According to Visa and Mastercard’s agreement, the retailer can ask for ID if they want to. They just can’t require it for the transaction. A signature is enough and requiring more is in breach of their merchant agreement. That said, it doesn’t seem to me that merchant agreements are very well-policed as, before they changed a year or two ago, retailers used to enforce “minimum purchase” requirements for credit cards and credit card surcharges, which were also expressly forbidden by these agreements.
because i dont give a flying fuck … 
You are arguing that there is no right to vote, yes? Voting is merely a privilege which you may be lucky enough to enjoy - or not. If that’s the case, then you don’t get to complain about the manner in which you enjoy it. If other people can’t vote at all, then you have no claim to “a fair chance” that your vote is counted.
This post suggests that you might not even be old enough (emotionally, at least) to post on this board. Perhaps showing your ID would help to convince us.
Your least stupid post to date, at least in my book. It’s a low bar though.
Kinda bullshit propaganda from the GOP.
She cast 10 whole votes. She got caught. She will spend years in prison. Big haul, huh? She should have O’keefe as a cellmate.
O’Keefe got a ballot by pretending to be someone else. He never voted and there were several landmines he could have encountered had he tried using that ballot (#1 being if the person whose ballot he took had come out to vote.)
you have no Right to drive, yet you are allowed to do so once you have been vetted and found to be eligible to do so, We do many things in this country that we have no constitutional right to do, the constitution is a list of limitations on government,or at least it was, the bill of rights is a list of unalienable rights, the rights of the people are not limited to those, this government however chooses to qualify us before some rights are established, IE a drivers license, the governments other responsibilities include protection from fraud and in every case but voting it does so by ID. some people are not allowed to vote either because of state or possibly federal regulations IE felons are not allowed to vote in many states, fair or not, it is the law, I haven’t seen the SC strike that down yet!
if my rights violate yours, then we have a problem but my will to have an ID presented before voting in no way limits your right to vote, it harms you in no way,
voters are not disenfranchised by voter ID laws, some might argue that they would be but as of yet none have done so on any grounds other than failure to afford the Id in question, so yes, it should be free and yes, it should be mandatory
if you argue that a federal Id is unconstitutional then refuse to receive one, the only thing you give up, is the right to vote,
refuse to get a drivers license and the only consequence is, you give up the right to drive!
I guess it’s a good thing we no longer allow literacy tests.
Yes it is, otherwise I might not have the ability to vote.
is it a problem for you that an uneducated black man does have that right?
Actually, that part of the quote in the OP is incorrect, which may be why it was removed. I refer you to amendments XV, XIX (how could one miss that famous one), XXIV and XXVI. These are in fact very explicit about a right to vote. The only way to ignore their validity is if you refuse to recognize any amendments that were passed after 1800.
Limitations on the ability of state to restrict voting on the basis of color,XV ,sex,XIX,
poll tax,XXIV, or age, XXVI, is not a right to vote, it is a restriction on the ability to restrict it, none of which has anything to do with voter ID
You could easily argue that the state doesn’t have the right to restrict you ability to obtain a drivers license under the same amendments, except XXIV
But each if those amendments literally (in the literal sense of “literally”) say The right of citizens to vote shall not be abridged … There is nothing implicit in that, they state that there is a right to vote in no uncertain terms. You cannot even sort of compare that to the privilege to operate a motor vehicle (which in no state is described as a right).
Well find the right in the constitution, not the qualifier but be aware, the SC says your wrong!
Hardly. Uneducated black people are among those most likely to be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.
It’s not a question of privilege at all. It’s a question of opportunity. All citizens of the US are privileged to have the opportunity to become whatever they choose to become.
It’s a country where anyone willing to work for it can do well. It’s a country where a black kid can grow up to be a multimillionaire sports star, top trial lawyer, famous neurosurgeon or even President of the United States. Kids of any color or background and aspire to and achieve those same goals if they pursue them.
Cite?
Funny then that a majority of Democrats support Voter ID to keep the ineligible from voting. It’s in various polls; here’s one.
You’ll find these and more at: High Pagerank Domains for Sale
But here you go.
Franken/Coleman: Book, Who’s Counting John Fund & Hans von Spakovsky
Mississippi: Lessadolla Sowers was jailed. Easy to find on web.
O’Keefe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA1k2h8qtBc
John Paul Stevens: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf
WaPo Voter ID Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/voter-identification-laws-washington-post-poll/2012/08/13/13829cb0-e419-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_page.html
Well 177 were convicted with more awaiting trial.
I sure the court “investigation” and “findings” were completely impartial, aren’t you?
Isn’t that good enough for you?
In Who’s Counting, the book dealing with this incident, the authors point out that:
The state has to prove they KNOWINGLY voted unlawfully. Tough requirement but they got 177 already. Pretty amazing right there.
She is just ONE of the ones that got caught and rightly so. You support her imprisonment don’t you?
You want more examples? High Pagerank Domains for Sale
Exactly. Proof of just how easy it is to get a ballot without being the person you say you are.
There’s no proof either way on whether or not he could have cast a ballot. He may have been able, he may not have been able.
But why should he get a ballot by impersonating someone else in the first place? Shouldn’t our system catch people like that BEFORE they even get a ballot?
The OP is correct.
You do understand the difference between EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT, do you not?
An EXPLICIT right to vote would say something like:
An inclusive electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed.
An IMPLICIT right to vote would say something like Amendment XIX:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
The 19th IMPLIES a right to vote that shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.
Explicit would be something like Citizens of the United States of either sex have a right to vote.
See the difference yet?
Most likely, the opposite would be true, having to obtain an ID would be another step toward voting rather than a one day deal, so long as they aren’t cost prohibitive , it would also be an easy way to prove if someone actually was disenfranchised, voting information could more easily be found as well as locations yet what you actually did in the voting booth would still only be known to you.
IDs could be issued during the census upon request of those who otherwise couldn’t afford to make an extra trip to town.
If needing to have ID was racist , why would it only be racist during elections?
At all other times and in almost all other aspects in life, ID is needed if not required, the government tells poor people who need assistance to get a bank account and get direct deposit, you can’t do that without ID, is the Fed being racist? Or more likely are they trying to protect the rights and property of the poor?