Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?

[kaz]

If voting is a right as is gun ownership, then obviously no extra fees, fines or taxes can be imposed on those rights….nor can their be tests of any kind that might infringe on those rights…right?

And if background checks can be used to deny people the right to own a gun….and race and the other categories can be secretly used to deny Americans their Right to guns…then background checks are unconstitutional.

No, not if background checks are used to identify criminals who have through due process had their rights removed, then that isn't secretly harming any law abiding citizen

 

[kaz]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

Again, not relevant. "The right of citizens of the United States TO VOTE..."

The amendment identifies the RIGHT as already existing.

You'll never get through to some dunces. Don't waste your time.

Word parsing. I'd say it's a liberal skill, but frankly you're so obvious about it that it isn't

 

[kaz]

We deny the right to vote to felons.

We deny the right to arms to felons.

Both of these denials are accomplished constitutionally through due process.

To ensure a felon does not vote, we do not register the felon to vote. No Voter ID needed. He never gets on the list of registered voters. If you aren't on the list, you can't vote. No matter where you go, if you aren't on the list, you can't vote.

To ensure a felon does not buy a gun, we enter his name in a database which will spit out a denial whenever that database is queried. No matter where you go, the database will spit out a denial.

This is not complicated to understand...if you want to.

80,000 felons and fugitives and other undesirables are denied the purchase of a gun every year due to background checks. Background checks are remarkably effective.

No one has ever shown Voter ID is the only way to prevent or stop the types of voter fraud which occur. Every single example of voter fraud ever upchucked by Voter ID proponents on this forum over the past several years could not have been stopped or prevented only by Voter ID. In fact, almost every example of voter fraud the rubes have given as examples were absentee voter fraud or voting more than once in different voting precincts. Voter ID does nothing to stop this fraud.

The rest of their scenarios have been imaginary ones.

You can defeat those rare cases of the dead voting by simply purging the dead from voter registration lists.

Nope. Voter ID is completely ineffective, and in fact gives the Voter ID rubes a false sense of security. Everywhere Voter ID is the law, the same types of voter fraud continue unabated. The big scary black woman the Voter ID rubes like to tout for voting six times for Obama achieved her fraud in a state which has strict Voter ID.

Background checks: effective. Voter ID: ineffective.

So the long and short of all this is that comparing background checks to Voter ID is an apples to oranges fallacy.

Your view of whether IDs are needed for voting isn't the question, it's a Constitutional question, Holmes.

Is checking your ID to buy a gun a violation of your Constitutional rights?

Is checking your ID to vote a violation of your Constitutional rights?

There are four possible logical outcomes to those two yes/no questions, and based on that, you answer the appropriate one of the four answers above.

Do you think we need to check ID isn't a question in this thread for either guns or voting. I mean that's butt obvious if you read the poll and OP post, yet somehow, amazingly, you missed that...

 

[kaz]

If voting is a right as is gun ownership, then obviously no extra fees, fines or taxes can be imposed on those rights….nor can their be tests of any kind that might infringe on those rights…right?

And if background checks can be used to deny people the right to own a gun….and race and the other categories can be secretly used to deny Americans their Right to guns…then background checks are unconstitutional.

Except background checks are not used to deny a race access to guns, nor are they used to deny people the right to own a gun other than criminals and other undesirables through due process.

So what about registration fees for guns.

Constitutionally, we can't charge a "poll tax" for voting. Should we be able to charge a fee for an actual Constitutional right, gun ownership?

What if we charge a tax for abortion? You know, $10, maybe $10,000? We don't outlaw it. Does that work for you?

 

[Seawytch]

Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Fifteenth amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged..."

you missed the rest of it, it's a critical difference. Are you being dishonest or are you actually functionally illiterate?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It says States cannot restrict voting FOR THOSE REASONS

He also left out the crucial "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment too.

 

[g5000]

Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Fifteenth amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged..."

you missed the rest of it, it's a critical difference. Are you being dishonest or are you actually functionally illiterate?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It says States cannot restrict voting FOR THOSE REASONS

It was claimed the Constitution does not say we have a right to vote.

