|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 28, 2014 15:57:45 GMT
Getting back to the original issue presented by this thread, in addressing the overall "nanny state" agendas of Democrats and Republicans, I see no fundamental difference. Both want to impose their BS nanny-statism on the American People. They are opposite sides of the same coin when it comes to nanny-state government IHMO. I can cite case after case to establish that both have nanny-state agendas.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 28, 2014 20:42:46 GMT
Your citation of a SCOTUS case (specifically, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections) is just as unimpressive to me as some other Suprreme Court decisions are (most notably, Dred Scott v. Sanford; or Plessy v. Ferguson). To allege that we may be certain that an election decided by a mere 129 votes could not possibly have been tainted by fraud--and this, merely because no lawsuit was filed to try to overturn these election results--is a non sequitur, at best. Sometimes, politicians--despite their (usually) self-absorbed nature--simply would prefer not to upset the apple cart, by leaving no one occupying an important position for many months, as the lawsuit drags on. And I am not quite sure what good an ID card might be if it offers no proof of citizenship. Note: Whereas some people may be animated by cynical motives, as regarding the matter at hand--it should probably be expected that politicians who would prefer electoral victory over electoral defeat would not welcome the votes of blocs that are likely to go the other way, by percentages as high as 75 percent (or even 95 percent)--I would be very careful, I think, about relying heavily upon an appeal to motive, as that is a logical fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
No one stated that there weren't issues related to potential fraud in the 2004 WA gubenatorial election and, in fact, there was a lawsuit that alleged that fraud occurred, but the allegations did not include a claim that voter impersonation at the polls occurred which is the only thing Voter ID Cards address.
"Qualification To Vote" issues such as being under-age, a non-citizen and/or an ex-felon where the person isn't qualified to vote is a Voter Registration issue and not a Voter Impersonation issue. When registering to vote a person must sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury that they are of age, a US citizen, and are not an ex-felon that would be prohibited from voting in a federal election. To my knowledge the greatest problem we have with this relates to ex-felons that don't realize their Right to Vote is under suspension (I say suspension because it can be re-instated) and they often have government issued ID such as a drivers license. If we want to address "qualification to vote" concerns then this is accomplished by addressing verification of voter registration and not voter impersonation at the polls because voter impersonation at the polls is statistically all but non-existant.
As I mentioned the "motive" by Republicans, as expressed by a few insiders related to the Republican voting laws being enacted, is about reducing the number of votes from blocks of US citizens that vote for Democrats historically. The problem is that the "blocks" they are targeting are racial/ethnic blocks of voters which results in racial/ethnic discrimination and that is "racist" in nature. The motive is political but the result is racist.
Disenfranchisement from voting is simply abhorrent. But if low-income voters typically do not have the obligatory identification; and if this bloc typically correlates with racial and ethnic blocs that vote heavily Democratic; then it is not really "racist." (To declare that the net "result" is racist is to genuflect in the direction of "disparate-impact" thinking; and I am quite disinclined to do so.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 30, 2014 14:33:32 GMT
Disenfranchisement from voting is simply abhorrent. But if low-income voters typically do not have the obligatory identification; and if this bloc typically correlates with racial and ethnic blocs that vote heavily Democratic; then it is not really "racist." (To declare that the net "result" is racist is to genuflect in the direction of "disparate-impact" thinking; and I am quite disinclined to do so.)
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's fair to call it a duck. When members of the GOP have stated that the express goal of the Republican voting laws was to block the "black vote" that is racist and the reason why they wanted to block the blacks from voting is really secondary to that.
Even if we address the fact that the Republican laws are to corrupt the electorial process leaving "racism" out of it then by supporting these voting laws we're endorsing the corruption of the electorial process in the United States.
