• 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 Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters Rea

Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
If that minority is illegal aliens or bus loads of "professional" voters then that should be stopped. The nonsense that you must first prove voter fraud is "rampant" before you can "justify" its prevention is insane. Banks/stores don't need to be robbed first to know that security is important.
Click to expand...

The probability of being struck by lightning is higher then the chances of widescale voter fraud occurring
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ThePlayDrive said:
Is it nonsense that one must first prove that gun laws would actually solve a serious problem before one can justify putting more restrictions on gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Yes. In order to restrict an individual constitutional right then you must prove that you are using the least restrictive method possible to uphold a state interest. Requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID to be presened is not any more restrictive than for cashing a check, boarding an aircraft or buying guns, ammo, alcohol or tobacco. I support the exact same requirements (including cost) to vote as to keep/carry a gun.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Tucker Case said:
I don't understand the right down to the cost thing. Are you saying people should have to pay to vote, or that guns should be free?
Click to expand...

My bad, I meant keeping/carrying a gun. I am saying that if it takes $240 to get a state's gun carrying permit then it should take $240 to get a state's voting permit. One should never have to pay the state a rental fee to regain (retain?) their individual constituional rights. If it is important for the state to know who is buying a gun then it is also important for the state to know who is casting a ballot.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
My bad, I meant keeping/carrying a gun. I am saying that if it takes $240 to get a state's gun carrying permit then it should take $240 to get a state's voting permit. One should never have to pay the state a rental fee to regain (retain?) their individual constituional rights. If it is important for the state to know who is buying a gun then it is also important for the state to know who is casting a ballot.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I agree with that. I don't think there should be a fee to retaining either permit.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Unitedwestand13 said:
The probability of being struck by lightning is higher then the chances of widescale voter fraud occurring
Click to expand...

Which occurs more often - mass shootings with "assault" weapons or voter fraud? Which was declared a national issue by Obama?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
Which occurs more often - mass shootings with "assault" weapons or voter fraud? Which was declared a national issue by Obama?
Click to expand...

I would not oppose voter I.d requirements as long as the state or federal government provided easier access to getting I.ds or free access to birth certificates. There are some people who have been voting for 60 years and have needed to show identification in order to vote.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Tucker Case said:
Banks are private businesses. I don't particularly care what they chose to do. I care about laws which are designed to make it more difficult for opposition to exercise their rights.

On the opposite side of the coin, though, you have people who support ID's for voting, but oppose ID's for getting guns. We know that crimes with guns are rampant. That's not merely paranoia, it's proven fact. If the people who oppose ID's for getting guns support ID's for voting, I'm naturally skeptical of the altruism in their claims of potential voter fraud. They don't seem to give a **** about criminals getting guns, why would they suddenly care about them voting? I guarantee the individual gun can do more damage than an individual with a vote can.
Click to expand...

Tucker, in light of things like the IRS issue, the NSA scandal, etc etc, can you blame people for not wanting to be in a DC data bank just waiting for such information to be abused?
Id be ok with a state registration that remains under lock and key except for when under the proviso of a warrant for search so police can know what they are going up against. Otherwise no one has the right to such info---even with freedom of information act. Look at what that newspaper did, they got a FOIA request and promptly leaked all the gun users publicly.

Im for IDs for both Tucker. But I dont think the government should access that info after they recieve it, except for the express purposes its meant for...and thats the tricky part.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

What makes this decision all the more tragic is that there are people who were alive at the time of the original voting rights act that are still alive and are now seeing one of their proudest achievements get gutted by the Supreme Court. People like congressman John Lewis.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

cpwill said:
Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...




Anyone who thinks that this will help the GOP, long term, is out of touch with reality, and possibly doesn't know that massive demographic change (Which is in progress right now.) is coming at today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP like a tidal wave.

In about thirty years the GOP, if it exists at all, will have been reduced to a small, regional party with no national power.

If you don't agree, just wait and see.

No one can stop time and/or change.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. In order to restrict an individual constitutional right then you must prove that you are using the least restrictive method possible to uphold a state interest.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership before one even gets to point of debating the "least restrictive method possible"? Or can one merely claim - without proof - that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

OpportunityCost said:
Tucker, in light of things like the IRS issue, the NSA scandal, etc etc, can you blame people for not wanting to be in a DC data bank just waiting for such information to be abused?
Id be ok with a state registration that remains under lock and key except for when under the proviso of a warrant for search so police can know what they are going up against. Otherwise no one has the right to such info---even with freedom of information act. Look at what that newspaper did, they got a FOIA request and promptly leaked all the gun users publicly.

Im for IDs for both Tucker. But I dont think the government should access that info after they recieve it, except for the express purposes its meant for...and thats the tricky part.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Unitedwestand13 said:
I would not oppose voter I.d requirements as long as the state or federal government provided easier access to getting I.ds or free access to birth certificates. There are some people who have been voting for 60 years and have needed to show identification in order to vote.
Click to expand...
Meh, I would go further. I would only support it if the state guaranteed that every person registered to vote got the required ID. There's still too much room in "easier" access.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

davidtaylorjr said:
In other words, getting back to the way the country was supposed to operate? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes. While we're at it we need to be leveling charges at those who abused their power. The first step would be to oust Eric Holder's punk ass and get an AG in there who understands the job and it willing to do it.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

tech30528 said:
Yes. While we're at it we need to be leveling charges at those who abused their power. The first step would be to oust Eric Holder's punk ass and get an AG in there who understands the job and it willing to do it.
Click to expand...

Do you have someone in mind that should be attorney general?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

cpwill said:
Guess it's time to Let the States be States.



SCOTUS declared Section 4 Unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Good call. I like this part of it:

"...a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists..."

