• 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

MoSurveyor said:
I stand corrected for Florida, you're not required to show photo ID to vote in Florida. :surrender


Of course, that says nothing about the other States wanting to implement a photo ID requirement. If they're all going to be the same as Florida then why bother at all?
Click to expand...

The statement means that you are not required to bring anything with you when you vote. If you have an arguement concerning another state, present it.
 
So do I have the right to vote more than once? I mean, it says, "you cannot deny me from voting," which means if I wanted to vote a million times... i can? :\
 
1Perry said:
The statement means that you are not required to bring anything with you when you vote. If you have an arguement concerning another state, present it.
Click to expand...
I already raised the white flag - but if you want I will agree that Florida has no voter ID requirement at all.
Anyone in Florida can walk in off the street, sign their name twice, then vote.
Does that satisfy your needs for capitulation?


If all States has similar laws there wouldn't be an issue but apparently that's not good enough for some politicians.
 
Last edited:
taxigirl said:
Voting is a right, the rest of the things you mention that you need ID for are privileges which can have stipulations.
Click to expand...

Nobody is removing a right by requiring voter ID. There are already voter lists, etc. in place and proper ID would only be an extension to verify what's there already.
 
s
taxigirl said:
The hypothetical Constitutional Amendment HJ 38 is in sub committee.
Click to expand...
Your link doesn't work and House Joint Resolution 38 has to do with appointing a regent to the Smithsonian Institution.

Until the time comes that we gain a new amendment we will have to rely on the interpretations provided by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
...which are...?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
You might have a point if not for the 14th amendment which explicitly provides for reduction in congressional representation for states that abridge the right to vote. If it were prohibited by the Constitution, why does this clause exist?

Furthermore, please provide the "implicit" clause of Article II that you think overrides the 14th amendment, and please cite Supreme Court opinions that state the existence of this phantom guarantee of a blanket right to vote. Please note, however, that opinions based on the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments shall not qualify, as those amendments deal with prohibiting denial of voting rights to people for certain reasons. No one is denying those amendments exist or claiming states can deny voting rights based on those reasons. You'll have to find opinions based on something else. I suspect you can't do it.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amerndment is not on point, as it addresses a state's representation in Congress, but does not in any way limit an individual's right to vote. I find it astonishing that anyone could argue that voting isn't a fundamental right. In Citizens United, for example, we have the Supreme Court saying that corporations and individuals have a fundamental right to spend money advocating for a candidate in an election, but you're going to argue that a person's right to actually cast a ballot in that election is not fundamental? Actual voting is less protected than saying how you think someone should vote? Really?

Unfortunately it appears that the Supreme Court is rather mixed up on the issue. They have declared many times that voting is a fundamental right, but they don't always treated it as such. For a thorough dicussion, see http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Douglas.pdf
 
MoSurveyor said:
I already raised the white flag - but if you want I will agree that Florida has no voter ID requirement at all.
Anyone in Florida can walk in off the street, sign their name twice, then vote.
Does that satisfy your needs for capitulation?


If all States has similar laws there wouldn't be an issue but apparently that's not good enough for some politicians.
Click to expand...

As far as we know here, they do.
 
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...

Yes....you must show your papers. PAPERS PLEASE ! ! !
 
Grizzly Adams said:
s
Your link doesn't work and House Joint Resolution 38 has to do with appointing a regent to the Smithsonian Institution.


...which are...?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was trying to cut and paste etc.. from my kindle while I was falling asleep.
Here the text on HJ Res 28 hopefully that works. You can also see a bit about it at Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr's website He introduces it every session, I don't think the link above is the current submission, but it has the same text.
 
taxigirl said:
Sorry, I was trying to cut and paste etc.. from my kindle while I was falling asleep.
Here the text on HJ Res 28 hopefully that works. You can also see a bit about it at Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr's website He introduces it every session, I don't think the link above is the current submission, but it has the same text.
Click to expand...

OK. What does this show? It's a proposed Amendment which has been introduced many times but never passed, let alone ratified.
 
taxigirl said:
Sorry, I was trying to cut and paste etc.. from my kindle while I was falling asleep.
Here the text on HJ Res 28 hopefully that works. You can also see a bit about it at Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr's website He introduces it every session, I don't think the link above is the current submission, but it has the same text.
Click to expand...


Jessie Jackson Jr.? If ever there was a criminal element in office it is him....


j-mac
 
Interesting, the Democrats and now the ACLU think that voter ID is bad. Voter ID laws are intended to fight voter fraud. Makes you wonder what the liberals know about where their votes come from that the rest of us should be paying attention to.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes....you must show your papers. PAPERS PLEASE ! ! !
Click to expand...

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.
 
AdamT said:
The 14th Amerndment is not on point, as it addresses a state's representation in Congress, but does not in any way limit an individual's right to vote.
Click to expand...
The fourteenth amendment is absolutely relevant. No one's claiming it limits anyone's right to vote, just that it provides for consequences if a state limits the right to vote. Providing for the effect of an action presupposes that the action can occur.

I find it astonishing that anyone could argue that voting isn't a fundamental right.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing about semantics. Call it a "fundamental right" or call it a "pig in a poke" for all I care. All I'm saying is that there is no guarantee of a blanket right to vote in the Constitution. Nothing you've provided has refuted that claim.
 
taxigirl said:
Sorry, I was trying to cut and paste etc.. from my kindle while I was falling asleep.
Here the text on HJ Res 28 hopefully that works. You can also see a bit about it at Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr's website He introduces it every session, I don't think the link above is the current submission, but it has the same text.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with all of it. For example, I rather like the idea of being able to punish incarcerated individuals by denying them the vote, particularly because they can, in certain places with low population and a large prison or many prisons, own the vote for the area their prison is located. As for restoration of their voting ability once released, I'm rather ambivalent about it. Regardless, this is probably the most sane of the parade of moronic proposed amendments Jackson submits every session.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The fourteenth amendment is absolutely relevant. No one's claiming it limits anyone's right to vote, just that it provides for consequences if a state limits the right to vote. Providing for the effect of an action presupposes that the action can occur.


I'm not arguing about semantics. Call it a "fundamental right" or call it a "pig in a poke" for all I care. All I'm saying is that there is no guarantee of a blanket right to vote in the Constitution. Nothing you've provided has refuted that claim.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to get at re: the 14th Amendment. Can you quote the part that you find relevant to the discussion?

Of course there are no blanket rights to anything in the Constitution.
 
AdamT said:
I have no idea what you're trying to get at re: the 14th Amendment. Can you quote the part that you find relevant to the discussion?

Of course there are no blanket rights to anything in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Fourteenth amendment, Section 2:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...
The "male" and "twenty-one years of age" are obviously changed by the 19th and 26th amendments, respectively.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
Fourteenth amendment, Section 2:

The "male" and "twenty-one years of age" are obviously changed by the 19th and 26th amendments, respectively.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom