Which mentions lawful authority but doesn’t define it. Can you be granted permission without being president?
Which lists it as a power of president with limitations to the president, but doesn’t restrict such appointments to other citizens.
Of course. What of it? I haven’t been given permission, so I cannot sleep there.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Polls don’t agree with that statement. Most people DO favor Voter ID laws. Therefore, your view that Voter ID laws constitute cheating is wrong.
Or I could have taken your approach:
Is it your opinion that most people would favor murdering a defenseless child? Is it any wonder that abortionist resist laws that require women see an ultrasound image before they decide to abort? Abortionists know this will shatter the lie that a fetus is not a baby. You might have to take my word for it that most people don’t want to murder children, born or unborn, and that most people who see a fetus won’t want to kill it.
Apply the same standards, Lobo. Take my word for it, or don’t ask me to take your word for it… especially since the poll numbers for abortion are closer to even than the poll numbers favoring Voter ID, an idea that enjoys a huge advantage.
Fair comment – I agree the “green support” is not spot on as an analogy.
However, the main fact remains: if a law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications cannot be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. Period.
Bricker: My opinion of Gerrymandering (at least, the kind that is designed to warp the balance of a legislature in one party’s favor, as opposed to the kind that is designed to group ethnic enclaves together) is (in many contexts) totally legal and constitutional, but is always unethical and antidemocratic. (And thus, key point, it is possible for something to be legal and constitutional, and presumably to also have a seemingly-rational justification and enjoy popular support, and still be unethical and antidemocratic.) Do you agree or disagree?
Except I’m not saying “here is what was was in these people’s brains, therefore the law is Bad”. I’m saying “here is what the actual outcome of the law is very likely to be, therefore it is Bad. And I’m speculating about what is in these people’s brains, and I claim these people are unethical, but that’s not what makes the law Bad, although it is clearly related”.
In other words, if someone truly 100% saintly and neutral had proposed a totally-reasonable-seeming voter ID law with absolutely unimpeachable ethical justifications, and then some demographic research was done and it was discovered, all unbeknownst to the law’s proposer, that it would have a strongly antidemocratic effect, then the law would become a bad idea, and further supporting the law once this had come to light would be (imho) unethical.
For me, there are several separate issues here that are being frequently conflated:
(1) Whether laws of this sort are illegal or unconstitutional (I hope/wish they are unconstitutional, but am in no way an expert, and it’s sadly quite possible I’m wrong)
(2) Whether laws of this sort are a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, and why (I strongly believe they’re bad… that is, their passage makes the country worse)
(3) I claim there are systemic problems with allowing any legislature to legally define how its own elections take place (particularly with a simple majority)
(4) Is voter fraud a serious problem facing the US today? (I’d say no, and to the extent that it might be, it’s kinds of voter fraud not addressed by these laws)
(5) Is lack of voter confidence a serious problem facing the US today? (I’d say no, in that I’ve only ever heard it mentioned in the context of you supporting these laws)
(6) How much of a barrier to voting is so much that it becomes a poll tax or disenfranchisement? (No idea, very hard to define, but no one actually seems to be discussing this particular facet of the issue)
(7) For several specific cases, how much of a barrier to voting would these laws as implemented in various states actually be?
(8) What happens when a law is proposed and has a justifications that its proposers give lip service to, while there’s reason to believe that in fact their goal is to accomplish something else entirely. How do/should we evaluate the legitimacy/ethicy of that law? (Complicated question)
Sadly, a high percentage of the posts in this thread recently have instead been about
(9) Bricker is a stupidhead. No he isn’t! Yes he is!
Only because all the questions you listed were addressed and debunked long ago, even before this thread. The only topic left to discuss is the last one. If you’ll review the thread title and the OP, you’ll see as much.
See, it’s not that complicated, Max:
Placing party before country = bad
Weakening democracy = bad
Knowing the above and persisting anyway = bad
Knowing the above and claiming just the opposite = bad
Invoking transient popular opinion instead of the Constitution and centuries of principle behind it, in the above cause = bad
Doesn’t that pretty much cover it?
I’d say that all countries other than the US are not the US. Your argument for remaining in the 19th century doesn’t hold much water with me.
Let’s analyze that for a moment. Canada is bigger than the US and has 1/10th the population. I’m pretty sure that when we talk distance between population centers, Canada has the US beat hands down. But I’d bet there are people in that 10% of your citizens who live right next door to a DMV and can’t be bothered to get an ID.