"...The ruling leaves in place many of the protections of the 1965 law, such as banning literacy tests. But it said the federal government can no longer treat some jurisdictions differently because of discrimination that may have ended decades ago..."

Supreme Court: Past voting discrimination can no longer be held against states - Washington Times
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ThePlayDrive said:
Do you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership before one even gets to point of debating the "least restrictive method possible"? Or can one merely claim - without proof - that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership?
Click to expand...

The use of guns by criminals has been established and the law prevents felony convicts from keeping the right to keep/bear arms even after their release from prison. It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.

I suppose that you were hoping me to claim that proof is needed, then pop back that no proof exists that "widespread" voter fraud exists. Obama did not need proof that mass shootings were "widespread" to call for gun restrictions, in fact, they average 2 per year. One can certainly say, and proove, that voter fraud is more frequent than mass shootings. Asking to see the same valid, state issued, photo ID that is required to cash a check, board an aircraft or to legally buy a gun, ammo, alcohol or tobacco is not an unreasonable restriction to cast a vote. If the presentation of an ID is unreasonable "discrimination" to exercise the right to vote then it is also unreasonable "discrimiantion" to keep/carry a gun.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

davidtaylorjr said:
I wish Congress would get that message too....
Click to expand...

So does Obama, but I suspect you want different results than he does.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Tucker Case said:
It's a good ruling if it helps increase state sovereignty.

I just hope that this isn't yet another example of racists trying to usurp state sovereignty arguments to suit their purposes. I'd love it if now that this law is gone, absolutely no racist bull**** follows. If that happens, I'll be very happy. If racist bull**** ensues, though, it'll be yet another instance of racists undermining the state's rights platform with their ignorant bull****.
Click to expand...

Law of averages suggest there will be at least SOME absolutley racist bull**** that follows because there's racists in the world, and they're going to try stuff. Granted, even with this on the books, those people were trying stuff anyways.

And common sense suggests that we are far more likely to hear about any "racist bull****" then we are about actual worth while, useful, beneficial voting changes by states because the former creates far more controversy and generates far more page views/ratings/etc.

My hope isn't that racist people don't try to make racist bull**** ensue, because that's an unrealistic hope. My hope is that most of the racist bull**** that is attempted fails, and that the vast majority of what comes out of this law can not objectively be classified as "racist bull****".
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
The use of guns by criminals has been established and the law prevents felony convicts from keeping the right to keep/bear arms even after their release from prison. It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.

I suppose that you were hoping me to claim that proof is needed, then pop back that no proof exists that "widespread" voter fraud exists. Obama did not need proof that mass shootings were "widespread" to call for gun restrictions, in fact, they average 2 per year. One can certainly say, and proove, that voter fraud is more frequent than mass shootings. Asking to see the same valid, state issued, photo ID that is required to cash a check, board an aircraft or to legally buy a gun, ammo, alcohol or tobacco is not an unreasonable restriction to cast a vote. If the presentation of an ID is unreasonable "discrimination" to exercise the right to vote then it is also unreasonable "discrimiantion" to keep/carry a gun.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my questions: Do you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership before one even gets to point of debating the "least restrictive method possible"? Or can one merely claim - without proof - that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership?
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ThePlayDrive said:
You didn't answer my questions: Do you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership before one even gets to point of debating the "least restrictive method possible"? Or can one merely claim - without proof - that there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Yes, no and it has been "proven" - simply look at the recidivism rates for armed felony criminals.

It does not take much "proving" to say that there is indeed a risk of convicted felons obtaining guns and committing additional crimes with them upon release from prison.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, no
Click to expand...
Since you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun control before one restricts it, then I suspect you would agree that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting the ability to vote before one restrict it. From there, it follows that you would agree the state must first prove that there is a state interest in requiring voter IDs before the state requires them. Merely saying, "voter fraud is a problem and voter IDs will help" is not sufficient just as you agree that merely saying "there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership" is not sufficient either.

and it has been "proven" - simply look at the recidivism rates for armed felony criminals.
Click to expand...
Great.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Captain Adverse said:
It's a good decision, but I am hating this "5-4" court! Over and over again we get these 5-4 decisions which weaken the power of the ruling. Yes, it is the law now, but one that can be easily overturned in the future through new challenges of similar laws after new appointments based on political party.

Can't these Justices forget "liberal" or "conservative" allegiances and think of the country as a whole? Vote on the MERITS of each issue and stop voting personal view-points?
Click to expand...

After Bork getting Borked, I don't think the possibility of a non-politicized SCOTUS is really an option.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

ThePlayDrive said:
Since you believe that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting gun control before one restricts it, then I suspect you would agree that one must first prove that there is a state interest in restricting the ability to vote before one restrict it. From there, it follows that you would agree the state must first prove that there is a state interest in requiring voter IDs before the state requires them. Merely saying, "voter fraud is a problem and voter IDs will help" is not sufficient just as you agree that merely saying "there is a state interest in restricting gun ownership" is not sufficient either.


Great.
Click to expand...
You know, "restricting gun control" is an odd phrase.
 
Re: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Law Meant To Protect Minority Voters

Porchev said:
Good call. I like this part of it:

"...a state cannot be perpetually held responsible for past discrimination if there’s no evidence that it still exists..."

"...The ruling leaves in place many of the protections of the 1965 law, such as banning literacy tests. But it said the federal government can no longer treat some jurisdictions differently because of discrimination that may have ended decades ago..."

Supreme Court: Past voting discrimination can no longer be held against states - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Except there is substantial evidence that it still exists, and there is a mechanism in the law for a jurisdiction getting off the "bad" list. Which has been exercised many times.

The discrimination didn't end decades ago. Congress documented this very well in 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom