Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling

[Wonky Pundit]

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

The Second Amendment stops being a right when even one person has to depend on the permission of government bureaucrats to do it.

That said, there are a few things about the current gun laws that do need to change, although most of what I'm proposing would affect only a tiny fraction of gun owners.

1) Gun licensing and registration records should be held by law enforcement and obtainable only through a warrant or subpoena.

2) Felons cannot be given or keep a license. Neither can any member of their household.

3) Anyone failing a psychiatric exam cannot be given or keep a license. The same applies if any member of their household fails or refuses to take the exam.

4) Instead of focusing on "assault weapons," there should be a ban on weapons that are designed with the primary purpose of killing more than one person in a short time (under 60 seconds). There is no logical reason for any civilian to have something like this. If you're truly concerned about multiple criminals targeting you or your home, a weapon like this isn't the answer: you need to hire an armed security detail.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/273193-wonky-on-guns-for-my-fans.html

You have NO credibility. Go home

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, WP?

Did you miss my last post, or did the concept fly miles over your head as usual?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

The Second Amendment stops being a right when even one person has to depend on the permission of government bureaucrats to do it.

The Second Amendment says "well regulated."

Well regulated as in well maintained or well practiced.

"Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason

Pretty obvious that the intent was not for every wacko and criminal to be walking around with people punchers.

And yet pretty much every single household had one at the signing of the document.

Lots of people would consider such an off-topic post to be trolling.

Your consideration of such is nothing more than a deflection from your double standard. Like many people you selectively support our Constitutional rights only when it fits your agenda.

 

[daveman]

The Second Amendment stops being a right when even one person has to depend on the permission of government bureaucrats to do it.



You have NO credibility. Go home

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, WP?

Did you miss my last post, or did the concept fly miles over your head as usual?

I read it. I was right. It's different. Somehow. It just is.

Nevertheless, let's continue to examine this. You believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- gun ownership -- but you don't believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- voting.

And preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting IS a reasonable restriction. Unquestionably.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

Right, WP?

Did you miss my last post, or did the concept fly miles over your head as usual?

I read it. I was right. It's different. Somehow. It just is.

Nevertheless, let's continue to examine this. You believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- gun ownership -- but you don't believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- voting.

And preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting IS a reasonable restriction. Unquestionably.

You're dodging now (and not very proficiently). No one is arguing that preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting is unreasonable. A poll tax, OTOH, is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional, and there's plenty of judicial review to support that fact.

 

[daveman]

Did you miss my last post, or did the concept fly miles over your head as usual?

I read it. I was right. It's different. Somehow. It just is.

Nevertheless, let's continue to examine this. You believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- gun ownership -- but you don't believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- voting.

And preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting IS a reasonable restriction. Unquestionably.

You're dodging now (and not very proficiently). No one is arguing that preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting is unreasonable. A poll tax, OTOH, is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional, and there's plenty of judicial review to support that fact.

Good thing free IDs aren't a poll tax, right?

Tell me something: If the alleged target group is poor blacks, how do they buy smokes and alcohol, and conduct any business with the government such as applying for welfare benefits or food stamps, WITHOUT a photo ID?

Because those activities require a photo ID.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're forced to conclude that those who oppose Voter ID do so because their party is aware of and condones and benefits from people voting illegally.

There really can be no other explanation.

 

[Star]

I hope you're right -- as we saw in the last election, Republican voter suppression laws energized the liberal base, so much so that the Democratic President won an overwhelming victory and-----and the Dems increased their majority in the Senate and-----and the Dems scored over a million more total votes in the House of Representatives - IOWs I hope you get what you wish for - I'm rootin' for ya, git-r-done.

Wrong!

Obama did not win an overwhelming victory!

Only 46% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS bothered to register!
Less than HALF of them bothered to go to the polls!
Obama won by barely 51% - the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!

So, in effect, he won by about 13% of eligible voters.

How can that be an "overwhelming victory?"

Instead of going all whiny about the American electoral system, why don't you just leave the country? Or better yet get off your lazy Republican ass and work toward changing the way we elect presidents, but until you get that done all you have to do is a little simple arithmetic to figure out that President Obama overwhelmed his Republican opponent in 2012.

But what Republicans should really be trying to do is trying to create a party that will attract a majority of voters but-----but then that would make you Democrats.

Far be it from me to call you a goofball but-----but whoever you got "the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!" from is just flat-out goofy.
.

 

[Politico]

Good for them.

