Archive

Photo ID to vote

  • fish82
    Bigdogg;723196 wrote:Having a great day A.J. Sleep tight! Why don't you tell us all how you gave out your address to everyone? Not too bright. Thanks for the information. Had to unblock you here, it was way too much fun!!!!!

    Do you really want me to tell the story of what happened? I'd think you'd want to kinda sweep that puppy under the rug, LOL. I especially liked your new handle....that wasn't the least bit creepy or stalker like. :rolleyes:

    But hey, if you think getting banned is fun, more power to ya.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Bigdogg;723214 wrote:Which part was that? The part where it's a waste of taxpayer money or that it is facing Constitutionally issues in every state and will eventually end up in the USSC

    The part where you cited a lower court ruling when it was overturned by a higher court. That would make you wrong.
  • Bigdogg
    LJ;723236 wrote:You didn't answer my question. You claimed it would be ruled unconstitutional. What makes you think this is any more unconstitutional than registering?

    I not a expert on law but from what I have read voter ID could be considered a poll tax and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. A lot of older people live in a nursing home and do not drive. Or how about young people who do not own a car and take the bus to work? There are also folks who do not own a car, and so they do not have a driver’s license. There is also the story of the twelve nuns who could not vote in Indiana because they did not have the proper photo ID. All reasons that are cited.
  • LJ
    Bigdogg;723275 wrote:I not a expert on law but from what I have read voter ID could be considered a poll tax and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. A lot of older people live in a nursing home and do not drive. Or how about young people who do not own a car and take the bus to work? There are also folks who do not own a car, and so they do not have a driver’s license. There is also the story of the twelve nuns who could not vote in Indiana because they did not have the proper photo ID. All reasons that are cited.

    So it's a poll tax when you can get it for free?

    What about the people who can't make it to register?

    You still haven't explained why you think registering is OK vs ID.
  • dwccrew
    Bigdogg;722738 wrote:I am sure after this gets rammed through in Columbus it will be as popular as it was at the BMV when they first tried this;) I don't want to hear from any of you clowns when your license is lost/stolen and you can't vote someday.
    Well, I'd replace it, because I couldn't drive legally without it either. :rolleyes:

    If I lose it or it is stolen, it is my responsibility to replace it, why would I cry?
    Bigdogg;722744 wrote:Good for you. What if you lose your license for driving? Why is this needed? Where is the voter fraud? I missed this story. Please show me where the facts are to support this.
    If you lose your licence to drive you can still get a state issued ID and they're less than $10. You are failing monumentally at explaining even one relevent point.
    Bigdogg;722971 wrote:And it's better to blindly support a piece of crap legislation that 1. Will not address voter fraud 2. Cost taxpayers money unnecessary. 3.Be eventually ruled unconstitutional. I could say I was surprised that you support this specific legislation but I doubt you would understand the irony of it all.

    How is it unconstitutional in anyway? It allows for everyone to vote, they just need photo ID. Is it unconstitutional to make people show photo ID to police when they pull you over?
    LJ;722978 wrote:Oh? It won't make you prove you are who you are? I'm ok with that By who? 8 states already have this. I highly doubt it will be. It doesn't prevent anyone from voting. If this was unconstitutional so would registering to vote. Or I could say that you are just talking out of your ass because you have nothing. The irony of it all is that this harms as many rights as registering to vote. Please tell us how unconstitutional that is and how much uness. taxpayer $$ that spends.

    Winning.....
    Ty Webb;723032 wrote:BigDogg,take this from someone who knows about getting owned on here...


    You're getting owned,and it would serve you well you well to just shut up and save yourself the embarrassment

    /thread
  • Bigdogg
    LJ;723280 wrote:So it's a poll tax when you can get it for free?

    What about the people who can't make it to register?

    You still haven't explained why you think registering is OK vs ID.

    Like a lot of people on here know, nothing is free someone is paying for it. Why do you want me to explain something that I have no problem (registering) and something that is currently being challenged (ID) in every court that it exists? You act like a 3 year old...Why Why Why, well read up on the issues son.
  • Bigdogg
    dwccrew;723281 wrote:Well, I'd replace it, because I couldn't drive legally without it either. :rolleyes:

    If I lose it or it is stolen, it is my responsibility to replace it, why would I cry?



    If you lose your licence to drive you can still get a state issued ID and they're less than $10. You are failing monumentally at explaining even one relevent point.



    How is it unconstitutional in anyway? It allows for everyone to vote, they just need photo ID. Is it unconstitutional to make people show photo ID to police when they pull you over?



    Winning.....



    /thread

    Were having a grown up discussion....Wait at the kid table.
  • LJ
    Bigdogg;723290 wrote:Like a lot of people on here know, nothing is free someone is paying for it.
    Someone has to pay for the polling anyway, that is your definition of a poll tax? Fucking fail
    Why do you want me to explain something that I have no problem (registering) and something that is currently being challenged (ID) in every court that it exists? You act like a 3 year old...Why Why Why, well read up on the issues son.

