• 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

How do YOU know we don't?

Do you think we are that stupid?

We just register ANYONE who signs up and let them vote?

I have a little more respect for the United States than that.

It's one thing to respect the United States, quite another to trust fallible, greedy, power hungry human beings.
 
It's one thing to respect the United States, quite another to trust fallible, greedy, power hungry human beings.

I was wrong. We are stupid.

We actually let people register to vote without ever verifying that they are citizens.

We are stupid.
 
Exactly how do you think drugs and voting are the same?

Where did I say it was? You made the claim that even if voter fraud happened the after a few people got caught there would be less. Hows that working out for the druggies? Keep trying to spin though. ;)
 
well, I'm not liking the ruling.. but not on the grounds of who can vote and who can't.(the case is about supremacy of law more than anything)

I'm not liking the the idea of the federal government, yet again, trumping the states.....it sure would be nice to see state sovereignty respected once in while.
I don't get a rise in the levis over a branch of the federal government sticking up for the power of the federal government... as they usually do.

sometimes i think the notion of federalism is going the way of the T-rex... centralized power, once the scourge of the lands, is making a strong comeback.
 
It is not spin. Your analogy does not work. People do not get a buzz off voting.
Where did I say it was? You made the claim that even if voter fraud happened the after a few people got caught there would be less. Hows that working out for the druggies? Keep trying to spin though. ;)
 
well, I'm not liking the ruling.. but not on the grounds of who can vote and who can't.(the case is about supremacy of law more than anything)

I'm not liking the the idea of the federal government, yet again, trumping the states.....it sure would be nice to see state sovereignty respected once in while.
I don't get a rise in the levis over a branch of the federal government sticking up for the power of the federal government... as they usually do.

sometimes i think the notion of federalism is going the way of the T-rex... centralized power, once the scourge of the lands, is making a strong comeback.

I agree with this. The decision simply upheld the supremacy of national law over state law, which is unexceptional so far as it goes, but the range of Congressional law threatens to swamp and destroy the federal nature of our political system.
 
It is not spin. Your analogy does not work. People do not get a buzz off voting.

But they both do go to jail when caught. Has sending druggies to jail lessened the amount of druggies? No it has not. What makes you think that sending people to prison for voter fraud is going to lessen other people from doing the same thing?

All that you are doing is spinning to avoid admitting that you made a bad statement.
 
That argument doesn't even make sense. That is the exact opposite of how it was intended.

Where do they find these justices that somehow get everything backwards?

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

They intended for congress to have the power to alter any election regulations. How does that not make sense?
 
How do they prove that you are a citizen?

The same way you prove eligibility to work. Provide govt accepted documentation.

List A (Documents that establish both identity and employment eligibility)
•United States Passport
•Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card (I-551)
•Temporary Resident Card (I-688)
•Employment Authorization Document (I-766, I-688B, or I-688A)
•Foreign Passport with temporary I-551 stamp
•For aliens authorized to work only for a specific employer, foreign passport with Form I-94 authorizing employment with this employer


List C (Documents that establish employment eligibility only)
•Social Security account number card without employment restrictions
•Original or certified copy of a birth certificate with an official seal issued by a state or local government agency
•Certification of Birth Abroad
•US Citizen ID Card
•Native American tribal document
•Form I-94 authorizing employment with this employer (for aliens authorized to work only for a specific employer)
 
The same way you prove eligibility to work. Provide govt accepted documentation.

List A (Documents that establish both identity and employment eligibility)
•United States Passport
•Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Receipt Card (I-551)
•Temporary Resident Card (I-688)
•Employment Authorization Document (I-766, I-688B, or I-688A)
•Foreign Passport with temporary I-551 stamp
•For aliens authorized to work only for a specific employer, foreign passport with Form I-94 authorizing employment with this employer


List C (Documents that establish employment eligibility only)
•Social Security account number card without employment restrictions
•Original or certified copy of a birth certificate with an official seal issued by a state or local government agency
•Certification of Birth Abroad
•US Citizen ID Card
•Native American tribal document
•Form I-94 authorizing employment with this employer (for aliens authorized to work only for a specific employer)

None of which is required to put down on at least the MO registration card. So again...how do they prove you are a US citizen?
 
Guys and gals, boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen, its very simple.

We shoudl verify the citizenship status of voter registrations.

Either do it by requiring folks to bring proof of citizenship at the time of registration, or make the states do it on their own time.

But one way or the other we must verify that you have the ****ing right to vote.

Show me a SINGLE instance where someone in Arizona voted who was not a citizen. You can't. Arizona could not even show a SINGLE instance when asked by SCOTUS, during the hearings. And for that, you want to take away the rights of thousands to vote? Good luck with that. It's not going to happen. And you can thank Scalia for that. Can't wait to hear you start screaming that he is one of them there evul leebruls. LOL.
 
As someone who leans to the right, I'm not against a national ID card.

We have one already. It's called a Social Security Card.
 
Give it time. That is why some states abolished parole. The Courts were saying that the states were not giving prisoners adequate time for hearings and since the feds were not going to pony up all the additional money needed for more staff to give their inmates some ill-defined appropriate amount of time and representation at the hearings, they just did away with them altogether as parole itself is not a right under the Constitution.

I have heard many reasons for abolishing parole- everything from it doesn't work to a system of alternative sentencing backed by no parole prison time if the non violent offender fails to stay right with da man... But NEVER heard it was over feds not giving the states enough money for proper prep for parole hearings. Seems to me if parole isn't a Constitutional right then adequate time for hearings seems a moot point to the courts.

I'd believe doing away with any incentive for good behavior behind bars is a toxic mix for the correction system. I wouldn't want to be a guard in one of those states. I can't imagine how the prison system would handle so many more inmates staying far longer.

If you have a link to your claim i'd like to read more on it. thanks
 
Next up, blanket amnesty, and the United States is changed forever. Republicans will never win another election.

you seem to be happy about this? Why so/
 
What does that say about the (1) training of the person who told her she couldn't use her old government ID and (2) the fact that it was only after she received publicity that any action was taken on her behalf?


from the Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security site with requirements for obtaining a "Handgun Carry Permit"


So one of the items accepted as voter ID in the state doesn't require proof of citizenship - interesting, wouldn't you say

If you own a gun you are definitely an American in spirit.
 
Consider a partisan agenda and it starts to make sense.

Think "what decisions can we make that will inflame conservative voters".

You may be right. Conservatives end to defend the Constitution and it centuries of success.
 
I have heard many reasons for abolishing parole- everything from it doesn't work to a system of alternative sentencing backed by no parole prison time if the non violent offender fails to stay right with da man... But NEVER heard it was over feds not giving the states enough money for proper prep for parole hearings. Seems to me if parole isn't a Constitutional right then adequate time for hearings seems a moot point to the courts.

I'd believe doing away with any incentive for good behavior behind bars is a toxic mix for the correction system. I wouldn't want to be a guard in one of those states. I can't imagine how the prison system would handle so many more inmates staying far longer.

If you have a link to your claim i'd like to read more on it. thanks

It was something that was discussed at a CLE seminar I was at. The panelists went off on some aside and were telling a story of some politician or another in my state vowing that on the pending case on whether or not something like 3 minutes per parole case was legal, he vowed that if the answer was no, the feds were paying for it or parole was ending in the state because our state wasn't spending another dime setting criminals free. When the case came down against 3 minute or whatever it was hearings, the guy got parole abolished by the legislature. I'll look for a more authoritative source when I get the chance.
 
We have one already. It's called a Social Security Card.

The Social Security card has only two bits of data. Your full name and your Social Security number.

It doesn't list your height, weight, place of birth, place of residence, eye color, race, or hair color.

It has no photograph.

And non-citizens can get a Social Security card.
 
It was something that was discussed at a CLE seminar I was at. The panelists went off on some aside and were telling a story of some politician or another in my state vowing that on the pending case on whether or not something like 3 minutes per parole case was legal, he vowed that if the answer was no, the feds were paying for it or parole was ending in the state because our state wasn't spending another dime setting criminals free. When the case came down against 3 minute or whatever it was hearings, the guy got parole abolished by the legislature. I'll look for a more authoritative source when I get the chance.

sounds like either a very important politician or a very weak state legislature. Course it begs the question why would a parole board HAVE to set a criminal free? In Oklahoma it is quite often the other way round with only court ordered releases due to extreme overcrowding really lubing the way out.

What state are you in? I'll cruise the googles and see whats out there. :peace
 
Any links to back up those claims Deuce?

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.
 
I believe this will have to go one way or the other. As it stands right now this decision puts right in the taint region of voter ID. Either you should have to prove citizenship or just let anyone who can find the polls vote.
 
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.

Spoken like a true liberal.
 
Back
Top Bottom