Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you wrote was incorrect. Not every citizen of the United States has a birth certificate to show as proof of citizenship. You're simply wrong.
And Americans are too stupid to actually invent one?
I didn't think so. The reality is that it isn't worth the money to put such a thing into place, because (a) the Democrats don't feel it is necessary, and (b) the Republicans fear it would simply interfere with their ability to discriminate against naturalized citizens.
I didn't say that.
I realize those few really old adults don't have birth certificates.
But the majority of people born in the US are issued a birth certificate.
What I see being said is that people cannot afford to get copies.
They don't have money.
And they can't afford to get state IDs.
They don't have money.
You realize these same people cannot sign up for government programs because they have no proof ?
You realize they can't sign up for subsidized healthcare because they have no proof ?
These people must be living a cash only existence. How many do you think that is ? Millions, tens of millions ?
But that wording was what I wrote, which you were responding to - a birth certificate to show as proof of citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I realize those few really old adults don't have birth certificates.
But the majority of people born in the US are issued a birth certificate.
And what about naturalized citizens?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
What I see being said is that people cannot afford to get copies.
They don't have money.
And they can't afford to get state IDs.
They don't have money.
Are you telling me that for these last few messages you really didn't understand that the gap in your logic was with regard to naturalized citizens!?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
You realize these same people cannot sign up for government programs because they have no proof ?
Which government programs can they not sign up for by mail, which other people can sign up for by mail?
You realize these same people cannot sign up for government programs because they have no proof ?
You realize they can't sign up for subsidized healthcare because they have no proof ?
These people must be living a cash only existence. How many do you think that is ? Millions, tens of millions ?
No worries, they will claim racism or what about the poor. Whining works.
The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".
The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."
The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.
I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.
In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.
Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.
Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.
And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free.
Scalia blew it? This isn't just 1 decision upholding the 1993 NVRA as constitutional. There have been numerous court cases and in every case the court has ruled in favor of the NVRA over the states.
I explained in my post why Scalia was wrong.
Your post might be more effective if you did something other than announce that other people disagreed and then tell me that *I* needed to go find and read their stuff to prove why *I* was wrong.
After my explanation, the ball's in your court, not mine. Now it's YOUR turn to try to explain why my explanation was wrong.
No worries, they will claim racism or what about the poor. Whining works.
There will be nothing. Citizens will have their proof just like they do when they need to sign up for all the other government programs that need proof of citizenship.
Voting is a huge farce. No one can prove anything so we all assume nothing is wrong.
Yet we can't verify or ask for proof to even determine if there is fraud.
I read the Executive Summary and skimmed the rest of the document, but I have some issues on the reasoning provided.
(1) That list of states in the Executive Summary is erroneous. For example, RI has implemented a photo ID law that goes into effect in 2014, same as Alabama. Why aren't they listed in the same list as Alabama? Second, states like NH and MI have photo ID laws in place and yet are not listed. Finally, WI's law was stricken down in March 2012 and yet the state is still listed in the 10 'unprecedented' states (report updated Jul 2012).
(2) Why should the state have to provide state-funded transportation to satisfy travel to a state office? Does a state have to provide public transit to go to a local DMV for a driver's license? To an office to obtain a zoning permit for your property? To a state agency to get a permit for your gun? This logic seems flawed.
(3) Why does availability of an ID office open on Saturday have to do with anything? Is election day on Saturday? Which state offices are open on Saturday?
Personally, I believe even if all of these issues in the reports were fixed, people from the Brennan Center and like-minded think tanks would still oppose voter ID laws.
Who cares what the Brennan Center thinks. The central question remains that voting in the nation has been going on for a very, very long time without these new voting laws, are conservatives saying that American elections were rampant with voter fraud?
The AZ law was passed on 2004, so is it the conservative position that before 2004, elections in AZ were corrupt and filled with voter fraud?
This is the only question why are old voting laws being discarded? Are conservatives saying that without these new voting laws that American elections in the past were corrupt?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
