# CNN doesn't like the US 1st amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 22, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392 "2014-06-22T21:59:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/181 "2014-06-30T00:20:01Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Surely you are not claiming that there is some vast amount of unprosecuted voter fraud without being able to show a single case of successful, yet unprosecuted, voter fraud? So how exactly does one show a successful case of a fraudulent voter that has not been caught? They pretty much have to catch them to prosecute don’t they? > [@](#): > > And you really should let go of the point you think you are making by continually dragging O’Keefe into this discussion; it seriously weakens your already not-entirely-bulletproof argument. Well, I don’t prejudice my opinions based on who discovered a fact. i might not care for some particular person but when that person speaks truth, I will accept it as truth. If our newsmen did their jobs, people like O’Keefe would have nothing to do. ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/182 "2014-06-30T00:29:50Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > Interesting that this is now about the thread title and not the ID/rights controversy but that’s the discussion you all have chosen to have. > > So…should you have to show ID to exercise a right protected by the Constitution or not? I cannot imagine why any one would be opposed to having to show ID to vote. Why not. Doesn’t everyone have an ID? A school ID or a driver’s license or military ID or passport or state ID to cash checks or something. It costs twelve bucks to get a State issued ID In Florida. If you have nothing else show your prison release papers. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/183 "2014-06-30T00:36:07Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > Nah, I thought I mirrored you fairly well. Success! You weren’t replying to me. ---
**Author:** ![DingoelGringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DingoelGringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DingoelGringo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/184 "2014-06-30T00:40:58Z")
> [@OurLordPeace](#): > > These Social Darwinist myths emerged, and only really accurately applied, in an era when organized labor was strong, and after decades of violent struggle for things like decent pay, job safety, job security, other working conditions, and so on. After the Gilded Era, when my great-grandparents came to the US, they and people like them (1/3 of whom returned to Europe, btw) found oppression again, and fought against it. We don’t have weekends because some politician thought it would be a great idea, or because of the magical “free market,” we have such things because workers were willing to stand up to thugs the bosses hired to gun down any troublemakers. > > In those days, people like you were called “[Scissorbills](http://www.folkarchive.de/scissor.html),” or, alternatively, "[Mr. Block."](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Block) > > Slaves in 1820 were better off than their predecessors had been in 1720. Does that make a good case for slavery? Slavery’s defenders did use that excuse. You should know that those “huge waves” have diminished greatly in recent years. This is due to many factors, one of them being the decline of the US middle class since the Reagan years, as neoliberalism’s toxic effects took hold. > > Also, do you know why there has been so much migration from _some of_ Latin America over the years? When you demolish someone’s country, they are going to flee. When NAFTA threw millions of Mexican farmers out of work, it added to the country’s unemployment problem, forcing many Mexicans into the migrant stream. (All their remittances were a huge boost to Mexico, thus lowering emigration, but it never had to happen like that.) > > When the US government [overthrows governments](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-15383476), supports [fascist](http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/05/20/bum-rap-the-u-s-role-in-guatemalan-genocide/) [death-squad regimes](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGwQFjAN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.gwu.edu%2F~nsarchiv%2Fnsa%2Fpublications%2Felsalvador2%2F&ei=ROysU9O0G4eeqAaHooDoAw&usg=AFQjCNFYA6NmQ-1qLoqvf372JP-Eq648lg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k) to [ensure](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Famerica.aljazeera.com%2Fopinions%2F2014%2F1%2Fu-s-ambassador-humanrightsviolationshonduras.html&ei=KOusU67kAoOUqAbas4LADQ&usg=AFQjCNF3DYWimNcbgTJ5NgMVOkAVvBSTPg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k) that [feudal societies](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Frobert-naiman%2Fwikileaks-honduras-state_b_789282.html&ei=KOusU67kAoOUqAbas4LADQ&usg=AFQjCNEHOE3GZExJfFqfgF1MSfajv6OiAQ&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k) [stay that way](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CF0QFjAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.du.edu%2Fkorbel%2Fhrhw%2Fresearchdigest%2Flatinamerica%2Fhonduras.pdf&ei=_eusU5vOI8yOqAbiioKoAw&usg=AFQjCNHEUjc-NstYZnifkB3pL-NHZqrK0w&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k), hires terrorists to destroy clinics and schools and the people who use them, and otherwise acts as an utterly malignant force, people flee the scene of such carnage. Why do you never hear about immigrants from Costa Rica (a welfare state with much more opportunity than most of its neighbors), Belize, or even Panama? The US government usually left them to their own devices, with brief exceptions. > > No, this is Randroid nonsense, primarily spouted and believed by the (relatively) privileged, even when they have much more in common with the rest of the population “beneath them” than they do with the ruling classes. > > No, there is more solidified social _immobility_, since neoliberalism removes the achievements of years of struggle and works towards a society of [welfare for the rich, and free market discipline for everybody else. Did you misunderstand me?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qUPfOr6fcU) > To the extent that this was true in the past, it is much less true now, and [less true than in societies that have not gone quite as far down the neoliberal tunnel.](http://www.oecd.org/tax/public-finance/chapter%205%20gfg%202010.pdf) > > Do you know that most “welfare” recipients have jobs? What you describe leads me to conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about. > > I have a friend with a Master of Social Work degree. She saw somebody post something on Facebook like what you wrote, in the form of a rather cruel joke. Her response was that she’d be happy to have an honest conversation about poverty, if only you’re willing to listen. I think you should talk to a social worker. I rode to the welfare office with my niece with her 20 Sarah Palin bumper stickers on the back and was not surprised that most of the women in the office were weird right wing talkers. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/185 "2014-06-30T09:58:38Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > So I guess those ~70% of Democrats that favor voter ID in polls are intent on suppressing the voting rights of groups which happen to vote against them? I think you’ll find that the Democrats who support the law also support ensuring that whatever ID being required is available on-demand and free of charge, revealing that their intent is not related to voter suppression. Also, it’s 55% of Democrats, not 70%. Good job being wrong twice in one sentence though. > [@](#): > > Seven in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws in order to root out fraud at the ballot box, according to a Fox News poll released this week. > … > Fifty-five percent of Democrats support the laws, while 43 percent oppose them. [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206300-poll-70-percent-support-voter-id-laws](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206300-poll-70-percent-support-voter-id-laws) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/186 "2014-06-30T10:59:23Z")
Even free IDs don’t work if there is not an easy way to get them. It’s not actually free if you have to take time off of work, for example. There still will be people who are disenfranchised. Bricker is the only conservative I’ve seen that has tried to address this. He proposes using fingerprints, though I’m not sure how you register them in the first place. If it’s at the polls themselves, I guess that could work, although I’m not sure how you’d verify their identity. The thing we have to avoid is a lot of people showing up to the polling place without ID or a way to get one. Those are disenfranchised voters. Any one person not being able to cast their vote actually skews the vote about the same\* as one person casting an extra vote. \*I’ll leave it to a mathematician to work it out directly, but some basic checks imply that they tend become closer to equal as the number of voters get larger. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/187 "2014-06-30T11:16:55Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > I agree, actually. > > If they are safe enough to release from prison, they are entitled to ALL their Constitutional rights. > > I’m sure you’ll agree that released felons should be allowed to legally purchase firearms as well. Is that supposed to be a “gotcha!” or something? Yes, let felons vote _and_ buy guns. Or vote and _not_ buy guns. The two issues are sufficiently distinct that consistency is not required. If that seems unconstitutional, then amend the constitution or use a more literal application in that every citizen who wants to own guns must be part of a well-regulated state militia with the potential obligation of being called into service in times of emergency, and membership in said militia is denied to convicted felons. Personally, I think you should just legalize drugs and restrict handguns. And I want a pony. ---
**Author:** ![A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/76d3ee/32.png) [@A\_nice\_guy\_with\_an\_opinion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_nice_guy_with_an_opinion)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/188 "2014-06-30T15:43:17Z")
IDs be all racizz. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/189 "2014-06-30T15:54:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I think you should just legalize drugs and restrict handguns. And I want a pony. What kind of a well regulated militia wouldn’t have ponies? Makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/190 "2014-06-30T19:52:25Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You weren’t replying to me. I was replying to your “failed” comment. Snark is snark. ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/191 "2014-06-30T19:59:40Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > I think you’ll find that the Democrats who support the law also support ensuring that whatever ID being required is available on-demand and free of charge, revealing that their intent is not related to voter suppression. Yes, that’s how it should be. That’s not a big deal to do either. > [@](#): > > Also, it’s 55% of Democrats, not 70%. > > Good job being wrong twice in one sentence though. Good job not reading the previous links on earlier pages. It’s a Marist poll done in 2013 for WaPo. Always willing to help you not be wrong next time though: > **[Complete%20July%202013%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Voter%20Rights%20Tables.pdf](https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us130715/Voter%20Rights/Complete%20July%202013%20USA%20McClatchy-Marist%20Poll%20Voter%20Rights%20Tables.pdf)** > > 586.69 KB > [@](#): > > Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing if election laws were changed to do each of the following: Require voters to show identification in order to vote? > > Democrats - Good Thing = 72% ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/192 "2014-06-30T20:02:18Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Even free IDs don’t work if there is not an easy way to get them. It’s not actually free if you have to take time off of work, for example. There still will be people who are disenfranchised. There’s ALWAYS a way. Set up booths at grocery stores on weekends for those who work. Pretty much everybody goes to a grocery store. > [@](#): > > “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t–you’re right.”― Henry Ford ---
**Author:** ![UncaThomas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/c77e96/32.png) [@UncaThomas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncaThomas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/193 "2014-06-30T20:19:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is that supposed to be a “gotcha!” or something? > > Yes, let felons vote _and_ buy guns. Or vote and _not_ buy guns. The two issues are sufficiently distinct that consistency is not required. If that seems unconstitutional, then amend the constitution or use a more literal application in that every citizen who wants to own guns must be part of a well-regulated state militia with the potential obligation of being called into service in times of emergency, and membership in said militia is denied to convicted felons. > > Personally, I think you should just legalize drugs and restrict handguns. And I want a pony. Just what is a “gotcha”? I’m not clear on that. It seems obvious to me that if a felon is safe enough to release from prison that all his rights should be restored, including voting and owning firearms. If not, why would we release a dangerous felon back into the population? From your reply I suspect you do not agree but I doubt you’ll explain why you don’t. Also, it seems you