• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

AdamT said:
Unfortunately that clearly works against your argument. There is a constitutional right to vote and if a state violates that right, then the state will be punished by having its representation diminished.
Click to expand...
No. You're just so... wrong. If it were a protected right, the Constitution would say that the right to vote cannot be abridged. Section 2 of the 14th amendment doesn't enshrine a right to vote, it simply lays out how a state will be represented in Congress. Denial of voting rights to any subset of the population that would otherwise be eligible to vote results in a reduction in representation. Nowhere does it say a state cannot abridge voting rights, save the few exceptions covered by three other amendments that have already been mentioned. The situation is quite the contrary: a state clearly can deny voting rights, so long as they are willing to accept the reduction in representation.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
No. You're just so... wrong. If it were a protected right, the Constitution would say that the right to vote cannot be abridged. Section 2 of the 14th amendment doesn't enshrine a right to vote, it simply lays out how a state will be represented in Congress. Denial of voting rights to any subset of the population that would otherwise be eligible to vote results in a reduction in representation. Nowhere does it say a state cannot abridge voting rights, save the few exceptions covered by three other amendments that have already been mentioned. The situation is quite the contrary: a state clearly can deny voting rights, so long as they are willing to accept the reduction in representation.
Click to expand...

I especially love the fact that the federal government *DID* abridge voting rights for slaves (and former slaves) for many years and apparently, it was entirely fine. So much for a fundamental right to vote.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
No. You're just so... wrong. If it were a protected right, the Constitution would say that the right to vote cannot be abridged. Section 2 of the 14th amendment doesn't enshrine a right to vote, it simply lays out how a state will be represented in Congress. Denial of voting rights to any subset of the population that would otherwise be eligible to vote results in a reduction in representation. Nowhere does it say a state cannot abridge voting rights, save the few exceptions covered by three other amendments that have already been mentioned. The situation is quite the contrary: a state clearly can deny voting rights, so long as they are willing to accept the reduction in representation.
Click to expand...

You have an ass-backward view of this. It's like saying that a criminal code doesn't prohibit murder -- it just says that if you DO choose to exercise your right to murder, you have to spend the rest of your life in jail.
 
Cephus said:
I especially love the fact that the federal government *DID* abridge voting rights for slaves (and former slaves) for many years and apparently, it was entirely fine. So much for a fundamental right to vote.
Click to expand...

You realize that the Constitution was amended to address slavery, right?
 
Cephus said:
Welcome to reality. You show your ID to lots of people. Write a check or use a credit card, grt pulled over, etc. You have to establish your identity. Deal wirh it.
Click to expand...

I have written many checks as well as used my credit card and not one person in the last two years has asked to see my ID. When I got pulled over 3 years ago, I had forgot my ID at home in my wallet. The officer simply looked up my name and address and low and behold a picture.

So, the reality is, you don't need to have your ID. DEAL WITH IT.

It's amazing how so called conservatives can lay a claim to wanting freedom, when they support measures that enslave people to less freedom.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
I have written many checks as well as used my credit card and not one person in the last two years has asked to see my ID. When I got pulled over 3 years ago, I had forgot my ID at home in my wallet. The officer simply looked up my name and address and low and behold a picture.

So, the reality is, you don't need to have your ID. DEAL WITH IT.

It's amazing how so called conservatives can lay a claim to wanting freedom, when they support measures that enslave people to less freedom.
Click to expand...


LOL...the last time I showed my DL to anyone was about 5 or 6 years ago when I decided to put garage doors on my barn. I had to special order them from Lowe's and when they came in I was asked for my ID. Funny, they didn't ask for it when I ordered them and paid with a credit card. I use credit cards and debit cards all the time, rather than carry cash and don't get asked for ID.

When these rash of suppressive laws were first proposed and we started discussing them here, I had to check mine to see if it was still valid (it expires next year). Millions of voter eligible people don't have photo ID's, proof positive that you don't have to have one to live in the U.S.
 
AdamT said:
You realize that the Constitution was amended to address slavery, right?
Click to expand...

Sure, just as it was amended for women. The point is, for this "fundamental right" to have to have been amended several times in order for various groups to have it, it's not much of a "fundamental right" is it?
 
TheNextEra said:
I have written many checks as well as used my credit card and not one person in the last two years has asked to see my ID. When I got pulled over 3 years ago, I had forgot my ID at home in my wallet. The officer simply looked up my name and address and low and behold a picture.

So, the reality is, you don't need to have your ID. DEAL WITH IT.

It's amazing how so called conservatives can lay a claim to wanting freedom, when they support measures that enslave people to less freedom.
Click to expand...

But it seems you did have ID, and needed it.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, just as it was amended for women. The point is, for this "fundamental right" to have to have been amended several times in order for various groups to have it, it's not much of a "fundamental right" is it?
Click to expand...

I fail to see the logic in your statement. Is freedom from slavery not a fundamental right because the Constitution was amended to prohibit it?
 
How do you think your picture ended up in the cop's database?
 
AdamT said:
I fail to see the logic in your statement. Is freedom from slavery not a fundamental right because the Constitution was amended to prohibit it?
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a fundamental right, so your question is moot.
 
Cephus said:
There's no such thing as a fundamental right, so your question is moot.
Click to expand...

Keep'em movin'! :lol:

goalposts.jpg
 
You should have to prove who you are before you cast a vote.

Cpl USMC MILITARY POLICE K-9 Unit. VIA taptalk.
 
AdamT said:
Keep'em movin'! :lol:

goalposts.jpg
Click to expand...

You're the only one here who keeps claiming it's a fundamental right. We've pointed out to you that this supposed "fundamental right" keeps changing. So tell us, was it fundamental when only white, land-owning males could vote? Or was it fundamental when blacks got to vote? Or when women got to vote? Pick one.
 
Cephus said:
You're the only one here who keeps claiming it's a fundamental right. We've pointed out to you that this supposed "fundamental right" keeps changing. So tell us, was it fundamental when only white, land-owning males could vote? Or was it fundamental when blacks got to vote? Or when women got to vote? Pick one.
Click to expand...
Not to get into this part of the debate too much but I have to ask - were slaves allowed guns?

(Honest question, I don't know and didn't research.)
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Not to get into this part of the debate too much but I have to ask - were slaves allowed guns?
Click to expand...

Nope. But then again, gun ownership isn't a fundamental right either. :)
 
Cephus said:
Nope. But then again, gun ownership isn't a fundamental right either. :)
Click to expand...
Hit the deck! LOL!

Then what exactly IS a "fundamental right"? (examples may be better than words here)
 
MoSurveyor said:
Hit the deck! LOL!

Then what exactly IS a "fundamental right"? (examples may be better than words here)
Click to expand...

I've already said there aren't any. You'd have to ask someone who thinks otherwise.
 
Chiefgator said:
I am a supporter of the ACLU, but I think they are missing the mark on this one.
Insisting on a photo ID is not an unreasonable requirement. People simply cannot interact in the modern world without a photo ID.
Click to expand...
This.

Overall, the ACLU performs a valuable service. They take on difficult issues from all perspectives, not just some as they are often vilified in the press for doing. However, I agree with Chiefgator here, they are off-the-mark on this one.

Having said that, I have become recently convinced that the true motive for many of the new-ish voting laws the Reps are putting forth are indeed intended to discourage liberal voters, and I oppose pretty much all of the more "creative" laws. I have no qualms at all with a simple ID requirement.

Yes, I know it's hard for older people in some areas to obtain an ID. No birth records, and so on. But, it can be done. You're how old and you still haven't gotten an ID? C'mon, there has to be some level of personal responsibility involved as well for people who want to take part in the system.
 
radcen said:
This.

Overall, the ACLU performs a valuable service. They take on difficult issues from all perspectives, not just some as they are often vilified in the press for doing. However, I agree with Chiefgator here, they are off-the-mark on this one.

Having said that, I have become recently convinced that the true motive for many of the new-ish voting laws the Reps are putting forth are indeed intended to discourage liberal voters, and I oppose pretty much all of the more "creative" laws. I have no qualms at all with a simple ID requirement.

Yes, I know it's hard for older people in some areas to obtain an ID. No birth records, and so on. But, it can be done. You're how old and you still haven't gotten an ID? C'mon, there has to be some level of personal responsibility involved as well for people who want to take part in the system.
Click to expand...
Scrutiny of new law is never a bad thing. If nothing else I think just bringing up these issues will shape the laws that are being crafted. The States wanting photo ID may decide in view of the national and ACLU attention to issue free ID's as needed, which would most likely sidestep any challenge.

Cephus said:
I've already said there aren't any. You'd have to ask someone who thinks otherwise.
Click to expand...
Missed that - sorry.
 
Last edited:
A first for me yesterday. I have been voting for forty years and was never asked for ID. Well, it happened yesterday. I went to vote in the Michigan primary and was asked for ID. I was out on a six mile run and do not carry ID when I run. I was allowed to sign a form stating that I was who I said I was under penalty of a fine if I was lying. I did ask what form of ID they wanted and they said a drivers license was preferred but they would take "almost anything" that had my name on it.
 
haymarket said:
A first for me yesterday. I have been voting for forty years and was never asked for ID. Well, it happened yesterday. I went to vote in the Michigan primary and was asked for ID. I was out on a six mile run and do not carry ID when I run. I was allowed to sign a form stating that I was who I said I was under penalty of a fine if I was lying. I did ask what form of ID they wanted and they said a drivers license was preferred but they would take "almost anything" that had my name on it.
Click to expand...
The Horror! The Horror!
 
AdamT said:
I don't think that is a widespread perception at all. It's a perception that Republicans are trying to spread in order to pass these laws that would suppress Democratic turnout.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it would only suppress the Democratic turnout?
 
haymarket said:
A first for me yesterday. I have been voting for forty years and was never asked for ID. Well, it happened yesterday. I went to vote in the Michigan primary and was asked for ID. I was out on a six mile run and do not carry ID when I run. I was allowed to sign a form stating that I was who I said I was under penalty of a fine if I was lying. I did ask what form of ID they wanted and they said a drivers license was preferred but they would take "almost anything" that had my name on it.
Click to expand...

Did you go and vote for Santorum? Be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom