Requiring a drivers license to vote is just temporary. That will change when the fingerprint scanners are ready. But who needs to vote anyway. The MSM know what’s better for us than we do, wright?

We’re beginning to see the results of the Cons taking over the Court. I have trouble understanding WHY the Supreme Court ruled at all, other than to legitimize stricter voting requirements. Next thing we’ll know, there will be ‘poll taxes’ and ‘knowledge tests’ given at the polls.

The whole business makes no sense to me. They don’t even talk about Constitutionality. They just say it’s to prevent fraud, a fraud there’s no evidence of ever having happened. Talk about your precedences. And they talk about the Warren Court being activist. What’s this?

Of course, there’s no laws on the books saying you have to be sober or clear of any medication when you vote. Yet.

The amazing thing is how can ANY ONE not see this as an attempt, feeble and lame such as it is, to control who votes. To talk about fraud in this context, given the massive number of votes lost because of inefficiency, ineptitude or worse, is alarming.

Then again, how can any ‘right thinking’ American be against photo IDs. “What’a ya tryin’ to hide, buddy?” Quid Pro Quo, therefore, would seem to be that all, ALL, politicos (elected and appointed) in D.C. be given monthly polygraphs. “What’a ya tryin’ to hide, buddy?”

(Merkwurdigliebe)

is this really that big of a deal, that you have to prove that you’re a US citizen in order to vote?

also, all the Supreme Court did was grant states the right to choose whether or not to implement this, as it should be

the poll tax was blatantly discriminatory against blacks, but simply because a state MAY require one to show an ID (oh heaven forbid you actually have to show that your a legal resident, what with several million undocumented illegals running around) is not discriminatory…if anything it just points out how moron coddling our society has become…

Merkwurdigliebe,

The whole point is that there are U.S. citizens without current driver’s licenses.

Foreigners voting or “fraud” is not the point. This is about denying U.S. CITIZENS their right to vote because they do not have a valid driver’s license.

It’s really not that hard to understand.

Where does it say it requires a “driver’s license”? It requires an ID.

The law isn’t the issue. It’s the Supreme Court validating it that’s the issue. If there are no instances of such fraud, why the law. If the law, why the Supreme Court ruling?

If the court had said that no one’s constitutional rights were violated, it ‘might’ have had some validity. But if that were the case, none of the reports I’ve read have mentioned it.

What SHOULD have happened is the Supreme Court should have declined to rule on it because no rights were/are involved. Instead, they chose to insert themselves into the political process and THEREIN lies the problem.

Producing ID is NOT the issue. Setting restrictions that tilt the edge one way or another is the issue. As if we didn’t have REAL problems to deal with in this country.

This is the Penthouse Perspective at work.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Again, all this ruling has done is asserts the state’s right to decide for themselves over voting, which is honestly where it should be…its a clarification of already existing statutes

and really, if you’re too dumb to get you’re ID renewed, should you be voting? Honestly, the government should not be expected to coddle people through life like some kind of nanny–it’s the voter’s responsibility to ensure that they have a valid ID, whether that responsibility is renewal, financial means, etc, NO ONE ELSES…the Constitution supports personal responsibility, not personal stupidity or individual shortsightedness…its no one’s fault but their own, except in certain circumstances, that they dont have a current ID

Its those kind of people who got Bush elected…twice

(Jed Clampett)

Gotta love those activist judges, inserting themselves into issues they should not.

Anyone know how to impeach a supreme? Do they have to dig into his past and find evidence of corruption and collusion before they realize a corrupt man is in collusion with a political party rather than placing his allegiance with the populace, as opposed to the oligarchi.

The supreme court decided this case using two incorrect assumptions: one, that it is “evenhanded” to impose voting restrictions that will affect groups of voters differently (that is the opposite of “evenhanded.”)

and two, that the state interests are “sufficiently weighty” to justify forcing voters to update government issued photo-ids. The states’ interest was in preventing voter fraud but the state never proved fraud occurred; therefore the state has NO interest, let alone a sufficiently weighty one, to justify making voting more difficult for certain voters.

“Where does it say it requires a “driver’s license”? It requires an ID.”

The Indiana law the supreme court upheld requires a photo id issued by the government. A driver’s license was repeatedly referred to in the decision itself as it is the only universal photo i.d. issued by the government in Indiana. Indiana law

The supreme court decided this case using two incorrect assumptions: one, that it is “evenhanded” to impose voting restrictions that will affect groups of voters differently (that is the opposite of “evenhanded.”)

and two, that the state interests are “sufficiently weighty” to justify forcing voters to update government issued photo-ids. The states’ interest was in preventing voter fraud but the state never proved fraud occurred; therefore the state has NO interest, let alone a sufficiently weighty one, to justify making voting more difficult for certain voters.

“Where does it say it requires a “driver’s license”? It requires an ID.”

The Indiana law the supreme court upheld requires a photo id issued by the government. A driver’s license was repeatedly referred to in the decision itself as it is the only universal photo i.d. issued by the government in Indiana. Indiana law

The supreme court decided this case using two incorrect assumptions: one, that it is “evenhanded” to impose voting restrictions that will affect groups of voters differently (that is the opposite of “evenhanded.”)

and two, that the state interests are “sufficiently weighty” to justify forcing voters to update government issued photo-ids. The states’ interest was in preventing voter fraud but the state never proved fraud occurred; therefore the state has NO interest, let alone a sufficiently weighty one, to justify making voting more difficult for certain voters.

“Where does it say it requires a “driver’s license”? It requires an ID.”

The Indiana law the supreme court upheld requires a photo id issued by the government. A driver’s license was repeatedly referred to in the decision itself as it is the only universal photo i.d. issued by the government in Indiana. Indiana law

The supreme court decided this case using two incorrect assumptions: one, that it is “evenhanded” to impose voting restrictions that will affect groups of voters differently (that is the opposite of “evenhanded.”)

and two, that the state interests are “sufficiently weighty” to justify forcing voters to update government issued photo-ids. The states’ interest was in preventing voter fraud but the state never proved fraud occurred; therefore the state has NO interest, let alone a sufficiently weighty one, to justify making voting more difficult for certain voters.

“Where does it say it requires a “driver’s license”? It requires an ID.”

The Indiana law the supreme court upheld requires a photo id issued by the government. A driver’s license was repeatedly referred to in the decision itself as it is the only universal photo i.d. issued by the government in Indiana. Indiana law

Merk, it’s bs, and here’s why:

Singling out the ‘illegals’ and suppressing their alleged ‘vote’ is a fraud in the sense that nothing’s being done to the big ag industry that hires them on a massive level. Those same ag industry moguls are the ones who can not only vote, but lobby and donate.
Also, haven’t you ever misplaced, lost, or even had stolen, your wallet with your driver’s license in it? What about DUI offenders that get their driver’s license stripped from them and don’t have enough time to go get a new ID card, let alone a driver’s license? Or, how about people who have never even taken a driver’s test due to the fact that they’ve never even needed to drive?

There are plenty of reasons NOT to pass this law. There’s only ONE reason to pass it: To suppress the minority/poverty vote.

And the people who lobby for these bills are the ones taking advantage of the minority/poverty complex.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Who’s responsibility is it in all those instances you named?

If i lose my ID, it MY PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to get it back, no one elses…one who gets a DUI wouldnt have had their license stripped had they not broken the law and driven while drunk…its your responsibility to have some form of identification, not the governments, not anyone elses

all this decision does is reaffirm personal responsibility, something most sheeple today seem to be lacking…driver’s licenses or photo ID’s are in all reality not very expensive, 20-35 dollars at most…and if one is so far below the poverty line that they can’t afford that, then in such abject poverty they’re probably worrying about mere survival as opposed to elections

Sure, Merk. It’s definitely your personal responsibility to tell DMV to hurry up and reprint your lost driver’s license so you can vote. Sure, it’s your personal responsibility to know exactly the point that you’re above the legal limit to drive while ’somewhat’ drunk. Sure, it’s your personal responsibility to, somehow, rise out of urban poverty and get a decent education that will allow you to pay for enough gas to get you to your decent job.
Sure, all those things are your personal responsiblity, but they don’t make you less of a legal citizen. Isn’t it a bit pretentious of you to assume that people of poverty don’t care about elections? Maybe it’s from years of being oppressed at the polls, huh?
That stance of yours is a bit ‘elitist’ isn’t it?
Again, there are TONS of reasons not to pass this law.