Sorry but it's a "Lose-Lose" situation in any case and in fact it is "legislating racism to corrupt the electorial process" that no American should be supporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 30, 2014 23:06:23 GMT
Disenfranchisement from voting is simply abhorrent. But if low-income voters typically do not have the obligatory identification; and if this bloc typically correlates with racial and ethnic blocs that vote heavily Democratic; then it is not really "racist." (To declare that the net "result" is racist is to genuflect in the direction of "disparate-impact" thinking; and I am quite disinclined to do so.) If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's fair to call it a duck. When members of the GOP have stated that the express goal of the Republican voting laws was to block the "black vote" that is racist and the reason why they wanted to block the blacks from voting is really secondary to that.
Even if we address the fact that the Republican laws are to corrupt the electorial process leaving "racism" out of it then by supporting these voting laws we're endorsing the corruption of the electorial process in the United States.
Sorry but it's a "Lose-Lose" situation in any case and in fact it is "legislating racism to corrupt the electorial process" that no American should be supporting.
To speak, blithely, of the stated intentions of some "members of the GOP," is to argue from the specific to the general. And that is a logical fallacy. I am more than happy to present my own identification, in order to vote. There has even been a suggestion that a photograph, and all the pertinent information, should be placed upon one's Social Security card. And I am very much in favor of that--notwithstanding the objections of some of my fellow right-of-center thinkers. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 1, 2014 12:43:29 GMT
To speak, blithely, of the stated intentions of some "members of the GOP," is to argue from the specific to the general. And that is a logical fallacy. I am more than happy to present my own identification, in order to vote. There has even been a suggestion that a photograph, and all the pertinent information, should be placed upon one's Social Security card. And I am very much in favor of that--notwithstanding the objections of some of my fellow right-of-center thinkers.
The fact that some members of the GOP would reveal the actual intent of the laws basically betraying the GOP by revealing it's hidden agenda is certainly relevant but we already knew why the voting laws were being passed (i.e. to suppress the minority vote) without the revelation.
Would you be willing to not feed your family for two or three days so you could purchase a Birth Certificate to obtain a "free" Voter ID Card.so you could exercise your Right to Vote? Personally I'd rather eat and feed my family.
As for a "national ID card"..................
This conjures up images of the Nazi Gestapo or Russian NKVD demanding "Show me your papers" from the people and that doesn't worry you?
Virtually everyone that cherishes and values the "Rights of the Person" have always opposed a national identification card requirement.
BTW - Under the law the Social Security Card has always been prohibited from being used as an identification card but we have seen the SSN being used to track people and I object to that. The federal government already gathers far to much personal information upon the people based upon using the SSN to track the person financially. The government knows virtually every job a person holds throughout their lifetime today and tracks every dollar they earn and that troubles me. Many of us today are concerned about the NSA tracking us but the IRS has been tracking us and keeping tabs of our personal lives for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 1, 2014 12:48:18 GMT
Returning to the actual topic of the thread.....
I OPPOSE NANNY-STATE GOVERNMENT!!
There is fundamentally no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to imposing "nanny-state" government on the American People. They are opposite sides of the same coin. We can't honestly condemn one without condemning the other as that would represent hypocricy on our part.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 1, 2014 16:21:11 GMT
Returning to the actual topic of the thread.....
I OPPOSE NANNY-STATE GOVERNMENT!!
There is fundamentally no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to imposing "nanny-state" government on the American People. They are opposite sides of the same coin. We can't honestly condemn one without condemning the other as that would represent hypocricy on our part.
The point of the thread is this: Those on the left--and not merely Democrats, but others, as well (including the Independent, Michael Bloomberg, of New York)--wish to impose a double standard upon the rest of society: Do as I say, not as I do; you little people are subject to these laws, but I am personally exempt from them. It is precisely this attitude that I am complaining about--nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 1, 2014 17:35:35 GMT
To speak, blithely, of the stated intentions of some "members of the GOP," is to argue from the specific to the general. And that is a logical fallacy. I am more than happy to present my own identification, in order to vote. There has even been a suggestion that a photograph, and all the pertinent information, should be placed upon one's Social Security card. And I am very much in favor of that--notwithstanding the objections of some of my fellow right-of-center thinkers.
