Clinton Judge Over-Rules Voter-ID

Email Print posted by KenTX 12/22/2007 11:32:34 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
A Florida judge (appointed by Bill Clinton of course) over-ruled a two year old Florida law requiring a match with social security or drivers license when registering to vote. 

This ruling will certainly be reversed upon appeal.

Why do Democrats fight Voter ID?

What are they afraid of?

Do they believe in some constitutional right to cheat at the polls?
< Right-wing trolls work to form labor union | Buying The War >
 Display:
Clinton Judge Over-Rules Voter-ID | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden)
You make it way too easy (none / 0)
Interesting, why did you only mention that one judge? Answer: It's clear why you're fighting FOR it.

"...The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.
 

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.


Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan..."

by ihavenobias on 12/22/2007 01:24:55 PM EST

You are right about ONLY one thing. (none / 0)
You are correct when you say thay the Supreme Court will determine the outcome of this issue.

Common sense would dictate that 99.999% of all voters possess either a social security card or a drivers license.

Furthermore, the states that have been successful at implementing Voter ID have a provisional ballot option. When a voter shows up at the polls without proper ID, they are given a provisional ballot. In the event of a Florida-style razors-edge election, provisional ballots can be counted only after voters are verified.

drivers license + social security card + provisional ballot = slam dunk!

So what are your excuses now? Other than an innate Chicago Democrat desire to cheat like Mayor Daley.

by KenTX on 12/22/2007 01:41:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken the idealist strikes again (none / 0)

"Furthermore, the states that have been successful at implementing Voter ID have a provisional ballot option."

"In the 2004 election, more than one million provisional ballots were cast but not counted...Meant to address widespread problems seen in the 2000 elections, they are a well-intentioned idea that has been exploited by those who would discourage certain communities from voting." - The New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America

"those" = Republicans

by MedfordTim on 12/24/2007 09:03:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Provisional Ballots (none / 0)
Provisional ballots are counted only in the event of a close election. They don't matter if the election isn't close. Understand?

If you recall the aftermath of the 2000 election, every provisional ballot in Florida was subjected to intense scrutiny. For example, Team Gore was working very hard to reject military ballots.

"Count every vote", indeed.

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 09:15:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tell it to another Ken (none / 0)
Blackwell, that is...

Fess up, Ken - The Dems did a good job in Chicago in '60 of subverting the process, but the Republicans took it to a new level in 2000.

I really am shocked that a libertarian minded person like you would support further government intrusions into personal lives.

by MedfordTim on 12/24/2007 09:42:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fair trade (none / 0)
I'm sitting around at boring family gatherings, blogging on my blackberry so I can endure the boredom. If you guys want to get rid of electronic voting and go back to paper ballots, fine and dandy. But we demand Voter ID, and we're gonna get it. Then we will see which side has been cheating!

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 11:59:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Who's we? (none / 0)

Like I showed you before, voter ID laws is going to have to come from the federal level for federal elections or the state can loose half or better it's representation in Washington.

You could always contact your Republican congressman. I'm sure Ron Paul will be sympathetic (snicker) to your big government, big brother, fascist ideas.

Papers!?!?! 

by z1p101 on 12/24/2007 12:34:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0)
there is proof the change put in place by the GOP- controlled Legislature has resulted in "actual harm to real individuals."

Of course that result is exactly what the republicans wanted

Of course republicans cant win on issues so they rig elections any way they can

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/22/2007 01:31:25 PM EST

God damn piece of paper (none / 0)

US constitution, amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

US constitution, amendment 15

1. 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.

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

I know how much neo cons like yourself hate the constitution but this one is pretty simple. The rules for federal elections are made at the federal and not state level. The states are only responsible for running the elections.

Now if you choose to make a rebuttal, please make an intelligent one this time because your usual propaganda spin is getting tired. 

 

by z1p101 on 12/22/2007 10:40:45 PM EST

I'm through wasting time on you. (none / 0)
“The rules for federal elections are made at the federal and not state level. The states are only responsible for running the elections.”
I try to spoon feed you information in small bites, because you’ve demonstrated severe capacity limitations for processing new data. I find myself spending an inordinate amount of time filling in the gaps on your apparent deficient education.

Here is an overview of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. Please pay particular attention to this concept
“The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors, but in practice, all states have chosen electors by popular vote.”