When someone can barely put food on the table, or gas in their car to get to work, they might not have $20-$30 for a gov’t ID, or have all day to wait in line to get one (in Chicago anyway). This is nothing more than a tax on voters. Voting should always be free. I always used public transportation and didn’t own a car til my early 20’s. I didn’t get a DL/ID until I turned 21, and that was only so I could hit the bars. How many other 18-21 year olds (mostly Dems) are in this same situation? Shouldn’t they still be allowed to vote? Regardless of how some care to spin it, this decision is still bullsh!t, not to mention, transparent as hell.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

If you want to vote, you should at least show some sort of initiative and personal responsibility so that you have the capacity and means to vote…how sad is it when its too much of a burden for people to show an id when the vote, like this is some sort of discrimination? Constitutional freedoms only go so far–its meant to save you from the government, not from yourself

Coach– Its not an elitist attitude, its elitist to think that all of these people need coddling throughout their lives by mother government, instead of doing things themselves, without whom they can apparently do nothing…its the voter’s responsibility to make sure that they are eligible to vote, no one elses

(Jed Clampett)

why Gliebe? the elected officials show none of those qualities, why should the eletorate be any different. Aren’t they suppossed to be representative of the electorate?

BTW… why is it only businessmen and attorneys run for office most of the time? where are the experts in economics, social services, people who actually understand civil engineering? Could it be that only the rich and well connected can strive for office because they have the support of the business comunity whom expects a quid pro quo?

Mr. Merk: Here’s where you’re way off base….”its the voter’s responsibility to make sure that they are eligible to vote, no one elses.”

Wrong. It’s government’s responsibility to make sure all citizens have the ability to vote. By putting up barriers, all you’re doing is suppressing certain votes.
Or, let’s just send this another direction for the hell of it: What good does this law do? I’ve given you plenty of cases where normal, everyday, average citizens will be suppressed. It’s your turn to tell me why we need this…….And you call yourself a libertarian. It looks and sounds like you have a long way to go to prove that you’re part liberal…..

I now know why there is a group of people called reactionaries. They don’t want to take the time or personal responsibility to actually look into something before reacting.

From the Indiana State website.

Indiana now requires all voters (with a few exceptions) to provide an acceptable form of photo identification at the polling place before being able to cast your ballot.

The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can’t afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.

In re Report of the Special January 1982 Grand Jury 1, No. 82 GJ 1909 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 1984):

“Every vote that is fraudulently manufac­tured disenfranchises the legitimate voter and makes a mockery of our political pro­cess. Vote fraud is like a cancer, and it must be treated so that it will not destroy our con­stitutional right to vote, the basis of our American heritage.”

The problem with NewportRacer’s “reactionaries” – those criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision (in which Justice Stevens, hardly a conservative, wrote the plurality opinion) – is that they fail to see that there are two sides to a coin.

They see only disenfranchisees but fail to note that conversely, lax voter fraud laws would negate valid votes too – thereby leading to disenfranchisement via vote fraud. Do *those* disenfranchisees not matter then? The state clearly has a valid interest in preventing vote fraud – to protect the franchise.

There is no legitimate state interest in imposing a poll tax, which is in any case banned by the 24th Amendment. There is however a legitimate state interest in requiring voter ID, which goes directly to protecting the franchise of legitimate voters. And as NewportRacer notes, there are provisions for free IDs for those who cannot afford it.

Perhaps Rolling Stone should stick to music instead of lame political rants on its inhouse blog?

(Jed Clampett)

Think of it this way, with the requirement that people show a valid photo ID, the republicans won’t be able to generate voter registration cards for dead folk and send their members to vote for them.

This makes me wonder, if the republican party is so adamant about protecting the ‘franchise’, why did it not make more of an issue of those counties in florida that had trouble with their electronic voting(as in it didn’t match exit polls and the same voters other choices)?
If they are so concerned about the suffrage, why are they so oppossed to make voting machines more accountable and verifyiable.

Their attitudes belies their true intent… disenfranchisement of the few voters that are poor and would be unable to meet the demand. Either way, it is a minimal number that would be affected, what it does do however, is set a precedent, and precedents are way more important than actual law, because with precedent, later you can insert the law you wish, in this case because of the precedent of being able to restrict voters of a particular nature. Soon, they will test with ’sexual predators’ and other undesirables. Until it has becomes a travesty… oh, wait!!

(Merkwurdigliebe)

i’m not totally for the law, i agree with Dennis that the Supreme Court didnt necessarily have to have a ruling on this

i also dislike this law as it will probably add another layer to corpulent government bureacracy, as opposed to kicking it back to the states, which is how it should be interpreted

but I am for personal sovereign responsibility, i.e., that you, as a coherent and capable individual, are responsible for your sphere first…for too long there has been a cult of “big government will pick up the slack,” that the government should essentially wipe your ass for you, and you dont have to worry…it kills personal initiative, why do something when nanny govt will do it for you?

the PEOPLE are responsible for their actions, except in certain circumstances(remember, the Constitution empowers the people by limiting government to defined powers, instead of telling people what the government ALLOWS them to do)…The government should in no way be counted on to ensure that the people vote, because thats a fine line to tread, and one that can easily slip into dictatorship–the govt goes from ensuring the vote to telling you how to vote

maybe this law will force them to do so, maybe not, but somewhere along the line someone has to take responsibility for themselves for the state their in

like anything, this is pragmatically a mixed bag…certain people will be disenfranchised (through their own fault), more government is created when it doesnt have to be, but voter fraud is targeted, and this might inspire a little personal responsibility

there’s my pragmatic Libertarian stance on it

(Jed Clampett)

funny, that’s how I always saw the large corporations behaving. They want the fed to wipe their ass for them anytime they sh*t all over themselves. They get gov grants, tax breaks, incentives and discounts, yet they still screw things up for everyone, then they get a bailout. Go figure! no wonder there are not enough dollars to repair a city, or provide healthcare to our citizens or educate our children. All that money we need is going to support a bunch of shoddy businessmen with little talent for anything other than destroying our democratic institutions and finding new ways to avoid paying their just share of taxes.

You want to know what caused the state they are in??? na, didn’t figure you cared.

Hey, let’s nationalize the oil companies. There has to be some wrongdoing going on when the energy companies are making record profits at a time when their raw material is at a record cost. Just a decade ago they were crying that it was impossible to make a profit and still pay their executive salaries because their raw material was too cheap. ?!?! in what logical non-bizarro universe do you make more profit when your raw material becomes more costly? unless you have a deal set in place that could net you lots of profit if the conditions changed, like say a war started or a pipeline was shut down for maintenance at the worst possible time. At what point do we realize that when a company has a monopoly on a particular product and market, all it has to do is make minor adjustments to manipulate the price and therefore the profits? you were right DD, they should be taken over, it is too important a resource to be in the hands of crooks.

Jed Jed Jed… As someone who became rich off the oil business you should know better.
A “raw material” is what you need to produce a product. For an oil company oil is NOT a raw material, dead dinosuars are your raw materials and your output is oil.

No “logical non-bizarro universe” there Jed.

Merk,

Can’t disagree in principle, but in practice, yes. Why, after 200 years, is it suddenly necessary to produce photo ID. Especially why, given the strict intrepretation of the Constitution by Cons. So, since they’re now ‘modernizing’ their interpretation of the Constitution, can we ‘rethink’ the 2nd Amendment?

I know you’re not FOR any of this and your position on ‘responsibility’ is valid. However, it’s the intent of the law and the SC support of it which is unnerving.

Sh*t O Dear, can we NEVER get over this Proxy crap?

(Jed Clampett)

I guess gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, kerosene, fertilizers, plastics, pesticides and all that doesn’t count.

If oil was the only thing they traded on, it would be even more unfathomable the profits they are making… unless they had fixed priced contracts before they got their paid for officials to send us to war in an oil producing region.
At a time when china is implementing price controls to keep inflation down, and when the oil industry is making record profits above even what would be expected, shouldn’t we expect a little loyalty and reimbursement of some of those tax breaks and incentives in the form of taking a small hit on gasoline while still making record profits on the other products and still making huge CEO salaries?

New rule… no free tax money to corporations. You either take a sub-prime loan to be paid back to the american people, or accept government investment and a controlling stake in the company.

Yawn!!Basically,Conservative and Liberal Are Two Sides of A One Sided Coin!!
It still Strikes Me as Odd That Suddenly We Need To Show A Driver’s Licence To Vote!!
Same Hand,What’s The Whoop Good;Bad or Otherwise??
“In A World Gone Mad,Only The Truly crazy Are Truly Sane!!”-Homer Simpson.
“Give That Bone To Another Dog!!”-Judge Maria Lopez.
“When The Legend Becomes Truth,Print The Legend.”-John ford.

Below,

You can make the case that the Libs are the minority party, basically opposition to the Cons. While there are liberal dogmas and agendas, in truth it’s basically a counter ideology.

Or is it the other way around?

DD-

You are way out of line on these items:

“What SHOULD have happened is the Supreme Court should have declined to rule on it because no rights were/are involved.”

“…it’s the intent of the law and the SC support of it which is unnerving.”

I am a little confused by your argument(s). There are two interpretations of what you are stating as I see it:
1) The Supreme Court should not hear cases where ‘no rights are/were involved’ or 2) The whole practice of judicial review is bunk.

First, the combined cases heard by the Supreme Court are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. Crawford and the Indiana Democratic Party appealed their cases to the highest court because they were arguing that rights were violated. In the end they lost. But, why should the Supreme Court not choose to hear a case and determine whether rights are being violated when the court determines that such a controversy exists? How could the Court determine if rights are being violated without due process? Would you have prefer that the court determine whether or not rights are violated behind closed doors? What kind of precedent would that set?

On the other hand, if you are arguing against the Constitutionality of judicial review – which is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but then again neither are voter registration cards – then you have to be willing to toss out stuff like Roe v. Wade.

While I’m here, I’d like to throw out this hypothetical. Let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful to require proof of any ID…in that case it would be impossible to validate or invalidate anyone from voting. Multiple votes would become the rule not the exception. In the end, it would be a game of who could mobilize the most multiple voters, which ultimately would come down to money. That would be frightening – though possibly amusing. The point is that any systematic way of conducting polling will lead to restrictions and yes, even disenfranchisement.

Annonymouse,

You’re right and I defer. Up to a point. And that point is that the SC cherry picks what it will rule on. I sense an agenda at work.

I’ve scarce read every thing the various justices have opined, but what I HAVE read gives no indication of a constitutionality ruling. They talk about voter fraud as if it’s an issue. It’s not; never has been.

What Indiana, et al, seem to be saying is you’re guilty of fraud until proven innocent. Given that we’ve managed to struggle through over 200 years of this republic WITHOUT IDs, one could conclude that an overwhelming body of evidence would be needed to justify their use. In the absence of such evidence, if the constitutional rights of only one person are impacted, then the law should be invalidated.

But talk of constitutionality, etc. is hokum. This is all about judicial activism which I’m all for. I just think the activism should be in the interest of the citizen over the state.

As to your hypothetical, that’s the rule of the land or at least has been since the inception of this country. If anyone wants to ‘fraud’ an election, garnering a handful of cadaver votes is NOT going to turn the tide. Invalidating precincts, threatening reprisals and requiring ‘validation’ for voting is more fruitful.

One could almost make the point that this whole business has been choreographed from the get-go just to put the official ’seal of approval’ on voter ID. A precendence has been set that will be difficult to overcome. One would think that precedences should be make of a little firmer material than this BS.

Those writing that free i.d.s are available to those that can produce documentation are not considering that the burden of obtaining them is not “evenhanded” as is required of any restriction on voting rights Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663. The burden of obtaining documentation weights much harder on the poor and elderly who have less chance of gaining the time, money and mobility needed to satisfy these requirements than the more affluent.

U.S. Const. Amend. VIII wrote:

“Vote fraud is like a cancer, and it must be treated so that it will not destroy our con­stitutional right to vote, the basis of our American heritage.”

Your problem is that voter disenfranchisement is a worse cancer that is far more damaging to our American Heritage and constitution which is the whole point. State interests must be “sufficiently weighty” to restrict voting rights Norman v. Reed, 502 U. S. 279, 288-289. Pp. 5-7. Since there is no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and hardly any evidence of voter fraud in the U.S., the state has hardly has an interest in restricting voting rights.

“lax voter fraud laws would negate valid votes too – thereby leading to disenfranchisement via vote fraud.”

Again, voter fraud did not exist in Indiana and barely exists in the U.S., (at least due to the type of fraud you’re referring to.) Electronic voter fraud is an entirely different manner. So is corrupt poll workers and secretaries of state (Harris). It speaks volumes that those lauding this ruling are restricting their passions to voter I.D.s and not extending them to mandating electronic machines with paper trails.

Like the overreach of Bush v. Gore, this decision is a republican attempt to disenfranchise American voters.

“Your problem is that voter disenfranchisement is a worse cancer that is far more damaging to our American Heritage and constitution which is the whole point.”

And you miss the point completely. Voter fraud IS voter disenfranchisement. Fraudulent votes negate valid votes, thereby disenfranchising legitimate voters. You can’t see this? Are you dense?

Citing Harper doesn’t help you either. Under Anderson v, Celebrezze, “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” meet the standard of evenhandedness proposed in Harper.

Since there is a provision for free IDs, the impact cannot be financially discriminatory in nature. And since ALL voters have to have valid ID, the impact cannot be unevenhanded either – ALL voters have to go through the same procedures to acquire ID – not just the old or the poor.

So, what exactly is uneven about the voter ID requirements? Nothing.

The burden is no more uneven than having to travel to a voting station on polling day (which everyone has to do). While travel is marginally more onerous for an older person, it does not rise to the level of excessive burden. Similarly, ID – like travel – is a requirement evenhandedly imposed on all – old, young, rich, and poor. Free IDs mean that the poor are not unduly burdened. The old aren’t unevenly burdened either, given that the young have to obtain these IDs too.

In short, your argument fails even on the Harper test.

“Since there is no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana and hardly any evidence of voter fraud in the U.S.”

Are you kidding? This is false on its face.

Here is Justice Stevens – not a conservative – recounting the evidence: “It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor — though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Read that again: “The risk of voter fraud [is] real”. The Supreme Court decides standards that apply to the rest of the country – not just Indiana. And fraud in other states have been well-documented. You have a poor grasp of what appellate review is about when you imagine that only Indiana is relevant.

“Again, voter fraud did not exist in Indiana and barely exists in the U.S.”

Really? Justice Stevens found otherwise. 6 of 9 Justices found otherwise. You are delusional.

Given the “real risk” of voter fraud in the several states, the state has a legitimate interest in passing a voter ID law, which, as I have shown, does not have uneven impact.

“It speaks volumes that those lauding this ruling are restricting their passions to voter I.D.s and not extending them to mandating electronic machines with paper trails.”

I think paper trails are an excellent idea. You lose.

U.S.,

You’re either an attorney or a wannabe, either way, YOU miss the point. You can cloak the arguments any way you want, which is what attorneys do, but if you can’t see the clear intent behind the law then you are socially deficient.

Is the irony lost upon you that the very same people who are putting the gov’t onto the backs of the people are the same ones who decry gov’t oversight of businesses? Check that, replace irony with hypocrisy.

On the surface this would appear to be a benign regulation but it is insidious on several levels: For one, it’s aimed at the marginal voter who, it could be argued, is NOT fodder for the Con Machine. For another, it establishes a crime, fraud, without evidence and assigns a punishment under the guise of ‘security,’ that delicious mantra that the Cons trot out whenever they want to ensure legislative fiat. Finally, it opens the door for further draconian requirements which will only be intended for those at the bottom of the political ladder and those folks sure aren’t Cons.

Scarcely commented upon in this discourse is the absentee ballot. If there’s a provision for ID for those folks, it’s been quietly ignored. Is there no potential for fraud there? In fact, anyone wishing to perpetrate voter fraud would find that to be an ideal means to their end.

Returning to your chosen venue, legalese, you cite cases to establish precedent. How about addressing the issue of making IDs required in person but not in absentee.

Dennis, so you agree that legally, there was nothing facially unconstitutional about the Voter ID law?

Your argument seems to be, that, because the law doesn’t cover absentee ballots, therefore there shouldn’t be a law at all.

Do you realize how lame an argument that is? It’s like saying that, if there’s no law against theft, there musn’t be one against murder either.

Just because there is a deficiency somewhere, the law musn’t address deficiencies elsewhere either.

Really?

U.S.,

Actually, my point about absentee ballots was an afterthought, which is never a good idea in debates. Please address my other points and then we can ruminate about the commanality between theft/murder and absent/in-person voting. I will tip my hand by saying there’s considerable evidence for both theft and murder.

Your other “points” were not legal points either, but mainly political griping. The “intent” of the law is to combat the risk of voter fraud. Sounds laudable to me. Why are you against combating voter fraud?

Given that it’s free for those can’t afford it, you can’t claim that it is meant to disenfranchise anybody. Beyond that, you are into the realm of speculation.

(Jed Clampett)

the way I heard the analyst describe it, there is no proof that there is massive voter fraud in the state in question. Therefore, no need for the law to begin with. It is generating legislation for no reason, the number of people it will disenfranchise is far greater than the number of people it will prevent from committing fraud.

Where’s the kid from heroes that can talk to the machines to give Obama the vote and end this mess. I’d rather it be a kid than diebold &co.

Except that the Supreme Court standards decided in this case would apply to other states as well, where voter fraud has been documented. It’s not just about Indiana.

