States determined who could vote making it a privilege. Feds stepped in and said no discrimination, so it's essentially a right. No?

I'll leave this here to educate the masses, there's no Constitutional Right to vote when it comes to Federal elections



http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2008/feb/21/2008-02-21/#democracy

So voting isn't a corner stone of our democracy?  If we don't have a right to vote exactly how was it designed to work?

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution
Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people.

Yeah... I'm not gonna read all that, but I can readily see that it's too long to be "no".

Haha there is a no in there.

or a YES

Most important part of post.

Read it a little better. I do not agree with background checks for how they can be used. But I wouldn't necessarily see the act of checking someone's background as an infringement. I have had many background checks done over the years for many diffrent things. I just don't trust the govt enough to give them that power.

So is a universal background check an infringement or not?

You say "I do not trust the govt enough to determine who becomes prohibited. "and then say "I wouldn't necessarily see the act of checking someone's background as an infringement."

Wait... for everything?

Voting?  Sure.

Just about anything else?   No sir.   Fuck that.

it sure will hurt liberals from voting a dozen times

If you just want a one word answer then I would say "yes".

But like I tried, and failed, to explain things aren't so black and white. I'm sure even you think there are some people who just shouldn't have a gun.
There are people who are not allowed to own guns. For whatever reason, that is the actual infringement and for violent felons for example that's not a bad thing, in my opinion. The background check is a way to see who is restricted it is not.
And I am against registries which is the only way they could work.
And I believe a gun is just a piece of personal property that should be able to be bought or sold. But I think the sellers should do their best to be responsible in who they sell to. Which goes back to how I would ask for an ID.

In what context, OP? A valid traffic or Terry stop? No--it makes sense. Any other situation? Depends on the state. In Florida, if an officer lacks reasonable suspicion to detain or PC to arrest/issue traffic citation, that officer cannot demand ID. He can ask, and the suspect can say no.

ETA: Wait, do you mean to vote? No, it's not an affront. It makes sense.

Some anecdotal data doesn't make it a problem. Even some fraudulent votes don't make it a problem. I need some hard data before I find such measures prudent.

by universal I mean country wide for voting.

Assuming you are correct, that means that if no IDs are issued for elections, no one controls the elections. If you're worried about who issues IDs, limit it to state-issued ID.

1. Despite the USSCt's illiteracy, the 24thAm only applies to federal elections.

2. If your analogy is valid, then the 24thAm requires the government to provide transportation to the polls for the poor.

The franchise is already established well beyond the constitutional mandate.

Requiring a state or federal ID as a condition of voting is not the same as requiring a standardized ID as a condition of living.

So the first person to appear at the polling place claiming to be TheWenisPrinkle gets to cast TheWenisPrinkle's vote, and whoever shows up second is shit out of luck.

The franchise has never been as broad as it is now.

No it doesn't.  You just bring in people from out of state to vote for the dead.

Why? The point of a photo ID would be so that people couldn't do this.

A constitutional gun-law regime would require proof of nothing (except perhaps majority; presumably an 8 year-old's father could prevent him from owning a gun). A constitutional and meaningful voting regime requires proof that the person casting a ballot is the person in whose name it is cast and is a resident of the district in which it is cast.

If somebody already showed up, said "I am c7aea15," and cast a ballot, you will most certainly be denied the right to vote.

You are incorrect. The "right" to vote is defined by the Constitution, not by natural law.

No, you would get a provisional ballot.

Do tell.

Please define "constitutional" voting system please ?

So who checked IDs when the first elections where held in the US?

What IDs did they except ?

You're are suggesting we go back to the days when states could set unresonable standards to cast a vote. It's just not enough of a real problem to go fucking with the system over.

Is asking for a card (free to anyone who wants one of course) with your name and picture on it, as opposed to just asking for your name really unreasonable though?  I am not understanding how this would be fucking with the system.

It is unreasonable to believe that requirement to presenting proof of identity when it necessary to present ID for normal life activity is unreasonable

I will leave it to the reader to locate the source material from which the following language, which defines the right to vote in federal elections*, is derived. I will point out, because it is so often overlooked, that there is no right under the Constitution for any individual to vote for president.

". . . the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. . . ."

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

"The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment."

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."

"*The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

Not a quotation, but a summary of decisional law compelling legislative districting. One person, one vote.

* Although this statement refers only to federal elections, a certain oracular body has by application of its mystical powers determined that it applies to state elections as well.

I am eager to learn of any natural law origin for the right to vote in the US.

Not at all. The time you refer to was a time when voters were know to the poll deputies, or were identified (as they recently have been some places) by signature comparison. There were never any dirty tricks involving identity employed to minority voting; black people were not allowed to register or to vote. It was not a secret.

You think military absentee ballots are actually counted? That's hilarious.

Do you have proof that they aren't? Serious question. Because that's pretty fucked up.

They have these amazing new "copy" machines.

Requiring photo ID is not a burden.  Most people already have one in the form of a driver's license.  The "poor" have ID so they can receive welfare benefits.  Non-driver photo ID's are usually available at the DMV for free or a nominal fee.

I for one, think that those against having some form of picture identification have something to hide. As a law abiding citizen I prefer those that refuse to get an I.D. be looked upon as being a suspect of something that's against the law, or is hiding an ongoing criminal enterprise, including misusing government issued benefits. It makes it easier to identify those that are wanted, illegal, or otherwise suspect.

Technically, neither is voting, however it is a civil activity reserved exclusively to US Citizens.  Not resident aliens, and certainly not illegal aliens.  Citizens.

DU troll identified.

Every unit has a commissioned officer appointed as Voting Assistance Officer.  Every unit has a Legal Officer and/or a Field Grade officer (often many).  All of them (except the Voting Assistance Officer) are authorized by law to act as a notary and to administer oaths.

Thumbs up!

Heck, just Google "military voter suppression."  You get the predictable results - many links saying it's so, and the Democrat response.

Generally, most states don't bother to count absentee ballots unless the total number could make a difference to in-person election results.  They stop counting when the remaining uncounted ballots wouldn't change the outcome.  This comes up every single election cycle, and state/county election officials make unambiguous statements to that effect.

In addition, every election you see the Dem party trying legal trickery to throw out military ballots.

Huh.

My sarcasm detector appears to be broken.

no whats an affront are the 22k laws on the second amendment....

I did not read all the replies but honestly this is 2014 and soon to be 2015 and I am stunned that people are carping that a significant number of people don't have some sort of I.D.
I just don't believe it or accept it as a realistic argument.
With God only knows how many millions of people are in this nation illegally and not to mention felons who many have lost their right to vote to argue that voter I.D. is not a valid issue is nuts.