No. Who cares? There are plenty of laws which are not constitutionally required. The law against shoplifting is not constitutionally required. It is, like the Voter ID laws, constitutionally permissible.
Maybe someone nearby can help you with the big words.
Is it? Really?
Unprecedented means “without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled.” Since these laws (with the exception of the first) are NOT without previous instance, ARE before know and experienced, and are NOT unexampled, it’s hard to imagine how the word applies.
Oh, wait. I get it. It’s one of those leftist “spirit” arguments, right? The word “unprecedented” has a SPIRIT meaning of… er… “precedented.” That’s it, isn’t it? It’s a penumbra, an emanation. I’d know it if I read the New York Times and Mother Jones regularly, I bet, and had a minor in Cultural Imperialism studies. Am I close?
So the implication that residents of Sauk City could only get IDs on the fifth Wednesday of every month is in fact an untruth. It misleads.
Notice the passive voice. So I avoid saying WHO lies, just passively observe that there’s a lie a foot. Hey, you’re a keen analyst. Maybe you should analyze who lied.
Er… actually, when I wrote that, I was thinking of the appeasement of those who wanted Voter ID laws, which I guess is close to “tough on voter fraud.” But I’ll also acknowledge that there are politicians who believe the result of this will be to win elections they otherwise would not because fewer votes are registered for the other side.
As do I. And it isn’t permissible, because it violates equality under the law. If one set of citizens has more difficulty in complying with voter id requirements than another set, they are rendered unequal by law. That is why we hold Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, and literacy tests to be impermissible, they violate equality of voting rights.
It wouldn’t be hard to fix it. Outreach programs to ensure every citizen equal opportunity to obtain voter id, with equal convenience? What so hard about that? See any such effort reflected in these laws?
Did I miss something? Are such programs written into these laws, fully funded, operators waiting by the phones? And the Brennan Center and the liberal media didn’t tell me?
But we won’t let him, because even “fundamental and essential” voting rights can be managed by regulations, as long as the regulation is rational and related to voter qualifications.
That’s a lot of “…the government should…” statements. What if I don’t agree with them? What if I say the government should simply pass nondiscriminatory laws that are supported by valid neutral justifications, period?
Who breaks the tie?
See, we keep coming back to this. You keep announcing these grand standards for what the government should or should not do, as though you were revealing a law of physics.
It’s not physics. Maybe the term “political science” has confused you? There is no objective truth here. We have a process by which we make laws. You appear to enjoy that process when it reaches the results you like and discard it when it does not.
The logical conclusion of that approach is that you’re advocating for Elucidator I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of the Maritime Territories.
That’s not what “equality under the law” means. Notice that I am forbidden from sleeping in the East Wing and appointing my own Secretary of State. That’s because the law treats me and Barack Obama differently.
The law makes me walk farther to my polling station than my next door neighbor does. He’s a full 75 feet closer than I am, the bastard. Is that unequal treatment under the law?
Your son is ten? Try those arguments on him. If he doesn’t instantly point out to you that they are vapid and sophistic, utterly dependent upon carefully rendered semantic distinction, it is likely that he has such respect and affection for his father that he wouldn’t dream of embarrassing you.
But sometimes you can try to counter the argument by suggesting that a particular word has some circumscribed meaning, and then throwing out terms like “leftist” and “liar” based solely on that oddly circumscribed meaning.
I wouldn’t recommend it though, because it makes you seem like a little whiny bitch.
I’m a bit confused here, I cannot decide if this is a deliberate insult or if you genuinely believe that I am this stupid. The only way I would parse this laughable argument would be if I thought you were that stupid. I don’t.
Wow, you can run 18 miles in 20 minutes? Hell, I’d be surprised if you could bike 18 miles in 20 minutes.
So in short, “I don’t give a damn what is right, I only care that it was implemented through the system legally and constitutionally.” Wow, very rare that someone godwins themselves so well.
Yes, because people with no photo ID generally can drive cars.
Yes, but here’s the interesting thing: all you’ve offered as for justification for why what you think is right is right is “it’s not unconstitutional”. Whereas I’ve offered quite a damn lot justification for why I think I’m right.
Oh, piffle. There was no “argument” there, just a rudimentary reductio ad absurdum, pretending that my concern with equality before the law conjures up some fantasy about absolute equality imposed. It’s not just bad, its embarrassingly bad, not worthy of a drunken sophomore at a late night bull session.
And now you want me to believe that you were offering an argument about the limits of acceptable burdens? Thats what this was about?
Gimmee a break. If I’m ever that fucking stupid, I want to be taken off life support.
No, it is the difference of opinion between what is an excuse and what is a genuine restriction.
Having to travel 100 miles is a damned good example of a restriction, imho. That is unless the task can be accomplished online or by mail at which point it goes back to being an excuse or is just plain irrelevant.
The cost of an ID is also an excuse. It isn’t 1000’s of dollars, it is 10’s of dollars (if there is a cost at all). There is no one in the US who can’t raise that sort of money over a multi-year period. Even at the SD there were people willing to help others to get an account when we were pay to post.
