• 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!

Supreme Court strikes down Arizona voter ID citizenship law

Eventually, the rightwing GOP will have to come to terms with the people in the mainstream if they intend to survive as a party. Gerrymandering, voter oppression, redrawing district lines, and any other "competitive edge," they have been counting on will not stand the tests of time, (or the Supreme Court either, it seems.)

If the leftwing factions split much like the GOP factions have, that might be their saving grace but I hardly see that happening.

The Democratic Party has never done that. :roll:
 
"The actual size and the origin of the illegal immigrant population in the United States is uncertain and difficult to ascertain because of difficulty in accurately counting individuals in this population. National surveys, administrative data and other sources of information provide inaccurate measures of the size of the illegal immigrant population and current estimates based on these data indicate that the current population may range from 7 million to 20 million."

So somewhere between 7 and 20 million illegals just got the vote, wonderful.:roll:
 
The pro-decision folks' heads will explode when they find out Rush Limbaugh agrees with them.
 
Our Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to decide the rules for Federal elections.
 
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme court has struck down a law that disenfranchised voters in Arizona. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, and John Roberts was also a part of the majority decision.

Well done, Supremes. :)

Article is here.

They had no damn legal premise to even vote on such a law.... What they did was basically vote their opinion.

This ruling only shows the SCOTUS supports voter fraud and that they know the democratic party would NOT survive without voter fraud.

This has now set precedent for carding individuals who want to buy tobacco or liquor - it also sets precedence for individuals to refuse to show their ID to cops....
 
You have to show an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote. Makes sense to me...lol!


Wrong - but a common misinterpretation of the Court's ruling. The Arizona law required a specific document to prove identity. This is why the Court said basically "rewrite the law to allow other forms of ID and then submit the new law for judgement"
 
Our Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to decide the rules for Federal elections.

Congress writes/passes legislation that cannot contradict previous passed legislation without repeal of that said legislation.

Using the same logic being used in this decision gay marriage should be illegal.
 
Congress writes/passes legislation that cannot contradict previous passed legislation without repeal of that said legislation.

Using the same logic being used in this decision gay marriage should be illegal.

Nope. The 14th amendment.
 
Wrong - but a common misinterpretation of the Court's ruling. The Arizona law required a specific document to prove identity. This is why the Court said basically "rewrite the law to allow other forms of ID and then submit the new law for judgement"

WRONG Che

This law requires NO form of ID..... So anyone could register multiple times and vote multiple times -- Just the way you socialists and democrats want it.... To make it worse voter fraud has just be endorsed by the federal government.

The SCOTUS doesn't rule on laws - they rule on personal politics and it is apparent that the SCOTUS wants an authoritarian or totalitarian government. They obviously believe in the idea of a democratic nanny state - either that or they're too Goddamn stupid to realize the result of their outcome which will be epic voter fraud that benefits the left.
 
The Democratic Party has never done that. :roll:


Past sins aren't always a positive indicator of present day behaviour nor are past good deeds always an indicator of present day actions.

I do believe most on the left would be quite happy with voting districts being laid out to ensure equal representation - that is the same number of voters in each district. Probably best done by computers.
 
Wrong - but a common misinterpretation of the Court's ruling. The Arizona law required a specific document to prove identity. This is why the Court said basically "rewrite the law to allow other forms of ID and then submit the new law for judgement"

The Supreme Court says it's ok to regulate on right, but not another right. That makes sense, too.
 
Past sins aren't always a positive indicator of present day behaviour nor are past good deeds always an indicator of present day actions.

I do believe most on the left would be quite happy with voting districts being laid out to ensure equal representation - that is the same number of voters in each district. Probably best done by computers.

Most Libbos would be cool with Section 5 of The Civik Rights Act beiing abolished?
 
Congress sets the registration rules for Federal elections.

The States set their own registration rules for State and Local elections.

What's the problem here?
 
They had no damn legal premise to even vote on such a law.... What they did was basically vote their opinion.

This ruling only shows the SCOTUS supports voter fraud and that they know the democratic party would NOT survive without voter fraud.

This has now set precedent for carding individuals who want to buy tobacco or liquor - it also sets precedence for individuals to refuse to show their ID to cops....

Don't know much about the legal reasoning behind the decision, rather obviously. I'll wait and see if you bother to take a few minutes to read up on it.

It is interesting that righties like Limbaugh and Hans von Spakovsky approved the decision.
 
States are more than welcome to require a Justice League membership card in order to vote for State and Local elections.

They can require membership in the NRA.

But Congress decides the registration rules for voting for Congress and the President.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
 
We complain about politicians but don't we live under the iron fist of the "Supreme" (?)Court? The word "Supreme" always gave me feelings of uneasiness. Seems to me leaning to either side of our persuasions be it left or right has no place in interpreting our constitution.
 
Congress sets the registration rules for Federal elections.

The States set their own registration rules for State and Local elections.

What's the problem here?

The problem is that SCOTUS is ruling that states cannot exceed Fed guidelines on identity verification without Fed permission. Several justices found that the fed system was little better than an honor system and does not do enough to prevent fraud. They were practically urging states to find a middleground with the fed. I think they also leaned towards more ID for registration rather than voting---but its hard to be sure.

It sure would be nice to stricter guidelines on fed registration than simply you are who you say you are.
 
The Fourteenth Amendment states nothing about providing ID to vote -- hence the issue becomes a Tenth Amendment issue.

Same sex. The second part of your statement.
 
The problem is that SCOTUS is ruling that states cannot exceed Fed guidelines on identity verification without Fed permission. Several justices found that the fed system was little better than an honor system and does not do enough to prevent fraud. They were practically urging states to find a middleground with the fed. I think they also leaned towards more ID for registration rather than voting---but its hard to be sure.

It sure would be nice to stricter guidelines on fed registration than simply you are who you say you are.

The Constitution is pretty clear on this, that Congress has the final say on Federal voting regulations.

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.

The States have sole control of State and Local election regulations.
 
The Constitution is pretty clear on this, that Congress has the final say on Federal voting regulations.

Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.

The States have sole control of State and Local election regulations.

Yes. But even the justices recognized that the current fed system is not working. An honor code is not good enough when it comes to federal elections.
 
Yes. But even the justices recognized that the current fed system is not working. An honor code is not good enough when it comes to federal elections.

Without any evidence of widespread election fraud, with tens of thousands of ineligible people registering to vote, is there a problem that really needs fixing?

I agree hypothetically that we should have citizenship verification for voter registrations. But its hard to argue that we must change the Federal law without evidence of a major problem.
 
Why? Would those links change your mind regarding ID laws? Let's say for the sake of argument that everything in that post is true.

Because otherwise I'm much too lazy to chase down those links again.


Let's say for the sake of reality that everything in your post was not true...

:peace
 
Back
Top Bottom