    Just like I thought, you can't answer the fucking question. How about instead of calling me "son" you tell me why you feel that registration is OK and why voter ID is not. I've asked you multiple times. All you keep doing is getting shot down about it being unconstitutional, about it being a poll tax, and about there being 0 cases of voter impersonation. You haven't been right about one damn thing, and you can't even answer a simple question.
  • ts1227
    Bigdogg;723294 wrote:Were having a grown up discussion....Wait at the kid table.

    LOL, you must be huddled over in the corner talking to the dog in that scenario, you sure aren't sitting at the adult table.
  • Bigdogg
    Now LJ calm down. All those dirty words coming out of your month shame shame! Hope you don't kiss your mom with that mouth! I am sure you can express yourself better. How about I give you it may be constitutional, although I will post the dissenting opinion from the case in Indiana for your convenience. How about we agree it's a waste of tax money that can better be spent elsewhere at this time. If I am not right I am in good company with at least a few Supreme court justices.
    Boehm, Justice, dissenting.
    I respectfully dissent. In broad brush, the issue in the federal constitutional challenges to Indiana’s voter identification law was whether the burdens this requirement imposed on some citizens’ right to vote were severe enough to overcome the presumption we give to all acts of the General Assembly. The Supreme Court of the United States resolved that issue against the plaintiffs, at least as far as any provision of the Federal Constitution is concerned. Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610, 1615 (2008). The majority for the most part addresses this case as if that were the issue before us today. The majority categorizes the voter ID requirement as a regulation implementing the registration requirement and concludes that a regulation is valid if ―reasonable and uniform.‖ The majority dismisses the acknowledged problems that some voters may have in obtaining a voter ID as justified by perceived benefits in the integrity of the election.
    As I see it, the state constitutional claim is quite different. The principal issue in this case is not a balancing of the relative benefits, if any, of a voter ID requirement against the problems that requirement creates for some citizens, if perhaps relatively few. The central question is who gets to resolve that issue under the Indiana Constitution. Under our Constitution some issues are immunized from revision by the temporary majority that comprises one session of the legislature, and must be addressed by the more deliberate and time consuming process of constitutional amendment. Article 16 of the Indiana Constitution permits amendment of the Constitution by agreement of a simple majority of each house in two successive General Assemblies, followed by approval by the voters of this state. This process is far less difficult than the approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures needed to amend the Federal Constitution. U.S. Const. art. V. But it nonetheless represents the decision of the framers of our State Constitution to reserve some issues from the normal legislative process and require a more deliberative process, more extended debate, and a consensus over a longer period of time than is needed for ordinary legislation.
    One of the subjects that the Indiana Constitution reserves to the amendment process is the ―qualifications‖ for voting. The question in this case is whether our State Constitution permits one session of the General Assembly to impose a voter ID requirement on Indiana voters, or requires that two successive sessions of the legislature agree that this measure is necessary, and then submit it to the voters for the people to make the final decision. For the reasons given below, I think both precedent and the language of the Indiana Constitution dictate that the voter ID requirement is an unauthorized qualification
    2
    for casting a ballot. That requirement therefore can be imposed only if two successive sessions of the General Assembly and the voters of this state agree it is appropriate.
    Article 2, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution, entitled ―Voting Qualifications,‖ provides that ―A citizen of the United States, who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct in the election.‖ This section prescribes three, and only three, qualifications to vote: citizenship, age of eighteen or more, and residence in the precinct. It is quite different from the provisions of the 1851 Constitution, which limited voting to males, required that voters be 21 years of age, and imposed much longer residency requirements. Importantly, until 1881, even registration of voters was not authorized by the Indiana Constitution. Registration is now constitutional, but that hook does not support the voter ID requirement, and there is no other basis in the Constitution to deny voting rights to those unable to produce a voter ID.
    Over the years the Constitutional provisions relating to voting have been amended on five different occasions, for the most part relaxing eligibility requirements and expanding the right to vote to groups previously excluded. Ind. Const. Ann. art. 2, § 2, at 392–93 (West 2007). For our purposes the most important of these is Amendment 3, one of a group of nine constitutional amendments that were first submitted to the voters in the 1880 spring election but had been declared invalid in State v. Swift, 69 Ind. 505 (1880), for failure to receive the required voter approval. Amendment 3 was resubmitted and ultimately adopted in 1881. For the first time it added to the Indiana Constitution the power of the General Assembly to require registration of voters. That authority is found today in Article 2, Section 14(c), which provides in its entirety: ―The General Assembly shall provide for the registration of all persons entitled to vote.‖ The need for an explicit constitutional authority to support the registration requirement was set forth in Governor Porter’s recommendation that the General Assembly resubmit the invalidated amendments to the voters. House Journal, Fifty-Second Session, 81, quoted in 2 Charles Kettleborough, Constitution Making in Indiana 178–80 (1916). After noting the potential for voter fraud without registering voters before the election, the Governor explained that the Indiana Constitution alone sets the requirements for voter eligibility, and the 1851 Constitution did not authorize a registration requirement. Id. at 178–79. As a result, without the proposed amendments, ―No registration law can be passed; the Constitution will not allow one.‖ Id. at 179. In short, the voter registration we all accept today is itself a qualification for voting that requires specific constitutional validation. The courts have repeatedly confirmed Governor Porter’s view that the legislature cannot impose qualifications for voting
    3
    beyond those prescribed by the Constitution. E.g., Fritch v. State, 199 Ind. 89, 92, 155 N.E. 257, 258 (1927) (―When the Constitution defines the qualifications of voters such qualifications cannot be changed nor added to by statute.‖); Morris v. Powell, 125 Ind. 281, 287, 25 N.E. 221, 223 (1890) (invalidating as a qualification a requirement that voters absent from the state for six months produce a certificate of property ownership).
    The majority finds the voter ID to be a reasonable implementation of the registration requirement. The problem, of course, is that the plaintiffs claim that some eligible citizens are unable or unwilling for various legitimate reasons to obtain a voter ID, particularly in light of the recent restrictions designed to address national security concerns. We ordinarily give wide latitude to legislative judgment on matters of reasonable relationship in classifications created by statute. But any limitation on the right to vote surely strikes at one of the core values embodied in the Indiana Constitution. As Justice Mitchell of this Court put it 120 years ago:
    Those provisions of the constitution which define the right of suffrage, and prescribe the qualifications of persons entitled to its exercise, and those statutes which look to the guarding of the purity of elections, and the integrity of the ballot-box, demand the gravest and most deliberate consideration whenever they are drawn into judicial discussion.
    Morris, 125 Ind. at 297, 25 N.E. at 229. Legislation governing who can vote, and how, is a product of a legislature that depends on elections. Only the judiciary can preserve the rights of the citizens against dilution by the elected branches of government. To borrow a phrase from federal jurisprudence, whether a matter is properly viewed as a registration requirement validated by Article 2, Section 14 therefore requires ―strict scrutiny.‖ The voter ID does not pass that test because, at least as alleged in the complaint, it requires satisfying conditions designed to meet other regulatory purposes and thereby imposes conditions on voting not authorized by the registration provisions.
    To the extent language from Simmons v. Byrd, 192 Ind. 274, 136 N.E. 14 (1922), suggests a more deferential standard of review of legislation imposing requirements in the guise of regulating the registration process, I believe that opinion went significantly further than the facts of that case required and should not be followed. The only issue in that case was the validity of registration requirements that have long been accepted in this state and are minimally necessary to operate a registration plan as Article 2 of the Indiana Constitution has authorized since 1881. The law in question dealt largely with the mechanics of registration and required of the voter only that the voter be registered, which could be.....
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06301001bd.pdf
  • Bigdogg
    ts1227;723335 wrote:LOL, you must be huddled over in the corner talking to the dog in that scenario, you sure aren't sitting at the adult table.

