Guess what 60 Minutes decided to do last night? (Answer: Benghazi)

[BobLibDem]

@adaher

To democracy, perhaps. To our freedoms, you take that particular cake.

Holy cow! Frank is the biggest threat to our freedoms! What are we debating anything else for? We’ve got to do something about Frank!

[Clothahump]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Well, it’s simple: voter ID laws are a very basic, very straightforward set of laws which seem like a really great idea until you look at them closer (which most people don’t), at which point all justification for them completely falls apart and the entire thing reveals itself as a law the the sole purpose of stopping legitimate voters from voting. Read the voter ID thread; you might become enlightened. Also, this line of argumentation is stupid. I’d say even for your standards, but your standards are pretty fucking low. So I’ll be charitable and say this argument is smart by Clothahump standards.

Which would make it head and shoulder above your standards.

[adaher]

@BobLibDem

Holy fuck. The notion that “voting isn’t a constitutional right” has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

Then the rights of millions of foreigners living in our country are being violated.

News flash- it is. That’s why we’re so up in arms about it.

You’re up in arms about it because of politics. New flash- Nearly all of the people up in arms about it are Democrats.

And our right to vote isn’t subject to negotiation. It isn’t subject to the result of a poll. So (temporarily) a majority favors voter ID.

You’re right that our rights aren’t subject to negotiation. And if the right to vote was enshrined in the Constitution, these voter ID laws might be unconstitutional on their face, and none would ever survive strict scrutiny. However, since voting is not a constitutional right, at least not on par with those in the Bill of Rights, the only bar a voting regulation has to overcome is rational basis, and of course not be discriminatory.

Big deal. A majority believe in JFK conspiracies. A majority would establish Christianity as the state religion.

Ah, but that’s because the government is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution. Not only can the government decide who can and can’t vote, it’s actually written in the Constitution:

Amendment 15:

Section 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.

All other limitations are constitutional.

A majority doesn’t have the right to take our votes away. Anyone who isn’t the dumbest of fucks knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the reason these ID laws exist is to rig elections for Republicans. If that doesn’t offend you, then you’re un-American.

Oh really? Is that what happened in Rhode Island? A Democratic legislature passed a voter ID law because they secretly wanted Republicans to win?

http://sos.ri.gov/elections/voterid/

Now yes, you’re right that many Republican legislatures have passed tough voter ID laws, mainly for political advantage. The courts protect us from these laws. Many have been struck down. Many others have also been upheld as reasonable.

[adaher]

@OttoDaFe

I see that friend adaher has taken advantage of a minor footnote — a comparison with Bricker — to hijack his own thread away from its stated topic. I suppose in the fragment of viral DNA that constitutes his brain, he’s hoping we’ll all get so stuck in the resulting tar pit that we’ll forget the absolute fraudulence of the original premise.

Well played, sir. :dubious:

Nah, I think everyone’s well aware of what I stepped in on this thread. Just because we’re talking about something else doesn’t mean it’s been forgotten.

[sylmar]

@adaher

And now you’re getting it. The right to vote, like the right to bear arms, is conditional on being qualified to exercise the right, which in turn requires proof of qualification to exercise that right.

Now since the right to bear arms is a right, doesn’t it follow that people should not have to bear proof of their qualification to bear arms? Doesn’t it infringe that right?

Umm… Jackass? That was not what you were saying.

Your argument was voting can not be a right if it has restrictions on it. My example points out that’s a rather silly argument.

But then, you’re you.

[adaher]

If that was your only point, then I accept that. I thought you went further. Voting is not a constitutional right in the same sense that free speech is a constitutional right, for three reasons:

1. The right to free speech is actually enshrined, whereas the right to vote is only inferred.

2. Limits on speech have to survive strict scrutiny, whereas limits on voting only have to have a rational basis and not discriminate based on race.

3. Only a select group of people can vote(citizens). Free speech is not only the right of all residents, but even foreigners(the BBC cannot be censored despite not being American, or even a person).

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@adaher

And that’s where the hubris comes in. It must feel so good to be so sure of yourself.

Anyway, whether or not voting is a right is not central to my argument.

Of course, but the question itself nails you as a mentally challenged chimpanzee.

@Clothahump

Which would make it head and shoulder above your standards.

Aw look, the parasitic foot fungus thinks it’s people.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hey, adaher? Check out the SCOTUS ruling in Yick Wo v. Hopkins:

The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.

Clear now?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

No constitutional right has ever been limited by amendment and the day it’s even considered it will mean war.

Except the right to sue governments of states you don’t live in. Or the right to own black people. Or the right to be free of direct taxation by the federal government. Or the right to manufacture, sell and consume alcohol. Or the right to serve more than two and a half terms as POTUS.

There was a war about one of those, of course.

[Steve_MB]

@adaher

The most fatal weakness in the anti-ID argument is the same weakness that affects a lot of liberal arguments: there is no general principle involved that can be extended to other situations. If ID should not be required to exercise constitutional rights, then ID should not be required to exercise constitutional rights, period.

Well, of course, ID should not be required to speak, or print, or attend church, or…

Oh. Wait. You, in the back? ID is already not required for any of that?

[ EMILY LATELLA ] Never mind… [ /EMILY LATELLA ]

[adaher]

Or to petition your representatives for regress of grievances, like you would do in a townhall meeting.

[Rhythmdvl]

Holy shit, people are still engaging adaher? What’s wrong with you people?

[adaher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Except the right to sue governments of states you don’t live in. Or the right to own black people. Or the right to be free of direct taxation by the federal government. Or the right to manufacture, sell and consume alcohol. Or the right to serve more than two and a half terms as POTUS.

There was a war about one of those, of course.

Those were never rights enshrined in the Constitution. Nothing in the Bill of rights can be overturned by amendment, speaking realistically.

[adaher]

@Rhythmdvl

Holy shit, people are still engaging adaher? What’s wrong with you people?

I KNOW!!! Isn’t it crazy?

Anyway, I’m sure Bricker is much better at this particular debate than I am. I just didn’t think it was cool for someone to say they somehow humiliated him in a voter ID debate.

[Gyrate]

@adaher

Those were never rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Um. The amendments to the Constitution are amendments to the Constitution. If by “enshrined” you mean “in the original version before any amendments” it doesn’t really matter - the Constitution is the Constitution, amendments and all.

Nothing in the Bill of rights can be overturned by amendment, speaking realistically.

Sure they can. If by “speaking realistically” you mean “there’s not a chance in hell they will be”, I’d be inclined to agree. But amendments have themselves been amended.

[BobLibDem]

@adaher

I KNOW!!! Isn’t it crazy?

Anyway, I’m sure Bricker is much better at this particular debate than I am. I just didn’t think it was cool for someone to say they somehow humiliated him in a voter ID debate.

Yes it is. No, he isn’t. No, it is.

[adaher]

But the Bill of Rights is a little different, and there was disagreement about even having a Bill of Rights because there was fear that people would think the rights were granted by the government, rather than natural rights. Those fears were of course well founded.

As for voting, states can still regulate who can and can’t vote, and they can set up safeguards that infringe on that right somewhat. If voting is a right, it’s the weakest right we have due to the extremely low bar required to limit it.

The reason why I have little patience for people like Bob who are fighting this battle as if the republic depended on it is because not only is the public not on their side, but neither is the law. I can understand being against some of the new voter ID laws because they are blatant attempts to reduce minority turnout. What I can’t understand is the argument that requiring ID to vote is in itself a violation of the right to vote. At least not from a legal perspective, given that voter ID laws are a current fact in 30 states, and federal law itself requires first time voters to present ID at the polls:

Voter identification

HAVA requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. Voters who submitted any of these forms of identification during registration are exempt, as are voters entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

Help America Vote Act

[42fish]

From the US Citizenship Test:

87.Q: What is the most important right granted to U.S. citizens?
A: The right to vote
Quick, adaher, tell the INS that they’re giving immigrants bad info!

[adaher]

The INS is wrong. Rights are not granted, and there is zero legal basis for determining that voting rights are more important than any other right. In fact, the opposite is true.

Unless of course we’re talking about a “granted right” which I guess voting would be, as opposed to freedom of speech which is a natural right.

[Marley23]

Oh look. adaher lost an argument and somehow the subject got changed.