About that ID Thing…

By Robert K.

One of the arrows in my quiver when debating friends and associates about gun control is that fighting for the infringement of any right erodes the strength of all of our rights. And now that unpleasant reality has smacked some squarely in the face in the form of Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law . . .

Civil rights groups are shocked, shocked!, that voters in the Quaker State will now have to present photo identification in order to exercise their right to vote. They argue that such a requirement is equal to disenfranchisement of thousands of voters who do not currently possess such a thing. They insist that voter fraud is rare, there is no need for such regulation, and that this is nothing more than a political ploy by Republicans to reduce Democrat voter turnout.

When I lived in Massachusetts, I had to pay $100, get fingerprinted, interview at the local police station, and wait four months before I was allowed to possess any kind of firearm, ammunition or even even spent casings…on private property. And I was living in a gun friendly town. If a mere photo ID is enough to deter somebody from exercising their right to vote, what kind of effect do you think the gun ownership rigamarole has on a citizen exercising their right to keep and bear arms? (Hint: 84% decrease in legal gun ownership, 68% increase in gun related homicides.)

When gun control advocates fight to regulate the right to bear arms, they claim that forcing citizens to jump through a series of hoops to exercise their Second Amendment right is justified by public safety concerns. Well, now that’s coming back to bite them in the ass. The judge ruling on the voter ID case decided that, “the statute simply gives poll workers another tool to verify that the person voting is who they claim to be,” and that the restrictions were OK because they would be applied without discrimination.

It’s a bizarre experience reading the various reactions to this. In fact, if you run a find/replace “voting” with “keeping and bearing arms” in many of the arguments, you basically have Bruce Kraft’s writings here at TTAG. Let’s go through one rebuttal to the ruling, shall we?

Right off the bat he determined that the harm of issuing a preliminary injunction against the state (because notices had already been sent out to voter registration officials about the new law), would be worse than the harm to theoretical voters. All I can say is, good God, what are courts for if not to protect the rights of voters?

Replace “voters” with “citizens,” and you have my reaction to every ruling favorable to gun control.

The interesting thing was that the Republicans in the legislature never demonstrated that there was or ever had been any instance of false voting in the state.

Do you think Chicago has presented any evidence that lawful concealed carry has increased crime anywhere? How about Washington D.C.? Or California, or any other government body that isn’t shall issue? (I’m specifically addressing concealed carry here because that’s what most court cases are concerned with, but you can certainly make the same argument for legal gun ownership.

There have been a large number of comments on Patch and elsewhere to the effect that it is easy to get an ID that would satisfy the new law. While I disagree that it is easy for many people to do that, the point is that the United States Constitution absolutely prohibits anything of the kind.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows:

“1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There is no question that the right to vote is a “privilege” of citizens, and citizens are citizens whether they can prove it or not. And they are entitled to “equal protection,” that is, if others vote they must all be allowed to vote. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional poll taxes as low as $1.50. Obviously the amount of time and money necessary to obtain an ID that satisfies the law will cost a lot more than that.

What? Invoking the constitution? What madness is this? Hey, I can play this game, too:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Seems pretty clear to me. And if a poll tax of $1.50 is unconstitutional, how about that $100 fee? Or the 300-odd dollars it takes in NYC? Or the several days off work, the cost of traveling (The Metro is expensive) and registration fees required by the District?

Finally, I would say that photography was invented long after the Constitution was adopted. The Founding Fathers never contemplated the ID check the Commonwealth Court approved in Pennsylvania.

Correct. They also didn’t contemplate microstamping, electronic registries, or the ATF.

Look, no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, it’s your obligation to fight for ALL of your rights, no matter how distasteful or scary you may find some of them. If you allow the state to trample one right, you open the door for it to attack them all.

Disclaimer: I have no real dog in the ID fight. On the one hand, it seems a reasonable restriction to reduce potential voting fraud. On the other, the term reasonable restriction scares the hell out of me, and there’s no real evidence of voter ID fraud. Just so you know.

comments

  1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    To be clear, there’s not only no evidence of in person voter fraud, but there’s also no evidence the new laws would prevent it if it does indeed exist.