fail to understand “well-regulated”. > [@](#): > > “On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” > > ``` > Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The > Complete Jefferson, p. 322. > > ``` So, well regulated: > [@](#): > > The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment > > From: Brian T. Halonen \ > > The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: > > 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” > > 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” > > 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” > > 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” > > 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” > > 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.” > > The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. > > [http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm](http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm) Lastly, if you look at the Congressional debate that determined the bill of rights, most states proposed amendments on various topics. Several states proposed amendments that make clear the meaning of the 2nd. That the wording got swapped around in the final copy changes nothing. The intent is absolutely clear "in the spirit manifested in the debates. > [@](#): > > Virginia > > George Mason’s Master Draft of the Bill of Rights > > 1. \*\*That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; \*\*that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State; that Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the Circumstances and Protection of the Community will admit; and that in all Cases, the military should be under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power. > > [http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd\_gmas.htm](http://www.constitution.org/gmason/amd_gmas.htm) Other states: > [@](#): > > New York: **That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;** that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the > proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; > > Pennsylvania: > > 1. **That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game** ; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. > > North Carolina: > > 17th. **That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;** that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. > > [http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat\_decl-ny.txt](http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ny.txt) The old militia argument just doesn’t stand up when you read the history of the debate. In all of these, the people having a right to keep and bear arms stands alone as a clause. The militia part is a completely separate part. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/194 "2014-06-30T22:15:23Z")
I understand “well-regulated” (it’s not a particularly complex concept, after all), but if someone was championing the 2nd Amendment as meaning all Americans have to right to keep and bear arms, I simply point out the “militia” as a possible justification as to why _some_ Americans should not be so allowed. The text of the 2nd certainly doesn’t contain any asterisky language to the effect of “the people” excluding “people with felony records” but I have no problem with such laws recognizing and imposing a limitation to the 2nd as a matter of public safety, akin to the 1st Amendment not covering certain kinds of speech. The connection to voting is unclear to me, though. I see no problem with letting ex-felons vote and am somewhat bemused by people who do. I see a potential problem with letting ex-felons buy guns, and am unbemused by people who agree. The issues are not sufficiently linked for me to be troubled by a suggestion of inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/195 "2014-06-30T22:32:53Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > I was replying to your “failed” comment. Snark is snark. You really are not very good at this, are you? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/196 "2014-07-01T02:16:32Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > You really are not very good at this, are you? Aw, be kind. The poor feller has a great big hammer, and everything looks like a nail. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/197 "2014-07-01T03:29:03Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The connection to voting is unclear to me, though. Probably because it is vapor. In the post quoted in the OP, the poster (on the CNN site) asserts that the Constitution never conveys any right to vote: the language “_The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged \_” is not explicit, it only implies a right to vote. These people are claiming that “_… the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed_” is in some way less implicit than the declarations with respect to voting – as if it somehow matters. In terms of English grammar, there is no structural or material difference between these phrases, so I have no idea what their weird trip is, I only get the feeling that they just want to have the right to shoot the _wrong kind_ of voters. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/198 "2014-07-01T07:58:50Z")
> [@UncaThomas](#): > > Good job not reading the previous links on earlier pages. It’s a Marist poll done in 2013 for WaPo. Why would you want to use year old data when the poll I cited is only a few weeks old? ---
**Author:** ![WWhiskey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f9ae1b/32.png) [@WWhiskey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WWhiskey)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/199 "2014-07-01T13:09:06Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Yes, lots of people can conclude that. One could also conclude that a group’s attempt to change the status quo by requiring IDs when previously they were not is being done with the intent to suppress the voting rights of groups which happen to vote against them. > > In this instance, the second is true. You don’t know that! One could conclude that the group wishing to require ID only wishes to validate votes by making sure everyone gets one vote. The dead get none and the possibility of voter fraud is eliminated or at least curtailed, Your assumption could just as easily be that voter fraud is rampant yet unchecked and un reported as you wish it to be so as to disenfranchise a group of voters by making sure they have no faith that their vote will count! ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392/200 "2014-07-01T14:14:19Z")
> [@WWhiskey](#): > > Your assumption could just as easily be that voter fraud is rampant yet unchecked and un reported as you wish it to be so as to disenfranchise a group of voters by making sure they have no faith that their vote will count! Boy, that’s some USDA, prime bullshit right there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-doesnt-like-the-us-1st-amendment/691392.md?page=11)