And onerous regulations meant to make it more difficult to vote and that are drafted for the sole purpose of benefitting one party, and addressing a problem that does not exist are impeding the rights of those citizens.
additionally, nothing in the Constitution says you dont have to prove youre a citizen.
All citizens have the right to enter United States’ borders. It’s an absolute right, declared so by various courts.
Yet they still have to prove their citizenship when entering. Is that an “onerous regulation”?
It also impedes those who are not citizens, moreso than not checking at all. The time for decrying the law is officially over-the court has already decided that the law stands, so now you need to concentrate on counteractions to the problems you perceive this new law creates.
Not all laws have to be written into the Constitution. Weak argument.
Just because you have no rebuttal doesnt make it weak. Seems the argument is strong, you have no answer.
But I found it quite entertaining how you dismiss answers you have no answer for.
It’s not onerous… that’s not the sole purpose… your complaints are more because it harms one (your) party… and if voting was so sacred then just one illegal vote that disenfranchises the effect of my vote is even worse…just one!
The answer I gave was direct and to the point. It is not written into the Constitution that drivers must slow down when going past designated road construction sites, and you the courts have shown such laws to be Constitutional. There is nothing written into the Constitution that says we must wear seat belts while riding in a motor vehicle, and yet the courts have ruled that such a law is Constitutional. The same holds true for most of the laws on the books today, and the same holds true for the Arizona Voter ID law. The courts have determined that nothing in the law violates anything found in the Constitution, therefore the Arizona Voter ID law is Constitutional.
Not everyone drinks or smokes, and old people don’t get carded.
I believe it was Wisconsin, but possibly multiple states, where they are making massive cuts to the DMV. Just in time to implement a voter ID law. And of course the cuts are disproportionately aimed at poorer and more urban communities.
You would think that, but you’d be wrong according to the state. I believe it was Ohio where an elderly veteran was not allowed to vote because he had an expired driver’s license. The man was in his 80s and didn’t renew his license because he doesn’t drive anymore. He had a current ID from the VA, but that was not an accepted form of ID to vote.
Speaking of accepted forms of ID, I think it was Texas where the law allows a gun permit as a form of ID, but does not allow student IDs. I think it’s pretty damn clear that there’s an agenda here.
So its “liberal hypocrisy”, then? We wouldn’t mind if we could make it more difficult for Republicans to vote? Dems wouldn’t mind if the shoe was on the other foot? Maybe. But it isn’t. And they aren’t. This isn’t even a two cock, its a theoretical two cock.
Based on that logic then it would be wrong to require people to produce IDs when purchasing guns because they have a constitutional right to do so.
Is that your position? That people shouldn’t have to produce IDs when they’re purchasing guns?
You got us there, when it comes to raw cynicism and unprincipled grasp for power, they got us beat all hollow. Facts don’t even faze them, no matter how many statistics you offer to show that voter impersonation fraud is virtually non-existent, they don’t even blink, they just keep right on talking about “integrity” and “confidence”.
It’s my position that you do NOT have a constitutional right to buy a gun. I believe the Supreme Court blew it in Heller and that you have a right to buy a gun only within membership in a well regulated militia.
It’s funny to see the awkward dance some people do trying to make the Constitution agree with their personal beliefs. I don’t like guns any more than you do, but the answer isn’t to pretend the Constitution agrees with you, but to legally change the Constitution.
Heller is the law of the land.
If your position is that you shouldn’t have to produce an ID to vote since its a constitutional right, then your position should also be that you shouldn’t have to produce an ID since purchasing and possessing guns is considered a constitutional right.
Do what?
And all this talk about “constitutionality”? To what end? The original constitution was a step in the right direction, but by no means did it enshrine freedom and equality. We did that ourselves, as we evolved, to include colored people, women, so on and so forth. What they intended was a rule by the landed and the business classes, the rest of us were to be content to serve. Fuck that shit, in the words of Tom Paine.
If a thing is wrong, if it is unjust, its being constitutional means nothing we need respect. That argument is arcane and abstract, fit only for a law school dorm room over pizza and beer. * Feh!* as they say in Lubbock.
The Constitution is the bedrock of this nation, and if you want to rip it out you damn well better have something substantial to take its place. If a thing is wrong, if a thing is unjust, then there must be a means to rule on its legality, and these means must be agreed upon by a majority of the people beforehand-anything less is sheer chaos. We’ve got a couple of hundred years of cites establishing how and why the Constitution works, and I think I would rather base law on that than on how you feel at any given moment.
Thanks for those examples; it exposed the hole in my thinking and shows how messed up some of this really is. Amazing.
But it is written in the vehicle code.
But it is written in the Vehicle Code
Frankly, we are discussing nuances. While our end result is the same, we disagree on terminology.