    This is what we’ve all brought about – two childish flavors of the same basic political party that believes firmly that two wrongs always make a right, and they need to restrict A because the other guys are trying to outlaw B.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Sorry. It’s been proven in several cases– Franken’s election in Minnesota has been proven to have had ~1,000 votes cast by felons (no way to know who they voted for though). Bob Dornan in CA was able to present evidence of voter fraud with illegal aliens voting when he lost his election. In the Bush/Kerry race there were numerous inner-city polling stations which reported ~100% turnout, kind of an anomoly based on other years. There are other cases, but I’m not in the mood to go digging them up. Contrary to popular belief, there is a voter fraud in the US. Whether it has ever risen to the point of changing the outcome, I don’t know.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Philly has voter turnout 4 times above the other counties. And the tally is 90% donkey each time.

      2. avatar karlb says:

        Please, look at the actual voting record in Minnesota. The state AG, the state Supreme Court, and the Hennepin county district attorney all say that there were fewer than 80 cases of fraud, and those people identified have either been prosecuted or are facing prosecution.

        1. avatar Jack says:

          That is only the number prosecuted, which is a high hurdle to cross since it requires proof of intent. Over 1,000 felons voted illegally.

          A few more, very fresh ones:

          Last week the Dem candidate for congress in Maryland admitted to voter fraud http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/11/maryland-dems-purge-candidate-at-center-of-voter-fraud-allegations/

          Also last week several Arkansas Dems pleaded guilty to voter fraud http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/05/Arkansas-Democrats-Plead-Guilty-To-Voter-Fraud

          Voter fraud, what voter fraud, there is no stinking voter fraud, we are just democrats

      3. avatar Anon in CT says:

        And Franken won by a couple of hundred votes. And he was the 51st vote for Obamacare.

        It’s very hard to prove fraud with a secret ballot system, and even when it is proved, some patsy gets a slap on the wrist and ACORN and its ilk continue on. And the election result is not retroactively changed.

        I am in favor of requiring DMVs to issue a non-drivers license ID to destitute would-be voters – there shouldn’t be a de facto poll tax, but if you’re too lazy to pick up the ID, then screw you.

    2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      I see two guys telling the same sob story about the poor down trodden republicans, the villainous democrats and zero evidence to back it up. Either post actual evidence and not anecdotal stories or quit whining.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        So where’s your evidence to back your claim of no voter fraud?
        And to be honest with you the only reason I votr for voter ID is to get a little payback on the libs that try to infringe on my rights to guns. When they leave my rights alone I’ll leave their’s alone.

        1. avatar pappakilo says:

          That makes sense. You know, because its the citizens without IDs that want to restrict our rights to self defense. You’re just as much an anti as the next gun grabber.

        2. avatar Greg Camp says:

          Logically, no one has to prove a negative. If someone claims that voter fraud has occurred, it’s that person’s responsibility to provide proof.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Uh, dude, there’s PLENTY of evidence of voter fraud. Just do some searches on how many dead people and cartoon characters have voted in elections.

      I know where I live you flash your ID and sign in a book that contains the name and address of everyone registered to vote in our district – if you’re not in the book, you don’t vote and if you don’t have ID, you don’t vote. The claim that it will disenfranchise the poor is bullshit considering that they already have some form of government issued ID or else they couldn’t buy cigarettes and beer (which, like it or not, are more popular among poor people than they are with middle and upper class people).

      I don’t understand people being against preventing voter fraud – no one is saying that you can’t vote or imposing any additional fees since so many activities in our daily lives already require you to have a government issued ID. It’s rather sad that the political party that already starts every presidential election with more than 1/3 of the electoral votes necessary to win feels the need to allow cheating as well.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        I’m in 100% agreement. If you can locate an ID to drink a beer in a bar, drive a car (well, at least your supposed to have a license for that, anyways), fly on a plane, cash a government benefit, buy cigarettes, buy a car, buy a house, etc. than you can have an ID to vote. If you are too stupid to obtain an ID, then please refrain from the election process anyways. Our society already perpetuates stupidity at an alarming rate.

        I reject any argument that basically states – we aren’t checking it very closely, but we know it to be true… Do you think illegal immigration does not occur because you aren’t checking also? You think people convicted of crimes don’t try to get free based upon bogus identity issues? Do you think people aren’t stealing credit every hour of every day?