The fact that some members of the GOP would reveal the actual intent of the laws basically betraying the GOP by revealing it's hidden agenda is certainly relevant but we already knew why the voting laws were being passed (i.e. to suppress the minority vote) without the revelation.
Would you be willing to not feed your family for two or three days so you could purchase a Birth Certificate to obtain a "free" Voter ID Card.so you could exercise your Right to Vote? Personally I'd rather eat and feed my family.
As for a "national ID card"..................
This conjures up images of the Nazi Gestapo or Russian NKVD demanding "Show me your papers" from the people and that doesn't worry you?
Virtually everyone that cherishes and values the "Rights of the Person" have always opposed a national identification card requirement.
BTW - Under the law the Social Security Card has always been prohibited from being used as an identification card but we have seen the SSN being used to track people and I object to that. The federal government already gathers far to much personal information upon the people based upon using the SSN to track the person financially. The government knows virtually every job a person holds throughout their lifetime today and tracks every dollar they earn and that troubles me. Many of us today are concerned about the NSA tracking us but the IRS has been tracking us and keeping tabs of our personal lives for decades.
I am very much in favor of our requiring valid identification in order to vote. But you appear intent upon throwing up roadblocks: It is either "feed your family" or purchase a birth certificate (which is a false alternative, since I have previously stated that I would favor government's providing the necessary documentation at no charge). And a Social Security card with proper identification would be, well, just downright scary; not to mention the fact that it is "prohibited" to use this card for "identification" purposes (as if this law were engraved in stone, and came straight from--not Washington, but Mount Sinai). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 12:16:49 GMT
I am very much in favor of our requiring valid identification in order to vote. But you appear intent upon throwing up roadblocks: It is either "feed your family" or purchase a birth certificate (which is a false alternative, since I have previously stated that I would favor government's providing the necessary documentation at no charge). And a Social Security card with proper identification would be, well, just downright scary; not to mention the fact that it is "prohibited" to use this card for "identification" purposes (as if this law were engraved in stone, and came straight from--not Washington, but Mount Sinai).
There are some states that have passed Voter ID laws that didn't require a person to purchase any documents from government such as a copy of their birth certificate where they have to prove US citizenship. Those laws have been found to be Constitutional. It's only when the requirement to "prove citizenship" does it require a person to purchase documents from either the State or Federal government that the laws have been ruled unconstitutional as they impose a "fee" in violation of Harper v Virginia Board of Elections. Basically the Voter ID cannot be used as a de facto document establishing citizenship so it doesn't address 'non-citizens' voting.
The question is why require a person to prove who they are when they vote when there isn't a problem with people not being who they say they are when they vote? Voter impersonation isn't happening and that's all the Voter ID card addresses.
Always remember the issue of "non-citizens" or "ex-felons" potentially voting is a "Voter Registration" issue and not a "Voter Impersonation" issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 2, 2014 14:12:41 GMT
I think all "nanny-state" government is fundamentally based upon "Do as I say and not as I do" type arguments even though it's generally a case of "I'd don't do this by choice so you should be prohibited from doing it." Just because someone "chooses" not to do something does not give them the authority to prohibit someone else from doing it.
By analogy I'm not stupid enough to walk out into the Mojave Desert without water but I sure as hell don't have any Right to prohibit someone else that's a stupid idiot from doing it.
I just don't buy the argument that "Because I don't do it you can't do it" that nanny-state Democrats and Republicans always make. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 2, 2014 18:58:13 GMT
I am very much in favor of our requiring valid identification in order to vote. But you appear intent upon throwing up roadblocks: It is either "feed your family" or purchase a birth certificate (which is a false alternative, since I have previously stated that I would favor government's providing the necessary documentation at no charge). And a Social Security card with proper identification would be, well, just downright scary; not to mention the fact that it is "prohibited" to use this card for "identification" purposes (as if this law were engraved in stone, and came straight from--not Washington, but Mount Sinai).