That’s why the 2000 presidential election came down to detailed analysis of Florida law. If the Florida legislature had passed laws specifying Electors to be chosen by coin toss rather than by popular vote, the nation would have been intently watching Katherine Harris flipping coins.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution simply states that states may not prevent a citizen from voting because of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude (slavery).

What we are discussing here is whether the Supreme Court will allow states to require some form of identification when a person goes to the polls to vote. The issue has nothing to do with the Fifteenth Amendment.

“Now if you choose to make a rebuttal, please make an intelligent one this time because your usual propaganda spin is getting tired.”
Let me communicate this to you as clearly as possible, so please pay attention. You are not an intelligent person. In fact, you have become a complete waste of my time. 

by KenTX on 12/23/2007 10:31:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong again (none / 0)

Article 2 discuses the electoral college, how many representatives each state can have and how they can vote. It does not discuss the rules for individual citizens voting. If you ever bothered to read something that you linked to you would have quickly realized that. There is a reason that all these judges from different states are shooting down these voter I.D. laws and it is not because they were all appointed by Clinton. It is because it is unconstitutional.

I am not a lawyer but 15th amendment, part 2 which I underlined for you, clearly states that rules for who can and can not vote on election day comes from the federal level.

I also found the 23rd amendment in your link and I am noticing a trend here.

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Once again you fail. I can't believe it. I just quickly scanned the constitution and found 2 things relevant to state and individual voter rights, fully expecting you to have something prepared and you let me down.

Now if there is something in article two or anything else in the constitution that pertains to individual citizen voter rights let me know. 

by z1p101 on 12/23/2007 11:28:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you feeling dumb yet? (none / 0)
“Article 2 discuses the electoral college, how many representatives each state can have and how they can vote.”

And how they are chosen! The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures direct. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors. A state legislature does not have to allow citizens to directly vote for president. A state can simply allow mayors of every village, town, and city to select Electors if they want to write the law that way.

“It does not discuss the rules for individual citizens voting.”

If a state allows individuals citizens to vote for president, then they cannot discriminate against black people. The reason is because the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, explicitly saying that states cannot discriminate against black people when they vote.

If a state allows individuals citizens to vote for president, then they cannot discriminate against women. The reason is because the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, explicitly saying that states cannot discriminate against women when they vote.

The Fifteenth Amendment and Nineteenth Amendment are amendments to the Constitution. There is nothing in the Fifteenth Amendment about discriminating against people who do not have drivers licenses or social security cards.

This is called the Theory of Originalism. If Americans want to guarantee voting rights to people with no identification, then there needs to be another constitutional amendment, because the original signers didn’t care about the rules that state legislatures imposed when selecting Electors. The original signers didn’t care if states prevented women or black people or people without identification from voting. That’s why we have had a few constitutional amendments giving people the right to vote.

by KenTX on 12/23/2007 12:04:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh ya (none / 0)
Ya thats right I guess people forgot that states have no rights in the eyes of a conservative.  Thanks for reminding everyone.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/23/2007 12:39:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's better (none / 0)

There is the KenTX I know. Using logical points to make an argument instead of a lot of propaganda BS. But lets look at what you said here.

"The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures direct. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors. A state legislature does not have to allow citizens to directly vote for president. A state can simply allow mayors of every village, town, and city to select Electors if they want to write the law that way."

True, but lets tell the people in any state that they no longer can vote for the president and we will have people  who are all ready elected make that choice for them. Can you say lead balloon? So lets get to the fact that each states voters votes picks the electoral voters that will represent that state. BTW, I am not apposed to splitting them up on a percentage of how each state voted. Simple example, state X's voters voted 60% for the Republican candidate and 40% for the Democratic one and X has 10 electoral votes so 6 get picked by Republicans and 4 get picked by democrats.

That out of the way, lets get back to it. Like I said before, I just threw some stuff out there to see what would happen. Now I just simply googled the juges rulings and the point to the 1st an 14th amendments. Let's look at the 14th amendment, spesifically the second section, shall we?

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But 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, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Using your "Theory of Originalism"  that simply states that any state law that denies a citizen the right to vote because they do not have the proper ID runs the risk of not only loosing House Representative seats, but also crucial electoral votes. I do believe that is the lid to the Pandora's box that these judges are trying to keep a lid on.