        Banning voter ID requirements is literally one of the dumbest arguments that I have every heard.

  2. avatar Brandon says:

    I remember seeing a video of a young white guy with no ID getting Eric Holder’s ballot. That seems like a case of voter fraud that would be very easy to recreate. It is an anecdotal account and I think you make very good points; it made me stop and think about voter ID laws in the context of the 2A.

  3. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    the left is crying again let’s see you have to have a picture on your drivers license you have to have a picture ID to open a bank account, library card, store credit cards, your free obama phone and damn near everything else the left is crying cause now voter fraud will be practically eliminated boo hoo!

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Yeah, totally, I mean why is it so much damn trouble to pass a firearms test, a psychological background check and simply buy a gun with a retinal scanner… wait… dammit. Which site am I on again?

      Oh, by the way, “Obama phone” is part of a program that’s privately funded and existed before the dingus even announced he was running.

      1. avatar Anon in CT says:

        “Privately funded’ by taxes on our phone lines? I guess everything the government does is “privately funded” when you put it that way. But that tax doesn’t raise sufficient money, so they use appropriations from general revenues too, to the tune of a total of $2.4 billion a year. And they’ve found recipients with multiple phones – there are weak controls, and you can get multiple phones if you go to different carriers.

        The program did exist before Obama was elected – he just greatly expanded it. Just like food stamps and medicaid.

  4. avatar justin says:

    Wow this is just about as bad as Gary Johnson not being allowed in the presidential debates this year.

  5. avatar SDFreeman says:

    First and foremost I like to see the presidents ID and proof of citizenship, My kids can not even get a driver’s permit without a real paper birth certificate.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I don’t have a problem with where Obama was born. I have a problem with where hs is living now!

    2. avatar shawmutt says:

      And Obama couldn’t get his driver’s license, or his passport, without his. But no, it’s really part of a grand conspiracy to finally help Africa take over America.

  6. avatar Garynyer says:

    Present your papers

  7. avatar Ralph says:

    The argument seems to be that showing a free voter ID is a terrible infringement of a right not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but may issue firearms licensing and twenty thousand contradictory laws amounts to a reasonable restriction of a right that is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution.

    I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Just about as free as Obamacare and food stamps buddy! I wonder how much this crap is going to effect NH spending.

    2. avatar Slowburn says:

      Well said Ralph.

  8. avatar DJ says:

    The last time I went to the polls I accidentally took my wife’s voter ID card instead of mine. Her name is “Julie” – I don’t (think I) look like a Julie. Nonetheless, the poll worker was going to hand me her ballot. When I saw they were asking me to sign by my wife’s name I realized what had happened and showed them my driver’s license.

    Like I told my mom the other day, “I’ll happily vote Democrat. After I’m dead. Like everyone else.”

    1. avatar DJ says:

      Oh, and I should add, when my wife and I moved into our home we received voter registration cards for 6 different people at an address which had been vacant for 3 years prior to our purchase.

      1. avatar Totenglocke says:

        It’s why Democrats support nationalized healthcare – the higher mortality rate for those with serious illnesses and the elderly means more guaranteed votes for them…it’s hard to be a swing vote when you’re dead and someone else is filling out your ballot!

    2. avatar JoshinGA says:

      “Like I told my mom the other day, “I’ll happily vote Democrat. After I’m dead. Like everyone else.”” Hilarious!

    3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Given the same basic candidate is running for both parties I actually hope Obama does win despite these dumb laws… at least then ya’ll can quit whining about voter fraud.

      1. avatar Will says:

        Voter Fraud? From Obama’s side? Non-Existent?

        Not likely based on hearsay about homeless and illegals gathered up in the flatulent city and marched from poll place to poll place to vote at them all.

        The ones who cry the loudest against something are usually the ones whose practices will be the most affected.

  9. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    Great point… This train of thought really flips things around. IMHO, protecting the right to vote is very important. The thought of infringing on our rights in order to protect them is giving me a head ache. Thank you for the fresh perspective… I look forward to hearing from the rest of the group here….