I proved it does.

Done.

 

[kaz]

Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Fifteenth amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged..."

you missed the rest of it, it's a critical difference. Are you being dishonest or are you actually functionally illiterate?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It says States cannot restrict voting FOR THOSE REASONS

He also left out the crucial "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment too.

Which was an explanation rather than a qualification if you possessed high school reading skills, which sadly you don't

 

[kaz]

Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Fifteenth amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged..."

you missed the rest of it, it's a critical difference. Are you being dishonest or are you actually functionally illiterate?

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

It says States cannot restrict voting FOR THOSE REASONS

It was claimed the Constitution does not say we have a right to vote.

I proved it does.

Done.

No, it doesn't say that other than with your word parsing. It says voting cannot be restricted for specific reasons, it does not say who it does have to be provided to. Children cannot vote, are you saying their rights are violated?

 

[g5000]

If voting is a right as is gun ownership, then obviously no extra fees, fines or taxes can be imposed on those rights….nor can their be tests of any kind that might infringe on those rights…right?

And if background checks can be used to deny people the right to own a gun….and race and the other categories can be secretly used to deny Americans their Right to guns…then background checks are unconstitutional.

Except background checks are not used to deny a race access to guns, nor are they used to deny people the right to own a gun other than criminals and other undesirables through due process.

So what about registration fees for guns.

Constitutionally, we can't charge a "poll tax" for voting. Should we be able to charge a fee for an actual Constitutional right, gun ownership?

What if we charge a tax for abortion? You know, $10, maybe $10,000? We don't outlaw it. Does that work for you?

Do you think guns should be free since they are a right? After all, having to pay for a gun prevents some people from exercising that right.

 

[martybegan]

No, it doesn't. Try to find the text that says it does, good luck with that.

There are restrictions on why you don't allow someone to vote. For example, you can't say it's for their race and you can't charge a poll tax. Nowhere does it say you have a right to vote

Wrong.

The phrase appears for the first time in theFourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

...that's for starters.

Actually all it does is reduce congressional representation, it doesn't ban anything.

Please. Even you should be able to figure out that the right to vote includes the right to the vote being counted.

Under this amendment, they could deny voting to the persons as described, and it would only have impact on their # of electors for president, and their representation in the house.

The 15th amendment is a far better example, but again, it only gives certain limits to voter requirements.

The above amendment directly refers to 'the right to vote'. If there is no such thing, why is it mentioned?

The right still comes from the States, all the feds are doing is saying certain conditions the States cannot use to determine eligibility.

 

[martybegan]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

Again, not relevant. "The right of citizens of the United States TO VOTE..."

The amendment identifies the RIGHT as already existing.

Which flows through the State you live in, not from the federal government, which only gives conditions via the constitution and amendments.

It is the crux of federalism, something I know progressives want to either ignore or destroy.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Can government check ID to buy a gun and vote?"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Although inalienable, the rights to possess a firearm and to vote are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government. (See e.g. DC v. Heller)

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that background checks are Constitutional as a reasonable regulatory measure.

This is not the case with regard to requiring citizens to show ID to vote when they are already registered to vote, are listed on registration rolls as being eligible to vote, and have already provided the required ID when initially registering to vote.

The issue therefore concerns what regulatory measures are Constitutional with regard to possession of firearms and voting, and what regulatory measures are not.

Consequently, there's nothing 'inconsistent' with requiring background checks and providing an ID to purchase a firearm while not requiring a citizen lawfully registered to vote to cast a ballot absent providing an ID.

I agree it is a poor comparison.
But it is perfectly reasonable to check to make certain the person waiting to cast a ballot is the same person who registered. too many dead people, illegals, people from outside a district vote. The integrity of the voting process is worth insuring.
On guns it makes no difference whether we check ID or not. A dangerous felon will get a gun if he wants one to use for criminal purposes. I dont argue the state cannot legally mandate checking ID. I do argue that doing so is ineffective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.