 

[daveman]

I read it. I was right. It's different. Somehow. It just is.

Nevertheless, let's continue to examine this. You believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- gun ownership -- but you don't believe reasonable restrictions can be placed on a Constitutional right -- voting.

And preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting IS a reasonable restriction. Unquestionably.

You're dodging now (and not very proficiently). No one is arguing that preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting is unreasonable. A poll tax, OTOH, is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional, and there's plenty of judicial review to support that fact.

Good thing free IDs aren't a poll tax, right?

Tell me something: If the alleged target group is poor blacks, how do they buy smokes and alcohol, and conduct any business with the government such as applying for welfare benefits or food stamps, WITHOUT a photo ID?

Because those activities require a photo ID.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're forced to conclude that those who oppose Voter ID do so because their party is aware of and condones and benefits from people voting illegally.

There really can be no other explanation.

Well, WP?

 

[martybegan]

The "free ID" concept is a joke.

To qualify, you must present a passport ($55) or a copy of your birth certificate, which not all Americans, especially older ones, have. So, if your birth certificate gets taken out by a Katrina-type event, an F-5 tornado, an explosion, fire, etc., tough luck. You're not voting in Texas.

Bottom line: this is a poll tax.

One can get a copy of ones birth certificate.

Texas Vital Statistics ? Birth Certificates

If people are so concerned for the fraction of a percent of people that may not even be able to meet these requirements, nothing is stopping you from forming a charitable organzaiton whos sole purpose is to get people registered to vote and provided with the proper ID.

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

Exercising your right doesnt mean it is handed to you. 99.9% of people can meet the requirements without so much as lifting a finger. For the other 0.1% there are exemptions aplenty to help them.

"The even one person" is a cop-out.

 

[longknife]

I hope you're right -- as we saw in the last election, Republican voter suppression laws energized the liberal base, so much so that the Democratic President won an overwhelming victory and-----and the Dems increased their majority in the Senate and-----and the Dems scored over a million more total votes in the House of Representatives - IOWs I hope you get what you wish for - I'm rootin' for ya, git-r-done.

Wrong!

Obama did not win an overwhelming victory!

Only 46% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS bothered to register!
Less than HALF of them bothered to go to the polls!
Obama won by barely 51% - the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!

So, in effect, he won by about 13% of eligible voters.

How can that be an "overwhelming victory?"

Instead of going all whiny about the American electoral system, why don't you just leave the country? Or better yet get off your lazy Republican ass and work toward changing the way we elect presidents, but until you get that done all you have to do is a little simple arithmetic to figure out that President Obama overwhelmed his Republican opponent in 2012.

But what Republicans should really be trying to do is trying to create a party that will attract a majority of voters but-----but then that would make you Democrats.

Far be it from me to call you a goofball but-----but whoever you got "the real skewing factor being the Electoral College and its bias towards large cities!" from is just flat-out goofy.
.

Go to CNN 2012 Electoral Map -- Elections & Politics from CNN.com and THEN tell me there wasn't a bias towards states with major cities!

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

The Second Amendment stops being a right when even one person has to depend on the permission of government bureaucrats to do it.

The Second Amendment says "well regulated." Pretty obvious that the intent was not for every wacko and criminal to be walking around with people punchers.

Lots of people would consider such an off-topic post to be trolling.

The 2nd amendment stipulates regulations for the milita when the states decide to call it out. The right to keep and bear arms remains with THE PEOPLE, and that is not to be infringed.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You're dodging now (and not very proficiently). No one is arguing that preventing people who are ineligible to vote from voting is unreasonable. A poll tax, OTOH, is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional, and there's plenty of judicial review to support that fact.

Good thing free IDs aren't a poll tax, right?

Tell me something: If the alleged target group is poor blacks, how do they buy smokes and alcohol, and conduct any business with the government such as applying for welfare benefits or food stamps, WITHOUT a photo ID?

Because those activities require a photo ID.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're forced to conclude that those who oppose Voter ID do so because their party is aware of and condones and benefits from people voting illegally.

There really can be no other explanation.

Well, WP?

Keep your panties on. I have a life.

It's not the "free ID" that constitutes the poll tax. It's the eligibility requirements. If you have to pay a passport fee or a fee for getting a copy of your birth certificate, that's a tax, bucky.

As far as your strawman about "poor blacks" buying smokes and booze without ID, I haven't seen any data on this. Why don't you show a study of some kind, instead of simply making crap up as you go along?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The Second Amendment stops being a right when even one person has to depend on the permission of government bureaucrats to do it.