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      How is showing that you’re who you say you are infringing on your right to vote? Do you get upset with your bank when you verify who you are to take out money? Do you get mad that Amazon verifies your username and password before charging money to your credit card?

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    Dan should look at the voting patterns in Philadelphia and he might understand why this is needed.
    I for one don’t want unqualified humans cancelling out my vote and their illegally present friends changing the outcomes of elections.
    Ask why democrats are against this universally.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      I know… I think we should all have mandatory ATF issued firearms ID’s too. After all, I have proof of people abusing firearms, so I feel it makes sense to harass and inconvenience the people who don’t.

      1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        So in your world, showing ID to vote is the same as filling out a 4473? Please tell me you’re kidding.

  11. avatar Merits says:

    No voter fraud? Ever hear of Acorn?
    Fine. Put a stamp on everyone’s forehead that won’t wear off for a week. You should only be able to vote once.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      But only voting once or actually being eligible to vote is harmful for the Democratic party! Come on, think of the Democrats!

  12. avatar Cigr says:

    I think requiring ID for either voting or firearms are infringements on our rights.

    To take this a step further, the people who push for such things have every intention of infringing on our rights. Those who push for voter ID laws know full well they are intended to keep the poor and minorities (especially blacks) from voting. Those who push for gun owner ID laws, including trying to make private purchases go through FFL’s, want nothing more than to keep guns from us.

    I say it over and over. It doesn’t matter what letter a politician has behind his name. They are all crooks and liars, and they will all strip you of your rights if it advances their cause.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      You are quite a mind-reader.

      I guess there’s no way that some people just don’t want some of the estimated 10,000,000 + illegal aliens (or even legal aliens) voting? So there’s no reason that a president would use unconstitutional executive orders to grant a mass amnesty to turn out this voting bloc?

      Must be all about hatin’ on the black fella.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Those who push for voter ID laws know full well they are intended to keep the poor and minorities (especially blacks) from voting.

      They’re meant to keep the poor / minorities from voting more than once and to keep illegal immigrants from voting at all.

      Seriously, are you that worried that your party will no longer win the majority of elections if you can no longer cheat?

  13. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    First, we were told that there should be no waiting periods to get an abortion. The ever-reliable idiot Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, started sounding like a shrill version of Jesse Jackson when she started rhyming: “A right delayed is a right denied!” And so the invented right of abortion cannot be delayed.

    But then the same woman will turn around and proclaim that waiting periods to purchase firearms are no imposition at all.

    Now we have the predictable double standard from Democrats on voter ID: Gun owners should have to show ID, *and* have their purchases recorded, *and* possibly have their right delayed (or explicitly denied, due to foul-ups in the background check), but anyone should be able to vote with no verification of identity, no system in place to prevent voting more than once, and with little control over the voted ballots (or worse, the electronic recording of the votes).

    Yea, I think I’d like to see voter ID imposed, if for no other reason than to watch these two-faced weasels get a taste of their own agenda.

    Oh, and BTW: Let’s always remember that gun control started as a racist agenda in the antebellum south. So when the predictably outraged noise starts on the left that requiring voter ID is racist, I’ll be happy to point out that, why indeed it is! Just like gun control.

  14. avatar jsallison says:

    “There is no question that the right to vote is a “privilege” of citizens…”

    If it’s a ‘privilege’, it’s not a ‘right’. And there is *no* specified right to vote in a presidential election.

  15. avatar Leon says:

    Great piece and a fair one. It causes me to laugh when folks are so transparently selfish. Personally, I believe the right to bear arms and the right to vote go hand in hand. However, from the posts here and editorials across the land many don’t see it that way. Many of the folks on the left say every citizen should be able to vote. They cite the Consituttion. Of course they can’t find that document when it comes to my right to bear arms. The folks on the right are no better, always throwing the Consitution in the faces of the left when it comes to bearing arms. Of course they can’t seem to find that piece of parchment when it comes to voter rights. You really can’t have it both ways. You either believe in The Constitution or you don’t.
    The ballot and the bullet go hand in hand.

      1. avatar Larry says:

        ? +1 ? What the heck does does THAT mean?

  16. avatar flboots says:

    Those that cry the most about something have the most to hide. So what are the dems hiding?