I do not know. If I was rooting for Democrats this voter ID thing in red states could work to my advantage. As always, your rebuttal is welcome.

by z1p101 on 12/23/2007 02:54:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's it Ken (none / 0)
Go ahead and do this again when you know you have lost.

by z1p101 on 12/24/2007 07:02:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I purposely ignored it. (none / 0)
After reading this sentence, I started feeling sorry for you.
“Using your "Theory of Originalism"  that simply states that any state law that denies a citizen the right to vote because they do not have the proper ID runs the risk of not only loosing House Representative seats, but also crucial electoral votes.”

I didn’t have the heart to rub your nose in the congressional apportionment process.

I didn’t want to point out that reapportionment of congressional representatives is determined by a state’s census count rather than a state’s voter count.

I ignored your post to save you from embarrassment, as I have done many times this year.

While we’re at it, Steely Dan is not one person. We get fringe benefits, not French benefits. It's not the Leaning Tower of Pizza. James Dean was an actor. Jimmy Dean makes sausages.

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 07:28:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I thought Jimmy Dean was a singer (none / 0)
Who sold sausages

Jimmy Dean

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 12/24/2007 08:37:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OMG (none / 0)

Please do not tell me you are that stupid.

Your first link talks about Article I, Section 2 which you already mentioned but in that link there is this line.

"Ratified in 1865, Amendment XIV, Section 2, to the Constitution gave additional guidance on conducting the census."

You can find Amendment XIV, section 2 in my post here. Hint, it has a 2 in front of it. Once again, you have linked to something that destroys your argument and I can't believe it.

Your second link is irrelevant unless you can explain to the class how it is. 

Basically, the only 2 reasons (according to the constitution) that you can deny a US citizen from voting is if they are if they are guilty of insurrection or some other crime. Nowhere is a valid ID mentioned. Are you willing to ignore the theory of originalism? If one citizen is denied their right to vote in a state for their federal representatives other than what Amendment XIV states, the states representation can be cut in half or better in Washington. This is according to your links of course.

Ken, if you really want me to stop humiliating you, ignoring me is not the answer, learning to read is. 

by z1p101 on 12/24/2007 09:37:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
when you're in a hole, stop digging (none / 0)
Zippy made this statement: “Basically, the only 2 reasons (according to the constitution) that you can deny a US citizen from voting is if they are if they are guilty of insurrection or some other crime. Nowhere is a valid ID mentioned.”

But Zippy says that “according to the Constitution”, states are allowed to deny ex-cons the right to vote. Zippy, here’s your big chance! Find where the Constitution “mentions” the rights of states to deny voting rights to ex-cons.

I know the Founding Fathers wanted white male property owners voting, but I didn’t know they restricted ex-convicts?

Does the Constitution mention a valid drivers license or social security card? No more than it mentions ex-convicts and voting.

Within a few weeks, the Supreme Court will decide if states can require some form of identification when a voter goes to the polls. They are going to interpret the Constitution.

How much you wanna bet that KenTX is proven right and Zippy is proven wrong?

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 10:06:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I just did (none / 0)

fucknuts.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But 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, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Ex cons participated in a crime. Is the southern educational system that bad that a 6th grader or better can't figure that out? 

Keep commin. 

Keep running your mouth. Even Bush's plants are going to have to figure a way around the ole fighting 14th. 

by z1p101 on 12/24/2007 10:13:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Once again (none / 0)

please do not tell me that Ken does not understand that being found guilty of a crime means that you are sent to jail. Once released from jail you are considered an ex con(vict) and you were found guilty of a crime.

"But Zippy says that “according to the Constitution”, states are allowed to deny ex-cons the right to vote. Zippy, here’s your big chance! Find where the Constitution “mentions” the rights of states to deny voting rights to ex-cons."

Here is the line from the constitution. Amendment 14, section 2.

But 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, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

As far as I understand, an ex con was convicted of a crime. That is why they are an ex con.

Is it me or is Ken retarded? 

 

by z1p101 on 12/24/2007 10:59:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
proof that zippy is a dumbass (none / 0)
ZIPPY DUMBASS STATEMENT NUMBER 1:
“Basically, the only 2 reasons (according to the constitution) that you can deny a US citizen from voting is if they are if they are guilty of insurrection or some other crime. Nowhere is a valid ID mentioned.”