There are some states that have passed Voter ID laws that didn't require a person to purchase any documents from government such as a copy of their birth certificate where they have to prove US citizenship. Those laws have been found to be Constitutional. It's only when the requirement to "prove citizenship" does it require a person to purchase documents from either the State or Federal government that the laws have been ruled unconstitutional as they impose a "fee" in violation of Harper v Virginia Board of Elections. Basically the Voter ID cannot be used as a de facto document establishing citizenship so it doesn't address 'non-citizens' voting.
The question is why require a person to prove who they are when they vote when there isn't a problem with people not being who they say they are when they vote? Voter impersonation isn't happening and that's all the Voter ID card addresses.
Always remember the issue of "non-citizens" or "ex-felons" potentially voting is a "Voter Registration" issue and not a "Voter Impersonation" issue.
But the matter of non-citizens voting, or of ex-felons voting (except in those states in which that is allowable) is a problem that I find disturbing. And it could easily enough be addressed by the government's requiring a valid ID; and if such an ID requires prior identification papers--documents that some simply cannot afford--I would be in favor of the government's supplying these documents at no charge. What could possibly be wrong with that, as a matter of principle? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 3, 2014 10:52:42 GMT
But the matter of non-citizens voting, or of ex-felons voting (except in those states in which that is allowable) is a problem that I find disturbing. And it could easily enough be addressed by the government's requiring a valid ID; and if such an ID requires prior identification papers--documents that some simply cannot afford--I would be in favor of the government's supplying these documents at no charge. What could possibly be wrong with that, as a matter of principle?
The problem of ex-felon's (where most do have government issued ID) registering to vote and potentially voting is far greater than the problem of immigrants registering to vote and potentially voting. Immigrants generally know that they aren't allowed to vote in federal elections (they are, in many cases, allowed to vote in local elections) so they don't typically risk going to jail and being deported by registering to vote.
An immgrant registering to vote in a federal election is committing a felony that can result in them being deported and they're not very likely to do that. I did find a link that mentions some voter registration discrepancies but it didn't provide any information on actual cases of immigrants that were determined to have illegally registered to vote. It only cites discrepancies that warranted investigation. As it does correctly note this is a voter registration issue and not a voter impersonation issue.
www.cis.org/non-citizen-voters-diluting-the-rights-and-privileges-of-citizenship
As a "matter of principle" there is nothing wrong with proposing that the state and federal government provide documents like a person's birth certificate or natualization documents free of charge and as soon as that happens then there could be an argument for requiring a person to prove citizenship for voting purposes. That hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen.
As a "matter of principle" would you oppose Voter ID laws until such a time as any documents required are provided for free of cost to the person by the government?
********************************************************
Then again I'm in the "camp" with those that voting should be a Right of the Person as opposed to a Privilege of Citizenship. If voting is a Right of the Person then resident permanent aliens would be allowed to vote and that makes sense to me because we can anticipate that most will become citizens in the future and therefore the actions of our elected officials and government are of great personal and political concern to them. If a member of the House of Representatives represents the resident alien, and they do under the US Constitution, then the resident alien should be allowed to vote for them. We can note that early in American history non-citizens were allowed to vote so long as they met certain criteria such as being land owners (that was a condition for voting in several states). While I haven't read the following in full it points out that there is a viable reason for wanting to allow those immigrants that have entered into the "naturalization" process to vote:
www.cis.org/NoncitizenVoting
It could be argued that a person wanting to become a US citizen should actual demonstrate that they will participate politically by voting before they are granted US citizenship. It wasn't an argument I had throught of before as I was focused on the Right to Vote of the Person but this does provide a compelling argument for non-citizens seeking naturalization to be allowed to vote in federal elections. They will be far better citizens if they are required to demonstrate active participation in our government before becoming citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 3, 2014 19:36:43 GMT
But the matter of non-citizens voting, or of ex-felons voting (except in those states in which that is allowable) is a problem that I find disturbing. And it could easily enough be addressed by the government's requiring a valid ID; and if such an ID requires prior identification papers--documents that some simply cannot afford--I would be in favor of the government's supplying these documents at no charge. What could possibly be wrong with that, as a matter of principle?
