This should be my last contribution to this sidetrack, as we are debating in analogy, not actual vaccines safety, but the anti-vaxxers are not pointing at that list when they refuse to get their children vaccinated. They are worried about autism, which is factually not an issue.
The point being, that people can be worried about things (and worried enough to expose their own child and community to perfectly preventable but pretty terrible diseases) that are absolutely factually not something to worry about.
Like DA said, facts, not people’s “feewings” should determine public policy.
And as I’ve said on a few occasions in this thread and others, if you are worried about confidence in the electoral process, then getting rid of, or at least drastically reducing the availability of absentee ballots would be orders of magnitude more useful than increasing the strictness of Voter ID. I have yet to have heard a neutral justification for the one that does not demand the other.
I am struggling to understand the point you trying to make with this - but I think you are trying to compare the burden of the two instances against the two separate rights. If that’s the case, that doesn’t make sense as the burden would be with respect to the right itself, not the relative burden across different rights.
(asked twice, once about states that don’t let you get an ID later, and once about states that charge for ids)
Alabama appears to have insufficient procedures, according to this page
Can you get an official photo id in Alabama in 3 days? I don’t think you can get one in California. Maybe you can, and this doesn’t qualify.
The magnitudes of the implications would have to be not relative, is what I’m getting at, if I’m understanding you correctly. The magnitude of the implication to a right to purchase firearms in the 2nd amendment would have to be significantly less than the magnitude of the implication to a right to purchase ink and paper in the 1st amendment. Because magnitude of implication of a right controls the level of scrutiny to potential abrogations, and we’re looking at two different levels of scrutiny - strict and intermediate.
I think you might be surprised by how many people don’t actually hear about this until shortly before voting. Most people don’t pay that much attention to laws until they start to really have an effect.
Ok. That’s not how it works. While the methodology of the analysis (magnitude of implication) may be similar, it doesn’t follow that something that triggers strict scrutiny in a 1st amendment case is automatically a larger imposition than something that triggers intermediate scrutiny in a 2nd amendment case. That may be true in some instances, but comparing the burden implicated across different rights like this doesn’t quite work. I mean, how do you compare a content neutral restriction on the time of a protest with a prohibition on the size of a magazine?
If they’re different things - which they’d almost have to be, in these two examples - of course something which triggers strict scrutiny in a 1st amendment case wouldn’t necessarily do so in a 2nd amendment case.
But here we have two examples to work back from. The magnitude of implication to a right to purchase ink and paper is apparently enough to trigger strict scrutiny if there’s possible abrogation of that right. The magnitude of implication to a right to purchase firearms isn’t apparently enough to trigger strict scrutiny.
You seem to be saying that despite one magnitude being enough to trigger strict scrutiny and the other magnitude not, we can’t necessarily say that the former is “bigger” than the other. Is that correct?
Then why did **Bricker **respond to my question about whether purchasing firearms was a Constitutionally protected right by talking about how much the right to a free press is implicated by a ban on the purchase of ink and paper? Doesn’t that compare the burden implicated across different rights?
But my question asked about the implications of a right, though I’ll readily admit I didn’t know I was doing that at the time. Bricker responded by saying that the implication of this other right in this other amendment meant the answer in that case was yes, therefore the answer to my question was also yes. How does that work if the magnitude of implications isn’t something you can compare across different examples of free speech, let alone rights spanning different amendments?
As a threshold matter, determining whether a right is implicated can be analogized in certain, but not all examples. That’s what a threshold matter is - it’s a binary question as to whether some threshold has been crossed. Because purchase of ink, and purchase of firearms implicate the 1st and 2nd amendments, and they involve purchase, we can say that if the right is implicated at all with regards to purchasing in one regard, that that could be analogized in the other regard.
It can be said that the act of purchasing the necessary supplies to exercise the right is coextensive with the right itself. But simply because both involve purchase does not necessarily mean the magnitude of the implication is the same.
Anyways, this is kind of an esoteric hijack so I’ll leave you to the discussion about voter ID.
Liberals see everything as evil white people versus minorities.
There are plenty of local elections where there really isn’t a conservative or liberal candidate. Or it’s a minority candidate running against another minority candidate like here in California for Senator. Or the turnout is so low that a race could be determined by a vote or two. There’s a town here in California called Bell with a population that’s 95% Latino and yes the elections were being rigged. The mayor and most of the council ended up going to jail.
Having to produce an ID is going to deter illegal behavior.
Ah, I think I get it! So because both examples implicate the amendments relevant to their subjects, they both meet the threshold for some level of Constitutional protection. However, because the magnitude of implication isn’t analogous, we can’t say that the level of scrutiny of one can be used to answer the question of what the level of scrutiny should be for the other; so while both implicate rights, and therefore are both Constitutionally protected, they aren’t necessarily protected to the same extent as regards the strictness of the test needed in terms of legislation.
Anyway, I’m involved, so technically it’s a threshold matter either way.
But for many people (myself included) confidence in the electoral process is strongly eroded by these suppression initiatives. And the evidence supports this view. An close election overturned by a concerted effort by the state legislature to prevent the other side from voting is far more likely than a super close election over turned by the sort of fraud that ID’s would prevent.
While I admit the Republican rhetoric, and particularly by the current president elect, has been sucessful in convincing people that impersonation fraud is a threat to our democracy, but that doesn’t mean that it is the smart thing to do. Anymore that the fact that you can convince people that vaccines cause autism is a good reason to ban them in order to restore confidence in the medical establishment.
That’s a gross distortion of what I said, because your summary removes part of what I said that then allows you to grossly distort my claim. I see you didn’t use the quote function, because then you’d have to report my entire quote.
I feel better when policies are enacted that add assurance to our belief that non-citizens or felons are not impermissibly voting, which could cause a loss of voter confidence in a very close election.
If those policies have the effect, unintended by me, of making it slightly more difficult for some to vote, and if I am convinced that those slight difficulties fall short of true impediments, then on balance I am in favor of those policies.
Your quote made no mention of the benefits, and attributed me me simple joy at seeing minorities unable to easily vote.
But they are different kinds of “overturned.” In one, the rules are made in advance in accord with the democratic process, even if you (and your “many” people) don’t like them.
In this country, we have a system of enacting rules. The mere fact that you, and “many people,” don’t like them is utterly irrelevant. I don’t care that you, and your “many” pals, don’t like it, because I, and my many more pals, do. That’s how the governing works in this land. Get enough support for your plan and then, when your “many,” becomes enough to sway the legislature, you can change the law.
But until you do that, stop trotting out how you feel. Why do I care how you feel? I disagree with you! I get that you feel like this isn’t a good plan. But that’s because you lost the legislative battle.]
Sure. And if that vaccine ban happened, and was upheld by the courts, I’d argue for repealing it, but I would not do so by pointing out that I and many of my smart pals thought it was wrong.
The comment I replied to asked me to name a state that charged for an ID. I did so.
Your comment is just another snide dismissal of a legitimate discussion. Maybe you could engage meaningfully with people’s points. Or failing that, go outside and look for change on the sidewalk. Come back when you’ve found $29 and let us know how long it took.