As originally written, the Constitution allowed states to abridge, disallow, or discriminate against the right of a person to vote for president for any of the following reasons:

  1. Black skin color.
  2. Brown skin color.
  3. Yellow skin color.
  4. Red skin color.
  5. Lack of a penis.
  6. Lack of a drivers license.
  7. Lack of a social security card.
  8. Lack of property.
  9. Lack of enough money to pay the poll tax.
  10. Conviction of a felony.
  11. And any other reason that a state legislature might devise for discriminating against a person.
In other words, as originally written, the Constitution said a state legislature might allow people to vote for president, or it might disallow people to vote. Furthermore, a state legislature could discriminate against any group of people for any reason by denying them voting rights.

Only after subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, was discrimination based race or sex outlawed.

There is no Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to people lacking drivers licenses or people lacking Social Security cards. Therefore state legislatures may discriminate against these people.

Do you understand how wrong your statement is?

ZIPPY DUMBASS STATEMENT NUMBER 2:
“The rules for federal elections are made at the federal and not state level.”

The Constitution says the rules for elections are made by the state legislatures. The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors.
That means you are wrong again.

ZIPPY DUMBASS STATEMENT NUMBER 3:
“Article 2 discuses the electoral college, how many representatives each state can have and how they can vote. It does not discuss the rules for individual citizens voting.”

That’s because the Constitution gives the state legislatures the authority for making the rules for individual citizens voting. The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors.

ZIPPY DUMBASS STATEMENT NUMBER 4:
“Using your "Theory of Originalism"  that simply states that any state law that denies a citizen the right to vote because they do not have the proper ID runs the risk of not only loosing House Representative seats, but also crucial electoral votes.”

The Constitution specifies that reapportionment of congressional representatives is determined by a state’s census count rather than a state’s voter count. That makes you wrong again.

by KenTX on 12/25/2007 03:16:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Proof again that Ken can't read (none / 0)

I'm not a lawyer but the overwhelming majority of judges that are shooting this law down are pointing to the same thing I am and I will cut and paste it again for you.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But 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, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

"There is no Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to people lacking drivers licenses or people lacking Social Security cards. Therefore state legislatures may discriminate against these people."

Yes there is and it is right above ya there and I underlined the two reasons that someone could not be allowed to vote.

"The Constitution says the rules for elections are made by the state legislatures. The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors."

Correct but clearly stated in the 14, if you do not follow the rules you loose half you shit as Eddie Murphy would say.

"That’s because the Constitution gives the state legislatures the authority for making the rules for individual citizens voting. The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors."

I will point you to Amendments 10 and 14 again. Not that you will read them or anything.

"The Constitution specifies that reapportionment of congressional representatives is determined by a state’s census count rather than a state’s voter count. That makes you wrong again."

From your own link again (why do you not read them before linking to them?).

Ratified in 1865, Amendment XIV, Section 2, to the Constitution gave additional guidance on conducting the census.

And I cut and pasted Amendment XIV, section 2 again for you. Please read it this time. 

BTW, the more I look into this, the more I see judges shooting this law down based on state constitutions also.

by z1p101 on 12/25/2007 08:24:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You know what (none / 0)

this reminds me of another argument that I had with Ken. Actually, it was not an argument because I was agreeing with him the entire time but he let his emotions get in the way of his judgment and as usual, his reading disability got in the way.

When was that? Oh yea. 

Now Ken, if you choose to make another post here, take a deep breath and read what you linked to and how it pertains to the state census and how the 14th amendment to the constitution redefines it. It is not that hard to understand.

Now the question is do we follow the rules that the constitution lays out or not? It clearly states who is eligible to vote in federal elections. United states citizens who are of legal age who are not guilty of insurrection or other crimes (that does include ex cons BTW). No where does it mention papers!?!?!. The 14th amendment also explains the penalty for any state that does not follow these simple guidelines. That is the magic of the amendments. They allow a change to occur in our constitution which is why it has lasted all these years.

The ball is in your court if you choose to hit it back. 

by z1p101 on 12/25/2007 01:43:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm just waiting (none / 0)
For someone to explain exactly why it is we need a "voters ID card" again?

Please give me one study that shows voter fraud on a level that would require the government to spend BILLIONS on another bureaucratic program, to yet again increase the size of our Federal Employee payroll.
 