It isn’t? How do you know? Have you tried?
No, much of the citizens see and ID as necessary which is why they have them. Only a few don’t. And out of the few who don’t only a few of them will have real difficulty getting an ID if they do want one.
The norm or the exception. 90% manage to do it just fine. It might be annoying, but that’s why you bitch to the government to fix it.
You mean by you not following the instructions?
Ah, I was right. You live in 1950’s Mayberry. Really, how often does this actually happen that you’d even bring it up as an excuse for not even trying?
You haven’t explained why other countries with Voter ID requirements have higher turnouts than in the US. It doesn’t seem to stop people voting in them. Nor have you explained that the reason most people don’t vote is not about the lack of an ID, but because the candidates are sadly lacking or they are ‘too busy’.
So? People always need something to complain about. Get an ID and there won’t be a problem. As I’ve said countless times before, this is a golden opportunity for a party that wants to get more votes to help people get ID’s that will not only help them vote, but help them in many other ways. But the goal of Democrats isn’t to actually help people, but to keep votes coming in. Which is exactly like the Republicans.
No, most people favor voter ID laws, therefore they have popular support. Whether or not they are “cheating” has nothing to do with whether or not they are popular. Are you functionally retarded? Serious question, I’m kinda left wondering.
You know what? I’ve addressed literally every argument made in this tirade of bullshit dozens of times throughout the thread, often to you. You’re either a complete idiot or dishonest, I’m sorry.
As I’ve said, we keep going round and round. You think that an excuse is justification for not voting. It isn’t. Other countries manage it just fine. I don’t give a shit that you think the US is ‘special’ and can’t do simple tasks like getting ID’s (even when the evidence is that the vast majority can do just that).
Really, it comes down to this. If you can’t prove that you are a citizen of the country, then you should not be allowed to vote. That should be just as fundamental as the right to vote. But as with most Liberals, rights always trump responsibilities. And that is why we will never agree on this subject.
Okay. Why not?
It’s not that the US is special or unable to do it. It has not done it. That’s the point.
Of course we can have universal ID possession. But the US has made zero progress toward that goal. Are you really so daft that you can’t understand the distinction?
And many people have been proving they are citizens with other documents until now.
I think we don’t agree because like most conservatives, you are unable or unwilling to accept information that goes against your “gut” instinct. It’s why people still believe ACORN committed voter fraud, it’s why global warming is viewed as a conspiracy, it’s why “My daddy weren’t no monkey!” is the conservative stance on evolution.
You understand, I believe (since it’s been covered in this thread), that such proof is already part of the voter registration process, yes? It’s just not a question that only photo ID can resolve.
I want you to read the following sentence very carefully, Uzi: You don’t get to decide which US citizens deserve to vote in US elections.
Even individual United States citizens don’t get to decide that, and even state and federal legislative bodies enacting laws usually don’t get to decide that question completely, as most voting rights legislation is ultimately tested in the courts.
Tell you what. When the mayor up in Moosepiddle SK gets recalled or when Sandinmytar AB has a referendum on whether to install a traffic light on the intersection in town, I’ll refrain from telling Canadians which of their citizens are worthy of casting ballots on these weighty matters. You’re welcome.
Eh, what? No ID to vote?
That’s how we done it stone ages.
I’m not living in the US, here in Ireland or Germany you need some legal form of identification to vote.
And if you can not provide prove of who you are - you don’t get to vote.
Yes. And there is near-universal ID-possession. There is an extreme effort expended by the government to ensure that everyone has ID (in Germany, at least).
And in Ireland or Germany everyone has an ID.
The difference here in the US is that fully 10% of the country doesn’t have an ID that satisfies the ID laws.
It would be a good thing for us to have universal possession of IDs, but the governments have made it hard enough that ten percent of the populace doesn’t have one.
And it’s worth noting that the same conservative groups pushing the voter ID laws have historically been the groups most resistant to national ID cards or other universal identification standards.
Because a majority of your fellow citizens think that’s a great idea, because that great idea does not contravene any of our constitutional prohibitions, and because a suitable majority of our elected legislators voted to enact this great idea.
Backing away from this, after some quick on line research to test my belief. I remember, starting in the 1970’s, many conservative arguments against any form of national identification, but I also see that there have been many privacy and discrimination concerns expressed by civil liberties groups and liberal/progressive organizations.
My bad, and please consider my previous post retracted.
(But this does illustrate why the US is different than countries in which universal ID is a fait accompli.)