  17. avatar Pascal says:

    Yes, both parties play games with our rights for some dogma they follow showing they could give a crap about the people they serve.

    14th amendment aside, there seems to be no issue/problem when paper work is needed to get govt benefits including the $1.6 billion that is spent each year for free cell phones for people below the poverty level. Its too much to get and ID to vote but no problem when you want a free cell phone.

    My favorite was the women on the local news who was in her 90’s and had never voted but she was so pissed off now that she was getting her paper work together to vote for the first time — puhlease! What great spin by the Dems!

  18. avatar Greg Camp says:

    As far as I’m concerned, my word should be good enough to buy a gun, carry a gun, or cast a vote. Sadly, we don’t live in that kind of society, but one right is just as important as all the others. On that ground, I’m for Constitutional carry throughout the entire nation and against voter I.D. laws.

    1. avatar elnonio says:

      Your word should be good enough, but if I don’t know you, why should I trust or believe you?

      And addressing the point a little further up, just because there is a right to vote doesn’t mean anyone can vote; felons, illegal immigrants can’t vote. So, the polling place should take the felon’s word for it when she shows up to vote? How about showing that you have that right?

      Anything less makes no sense.

    2. avatar Will says:

      It used to be your word, or a handshake was good enough when making a purchase. Now, if you go to buy something, you better make sure that “word” is in the contract and in the terms you were given, or you’ll never be able to get them to honor it, ever.

  19. avatar Zaphos says:

    After reading about 15 straw man arguments, the left didn’t claim the reason for the voter ID laws, the right said it outright…

    “Pennsylvania state House Republican leader Mike Turzai said this weekend that the state’s new voter ID law will “allow” Mitt Romney to win the state in November

    -Politico

    “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

    -Mike Turzai

    The whole thing was pretty transparent.

    Should people need to use picture ID to verify themselves? Sure. Should they pass the law to make it mandatory just before an election forcing a mad scramble to get ID on time? That is the part that looks like a ploy to weed people out.

    Now, in my mind, this whole thing might backfire. It seems the main demographic to be affected will be the elderly. Are they not traditional right leaning?

    What am I missing?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I don’t know how the elderly will be affected adversely by needing an ID to vote. All the old people I know have their shit together.
      they got homes paid for, they got cars paid for and they’ve been dealing with the system for a lot longer than us.

      They’ve spent a lifetime looking after themselves and their families. They’ve figured out ssi and medicare. Suggesting that having an ID is going to cause them a hardship is down right insulting.

  20. avatar Kelly in GA says:

    Like the beer bit stated above, almost all folks have ID. Not to mention, I think it’s law in most places that anyone over a certain age, I think 15 or 16, is supposed to carry an ID card. So it’s racist to make someone show something their supposed to already have? I suppose it’s racist to ask for a Social Security card to open up a bank account, since it would be harder for the poor disenfranchised minorities to obtain one of those, either.

    As for the voter fraud, I’ve heard there have been over 200 connections for the Franken election. It does happen. And if you think if infringes upon your right to buy a gun or cast a vote, consider this: just to prove you’re age, you need an ID. Is itdiscriminatory to want to check someones age? Or should we throw out voter minimum age, too? That way, all the worthless P.O.S. baby mill mothers on welfare can cast a vote for all 8 of their kids, just to make sure the politician who says they’ll give her a bigger check wins. Seriously, get over it. While we’re at it, why don’t we bring Ahmadinejad over on election day and let him vote too? No need to show ID and prove citizenship. Sounds like a winner.

    Rant over.

    1. avatar Derek Dauma says:

      You are wrong.

      There is no requirement to carry ID for a citizen.

      I am required to identify myself to a police officer when they ask. I am also required to indicate whether or not I am armed when they ask.

      I am not required to prove my identity unless I am operating a motor vehicle on a public street.

      1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Depends on your state. In (I think) 24 states, you are required to produce ID upon demand by a cop.

        And the SCOTUS has heard a case on this, upholding a state’s power to compel ID. The case is Hillbel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

        Now, a cop can stop you and demand ID only when he has a “reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed and you were involved.” Well, you have to test for this suspicion. If you’re asked by a cop for ID, ask if you are “free to go.” If he says “Yes,” then do so without answering any more questions or producing ID.