Hell even Ken acknowledges that 99.999% of the Americans have a State issued drivers license or a federal issued Social Security Card, and while someone is answering questions explain again what exactly will I have to produce for&nb sp;the human drone in his cubicle in order to qualify for my Con approved, Federally mandated Voter ID card?

So please, please someone explain this GREAT IDEA in little words so a simple minded liberal like myself can wrap my iddy bitty mind around it.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Ben

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 12/25/2007 10:28:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's how it works. (none / 0)
"Please give me one study that shows voter fraud on a level that would require the government to spend BILLIONS on another bureaucratic program, to yet again increase the size of our Federal Employee payroll."

You show up to the polls on election day and present your voter registration card along with your drivers license to the friendly poll workers. You already do all of that, minus the drivers license. That doesn't cost BILLIONS. In fact, it doesn't cost anything.

We can eliminate all fraud if voters simply show their drivers license, like they do when purchasing beer.

There's only one minor problem that is likely to develop. Votes for Democrats will probably drop about 10%. Too bad. 
poll workers

by KenTX on 12/25/2007 10:52:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 0)

When you add in the 20% of people who are no longer voting for Republicans because the party has betrayed them it is pretty much an even swap.

Any more bright ideas Mr. Wizard? While you are at it, have you figured out that mysterious criminal to ex con link yet?

Run, run away. 

by z1p101 on 12/25/2007 11:15:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rights (none / 0)
You might be overthinking this, Hubble. I don't recall anyone making a serious attempt to create a new ID card exclusively for voting. I think KenTX is just asking that voters present currently available forms of proof of identity.

An ID requirement is not an infringement of your right to vote any more than an ID requirement is an infringement of your Second Amendment right to buy a gun.

by Twba on 12/26/2007 04:13:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Timely Article. (none / 0)
This article from today’s Washington Post does a good job of outlining the issue addressed in this thread. Within days, the Supreme Court will take up the issue of whether state laws requiring voters to present identification at the polls is a violation of the Constitution.

After the decision comes down, z1p101 will once again be proven wrong and KenTX will be proven correct. My track record at beating this clown is so consistently good, that I remain “supremely” confident.

Zippy's study of the Constitution is similar to how the apes studied the obelisk in 2001, A Space
Odyssey.
zippy and the constitution

He makes a lot of noise and bone rattling, but not much sense.
zippy discovers his first tool

by KenTX on 12/26/2007 09:57:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
GAME, SET, MATCH (none / 0)
“Now the question is do we follow the rules that the constitution lays out or not? It clearly states who is eligible to vote in federal elections. United States citizens who are of legal age who are not guilty of insurrection or other crimes (that does include ex cons BTW). No where does it mention papers!?!?!. The 14th amendment also explains the penalty for any state that does not follow these simple guidelines. That is the magic of the amendments. They allow a change to occur in our constitution which is why it has lasted all these years.
The ball is in your court if you choose to hit it back.” 

I’ve just been waiting patiently for you to overreach. You’re predictable like that, and this is the reason you're always easy to defeat.

You’ve probably never even heard of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It was ratified in 1964 to make poll taxes illegal. Poll taxes were introduced in the South to circumvent the Fourteenth Amendment and prevent black people from voting. This strategy worked for nearly one hundred years.

I can use the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to destroy every argument you’ve made in this thread.

As you said yourself, no where does the Fourteenth Amendment mention papers (or poll taxes or drivers licenses) in connection with the right to vote. Yet the Constitution gives state legislatures wide latitude in making up the rules regarding voting for Electors in a presidential election. The rules in states like IN, AZ, FL, MO include showing up at the polls with your drivers license.

by KenTX on 12/26/2007 10:22:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll give you a hint. (none / 0)
You might try to use something with the initials "EPC".

But I am ready to counter.

by KenTX on 12/26/2007 11:00:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Woah (none / 0)

You actually read it instead of running your mouth as usual. What happened? Did you take the short bus to see your reading tutor today and he explained why it was a bad idea to link to the things you did?

Anyway, I'll bite, what does the outlawing of poll taxes have to do with what we are talking about other than that being one of the reasons that many judges are shooting down the voter ID idea?

Oh yea, when have you ever beaten me? I have tipped my hat to both arcroso and even BB in the past but I do not ever remember loosing to you. 

What are you going to do? Point to that first thread again? I still put an either or in there and Republicans are loosing support nation wide just like I said. 

by z1p101 on 12/26/2007 04:13:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
C'mon Ken (none / 0)

explain it to me.

"I can use the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to destroy every argument you’ve made in this thread."

Like I said. If I am wrong I alwasys man up and not run away like a little girl like you do. I can show you where you have run away in the past with MRFred and others.

Explain it to me pleeese. 

 

by z1p101 on 12/26/2007 08:29:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
states still have rights (none / 0)
“Anyway, I'll bite, what does the outlawing of poll taxes have to do with what we are talking about other than that being one of the reasons that many judges are shooting down the voter ID idea? Explain it to me pleeese.”
Man, I’m getting tired of this. I keep explaining it to you, and you don’t seem to be able to grasp it.

Here is an overview of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution. Please pay particular attention to this concept:
“The President and Vice President are chosen by Electors chosen as the state legislatures directs. The Constitution does not limit how a state may choose its electors, but in practice, all states have chosen electors by popular vote.”

As originally written, the Constitution allowed the states to discriminate against any group of people in determining who was allowed to vote. Originally, the only group of people who were given the franchise were white, male, property owners 21 years of age or older. Everyone else was excluded, not by the Constitution, but by prerogative of state legislatures. If New York wanted to give five year old black girls the vote, then it was fine, according to the Constitution.

The Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, explicitly saying that states cannot discriminate against black people when they vote.

The Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, explicitly saying that states cannot discriminate against women when they vote.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment was ratified in 1964, explicitly saying that states cannot discriminate against people lacking the money for a poll tax.

Prior to these constitutional amendments, it was legal for states to discriminate against various segments of the population, because the original framers of the Constitution gave the power for making all the rules to individual state legislatures.

But we are still missing “Zippy’s Constitutional Amendment”, the one that explicitly says that states cannot discriminate against people who have no drivers license or social security card or other form of government identification when they go to vote.

The overwhelming majority of Americans of voting age have some form of government issued ID. For those lacking ID, the state of Georgia is even willing to drive out to your house and hand deliver free government identification. 
 
The Supreme Court is about to make the call on this issue, and I will be disappointed if the ruling is not 9-0 in favor of Voter ID.

by KenTX on 12/26/2007 09:58:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
NY (none / 0)

A Clinton judge in NY recently dismissed a case against an illegal alien who was driving without a license because he thought driver's licenses were unconstitutional unless they were also given to illegal aliens.

 

activism at its best. 

by acroso on 12/23/2007 02:07:53 AM EST

ya but (none / 0)
Well you ARE a strict constitutionalist. heh

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/23/2007 12:40:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Activist Judges" (none / 0)
When a conservative says "activist judges" they mean any judge that's not blatantly conservative in their ruling(s).

When a judge has an "activist" ruling that involves a conservative ruling, he/she is not considered to be an activist judge.

by ihavenobias on 12/23/2007 12:48:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cpte the case, bitch (none / 0)
Don't throw out accusations without at least a link to some right-wing blowhole "news" site.

Thank you, though, for making an effort with your photo sizing. It is appreciated.

by MedfordTim on 12/24/2007 09:08:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Afriad (none / 0)

Why are you so afraid of the constitution Ken?

 Why do you love facism so much?

by Randomambusher on 12/23/2007 08:49:05 PM EST

I think Rando is close (none / 0)
Perhaps I’m squeamish about “voter ID” because I view it as just one more step towards State mandated compulsory ID and I just have a big problem with The State telling me I must have identification.

The Great Science Fiction character Lazarus Long  said “When a place gets crowded enough to require Id's, social collapse is not far away.” And I tend to believe him.

Every time I see Voter ID, or “The Real ID” my paranoia kicks into high gear my mind begins to picture swastika clad thugs demanding to see “my papers” at the risk of me being sent off to the detention center until “we sort this all out”.

Now I’m not saying that in the normal course of business I shouldn’t be required to “prove” I am who I am, but for the state to mandate I must prove I am who I say I am just because some ass clown with a gun and a badge says so seems to me dangerous at the very least. Besides if anyone has paid any attention to the current wave of identity theft that is sweeping the country and ruining peoples lives I find it difficult to believe that anyone can seriously believe an “ID” is going to solve the imagined wave of illegal voters that are marching in masse to the polls to “steal” our elections.

Oh that's right they can't figure out a way to produce a paper trail for touch screen voting machines but they've got the entire fake ID thing solved. 