The Second Amendment says "well regulated." Pretty obvious that the intent was not for every wacko and criminal to be walking around with people punchers.

Lots of people would consider such an off-topic post to be trolling.

The 2nd amendment stipulates regulations for the milita when the states decide to call it out. The right to keep and bear arms remains with THE PEOPLE, and that is not to be infringed.

You want to debate the second with me, do it in another thread. I'm done with it here.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

One can get a copy of ones birth certificate.

Texas Vital Statistics ? Birth Certificates

If people are so concerned for the fraction of a percent of people that may not even be able to meet these requirements, nothing is stopping you from forming a charitable organzaiton whos sole purpose is to get people registered to vote and provided with the proper ID.

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

Exercising your right doesnt mean it is handed to you. 99.9% of people can meet the requirements without so much as lifting a finger. For the other 0.1% there are exemptions aplenty to help them.

"The even one person" is a cop-out.

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

 

[daveman]

Good thing free IDs aren't a poll tax, right?

Tell me something: If the alleged target group is poor blacks, how do they buy smokes and alcohol, and conduct any business with the government such as applying for welfare benefits or food stamps, WITHOUT a photo ID?

Because those activities require a photo ID.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're forced to conclude that those who oppose Voter ID do so because their party is aware of and condones and benefits from people voting illegally.

There really can be no other explanation.

Well, WP?

Keep your panties on. I have a life.

It's not the "free ID" that constitutes the poll tax. It's the eligibility requirements. If you have to pay a passport fee or a fee for getting a copy of your birth certificate, that's a tax, bucky.

As far as your strawman about "poor blacks" buying smokes and booze without ID, I haven't seen any data on this. Why don't you show a study of some kind, instead of simply making crap up as you go along?

Really?

That's the absolute best you have? Are you REALLY claiming that people don't have to show ID to buy smokes and booze?

I'm 50 years old, with gray hair. In no way do I appear less than 21. I GET CARDED BUYING CIGARETTES FOR MY WIFE.

You're dismissed, kid.

 

[daveman]

Doesn't matter: voting stops being a right when even one person has to depend on charity to do it.

Exercising your right doesnt mean it is handed to you. 99.9% of people can meet the requirements without so much as lifting a finger. For the other 0.1% there are exemptions aplenty to help them.

"The even one person" is a cop-out.

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

Voter ID: State Requirements

Some places it's as simple as being recognized by poll officials.

 

[Billo_Really]

Newser by John Johnson

Here's one tangible result from today's Supreme Court ruling that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act: Texas is going to require voters to have photo IDs "immediately," says state attorney general Greg Abbott. “Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may also take effect without approval from the federal government," he adds, according to DallasNews.com. Prior to today's court ruling, the state was one of nine that needed to clear such changes in advance with the feds. Not any more, or at least not until Congress comes up with a modern formula to determine which states and localities need that kind of "preclearance." The prospects of that happening in this Congress? Slim to none, reports the Washington Post.

Read more @ Texas Puts Voter ID in Effect After Supreme Court Ruling - Now that the Voting Rights Act can no longer stop it

Just hope a lot of other states will jump on the bandwagon!

So more white people can get votes?

 

[Billo_Really]

It seems the only way republicans can win elections these days, is to prevent people from voting democrat.

 

[Roadrunner]

It seems the only way republicans can win elections these days, is to prevent people from voting democrat.

Dems win by sicing IRS on opponents, voting multiple times, voting while dead, and voting when not citizens.

Meanwhile, Obama give Kenya $150 million to (gasp) help provide voter ID cards to reduce election fraud in Kenya.

How many years of White House tours would that $150 million fund.

Democrats are idiots, leading an idiot nation into collapse.

Great job.

 

[Roadrunner]

Exercising your right doesnt mean it is handed to you. 99.9% of people can meet the requirements without so much as lifting a finger. For the other 0.1% there are exemptions aplenty to help them.

"The even one person" is a cop-out.

Like what? (No, that's not a rhetorical question. Do tell.)

Voter ID: State Requirements

Some places it's as simple as being recognized by poll officials.

I live 1/2 mile from the polling station, my mail carrier and local grocery store employee is the poll person, I have known her, her kids and husband for years, and I still have to show my DL every time I vote.

Do I feel put upon?

Hell no, glad somebody is watching.

Funny that you have to show photo ID to enter the Federal courthouse and most state building, but somehow people think showing ID for something so important as voting is horrendous.