Voter fraud is also difficult to detect. If fraud is difficult to detect, instances of detected voter fraud are likely to be a small fraction of actual voter fraud. Is Indiana special? No. Why should voters in Indiana be less dishonest than other states, where more detailed studies have been carried out? They aren’t. So the results from other states can be extrapolated to Indiana (meaning, voter fraud is also present in Indiana).

As for an appraisal of “proof”, that’s up for the state legislature to decide. The Courts are not in the business of invalidating “unnecessary” laws when there is a compelling state interest at stake. That is not their purview.

An ID requirement does not disenfranchise anyone. There is no excuse for not getting ID, since it is free to those who can’t afford it. And provisional ballots are available, pending identification within X days of the cast ballot.

(Jed Clampett)

That logic begs the question, how is it that electronic voting machines, which arguably have the most potential for fraud, and considering the returns from ohio in the last general in which Bush got over 4 thousand votes in a county with only 400+ residents or the fiasco in florida where apparently 80% of the voters decided not to vote in the most critical contest on the ballot, are not mandated greater accountability or banned altogether.

If preventing fraud was the true intent, the method of voting with the most potential for fraud would have to be the first targeted. It is not, that silence belies the intent. While it will be a small number of voters affected, we should perhaps scrutinize our leaderships intent more closely on the decisions they take.

Impeach congress… it has become painfully obvious they don’t have our best interest at heart and are unaware of the meaning and intent in the constitution… even though our forefathers wrote plenty to elucidate the issues.

Scalia is an egotistical imbecile that should be imprisoned, not just impeached.

Voting machines don’t have driver’s licenses, Jed. BTW, who would be left to serve, if you had your way?

“And you miss the point completely. Voter fraud IS voter disenfranchisement.”

If you want to play that game you’ll have to concede that disenfranchisement is a form of vote fraud as well, since each instance of disenfranchisement doubles the effect of each opposing vote. Since Indiana’s voter ID laws DO disenfranchise voters (those who do not have photo ID) then according to your logic, upholding Indiana’s voter ID requirement IS fraud. Nice.

Not surprisingly, you missed the point of what I wrote: since the state’s interest in preventing fraud is not as important or real (evidenced by the fact there was little to no fraud in Indiana) as the disenfranchisement of voters that would result from requiring Ids, the state interests are not “sufficiently weighty“ to justify requiring them: “A state law’s burden on a political party, an individual voter, or a discrete class of voters must be justified by relevant and legitimate state interests “sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation.” Norman v. Reed, 502 U. S. 279, 288-289. Pp. 5-7.

By your logic since fraud and disenfranchisement are the same and the state has a relevant and legitimate interest in stopping it, a law enabling that fraud and disenfranchisement is actually counter to the state’s interests and cannot be justified.

“There is no excuse for not getting ID, since it is free to those who can’t afford it.”

Standing in line for hours at any given state DMV is not “free.” One is spending time in line instead of using it to make money. This is not “evenhanded” when you consider some demographic groups would bear harsh enough penalties (such as being fired for standing in line during working hours) to not go through the process at all while others in different circumstances would not. The burden is not “evenhanded.”

“ALL voters have to go through the same procedures to acquire ID – not just the old or the poor.”

That is laughably false. The procedures one goes through to obtain the documents necessary to receive a photo id change with time. It is harder today to replace lost social security proof and other forms of id than it was 30 years ago and doing so may require money. Needless to say those without current documentation tend to vote democratic. Again, the burden is not “evenhanded.”

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helooo– do you have evidence that such a large scale of voters would be disenfrachised as such? All of this is projected, and in the case of Indiana, voters still have, as of today, a full work week to procure some form of identification, and this story is several days old…fair enough warning, yes?

beside, in any election, someone is bound to get disenfranchised…its equality of opportunity in this country, not equality of results, you cant guarantee everything for everyone every time…its too bad someone has to spend time in the DMV to get a liscense, too bad, so does everybody else…the burden has never been evenhanded, and somehow the country has managed to survive

again, as the root of US Constitution’s argument points out, its a personal responsibility issue…unless you have some sort of legitimate health or mental deficiency, it’s no one else’s damn fault but your own that you were too stupid or incapable to find a way to procure some form of identification to vote, no one elses, plain and simple

ah yes… spoken like a true uncaring, selfish being. But as long as your team wins, who cares what they do once you put them in power.

This is a stupid discussion….

Why don’t we compromise by making state issued id free? Is it too unreasonable for conservatives to expect tax rates to be sufficient to pay for the provision of all citizens with appropriate identification? Is it unreasonable for liberals to expect that citizens obtain identification at no cost before voting? Maybe my compromise is the wrong one, but let’s get some perspective. This is not such a complicated issue that an equitable solution cannot be found. Ensuring that voters are who they say they are without impinging on anyone’s rights is hardly challenging when one considers the innumerable other problems facing the United States. If we can’t get this right than there is probably little hope that we can solve some of the bigger, more pressing issues.

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Well put f u k w i t. I think its a great idea that would solve the problem. That way if people are too lazy to go get an ID (I work two jobs and I’ve managed to find time to get a driver’s license), then it is their own damned fault and obviously voting is not that important to them. Lets bring back a little personal responsibility, shall we?

Why not just put a picture on the Social Security Card?

Merkwurdigliebe,

“its equality of opportunity in this country, not equality of results, you cant guarantee everything for everyone every time”

What the hell are you blathering about? Equality of opportunity is the whole point. By applying a burden that is not “evenhanded” in creating voter restrictions, the state is denying citizens an equal opportunity to vote.

“it’s no one else’s damn fault but your own that you were too stupid or incapable to find a way to procure some form of identification to vote,”

Wrong. It is the fault of this supreme court that has put the identity restriction on voters IN AN ELECTION YEAR (thereby denying them the time to resolve their issues.) It is not “your own fault” but theirs your vote can no longer be counted if you don’t have “government issued id.”

“unless you have some sort of legitimate health or mental deficiency,”

Wrong. The entire point of abolishing the poll tax was to extend consideration to those with an “economic deficiency.” That is what this entire argument is about. It is wrong to restrict voters who have a more difficult time voting simply because they have a more difficult time voting. That is not American.

“do you have evidence that such a large scale of voters would be disenfrachised as such? All of this is projected,”

Do you have evidence that a large scale of voters in Indiana are committing fraud? No. Therefore combating this strain of voter fraud is unnecessary and the state does not have sufficiently weighty cause to enact voter restriction laws.

If you want to argue at least read something first.

(Jed Clampett)

Heloooo…

Bra vooo!!!

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Why don’t we just have vote collectors that go door to door collecting votes, that way no one needs to leave their couch to vote. But I guess that would disenfranchise people without homes, so the vote collectors would have to go under all the overpasses, vacant buildings, railroad cars, etc. to make sure no one is disenfranchised. We should let illegal immigrants vote too since they live here even though they aren’t supposed to, but we don’t want to disenfranchise them either.
Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either. So much for “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

Somewhere in the Middle,

“Maybe after that is all done, the vote collectors can change our diaper and powder our bum, so we won’t even be responsible for that anymore either.”

While they’re at it they can tell you what to wear, how to comb your hair, whether or not to smile with teeth, etc… when you pose for your government issued ID.

Why has it not occurred to you conservatives that guiding you through a mandated government “graduation” process in order to issue you the credentials to vote IS THE DEFINITION OF THE NANNY STATE.

Your problem is you are the definition of stupid. Is there a cure for stupid? Anyone? Please God?

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Hellooo- you accuse someone of being stupid? you’re whole argument is a support for stupidity…i.e., that responsible voters should have to support the dullards and the dregs of society who are too dumb to take care of themselves and procure and id (not and espescially herculean task), or somehow procure the financial means to do so (again, for $20, not another herculean task)…i dont know how many time one can state it…it is the VOTERS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE IN A FREE SOCIETY, no one elses…and with the ample time provided in any of these cases, no voter, excluding legitimate health or mental retardation reasons, no responsible voter should have an excuse in any of these elections for not having an id…the whole notion of “evenhanded burden” is a myth, it has not, and never will be, even handed

i’ll agree with you that the SC shouldn’t have necesarily ruled at all in this case (and i abhor the ruling as it will probably be misenterpreted to produce another unecessary level of bloated government), but the line for personal responsibility and burden on the voter has to be drawn somewhere…enough coddling of morons, until this law is overturned, hopefully it will instll some personal responsibility lacking in the american populace

Merk,

If the gov’t can make dispensations for absentee ballots, why can’t it do so in other cases? Where do you draw the line? There is no ‘condition’ to be met for absenteeism, you just tell your local clerk you want to vote that way and they mail you one.

If, and it’s a mighty big if, this type of voter fraud really is a problem, then the solution is easy. You issue everyone a credit card type of SS card that must be inserted into the voting machine to allow voting. You don’t even have to vote in your precint. Gov’t oversea employees can have their own machines. Using your ‘responsibility’ logic, if you can’t get to a machine, you don’t want to vote bad enough.

This whole discussion is departing the realm of reality. If ‘bad guys’ want voter fraud, they’ll find a way. I doubt, however, elections are swung on such scanty means. The REAL problem is that less than half the population participates.

I still like giving everyone who votes $100. Makes more sense than tax rebates.

Merkwurdigliebe,

You are obviously not intelligent enough to vote on your own. You need the government to powder your unintelligent person and to certify it to vote.

Most people are personally responsible enough not to need “government issued ID.” You obviously are not.

Further you are obviously too stupid to understand this simple fact. Again, is there a cure for stupid? You are proving there is not. Idiot.

Again, try READING SOMETHING before arguing. It might make you appear less stupid.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Dennis– i tend to agree with your plan, as its the most seamless and painless way of voting, while also cutting down on problems…but as with anything with politics the easiest solution is often the most unatainable

helooo– i dont need to certify anything, because, like a good, RESPNONSIBLE CITIZEN, i went out and got my own damn licesnse and have been able to provide for myself so that i can procure that license, as well as social security cards and whatnot…i didnt need the govt to jack for me, other than waste paper

and again, we’re arguing on semantics…i too believe that most people are responsible enought to not need a govt issued id, though they will probably have one anyway if they’re responsible enough…semantics my dear boy, i’ve been going off on rants about personal responsibility, and i will heartily agree with you that the SC didnt need to rule in this circumstance

that said, this law is not going anywhere for the time being, so its going to have to be lived with, unfortunately

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Helloooo, if you think that making people get a driver’s license or an ID card in order to vote is the definition of a nanny state, than I will surely not take offense to you calling me the definition of stupid, since clearly you have severe difficulties defining things. And if my expecting people to take responsibility for themselves rather than have the government do so makes me a conservative, than does that mean that liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility and expect the government to do everything for them? By the way, in a debate, calling people stupid is one of the fastest ways to completely discredit yourself and weaken your position.

ironic guy

I’m with Merk on this one.
Screw everyone else. Let them make their way however they can. They don’t need to vote anyways, no one will do anything for those people anyhow. They don’t have a voice, why even bother getting a DL anyway. They should do what the wealthy do, find someone to exploit and make money for you, when they are worn out, fire them and find another.
capitlism, isn’t it grand???

Merkwurdigliebe,

“i too believe that most people are responsible enought to not need a govt issued id, though they will probably have one anyway if they’re responsible enough”

What is your point? You either do or don’t believe requiring a government issued ID is a legitimate responsibility for a voter. That was the entire point of the ruling. You seem to say it’s not legitimate because you keep saying the Supreme Court didn’t have to rule in this case, so why are you talking about personal responsibility at all? Voters are personally responsible enough to register to vote, so what is your point?

Somewhere in the middle,

You truly are stupid. You wrote:

“Helloooo, if you think that making people get a driver’s license or an ID card in order to vote is the definition of a nanny state, than I will surely not take offense to you calling me the definition of stupid, since clearly you have severe difficulties defining things.”

Well moron, the definition of the nanny state is this: “a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.”

Requiring government certified ID to vote on top of simple voter registration is all three:

The definition of authoritarian: “favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom” Any government requirement at all is the opposite of “individual freedom,” so requiring government issued photo ID to vote is an example of an authoritarian government action.

The definition of interfere: “to come into opposition, as one thing with another, esp. with the effect of hampering action or procedure” Requiring ID is an example of opposition to the regular voting procedure; it interferes with the voting process by hampering that process.

The definition of overprotective: “protect excessively; “Don’t overprotect your son–he is an adult now!”” It is overprotective to require government issued photo id to vote because it assumes citizens cannot vote on their own. Simple voter registration could be called “overprotective,” but requiring gov’t ID on top of that is even worse.

There you go Somewhere: requiring gov’t issued photo ids is the definition of the nanny state. Tell me you’re intelligent enough to get this.

“By the way, in a debate, calling people stupid is one of the fastest ways to completely discredit yourself and weaken your position.”

“Completely discrediting” oneself means their position is no longer valid at all; it cannot be “weakened” because it has been completely discredited. It was stupid of you to even write that sentence, Somewhere. And I thoroughly disagree with the idea that calling someone stupid is damaging to one’s argument. It actually calls attention to how unqualified you are to even voice your opinion, since it has been so thoroughly-and repeatedly- discredited. Idiot.

If someone WERE to want to suppress the minority vote, this would be one way to do it.

If someone WERE to want to suppress the poverty vote, this would be one way to do it.

People CAN raise themselves out of poverty but they CANNOT raise themselves out of the ‘minority’ (non-white), therefore hampering their chances of rising out of poverty. Ironically enough, not too many people work harder than the ag-employed minimum wagers, but they’re the ones that will be suppressed, so that throws out Merk’s argument about being a ‘responsible, hard-working American’….

Merk, the ‘irresponsibles’ of the world that live in urban areas and don’t make enough money to keep up with inflation may not have a voice, but they sure keep your groceries at a reasonable price. They sure keep those golf courses looking nice. They sure park cars well.

Pretty soon the IRS will have a say in who votes……Elitism at its finest!

(Merkwurdigliebe)

the fact that someone is urban, poor, or non-white should have little to no sway over whether one has identification or not…color of your skin or location is of little to no consequence if you’re a hard, educated worker who has taken the proper steps to take care of yourself– stayed in school, stayed off drugs, didnt have kids you couldnt afford, work hard and didnt live outside your means…this is a proven path to success, and has worked in this country since its founding and still works today…the whole “i’m poor because i’m nonwhite and the system is biased against me” is largely false and a cop-out to living on the government dole, and a compensation for a live of bad consequences, that apparently the govt should pick up the slack for

if conditions for these people are so bad, then, as you seem to paint it, they probably havent voted in previous elections…these poor, bereft proletariat are too busy parking cars and keeping golf lawns green for the benefit of the evil capitalist system, no? They dont have time to vote, after all, its all they can do to keep afloat, who can vote when you’ve got mouths to feed (and your scenario is probably true in several instances)

Coach– those “hard working” people you cited will still get to vote, again, finding ANY form of id should not be too difficult a stretch

unless one is completely homeless, without any sort of identification (damn near everyone has a social security card), their should be no real problem…this law is not the end of the world, as it stands right now…lets wait and see how the states will implement the said ruling, but disenfranchisment levels will largely remain static

(Jed Clampett)

So tell me Gliebe.

If this such a fact in american society.

“color of your skin or location is of little to no consequence if you’re a hard, educated worker who has taken the proper steps to take care of yourself– stayed in school, stayed off drugs, didnt have kids you couldnt afford, work hard and didnt live outside your means…this is a proven path to success, and has worked in this country since its founding and still works today…the whole “i’m poor because i’m nonwhite and the system is biased against me” is largely false and a cop-out to living on the government dole, and a compensation for a live of bad consequences, ”
If this is the case, why is it that in america so much is in place to work against this reality. In fact, the government is complicit in setting up the conditions that prevent those with the wrong color skin or social status to escape their situation by not enforcing the rules that are suppossed to help them rise out of poverty.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

it all depends on how you classify “poor”, and you are exactly right that the government enforces policies that keep the “poor” poor–its called welfare, a system that stifles initiative and is abused by far too many people leeching off the system…why work when the government will give stuff for free?

again, there are literally tons of opportunities if one is willing to work hard for them– Obama had to work hard to get where he is, but he still got there, and got there because he is intelligent and a hard worker, regardless of what his skin color is…all people have troubles, its just that some, like Obama, dont sit around and bitch but actually work to get their life in order and be successful

(Jed Clampett)

why give welfare when you could give employment, education, health and the pursuit of happiness with our tax money instead of dumping it on the unthankful, treasonus corporate structure that seems to be intent on making the population dependant on it rather than Nature’s creation (God’s creation to those of you who choose to lable it that way) that used to provide everything necessary with the only input being some of the sweat of your brow.