The phrase appears for the first time in theFourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

...that's for starters.

Actually all it does is reduce congressional representation, it doesn't ban anything.

Please. Even you should be able to figure out that the right to vote includes the right to the vote being counted.

Under this amendment, they could deny voting to the persons as described, and it would only have impact on their # of electors for president, and their representation in the house.

The 15th amendment is a far better example, but again, it only gives certain limits to voter requirements.

The above amendment directly refers to 'the right to vote'. If there is no such thing, why is it mentioned?

The right still comes from the States, all the feds are doing is saying certain conditions the States cannot use to determine eligibility.

No it doesn't. You need to learn to give up.

The federal government dictates to the States who they must allow to vote. The States cannot restrict that right in conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

That is why the Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution, federal law, and the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

the supreme law of the land.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

Again, not relevant. "The right of citizens of the United States TO VOTE..."

The amendment identifies the RIGHT as already existing.

Which flows through the State you live in, not from the federal government, which only gives conditions via the constitution and amendments.

It is the crux of federalism, something I know progressives want to either ignore or destroy.

Given that you concede that the federal government has the power to dictate voting rights to the states, the rest of your attempted point is demolished therein.

 

[martybegan]

Actually all it does is reduce congressional representation, it doesn't ban anything.

Please. Even you should be able to figure out that the right to vote includes the right to the vote being counted.

Under this amendment, they could deny voting to the persons as described, and it would only have impact on their # of electors for president, and their representation in the house.

The 15th amendment is a far better example, but again, it only gives certain limits to voter requirements.

The above amendment directly refers to 'the right to vote'. If there is no such thing, why is it mentioned?

The right still comes from the States, all the feds are doing is saying certain conditions the States cannot use to determine eligibility.

No it doesn't. You need to learn to give up.

The federal government dictates to the States who they must allow to vote. The States cannot restrict that right in conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

That is why the Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution, federal law, and the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

the supreme law of the land.

But the right to vote still flows from being a citizen of a given State, not the federal government.

 

[martybegan]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

Again, not relevant. "The right of citizens of the United States TO VOTE..."

The amendment identifies the RIGHT as already existing.

Which flows through the State you live in, not from the federal government, which only gives conditions via the constitution and amendments.

It is the crux of federalism, something I know progressives want to either ignore or destroy.

Given that you concede that the federal government has the power to dictate voting rights to the states, the rest of your attempted point is demolished therein.

States still determine voting eligibility, even if constrained by federal requirements. What I am saying is perfect valid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

lol, specific to sex? That doesn't mean anything to support your attempted point.

 

[martybegan]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

lol, specific to sex? That doesn't mean anything to support your attempted point.

Yes, it does, its just another condition the constitution places on a State when it determines voter eligibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please. Even you should be able to figure out that the right to vote includes the right to the vote being counted.

Under this amendment, they could deny voting to the persons as described, and it would only have impact on their # of electors for president, and their representation in the house.

The 15th amendment is a far better example, but again, it only gives certain limits to voter requirements.

The above amendment directly refers to 'the right to vote'. If there is no such thing, why is it mentioned?

The right still comes from the States, all the feds are doing is saying certain conditions the States cannot use to determine eligibility.

No it doesn't. You need to learn to give up.

The federal government dictates to the States who they must allow to vote. The States cannot restrict that right in conflict with the Constitution or with federal law.

That is why the Constitution has a Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution, federal law, and the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

the supreme law of the land.

But the right to vote still flows from being a citizen of a given State, not the federal government.

Wrong. You are a citizen of the United States. You are a resident of any given state. The Constitution gives US citizens the right to vote, period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 19th Amendment -

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Note that the amendments opens by declaring that there is in fact right to vote.

again, specific to sex.

lol, specific to sex? That doesn't mean anything to support your attempted point.

Yes, it does, its just another condition the constitution places on a State when it determines voter eligibility.

The states don't 'determine' anything. The states carry out the voting rights mandates that the federal government has set. The states are BOUND by the federal government to assure all voters get the rights that the federal government has secured for them.