Thankfully as a nation we have solved all the REAL issues that plague our country so now CONS can focus on the only important issue left in this country  the stopping  all those "illegals" from voting.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 12/23/2007 09:19:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What a ridiculous argument. (none / 0)
It takes ID to buy beer.

It takes ID to buy cigarettes.

It takes ID to get on a plane.

It takes ID to rent a movie.

It takes ID to drive a car.

It takes ID to buy a gun.

It takes ID to check into a hotel.

It takes ID to get a job.

It takes ID to draw unemployment.

It takes ID to obtain welfare.

by KenTX on 12/23/2007 09:48:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken does know how to argue ridiculously (none / 0)
As I said I don't object to having to Id myself in the course of business, but if I don't drive, drink, smoke, fly, draw unemployment, welfare, or any of the other things you list, why should I have to have an ID to prove to you or anyone else who I am? I know several people who have managed to go through life without Id's, and they are hardworking tax paying loyal Americans who almost always vote conservative, yet the idea of having the government force them to have an ID is as repugnant to them as it is to me.

AGAIN, it is the idea of a GOVERNMENT mandated ID for the sake of making me ID for no reason that I find objectionable, and I'm surprised that REAL conservatives don't understand the implications that implies.

Now "May I see YOUR papers please?"


I'll say again, we can't fix voting machines to give us a paper trail, yet you seem to believe that the very same government you loath as incompetent is going to provide  an "ID" card that is foolproof when it comes to stopping the imagined millions and millions of people committing voter fraud.

The only person I'm aware that this "foolproof" ID would have stopped from voting is your girl friend anorexic Anne Coulter. 

This is a stupid issue, with stupid solutions offered up by.....

Merry Christmas everyone.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 12/24/2007 06:06:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah...sure (none / 0)
"I know several people who have managed to go through life without Id's, and they are hardworking tax paying loyal Americans."

And they don't have a social security card either, right?

I'm sorry for not taking you seriously here, but I don't.

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 09:00:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Orwell isnt just for breakfast anymore (none / 0)
Legally you dont have to show your ID to a police officer if they ask. So someone is thinking along your lines.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/24/2007 12:00:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're out of your depth, Donny (none / 0)
Legally you dont have to show your ID to a police officer if they ask.

Are you sure about that?

by Twba on 12/24/2007 12:30:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
An interesting read (none / 0)
...and another example of the SCOTUS blowing it heavily.

Damn those activist judges, eh?

Twba's right - it depends on which state you live in as to how many of the Constitution's guarantees apply. The Bill of Rights should have a disclaimer - "Your results may vary."

Not that cops give half a damn about the law. They'll make up anything they have to in order to justify a "stop." (quotes are because I can't wrap my logic-sense around how a cop can make a "stop" on a vehicle that isn't moving or a person who is standing still...) The system is geared to supporting the government employee, not the citizen.

Especially if you're poor.

by MedfordTim on 12/24/2007 03:49:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who the fuck is Donny (none / 0)
Yea Im sure about that. In fact Im possitive.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/24/2007 04:35:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Theodore Donald 'Donny' Kerabatsos (none / 0)
You're out of your element, Donny.

by Twba on 12/24/2007 10:38:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Dude Abides (none / 0)
Didn't Donny's ashes end up on Jeff Bridges' windshield?

By the way, if you ever get the goods on Tiny, please share it with us!

by KenTX on 12/25/2007 03:27:55 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tumblin' Tumbleweed (none / 0)
They ended up on Jeff Bridges's sunglasses.  I don't know which is worse for Donnie.

by OneHitKill on 12/25/2007 11:21:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes Im sure about that skippy (none / 0)
 As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
Out of my depth? Hardly, as you trolls are from the shallow end of the gene pool.

You joining the troll union? Im sure even "classic liberals" are welcome.

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/24/2007 04:51:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love optimism but history tells me (none / 0)
If you give the cons just a little they take EVERYTHING.

While technically true that a citizen is not required to "show their papers" at this time; start mandating a "Federal ID card" and it's only a matter of time before some Con judge is going to rule that you must present it upon demand to insure you really are "one of us".

I remember when seat belt laws first appeared upon the scene. I must say I favor seat belt laws for minors and the mentally impaired and think in general as an idea a seat belt law is not a particularly bad one. The problem I have is when these laws were first introduced civil liberty groups raised concerns that they would be used by law enforcement officers as "probable cause" to stop an otherwise law abiding citizen.