The problem of ex-felon's (where most do have government issued ID) registering to vote and potentially voting is far greater than the problem of immigrants registering to vote and potentially voting. Immigrants generally know that they aren't allowed to vote in federal elections (they are, in many cases, allowed to vote in local elections) so they don't typically risk going to jail and being deported by registering to vote.
An immgrant registering to vote in a federal election is committing a felony that can result in them being deported and they're not very likely to do that. I did find a link that mentions some voter registration discrepancies but it didn't provide any information on actual cases of immigrants that were determined to have illegally registered to vote. It only cites discrepancies that warranted investigation. As it does correctly note this is a voter registration issue and not a voter impersonation issue.
www.cis.org/non-citizen-voters-diluting-the-rights-and-privileges-of-citizenship
As a "matter of principle" there is nothing wrong with proposing that the state and federal government provide documents like a person's birth certificate or natualization documents free of charge and as soon as that happens then there could be an argument for requiring a person to prove citizenship for voting purposes. That hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen.
As a "matter of principle" would you oppose Voter ID laws until such a time as any documents required are provided for free of cost to the person by the government?
********************************************************
Then again I'm in the "camp" with those that voting should be a Right of the Person as opposed to a Privilege of Citizenship. If voting is a Right of the Person then resident permanent aliens would be allowed to vote and that makes sense to me because we can anticipate that most will become citizens in the future and therefore the actions of our elected officials and government are of great personal and political concern to them. If a member of the House of Representatives represents the resident alien, and they do under the US Constitution, then the resident alien should be allowed to vote for them. We can note that early in American history non-citizens were allowed to vote so long as they met certain criteria such as being land owners (that was a condition for voting in several states). While I haven't read the following in full it points out that there is a viable reason for wanting to allow those immigrants that have entered into the "naturalization" process to vote:
www.cis.org/NoncitizenVoting
It could be argued that a person wanting to become a US citizen should actual demonstrate that they will participate politically by voting before they are granted US citizenship. It wasn't an argument I had throught of before as I was focused on the Right to Vote of the Person but this does provide a compelling argument for non-citizens seeking naturalization to be allowed to vote in federal elections. They will be far better citizens if they are required to demonstrate active participation in our government before becoming citizens.
As a matter of principle, I do not oppose voter-ID laws; but I would encourage the various states to supply the necessary documentation, at no charge, to those who are demonstrably unable to afford to purchase those documents. Your comments as concerning "full community membership" for illegal aliens, and their actively seeking "naturalization," simply flies in the face of facts. Most illegals simply do not wish to become American citizens. (Oh, they really do not wish to "live in the shadows," either. But many--I believe most--would prefer to be legitimized as legal residents of the United States--not made "citizens," with all the attendant civic responsibilities.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 4, 2014 10:43:39 GMT
As a matter of principle, I do not oppose voter-ID laws; but I would encourage the various states to supply the necessary documentation, at no charge, to those who are demonstrably unable to afford to purchase those documents. Your comments as concerning "full community membership" for illegal aliens, and their actively seeking "naturalization," simply flies in the face of facts. Most illegals simply do not wish to become American citizens. (Oh, they really do not wish to "live in the shadows," either. But many--I believe most--would prefer to be legitimized as legal residents of the United States--not made "citizens," with all the attendant civic responsibilities.)
The fact is that California is not going to furnish a free certified copy of a birth certificate to someone born in California just so that person can vote after they move to Texas. Not even Texas will furnish a certified copy of a birth certificate free to a native Texan so they can obtain a voter ID card.
Here's the facts:
It is estimated that 25% of voting age African-American US citizens don't have a valid government issued state ID card or the documents necessary to prove US citizenship. If they live in Texas they are prohibited from voting!!
It is estimated that 18% of voting age Hispanic US citizens don't have a valid government issued state ID card or the documents necessary to prove US citizenship. If they live in Texas they are prohibited from voting!!