They are making us dependant on them and their whims and their greed. When monsanto genetically engineers a seed that only produces one crop before becoming unviable, they are making farmers dependant on their product… nature created many different varieties of rice that grew anywhere… she loves diverstity and plurality, corporations are totalitarian, they frown on diversity, particularly if not sold by them.
The US government gives farmers subsidies to plant less of a crop or to not plant a crop at all so that prices won’t go down to excess, or some would say appropiate, supplies. This keeps prices artificially high within the satates, which has the intended effect of keeping the poor in poverty.
There are many more examples of this which you with your priviledged upbringing and lack of sympathy or empathy could never understand until you are forced to live them yourself. Keep up the current status quo, and you will understand what natures equality of status is all about.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

who is talking about keeping the status quo? lord knows that the current system needs restructuring

that said, your idea of simply giving away “employment, education, health and the pursuit of happiness with our tax money” sounds suspiciously like communism, which if history is anything to go by, is a failure via human nature…i want equality of opportunity, as in everyone has a chance to be successful (which currently they do, no matter what mystical mother nature mumbo jumbo about the evil of corporations). What do you propose to do about corporations, eliminate them entirely?

oh, and those farm subsidies are also what help feed millions around the globe and keep the market from collapsing due to an overflow of supply…again, the current system works well, and would work even better with proper govt regulation (note, regulation, not intervention)

and “nature’s equality” is that the species who are the strongest survive, not the species who wait around for others to supply their needs

(Merkwurdigliebe)

I should have added– but not equality of results where everything is given with little or no effort to have earned it

Indiana says you have to have a photo ID to vote period… anyone living in America without a photo ID cannot drive, drink beer, or pretty much walk down the street without getting arrested for vagrancy. This is an attempt by a conservative state to stop the 20 million people here illegally from voting which is not their right and it is a good thing. A very good thing and the Supreme Court agrees…bastards!

(Jed Clampett)

You can’t walk down the street without a drivers licence and not expect to be arrested for vagrancy???
That sound like you want a totalitarian state, not a nanny state. Now we see the true nature of this beast.

Get stopped by a cop and have no ID and you’re a candidate for vagrancy charges. Why should it be a crime to not have a home or job? Because it’s a way to control the ‘lower classes.’

Merkwurdigliebe,

You are utterly ridiculous. Nothing you’ve written is in any way relevant to voter ID laws and everything you’ve written is completely false.

You’ve been blathering on about “personal responsibility” and then you go and write this:

“oh, and those farm subsidies are also what help feed millions around the globe and keep the market from collapsing due to an overflow of supply…again, the current system works well, and would work even better with proper govt regulation (note, regulation, not intervention)”

Wrong. The market would not collapse if we ended farm subsidies, farmers would just make less and politicians would not win the Iowa caucuses unless they resumed subsidies. “help feed millions around the globe..” you’re hilarious–removing farm subsidies would lower the cost of food around the globe, not the other way around. If you actually took what you said to it’s limits you are arguing AGAINST personal responsibility and FOR the nanny state.

Then you lay this one down:

“your idea of simply giving away “employment, education, health and the pursuit of happiness with our tax money” sounds suspiciously like communism, which if history is anything to go by, is a failure via human nature”

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH FARM SUBSIDIES. GIVING AWAY OUR TAX MONEY. You argue that subsidies are responsible for feeding millions and then you say that subsidies cannot work because they are “a failure via human nature.” Come on dude. You really have no clue what you’re talking about do you?

“the fact that someone is urban, poor, or non-white should have little to no sway over whether one has identification or not”

I still can’t get over the fact that you don’t believe the voter ID law should have been approved so in response you blame those who would be disenfranchised by the voter ID law. What does someone even say in response to that?

“government enforces policies that keep the “poor” poor–its called welfare, a system that stifles initiative and is abused by far too many people leeching off the system…why work when the government will give stuff for free?”

Ding dong, the government provides welfare to the oil companies-money for free-and they HAVE JUST HAD THE MOST PROFITABLE YEAR EVER RECORDED. Your notion that welfare leads to poverty is utterly false! Good one!

“ll people have troubles, its just that some, like Obama, dont sit around and bitch but actually work to get their life in order and be successful”

OBAMA IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON A PLATFORM OF BITCHING. Bitching about voter ID laws that disenfranchise large populations of voters IS work. It’s called LOBBYING. Why do you think oil, farm, telecom, media, etc… companies GET government welfare in the first place? THEY LOBBY FOR IT.

Congratulations, Merkwurdigliebe on TOTALLY failing to understand what you’re talking about. I’d tell you to read something but after reading this I’m not sure what good it would do.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helooo– giving someone, for free, Education, Health, and their “pursuit of happiness” as Jed suggested, when they do absolutly no work to deserve/earn it, is not the same as subsidizing farmers to grow less…farmers are still working, while many welfare recipients are merely doing jack sh*t while milking others for their tax dollars

Welfare takes the place of an income flow, Farmers and oil companies are not exclusively funded by the Government, and produce a product, most welfare recipients dont, which sh*ts all over your point already

do you know how much farmers make, the vast amount of land one needs simply to turn a profit off of farming? If you get rid of subsidies, the farm industry, which has been in decline without them for years, the industry would flatline…do you have some sort of evidence to suggest otherwise? Already we’ve cut subsidies on wheat in order to make way for corn for ethanol, and have seen everything from the price of tortillas rise in Mexico so exhorbitantly that people are rioting in the streets to increased prices on beef and dairy products because what was once subsidized grazing land is now a corn field…subsidies for farmers are a weird subject, as they are one of the few industries that wouldnt survive without them (the govt rail system is another), yet our farm industry plays a crucial part of the world economy…your argument is a direct contradiction– “farmers would just make less”–farmers already make piss-poor wages, and you remove the subsidies, they go out of business, and the market collapses…wait… you dont really know what you’re talking about, do you?

And your point about oil companies? They made record profits for many reasons, the chief amongst them being a static supply with an increased demand in the third world, as well as a growing demand here, coupled with a lack of refining capacity here…not to mention the additives and blends that each state/region decrees needs to be in its gasoline, and political instability at the source of the oil in ME, ALL of which affect the price of gas much, much more than simple subsidies, which i will agree, are questionable, but still your willingness to cite subsidies over other immediate causes seems to show a lack of knowledge about economic/political events…economic subsidies are not the same as social welfare, as they are a necessary evil, and most company’s, other than oil companies, depend on them, and in return the govt depends on their product

and my point about Obama is that he got TO THE POSITION HE IS NOW TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY MADE SOMETHING OUT OF HIS LIFE, INSTEAD OF SITTING ON WELFARE BEING NON-PRODUCTIVE (something you cant say about farmers, or even oil companies), lobbying aside (again, about lobbying, so what? what do you propose, eliminating lobbying? or only lobbying by those you disagree with?)

And what i’ve been saying is VERY relevant to voter ID laws…this law should be of no consequence, honestly this story is now about a week old, ALL WHO WANT TO VOTE SHOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE TIME TO FIND SOME WAY OF PROVIDING ID, is this really that hard of a concept? You have yet to provide any sort of data, other than speculation, that vast amounts of people will be disenfranchised…where’s your numbers smartass?

Bottom line, it is the voters responsibility to make sure that they are capable of voting, and this law does not hamper their ability to do so…the requirment of an id at most costs $20 and an hour or so at the DMV, not a “burden” by any stretch of the imagination…we can argue about whether its a good law, or whether the court should have decided (IMO, the should have let the case lie), but its not going anywhere, and voters are going to have to deal with it

While Merk (sic) dazzles us with facts and political-speak, he fails to recognize that there WILL be legal citizens of the United States of America disenfranchised, which is the whole argument of this thread. While that number may or may not be large enough to make a difference is not the argument. While those disenfranchised may be lazy is not the point. While those that are disenfranchised may not even vote anyway isn’t the point either. The point of this is to get rid of voter fraud. So, in keeping with that, nobody has given ANY numbers of the amount of ACTUAL voter fraud that was the necessity of this ruling.

So, based on these facts, I rule in favor of ‘Everyone Else’ on this one. Until I see facts of actual voter fraud, disenfranchising people is a crime and unconstitutional, regardless of what one thinks of the disenfranchised. Judging the minority is a form of elitism, among many other isms.

Dr. Ralph, can you explain to me how 20 million illegals are voting in Indiana please??

hellloooo? Can I post on this site?

(Jed Clampett)

Giving? wow dude, you are astounding. I don’t often do this, as I understand the kharmic debt that it draws to it’s invoker, however this may be useful.
I ask that the need for use of those services which you hold so much disdain for become a necessity that you and yours could not survive without. I hope that you are forced to loose that healthy cushion of wealth that makes you so smug in the same way, or as justice payment for, the way you or your patriarch accumulated it.
Perhaps something that profound would help such a spirit see the error of it’s ways.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Jed– nothing was given to me, my family, and i, have worked our way up the economic ladder into the middle class through sheer hard work, not through govt handouts…if my family can make its way out of the coalmines and auto factories, any one can, and we did it the old fashioned way

again, the system as it was created was not a bad idea, but it has been perverted by too many undeserving hangers-on

Gee, no wonder the Supremes made this decision before the Indiana primary. They would have looked completely ridiculous saying “there is no evidence Indiana’s voter ID law disenfranchises voters” after multiple, blatant examples of that very thing happening in the Indiana primary. And the worst thing is that each of these instances is that much greater a tragedy in light of the fact that the entire reason for the law was to prevent fraud that HAS NEVER OCCURRED.