In several states including here in Georgia the public was assured that police couldn't use a mere seat belt violation as probable cause to pull someone over and it would be used only as additional charges to some other traffic violation.

Fast forward in Georgia to a mere year later when a Con judge ruled that it was indeed probable cause to stop someone over a mere seat belt violation. This is true in many States now. You have to look at the EXACT wording of the law and how these activist Con judges interpret it to mean something our lawmakers assured us it didn't. Don't you just hate it when judges create law instead of enforcing it?

Ken believe it or not I know several people who indeed have a Social Security Number but couldn't produce a card if they had to, and I know that living in a marginally Southern State like you do almost all people 16 and older have a drivers license but if you ever get out and go to some of our larger cities you would be amazed at the number of people who don't have a DL.  New York city has a very large number of people who don't have a DL. I support these people having a means to acquire an ID for when business demands they need it, but that's a little different than the subject here.

Now the question I have is, I have a valid DL, and I have a Social Security card why do I need a voters ID card, AND what form of ID would I be required to produce to actually get a Voters ID card, and if I already possess the credentials to prove I am who I say I am why do I need another form of Identification to verify it? Does the phrase Catch 22 mean anything to anyone besides me?

By the way if we go with you supposition that "Common sense would dictate that 99.999% of all voters possess either a social security card or a drivers license." explain again to me the reason we need to spend Billions of our taxpayers dollars to verify people who the government already has verified? Certainly you can't be proposing that we need to protect that .001% of the population.

Oh I get it this is that compassionate conservatism we have been hearing about for so long looking out for the minuscule minorities. See Cons really do care you just have to be a very teeny tiny minority for them to.

I still say requiring "voter ID cards" is one step away from a "Federal ID" which is a mere step away from "May I see your papers please."

Of course I always get paranoid when the Cons tell me something is good for the country.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 12/24/2007 10:07:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
SanFran Donny? (none / 0)
and they call it puppy love

by KenTX on 12/24/2007 06:21:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Texas Marie? (none / 0)
 

--- Truth To Power

by Leeberal on 12/24/2007 08:51:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
kid (none / 0)
That kid reminded me of Tom Brady for some reason.

by acroso on 12/26/2007 02:57:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Shh! Ken, don't look now, but... (none / 0)
You're doing a damn fine job of underscoring Hubble's point...

by MedfordTim on 12/24/2007 09:31:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Outta my wallet (none / 0)

By the way, you forgot "It takes ID to buy the All-Nude Republicans issue of Hot Grannie Magazine."  But here's the good news, Ken.  Get ready to smile big.

WE HAVE ID FOR ALL THOSE THINGS AND MORE ALREADY. 

Ken has said before that he wants the government out of his wallet.  It stands to reason, then, you he wants them out of his wallet for ANY purpose, be it removing money OR inserting an unnecessary new ID card.

by OneHitKill on 12/27/2007 09:17:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pretty good argument Jesse. (none / 0)
The reason I have no problem with using hard-earned taxpayer money to provide identification to voters who lack a drivers license or social security card is because there might be as many as two or three such people in the entire country.

If you don't have a social security card, and you don't have a drivers license, you must be locked away somewhere in a home for the infirm. That means you ain't voting.

by KenTX on 12/27/2007 11:21:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Jim Cro-servative (none / 0)

Way back in the day, when the Republican party flushed the party principles down the toilet and extended their grubby little hands to the Southern racist crowd, the newly minted  Republicans brought with them a whole bag full of old tactics to suppress minority voting.

Always a favorite of the new southern Republicans were attempts to stop "voter fraud". Part of this jihad against suffrage were poll taxes, literacy tests , special id requirements, extensive residency verifications,  changing precinct boundaries just before the elections or lots of redneck cops hanging around minority polling places among other things...

The Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud in 2002, but despite its efforts the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews. "If they found a single case of a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Congressional election or a statewide election, that would be significant," said Richard L. Hasen, an expert in election law at the Loyola Law School, "But what we see is isolated, small-scale activities that often have not shown any kind of criminal intent."

 

Nothing has changed very much, right massa?


 


by MRFred on 12/24/2007 01:41:40 PM EST

Clinton Judge Over-Rules Voter-ID | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: