# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 538
**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:** [December 30, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10741 "2017-12-30T20:39:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The Constitution does not mention FFL licenses. > > But of course the Constitution does not mention law licenses when it says the accused is entitled to counsel of his choice, either. > > And? And it looks like your statements about Stingers were wrong. They are not “arms” the “people” can “bear” under any conventional definitions of the terms, but only under extremely narrow and specific conditions that heavily involve the federal government’s approval. And your irrelevant comment about law licenses doesn’t make you less wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10742 "2017-12-30T22:17:49Z")
You see,\*\* Bryan\*\*, the Constitution is the rock solid foundation of our government. You can’t just go around making up rights and claiming they are in the Constitution simply because they ought to be! Of course, not every jot and tittle could ever have been considered, so even though no exceptions are permitted, there is room for _interpretation_, so long as that interpretation accords with expert opinion. We are blessed with just such expertise! It behooves us to regard this good fortune with respectful gratitude. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10743 "2017-12-31T03:07:04Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And it looks like your statements about Stingers were wrong. They are not “arms” the “people” can “bear” under any conventional definitions of the terms, but only under extremely narrow and specific conditions that heavily involve the federal government’s approval. > > And your irrelevant comment about law licenses doesn’t make you less wrong. It’s not irrelevant. It’s analogous. ---
**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:** [December 31, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10744 "2017-12-31T13:29:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not irrelevant. It’s analogous. And you weren’t wrong about the Stingers, you were just massively incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10745 "2017-12-31T14:32:54Z")
Looking forward to the invention of the “pocket phaser”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10746 "2017-12-31T16:37:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > And you weren’t wrong about the Stingers, you were just massively incorrect. I was correct. What statement of mine was incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10747 "2017-12-31T17:20:39Z")
Ah, it’s been so long since I’ve read a group of posts from **Bricker**. It’s comforting that the semantic nitpicking, the smug lecturing tone on irrelevant legal issues, and the ability to weasel around his use of words, while condemning others for doing the same are all still intact. ---
**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:** [January 2, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10748 "2018-01-02T17:32:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was correct. What statement of mine was incorrect? Seriously? And I seem to recall you’ve had the temerity to call ME dishonest. Or maybe that was Starving Artist. Anyway, this most recent evasion of yours increases my doubt that Congress ever actually considered the phrase “people to bear arms” in deciding that man-portable weapons specifically were protected. Frankly, it sounded unlikely on its face. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10749 "2018-01-02T18:05:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The Constitution does not mention FFL licenses. > > But of course the Constitution does not mention law licenses when it says the accused is entitled to counsel of his choice, either. > > And? I don’t see the words “shall not be infringed” in the entitlement of counsel. Nor do I see the words “of his choice” either. ---
**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:** [January 2, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10750 "2018-01-02T18:45:05Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t see the words “shall not be infringed” in the entitlement of counsel. > > Nor do I see the words “of his choice” either. Those words are in one of those penumbra things. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10751 "2018-01-02T19:12:05Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I don’t see the words “shall not be infringed” in the entitlement of counsel. True. > [@](#): > > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. But it says the accused “shall have,” the assistance of counsel. What would the addition of the words, “…and this right shall not be infringed,” add to the command? Do you believe that if it said, “…and this right shall super duper not be infringed,” it would be even more effective? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10752 "2018-01-02T20:46:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it says the accused “shall have,” the assistance of counsel. What would the addition of the words, “…and this right shall not be infringed,” add to the command? > > Do you believe that if it said, “…and this right shall super duper not be infringed,” it would be even more effective? Well, I’m not a lawyer. I’m under the assumption that “shall not be infringed” actually means “shall not be infringed”. Because the words “shall not be infringed” aren’t there, I would assume that the right to assistance of counsel could, in fact, be infringed. Perhaps to require that counsel to have a license or something. But I’m not a lawyer. ---
**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:** [January 2, 2018, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10753 "2018-01-02T21:25:00Z")
I though narrow tailoring by definition required MORE verbiage, and indeed MORE SPECIFIC verbiage than, uh, “wide” tailoring. Suddenly Bricker’s all parsimonious with the wording? How many minutes is THAT gonna last? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10754 "2018-01-03T19:15:09Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Well, I’m not a lawyer. I’m under the assumption that “shall not be infringed” actually means “shall not be infringed”. Because the words “shall not be infringed” aren’t there, I would assume that the right to assistance of counsel could, in fact, be infringed. Perhaps to require that counsel to have a license or something. > > But I’m not a lawyer. Thought experiment: The Fifth Amendment is proposed for a vote back in 1789. Someone says it should read: > [@](#): > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Your great great great grandfather steps up. “I’m not a lawyer,” he says. “But shouldn’t we add ‘…shall not be infringed,’ in there somewhere?” He looks around the room. “After all, without those words, people might think these rights could be infringed.” Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10755 "2018-01-03T19:27:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thoughts? My thought is that it would be kind of hard to have both “without just compensation” AND “shall not be infringed” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10756 "2018-01-03T20:31:00Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > My thought is that it would be kind of hard to have both “without just compensation” AND “shall not be infringed” And the Sixth starts with “In ALL criminal prosecutions…” and says the accused SHALL have the assistance of counsel but you apparently felt that this this still left room for infringement. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10757 "2018-01-03T20:45:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And the Sixth starts with “In ALL criminal prosecutions…” and says the accused SHALL have the assistance of counsel but you apparently felt that this this still left room for infringement. I did. But you, however, added “accused is entitled to counsel of his choice” in one of your rebuttals. When in fact, I don’t see the words “of his choice” in there. So requiring the counsel to be licensed does not go against the Amendment. And yes, it does leave room for “infringement” since it doesn’t say “The accused right to counsel shall not be infringed” Further, in my non-lawyerly opinion, “shall not be infringed” must mean something, or else why have it included in the 2nd? If every amendment included an implicit “shall not be infringed”, then having it explicitly stated seems superfluous to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10758 "2018-01-03T21:00:32Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I did. But you, however, added “accused is entitled to counsel of his choice” in one of your rebuttals. When in fact, I don’t see the words “of his choice” in there. So requiring the counsel to be licensed does not go against the Amendment. Fair enough. “Of his choice,” is judicially explained, not textual. I shouldn’t have included it in the example. > [@](#): > > And yes, it does leave room for “infringement” since it doesn’t say “The accused right to counsel shall not be infringed” > > Further, in my non-lawyerly opinion, “shall not be infringed” must mean something, or else why have it included in the 2nd? If every amendment included an implicit “shall not be infringed”, then having it explicitly stated seems superfluous to me. It means something in the Second, which lacks other sweeping like “ALL” or “SHALL.” ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10759 "2018-01-03T21:09:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It means something in the Second, which lacks other sweeping like “ALL” or “SHALL.” The 19th Amendment has “shall not be … abridged”. So does the 26th. I contend that the presence of “shall not be abridged” means something more than the presence of a simple “ALL” or “SHALL” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/10760 "2018-01-03T21:18:17Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > The 19th Amendment has “shall not be … abridged”. So does the 26th. > > I contend that the presence of “shall not be abridged” means something more than the presence of a simple “ALL” or “SHALL” Go ahead. It’s probably good exercise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=537) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=539)