ruling ..

In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments


Privilege.

Sorry but the Bill of Rights says its a right. States may determine the rules but they cant do so and keep others from voting. Everyone has the same right. They cant for instance say only people with green houses can vote. That would be a privilege.

See you understand but you don;t , states have the right to determine an ID is required to vote ............... kind of like determining about legalization of marijuana and gay marriages, states are ignoring federal law more and more and determining what is best for their constituents.

I think you got so caught up in avoiding my request to post a link you forgot the OP. No one is arguing about if its a state right or not to determine the . We are talking about why some people dont want it as a requirement to cast a vote. As a right it shouldnt be contingent on presenting an ID. If you are already registered you should have no need for it. I like the suggestion posed by Candycorn.

The "right to vote" is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution except in the above referenced amendments, and only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in layman's terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of legal discrimination in establishing qualifications for suffrage. States may deny the "right to vote" for other reasons.

I know you have comprehension problems, so once again from Wikipedia ...........

You want to keep arguing it's a right, it is not ....................

I dont have comprehension problems. Your link from Wikipedia is an opinion not a fact.