A group of retired nuns were turned away for not having the right ID (some of whom were in their 80s and 90s and no longer had driver’s licenses.)
–CNN & multiple news sources

The following is from an interview with some election watchdog guy named Borkowski on the scene. Whoever he is he makes the point better than I can:

“Here’s the supreme irony,” Borkowski said. “This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana. Here you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can’t be accepted by a bunch of nuns … who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don’t have an ID.” (U.K. Guardian)

6 others AT THAT POLLING STATION were also denied the vote.

The greatest number of reports of refused voters come from college campuses –CNN

Apparently, other than the fact that college kids are less likely to have driver’s licenses, according to The Indiana Journal and Courier, large groups of private college students were turned away from the polls because the state did not accept their student photo ID.

So Merkwurdigliebe,

You’ve spent a couple days screaming about poor, minority people on welfare for not being “responsible” enough to get gov’t ID when it turns the real culprits are RICH WHITE KIDS GOING TO PRIVATE COLLEGES.

Oh yeah, and elderly nuns. Obviously the height of irresponsibility.

Can you now take a look at yourself and tell the truth to each of us still reading your nonsense: that YOU are the IRRESPONSIBLE one for blaming poor minorities for what has proven to be NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

Now look. If you actually did work up from poverty as you’ve been insinuating that is a commendable thing you should be proud of. What it shouldn’t do is prevent you from using your god-given brain. You wrote this as a way of deflecting attention from your hilariously wrong assertion that welfare leads to poverty:

“Welfare takes the place of an income flow, Farmers and oil companies are not exclusively funded by the Government, and produce a product, most welfare recipients dont, which sh*ts all over your point already”

God you‘re dumb. You already wrote that “farming is one of the few industries that wouldn’t survive” without government welfare. Now you’re trying to say the opposite. If U.S. farming can’t survive without government welfare than it IS being exclusively funded by the government.

And further, because of welfare reform in the 1990’s most welfare recipients DO work (you have sh#tted on your own point.) Farmers and minority welfare recipients are exactly the same: “piss poor” citizens who would not be able to cut it without welfare. You defend one and not the other why? For the same reason you blamed poor minorities for not getting drivers licenses?

“but still your willingness to cite subsidies over other immediate causes seems to show a lack of knowledge about economic/political events…economic subsidies are not the same as social welfare, as they are a necessary evil,”

I didn’t cite subsidies “over” anything. I cited it to make you look ridiculous for claiming that welfare keeps the poor “poor” by stifling initiative. How could the oil industry be getting record profits if the government welfare it received stifled its initiative? Even you can figure out that that doesn’t make sense. If anything welfare seems to have enhanced industry’s thirst for profit.

Either way none of this explains your irrational contempt, Merkwurdigliebe, for “poor minority” voters. Did you feel you had to bring up Obama as opposed to say, Hillary because you were apologizing for something? Are people like you the reason Obama doesn’t do well among “non college educated, working class people?”

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helloooo- – you’re the moron, your whole point was that the great unwashed poor were going to be disenfranchised, instead it was a couple of nuns and several dumbass college students who apparently had no other form of ID other than their school one (do they not have SS cards?)…so much for your predictions Nostradamus, it seems that the mass numbers of disenfranchised proletariat didnt materialize

but lets dissect your other points:

I said farming wouldnt survive without subsidies, but i didnt say that they were exclusively dependent on them. Also, farmers in the US, and further, the world, business market have a stake in keeping the farm industry going for its product, even as our economy shifts more and more towards the service sector, so, unlike those who leech of off government tax dollars with no real return, farmers, and in turn, what they produce, play an integral and indispensible part in the economy (is this really that difficult a concept to distinguish?) Farmers have been recieving subsidies of different types since the days of Cornelius Vanderbuilt, yet their role as breadbasket to the world has not diminished, even though their numbers have

and you are inherently wrong– social welfare and economic welfare happen for completely different reasons and have completely different results…company “welfare” is not synonymous with welfare towards the individual, as you so convienently overlook…companies tend to produce something in a symbiotic relationship with the govt, whereas individual welfare is usually awarded for no effor whatsoever

also, i have nothing against “minorities,” but i have everything against leeches and do-nothings who burden the system, whil contributing nothing to it, unlike corporations(surely you’ve seen the numbers pointing to welfare fraud?)…I cite Obama as one example, but could easily cite a dozen others of any race, color, or creed

so c’mon dude, walk your baby nuts around the block a couple of more times before you try to call anyone else out on their stupidity as you spin and twist words

Is anyone else having trouble posting?

(Somewhere In The Middle)

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Helloooo, I’m not sure where you got your definition from (maybe Movers and Shakers), but just for argument’s sake I will use that definition, but according to wikipedia (which is probably closer to what Iain McLeod meant when he coined the phrase) it is “a derogatory term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies, and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice.”
Based on your logic, requiring people to register to vote hampers the voting process, despite the fact that it has been adopted as part of that process by law. So how can something interfere with the process, if has become part of the process through legislation? So, again, by your logic, requiring people to register to vote is an example of interfering with the voting process. Even requiring people to get themselves to the polling station hinders the process since some are either unable or too lazy to go.
As for being overprotective, requiring government issued IDs to vote does not assume that citizens can’t vote on their own, it simply provides a safeguard against voting irregularity (malicious or not). The political machines of Chicago and New York are perfect illustrations as to why safeguards like this (and voter registration) need to be in place to avoid the “vote early and vote often” policy.

Middman: It creates safeguards AND disenfranchises. At what point does absentee voting get squashed? At what point does the IRS interfere and determine who can vote based on income? Where does it end?

Again, and I can’t stress this enough: Where is the evidence of voter fraud that necessitated this stupid, biased decision by the Supreme Court?

Merk, where is the evidence of voter fraud? There has been an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting voter oppression……which this law will do. a

(Somewhere In The Middle)

Coach, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don’t think the “slippery slope” argument is necessarily valid here. I’m sure that some are disenfranchised because they need don’t have a government ID to vote, but it can quite easily be remedied whether you are black, white, rich, poor, nun or lay person, you simply need to get an ID. I understand that it is a pain in the butt going to the DMV or Secretary of State’s office in order to get one, but to compare that to the old poll tax is a stretch to say the least.

(Somewhere In The Middle)

People that cannot afford the $5 or $10 for an ID should be able to get one for free. That way all they are responsible for is getting to a DMV or Sec. of State location where said ID can be had, which I really don’t think is asking too much.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Coach– it seems the election went just fine, with only a couple of nuns and some college students turned away, which hardly seems to support your claims that the great unwashed masses were disenfranchised

the law seems to have had no real impact on turnout…”disenfranchisement” seemed to be about the same in this election as in others previous, so how big an effect did this ruling really have?

Merk, I’m specifically asking you to prove the need for it, which you just don’t seem to want to do…..

Although the disenfranchisement wasn’t ‘massive’, (plenty of college students were turned away, also), nonetheless, there were disenfranchised people.

What was so wrong before that caused this ruling, Merk. You seem to be all for it, and even have a judgemental opinion on the suppressed, but can’t cite the need for the law………

Merkwurdigliebe,

Racist, try to use the brain god gave you. I understand it’s hard just as I understand that you are so childishly naïve that you probably will not understand a single truth I write. I can only hope for America’s sake that you will try.

My whole point was not that the “proletariat” was going to get disenfranchised. My point was that ANYONE would get disenfranchised, which would NEGATE THE NEED FOR THE LAW. Since you obviously cannot grasp the legal arguments necessary to even discuss this issue WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING IT?

post what I wrote please

“social welfare and economic welfare happen for completely different reasons and have completely different results”

Providing social welfare is for an ECONOMIC REASON. And how can results determine who you’re giving welfare to unless you know those results already? Even you can understand that makes no sense whatsoever. (Let me translate for your less than intelligent mind: corporations and poor minorities are exactly the same when we‘re talking about who should receive welfare.) Social and economic welfare are the same thing (just as “piss poor” farmers who cannot survive without public charity are the same as minorities on welfare.) That you are too racist to understand this is not surprising.

This site is absolutely horrible. Why does it allow racist conservatives to spew their vile rhetoric while censoring actual citizen commentary?

What a racist site.

I said farming wouldnt survive without subsidies, but i didnt say that they were exclusively dependent on them.”

IF FARMING CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES FARMERS ARE EXCLUSIVELY DEPENDENT ON THEM. This is not that hard to understand. Again, use the brain god gave you.

This site is absolutely one of the most shameful examples of censorship I believe I’ve ever encountered.

It is a sad sign of the times when liberal views are simply deleted by our radically conservative press. Rolling stone is engaging in the same sort of conservative propaganda by allowing the posts of right wing extremists to stand while deleting posts of center-right posters.

This is a sad display of the death of democracy itself. Our democracy depends on an informed populace. It is telling that rolling stone is so dedicated to keeping its readers ill-informed.

(Merkwurdigliebe)

Helooo- this is getting tedious, and now you’re calling me a racist, an obvious telling sign that your coherent arguments are running low, but i will try to respond

1. I never said anything racist. You’re the one who continually brings up minorities as welfare recipients, whereas they can be of any race, color, or creed (perhaps you’re projecting your own inner racism on me?)

2. I argued that the law would not have that big an effect on the elections, and that “disenfranchisment,” which you’re never going to totally eliminate, would remain statistically the same. And whoop-de-sh*t, it did. You bitched and complained in post after post that every poor person and minority would be turned away from the polls, and that democracy would totally collapse, blah blah blah…instead you got a couple of nuns and college students turned away, for reason that would valid even if the law did not exist…so again, how much of an impact has this law really had?

3. Ok, this is going to be the toughest one, and like any mouthbreathing liberal you may have trouble with this one…SOCIAL WELFARE (i.e., geared toward the individual, and in its present form stifle initiative), is NOT the same as subsidies to corporations (Which hundreds of thousands to millions rely on)…subsidies exist for a variety of reasons, from tariff protection, to alternate funds for research and development, etc (farmers are the odd industry out, because they’re a special case)…you take away subsidies, companies go belly-up, and we have another great depression…I defer to your economic genius

also, as concerned with welfare with the individual, I was referring to the millions who abuse the welfare system and use it as a supplement source of income without producing anything (and before you go off on another pointy headed “racist” tirade, system abusers can be any color, so stuff it)…name one company on subsidies that doesnt play a vital role in our economy, or the worlds for that matter, that doesnt produce some meaningful product, or produces something in general…oh wait, you wont, because you really cant grasp the difference even though its been plainly spelled out for you…YOU dont really use the brain god gave you, do you?

and for the record, this site does have technical problems, but its no right wing RS conspiracy, it merely recognizes crap posts when it sees em…take off the tin foil hat, stop twisting words, and maybe we can have a civilized conversation, because you verbal hyperventilating, when the numbers are against you, is getting old

Merkwurdigliebe,

This is only tedious (and it’s been tedious for a LONG time) because you don’t possess the mental ability to understand anything we‘ve been arguing about and because this site keeps deleting what I write. I’ll take your points on one by one, but you need to understand that I’ve refuted every one of those points already. Here goes again:

1. You have by your own admission spent days on this site on a “personal responsibility” rant directed at minorities and the poor:

Merkwurdigliebe 5/4/2008, 5:24 am EST
“like a good, RESPNONSIBLE CITIZEN, i went out and got my own damn licesnse and have been able to provide for myself so that i can procure that license, as well as social security cards and whatnot”

Merkwurdigliebe 5/5/2008, 3:08 am EST
“the fact that someone is urban, poor, or non-white should have little to no sway over whether one has identification or not”

Merkwurdigliebe 5/5/2008, 3:08 am EST
“the whole “i’m poor because i’m nonwhite and the system is biased against me” is largely false and a cop-out to living on the government dole, and a compensation for a live of bad consequences, that apparently the govt should pick up the slack for”

You blamed “poor nonwhite” people for being irresponsible and because of it, disenfranchised by a law you don‘t even agree with. You were then proven completely wrong when no “poor nonwhite” people were disenfranchised due their being irresponsible. Furthermore, according to your last quote you think poor, nonwhite people are copping out (being irresponsible) by blaming their problems on racial discrimination and lazily doing so because they know the government pick up their slack. What’s racist about this is not that it’s false (welfare reform forces people to work), it’s that you blamed it all on nonwhite people and have nothing to say about WHITE people who are just as irresponsible by blaming their bad luck on something other than race. (It’s only after I pointed out to you how racist your writing was that you wrote that white people abuse welfare too).

2. You need to read the text of the laws in question if you want to actually argue about this. Once again, who gets disenfranchised is not important. How many of them get disenfranchised is not important. What’s important is that the law disenfranchises a distinct group of people, and therefore the requirements it forces on voters are not “even handed” per Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663. In this case that group was young voters (but as I wrote before the law puts an uneven burden on ANYONE without ID, which makes it invalid under harper which was the whole point. You obviously missed that). I’ve been making this point since I first started posting on this topic but for some reason you’re hung up on great unwashed proletariats and irresponsible nonwhite welfare recipients, which are totally irrelevant to what I’ve been saying unless they constitute a group that have been unduly burdened in obtaining the right to vote.

What is wrong with this site? How can anyone even have a discussion on this board when their posts keep getting deleted?

I think it really comes to a fundamental question: “Can the government Constitutionally require you to have an ID.” I would say that it should not be able to do so. And taking away other rights (such as the right to vote) if you don’t have an ID, is in practice no different than mandating you to have an ID.

If they can take away your right to vote because you do not own an ID, what other rights can they take away for the same reason? Some states have passed laws requiring you to carry ID in public places, and to present it to police upon request, regardless of probable cause or suspicion. That is to say and adult is legally required to carry ID just to walk down the street. It’s murky where this stands legally.

I, for one, do not believe you should be required to own a photo ID in order to exercise any right, whether walking down the street or casting a vote. Washington D.C. passed a law last year to put SmarTrip chips in all D.C. drivers’ licenses (they’re chips with radio frequencies that you use like a credit card for the Metro system). We also know from documents released in 2005 that the D.C. Metro system has been collecting large databases of information on its costumers. These cards are capable of recording the date, time and location for every time you enter or leave a metro station or get on a bus. And since the cards cost an initial $5-10, and you can recharge their value, you’re likely to keep using the same one.

You don’t need to swipe SmarTrip cards either, like you would a credit card, you just hold it over the reader. It’ll even work if the card is in your wallet and you just hold the wallet over the reader. So how hard would it be to give cops, FBI, NSA, or anybody else a reader so they could just walk past people, scan their card, and find out who they are, where they live, and everywhere they’ve been with exact dates and times for the last X months?

We already know AT&T and others were copying their entire broadband data cables – that is ALL internet and ALL phone activity over ANY network they maintain – over to NSA offices and nothing has happened, so is it really such a stretch they would do something similar with IDs? And with the new D.C. law you can’t opt-out, it’s automatically in your license whether you’re a metro rider or not. How much longer before they throw in a GPS chip? It would be equally as legal as the SmarTrip chip. Yes, they’re already in my cell phone, but I don’t need a cell phone to vote, or to walk down the street legally. Plus, I can always take out the battery. Your ID is government property, and intentionally tampering with it is a felony.

On Subsidies vs. Welfare: Farmers make piss poor wages because family farming is dead. Most who actually work in the fields are poor, uneducated and often undocumented. The vast majority of farm subsidy dollars go to corporate agriculture.

In 2006, 62% of the over $13 billion in farm subsidies went to only 10% of recipients. The largest recipient, Riceland Foods Inc, alone received over $7 million. And this doesn’t even include money dispersed through cooperatives, or the hundreds of billions in unpaid loans for irrigation projects.

In the San Joaquin Valley in California crops on corporate farms get fresh clean mountain water provided by state and federally funded water projects, while the locals who work the fields drink well water that comes up brown, and is full of nitrates from cow waste which are known to cause blue baby syndrome.

As they are structured now, farm subsidies are welfare for the rich. That’s why Monsanto is expecting $256 million in net profits this year. Yes, we depend on them for something vital: our food. But we only depend on them because a corrupt subsidy system allowed corporate farms to receive millions in federal handouts that were supposed to be reserved for family farmers, and thus family farms (which should be supplying our food) were killed.

The Northeast supplied itself with food without need for subsidies or slavery for a good long time. The federal farm subsidies were initially meant to help struggling family farmers in the western frontier (where the climate is dry and harsh), but like most things out west they were taken advantage of by prospectors and boosters who leech the system just like the proverbial “welfare queen” leeching a system meant to help kids in poor families (and certainly our next generation of Americans is an equally vital resource as the food which will feed them). Only difference between the two is corporate welfare recipients leech a lot more money off the system but also produce a lot more volume of product. This doesn’t mean I’m defending or attacking welfare/subsidies in general, just that no matter who they go to they are prone to abuse, fraud and leeching. It’s not individual subsidies good and corporate subsidies bad, or vice versa, good and bad all depends on planning, implementation and oversight.