That should be enough. Much like criminal trials with guilty v. not guilty, it’s better to let hundreds cast illegal ballots then to deny even one valid ballot. This ain’t fucking tiddly-winks we’re playing here, it’s the very heart of our republic. If you deny one citizen their rights, then you can theoretically deny any citizen their rights.
Still working on your rebuttal of that NY Times piece? Let us know. Because, if that piece is largely correct, your whole argument is full of beans. Is that why you are so eager to talk about anything but?
And for that matter, why would voter IDs to be presented at the voting place have any effect at all upon absentee ballots? Are we misinformed, and the primary thrust of this legal assault is on “voter fraud” absentee ballot abuse? Would definitely change the whole dynamic. We were all thinking that it was mostly about restrictions on voters who go to the polls. So, if that’s not true, do let us know, won’t you?
That’s your opinion. Not mine.
I asked before - is it “denying citizens their rights” not to let them into the country without proof of citizenship?
Since the NY Times piece doesn’t contain any new information, there is nothing to rebut.
And no, the voter ID presented at voting place would not have any effect on absentee ballots. Did I ever claim it would?
You really should work at your reading comprehension.
Wait, what? Move the goalposts much? I’m talking about a citizen exercising their basic fundamental right to vote. Something that is time-sensitive. If I’m trying to come back into the country and something goes awry I may spend a day (or a couple) resolving it, but eventually I get back in. If I go to vote and it takes a day or more to resolve, my vote doesn’t count. I have been denied my citizenship for that election cycle.
The right of the US citizen to enter United States has been defined by the US courts as a basic fundamental and “absolute” right as well. So - answer my question - is it “denying citizens their rights” not to let them into the country without proof of citizenship?
Again, it’s the time-sensitivity that’s the issue. If I tell you “no” at the border, the harm is not irrevocable if you get in a day or two later. Denying a vote such that it is not counted is permanent (for that cycle).
Are you trying to draw an analogy between a US Citizen entering the US without a ID and registered voters voting without a picture ID?
Moving goalposts but what the hey. Please show where US citizens are not being allowed into the US without proof of citizenship? Is this a real problem? And show examples where it is not the airline or foreign country or dual nationality issues that is preventing the entry to the US. Eg, show that it is US immigration that is preventing entry.
Oh, it has to be new information? Dear me, I did not know that there was any time limitation on facts! When was this rule established, it entirely escaped my notice!
So, you knew all of that, in the article? Old news, was it, about the utter failure to find any actual “voter fraud” to prevent? But you just waved it aside, because you know better?
You keep talking about it, I assume you thought it was relevant. If you don’t think its relevant, I am puzzled by your continued insistence on bringing it up. Are you running out the clock?
Pretty much every day.
Ever heard of “provisional ballots”?
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-4140.html
(b) Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.
It’s that reading comprehension thing again. Go back and look where I mentioned absentee ballots again. Now look at the post to which I was replying. Try reading for comprehension.
He’s got you, China Guy. The fact that passports are required for citizens traveling abroad conclusively proves that legislative shenanigans to a partisan purpose are wholly kosher. Can’t see how you get around that. Can’t challenge his logic if he doesn’t use any! You’re toast.
And how are those ballots verified? Does the voter need to come in and present ID? If not, isn’t this the same as not requiring ID in the first place (only with a lot more work)?
Yes. Voter comes in and presents ID - that he obtained in that interim period. Same as with entering US - if you don’t have proof of citizenship, you have to obtain one or you don’t get in.
You said: “If I tell you “no” at the border, the harm is not irrevocable if you get in a day or two later. Denying a vote such that it is not counted is permanent (for that cycle).”. So - with provisional ballot, if you get told “no” at the poll, you vote with a provisional ballot and are free to bring in the ID a day or two later. Where is the “irrevocable harm”?
But it’s such a great argument! “Chief Justice Roberts, i would submit that the health care reform act is completely constitutional since the government can require a passport in order to travel abroad. QED.” CJ Roberts replies, “Well, of course! It’s obvious in hindsight. Thanks for pointing that out! Case dismissed and Court adjourned.”
Let me type it slowly, so maybe you will understand it. China Guy understood it, so apparently it is not that hard:
Both are fundamental, basic, “absolute” citizenship rights. One is, and has been, by law, and by practice, contingent on presenting valid proof of citizenship. So why do you object so much when the other one is made contingent on that as well? If it’s a “violation of rights” to ask for the proof of citizenship in one case, why isn’t it “violation of rights” in the other?
Except in practice, US citizens do in fact enter the country without a passport. Here’s a real life example witnessed on the Dope: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=636118&highlight=passport
Be that as it may, doesn’t seem to have much relevance to the debate at hand.
If you’re going to throw down the Federal ID and monitoring of US citizens entering the border, then let’s stick with your analogy and fix voting fraud once and for all. National ID, cross checked with national databases and social security.
I don’t see any way around it. They are both"absolute" rights. (And in this instance, quote marks mean “for really and true”, which is different for “statistics”). And one absolute right demands proof of citizenship, and the other does not, and they must be the same, because they are both “absolute”! Its the perfect comparison, apples and orangutans. Both carbon-based life forms.
Looks like we’ll have to stop checking IDs at the borders. Shit, was hoping it wouldn’t come to that.