  21. avatar Brian says:

    Your disclaimer just disclaimed your claims. Do you stand for all the constitutional rights of all citizens, or do you not?

  22. avatar Zaphos says:

    Good article

    From the article:

    “It’s in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits purging voters within 90 days of a federal election,”

    Just to confirm, from the law:

    TITLE 42 – THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
    CHAPTER 20 – ELECTIVE FRANCHISE

    SUBCHAPTER I-H – NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION

    (2)(A) A State shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.

    The reason the Republicans are pissing off conservatives or why they can kiss my …

    “The secretary of state’s office says it reads the law differently and plans to continue its efforts to remove ineligible voters from the rolls.”

    This brings me to my main point:

    Does no one else see the Republicans killing any scant evidence of credibility inherently detrimental to any chance of forwarding conservative purposes? They were cheering for the Governor Of Pennsylvania while he bragged about sabotaging the democratic process.

    I know I hijacked a specific thread for a broad argument but had to vent. Lewis Black moment.

  23. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    Let me ask you this. I have to have a voter registration card, right? Why cant it be a photo voter registration card? I have to go to the Post Office or DMV to get passport photos and/or a voter registration application, right? Why can’t the Post Office or DMV do something useful and take my picture for my “issued on the spot”, photo voter registration card? At no cost – cause if you are going to require it you have to eat the cost, or its unconstitutional.

    Thank you, I’m here all week.

  24. avatar Dan says:

    Papers, please.

  25. avatar jwm says:

    I think Sarah Silverman had the right idea. Your ccw permit should double as your voter ID. And because it does double duty the ccw should be shall issue nationwide.Valid Nationwide and free on demand to all legal aged to vote. Problem solved.

  26. avatar L.Y. says:

    Voter ID is FINE, but the timing is NOT! It is a ploy that I cannot believe was passed so easily so late. There were 3 years before now that they could have passed this to give ample time to get ID’s. The ID requirement, plus the words from Mike Turzai, and the district voter times restructure favoring Republicans shows the REALITY of it all. No conspiracy, they said it out loud, ” ..allow Mitt Romeny to win.” I cannot believe that this was all allowed to happen. The fix is in, but will it be enough to beat Obama?

  27. avatar RobertM says:

    1) How many people do you know that don’t have some kind of picture ID. I mean if you are over 18 and don’t have a picture ID how can you get an apartment, a car, a phone, a checking account there is a reason why states issues none driver license ID for people who don’t drive?

    2) There are restrictions on other right and most people don’t see them as bad. 1a limit you can’t scream fire in a movie thearter unless there is actually a fire there.

    3) Voter fraud does happen allot but the requirements to prove it is so high very few people ever get convicted of it. Prefect example two thugs sit infront a voting both in phili and pretty much blocks any one who might not vote for obama away from the voting both. They weren’t even procutated. When I was working at a polling place I noticed the same person came to vote twice. I reported it to the judge he told me the voter roles didn’t show that he already voted so it must have been someone who looked like him. Who knows maybe it was but since they can’t even asking for an ID to confirm who is voting there is no way to know for certain. So only the stupid people commiting voter fraud actually get caught. Those that are smart enough to work inside the system get away with it all the time.

    Thanks
    Robert

  28. avatar Slowburn says:

    Voting? When people in the Federal Congress voted in the 16th Amendment, that was the beginning of the end to the American Constitutional Republic right there. Simple as that. Unlimited taxation meant unlimited credit to fedgov by the moneylenders who create money out of ether with the taxpayers stuck with unplayable, perpetual debt service. Trillions upon trillions. Where does the money go and who’s accountable for it? Ether bucks in zeros and ones on computers? From the Central Bank of the U.S. to .gov as lenders to companies that go bankrupt but contribute money to campaign funds? Huh? What a system that is.
    And that right of the people to keep and bear arms? The first purpose for that was as an absolute prohibition on powers afforded to fedgov. A clear read on it by anyone who could understand English and has some idea what the words mean would say it wouldn’t matter whether anyone still owned arms or not. U.S. Citizens would still have that “right” as stated. That same right is enumerated in most State Constitutions, worded in just about every way there is. And it’s the duty of all gov’t to secure rights. And that would be the rights of U.S. Citizens. ( Anyone not knowing that the purpose of government is to secure rights may want to read that part again. )
    On voting for candidates for office? Dead people, cartoon characters, cats and dogs, and illegal aliens don’t have ‘voting rights’ reserved only for U.S. Citizens.
    BTW, anyone see a public service announcement stating that if you’re not a U.S. Citizen or a convicted felon that’s lost their right to vote, it’s a criminal offense to try and vote, prosecutable under law? Why not?
    No I.D. required for voting? Great idea. We’ll just let the citizens of Russia, China and Mexico elect our next Marxist leader, Emperor or el presidente.
    The real surprise at this point is that there’s still people in public service who have some idea about what their job is and try to do it.

    And a final BTW, for any collectivists, uh, statists, uh, digressive Libtards out there who might happen to be surfin the net and come across this post, there’s a BIG difference between just being born in this Nation and being a U.S. Citizen.

  29. avatar Levi B says:

    If you need a photo ID just to vote, you can get one for exactly free at your local PennDOT office.

    If you do not have one on voting day, you can still vote, and present them with the ID later.

    If this is still enough to keep you from voting, then you clearly don’t give a damn about the country anyways, and probably don’t really need to vote to begin with.

    I love how they say voter fraud is so rare–the reason voter fraud is so rarely convicted is because it’d be almost impossible to! Unless you catch someone replacing ballot boxes red handed or something similar, how do you prove voter fraud? Surely then these people believe politicians only steal money if they’re convicted, murders do not happen unless there is a conviction, and Acorn buses only take their loads of (let’s face it–black) people to 1 polling station after telling them who to vote for.

  30. avatar orangeblue says:

    If you’re going to invoke the Constitution to support your argument, at least refer to the relevant Articles/Amendments. Voting procedures are determined by the states. No citizen in the country votes directly for President (Electoral College does). The 14th Ad. prevents States from infringing on rights granted by the Constitution, which does not guarantee an absolute right to vote. Various Amendments prohibit the US and the various States from infringing the ability to vote based on race/color, sex, or age, and bans poll taxes, but otherwise leaves it to the States to control. Which is why States can disenfranchise felons.

    1. avatar Dan says:

      Why stop at felons? How about anyone who has ever had a misdemeanor?

  31. avatar Don LaRue says:

    A state government can not charge a tax(license fee) in the exercise of a right…Already settled by the US Supreme Court.

    U.S. Supreme Court
    319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and seven other cases, including JONES v. CITY OF OPELIKA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

    “The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.”

    “It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”

    What the court is saying in the second quote, is that there is a contention(by the government) that if the tax, lets say for an example is a penny, and because it’s such a small fee would not suppress or control the activity, a right in this case, it is ok to tax the activity(right). The court then goes on to say that that contention is wrong because any direct license tax, a penny or otherwise, upon a right isn’t allowed under the Constitution because the government has the ABILITY to suppress or control the right through its unlimited taxing power.

  32. avatar shawmutt says:

    So when these voter ID laws become the law of the land, and the GOP still lose elections, come up with wacko platforms, and give us shitty people to choose from, can we finally admit the GOP has lost its way and needs to be shaken up or replaced?

    I’m not sure where I am on the fence, but it sounds like the proponents of voter ID are an awful like like gun control advocates–build a great big straw man issue, make up laws that won’t address the issue, and then build on those laws when the “fix” doesn’t work. I know for sure, unless they are planning on scanning IDs and not just looking at them, that illegal immigrants will still be voting. They have their fake IDs that will work just fine.

  33. avatar bontai Joe says:

    Today, a judge threw out the PA voter ID law. I have since found out that all photo IDs were not acceptable, it had to have an expiration date on it. One of PA’s state supreme court justices mentioned that his ID which allows him access to PA’s Supreme court offices and identifies him as a supreme court justice would not be valid as it had no expiration date on it. Many college student IDs do not have expiration dates, just issued on dates. A lot of folks in the cities don’t have drivers licenses because they use mass transit, and the cost of storing a car is expensive. The law as passed was flawed. But this was not a last minute rush thing, folks here have had most of a YEAR to get a photo ID.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email