I assume in the lawyer world that my contention is incorrect? And if so, why is it incorrect?
Stopping the current Bricker show to get back to the subject:
A few days back elucidator noticed this item:
Well, so much for this issue being so important to Trump and henchmen:
I told Bricker before that he continues to grossly ignore that who is in the executive is crucial in issues like this one. Not only because there are many in the Republican executive side that interpret the restrictive laws in repulsive ways, but I have to add that many of those repulsive Republicans are also incompetent on the job that they claimed that they could do better.
So, supporting incompetency and repulsiveness. Not really what an esquire should be doing IMHO.
Hey, he reluctantly voted for Hillary. That means none of this is his fault and he should get a parade and a pony.
Trump Pushes Voter ID After Disbanding Bogus Voter Fraud Commission
I guess the irrationale here is that they couldn’t just go ahead and investigate the states where they did get cooperation, because that would be wrong, because reasons. Good reasons! Reasons so obvious they need not be explained. Or Il Douche could just release the evidence he already has, that led him to the conclusion that somewhere between three million and five million “illegal votes” were cast for the Whore of Babylon! (Benghazi, Babylon, close enough.)
That must be a big pile of really convincing stuff! So, let’s just see that, for starters!
Sorry for the hi-jack, back to our Afterschool Special series of lectures on Constitutional law and philosophy by the Esteemed…
Trurh be told, would a national ID be a bad idea? You could get Mexico to pay for it.
I think Trump himself is the national id.
Or at least he’s the personification of the id of the flyover goobers that elected him.
National ID isn’t a problem for me or many of those who question the methods and motives of republicans implementing ID policies for partisan gain. Unfortunately, the ideological side that is most against a National ID is also the side that is most for Voter ID.
I don’t feel like scrolling the thousands of pages through to see, and I don’t remember, but I think I remember that Bricker was against a National ID. Bricker, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
You’re wrong. I have absolutely no objection to a National ID.
Ah, apologies. Then what are the obstacles to implementing it? And by national ID, since we are in a thread about voter ID, I am speaking of a national voter ID. An ID produced by the federal government that states would be required to accept as proof of citizenship and residency. You would support, or at least not be against, that?
I do seem to remember that it was one of those state vs federal govt issues, which is I why I was thinking you were on the “neigh” side.
Could you speak up a bit? You’re sounding a little horse.
He has a bit of a colt.
Probably worn out from all of the whinny-ing
I’m going to come around to your house and seal all the doors. If you’re not willing to use your windows to enter and exit your home from here on in, you’re clearly not willing to make a simple effort to meet the new requirements of your situation and don’t deserve to have access to your home.
…defining “reasonable people” as “people who agree with you”?
…defining “society” as “people who agree with you”?
Is it worth testing the proposition that Virginia is a place “where personal responsibility means something” ?
How hard would it be to compare Virginia stats vs national averages on things like drug addiction and criminal recidivism and bankruptcy and welfare dependence and… well, I’m open to suggestion. What are some typical metrics of personal responsibility? If getting pregnant and not aborting is “taking responsibility” (as I’ve seen numerous pro-lifers claim on this board), could we expect the abortion rate in Virginia to be lower than average?
Will Bricker take personal responsibility and withdraw the claim if it turns out his fellow Virginians are not quite up to the standards he claims on their behalf?
The American aversion to a national ID has always been a cause for a headshake for me. I believe you could simply tie it in with that there is no mandate to simply have it on your person. You use it when you need to vote, cash a check, get on an airplane, but not to merely walk down the street. For some reason people always jump right over to “your papers, please” as if it were inevitable. Well, maybe America can be exceptional on THAT, we’ll be the country where you CAN leave your ID at home and nobody can do anything to you, except not let you on the airplane or in the polling place.
Instead what happened was that we came up with REAL-ID, one of those federal stealth-mandates to the states cloaked under the “we are not commanding that you do it, but we’ll make a hassle for you if you don’t” method like the 55mph speed limit and the 21yo drinking age. The states have to adopt a series of uniform requirements on their driving licenses and liquor IDs or else it will be no good for airline travel or accessing federally-controlled facilities.
Now in that sense, what if … what if… the feds were to for example tell the states that if you are going to require Voter ID for a federal election, you must make it (a) free of charge to the citizen (b) available at every county or court seat, not only at DMV offices © allow grandfathering of voters who have been in the rolls for at least 20 years (so a bunch of old people don’t have to go looking for their old birth certificates).
Liar.
Look at thread title: I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors.
This thread was never about legitimate election integrity measures. It’s about your ilk suppressing voters likely to vote for moral rational candidates. In this entire thread can you point to even a single post where you have argued against vote suppression by the GOP? Nope.
You are delighted that your immoral Party has taken illegal or immoral measures to ensure the elections of immoral Republicans. The last thing you want is to make it easier for Democrat-leaning voters to be able to vote.
You are a liar.
I’d support it. Should be free, or at the worst means-tested (free for low income applicants) and specify the US citizenship and place of residency of the bearer.
The federal government could not require states accept this ID for purely state or local elections, but can require it for all federal elections,
Of course, but only to the extent that I accept the metrics in question are in fact a proxy for personal responsibility – that is, “numerous pro-lifers,” that you might have seen do not translate into my agreement.
I reject your analogy; this is an onerous, and not an incidental, burden.
Defining them as a representative democracy does: by the actions of the elected legislature, the executive, and the courts collectively crafting the panoply of legal framework which defines the relevant standards.
The fact that they agree with me on these points is simply evidence that I am correct.
I reject your rejection of the analogy and state that all reasonable people would agree with me.
Isn’t this fun?
So the system, which is biased in your favor, is the metric you are choosing to use? Quel surprise. By that same metric, Jim Crow laws were reasonable and not-at-all-onerous… until they weren’t anymore.
Since the entire point of this thread is the contention that democracy in many areas in the US is not truly representative, your reliance on it being so is not as sound as you may assert.