Virtually all of these US citizens are poor and would literally have to take food off of the table for a day or two just to purchase the documents necessary to obtain a "free" Voter ID card.
In principle do you support the denial of the voting rights of these people because they can't afford to purchase documents from the government?
The linked article did not address "illegal" aliens but instead addressed legal immigrants that were already in the established "naturalization" process.
While there have been some concerns about non-citizens possibly registering to vote, even though they can go to jail and be deported if they do so it is highly unlikely they would, there have been no allegations of "illegal" aliens attempting to register to vote. Regardless of whether they are "legal" or "illegal" there is no significant evidence of either actually registering and voting and this is still a "voter registration" issue and not a "voter impersonation" so it has absolutely nothing to do with Voter Identification.
While our immigration laws are currently supported as being "Constitutional" I still maintain that there is a very valid argument that they are a violation of the 9th Amendment based upon numerous statements by the founders of America that believed all persons had an Inalienable Right of Immigration that would be protected under the 9th Amendment. Seriously, when I can cite sources like George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson that all agreed that the "person" had a Right of Immigration for peaceful purposes it would be hard to argue that our immigration laws don't violate the 9th Amendment. Sometimes I wish I was a Constitutional attorney because I'd love to argue that case before the US Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 4, 2014 19:53:57 GMT
As a matter of principle, I do not oppose voter-ID laws; but I would encourage the various states to supply the necessary documentation, at no charge, to those who are demonstrably unable to afford to purchase those documents. Your comments as concerning "full community membership" for illegal aliens, and their actively seeking "naturalization," simply flies in the face of facts. Most illegals simply do not wish to become American citizens. (Oh, they really do not wish to "live in the shadows," either. But many--I believe most--would prefer to be legitimized as legal residents of the United States--not made "citizens," with all the attendant civic responsibilities.)
The fact is that California is not going to furnish a free certified copy of a birth certificate to someone born in California just so that person can vote after they move to Texas. Not even Texas will furnish a certified copy of a birth certificate free to a native Texan so they can obtain a voter ID card.
Here's the facts:
It is estimated that 25% of voting age African-American US citizens don't have a valid government issued state ID card or the documents necessary to prove US citizenship. If they live in Texas they are prohibited from voting!!
It is estimated that 18% of voting age Hispanic US citizens don't have a valid government issued state ID card or the documents necessary to prove US citizenship. If they live in Texas they are prohibited from voting!!
Virtually all of these US citizens are poor and would literally have to take food off of the table for a day or two just to purchase the documents necessary to obtain a "free" Voter ID card.
In principle do you support the denial of the voting rights of these people because they can't afford to purchase documents from the government?
The linked article did not address "illegal" aliens but instead addressed legal immigrants that were already in the established "naturalization" process.
While there have been some concerns about non-citizens possibly registering to vote, even though they can go to jail and be deported if they do so it is highly unlikely they would, there have been no allegations of "illegal" aliens attempting to register to vote. Regardless of whether they are "legal" or "illegal" there is no significant evidence of either actually registering and voting and this is still a "voter registration" issue and not a "voter impersonation" so it has absolutely nothing to do with Voter Identification.
While our immigration laws are currently supported as being "Constitutional" I still maintain that there is a very valid argument that they are a violation of the 9th Amendment based upon numerous statements by the founders of America that believed all persons had an Inalienable Right of Immigration that would be protected under the 9th Amendment. Seriously, when I can cite sources like George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson that all agreed that the "person" had a Right of Immigration for peaceful purposes it would be hard to argue that our immigration laws don't violate the 9th Amendment. Sometimes I wish I was a Constitutional attorney because I'd love to argue that case before the US Supreme Court.
You evidently view it as a given that the states will not issue the necessary documentation at no charge; therefore, you conclude that I must either "support the denial of voting rights" to those lacking the proper documentation, or I must change my position as regarding the necessity of one's having a voter ID. I reject the fundamental premise; therefore, I reject your conclusion. |
|