    Good point. What was it?
  • LJ
    You realize that dissenting opinion is because of how the law was passed right?


    Btw, you ever gonna answer my question?

    Also, is voter registration a waste of monet?
  • queencitybuckeye
    dogshit;723349 wrote:How about I give you it may be constitutional,

    So you were wrong earlier, or you lied. Which is it?
  • Ty Webb
    dwccrew;723281 wrote:
    /thread
    Hey....we agree on something. Hell has frozen over
  • dwccrew
    Bigdogg;723294 wrote:Were having a grown up discussion....Wait at the kid table.
    Didn't expect much of an intelligent response from you.
  • Bigdogg
    fish82;723242 wrote:Do you really want me to tell the story of what happened? I'd think you'd want to kinda sweep that puppy under the rug, LOL. I especially liked your new handle....that wasn't the least bit creepy or stalker like. :rolleyes:

    But hey, if you think getting banned is fun, more power to ya.

    It's your party go ahead A.J. It's a funny story. Been sharing it with my friends all day. Back on already. It's not hard. Just need lots of IP addresses which I have an endless supply.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Bigdogg;723414 wrote:It's your party go ahead A.J. It's a funny story. Been sharing it with my friends all day. Back on already. It's not hard. Just need lots of IP addresses which I have an endless supply.

    Actually, it's a finite number.
  • Bigdogg
    LJ;723358 wrote:You realize that dissenting opinion is because of how the law was passed right?


    Btw, you ever gonna answer my question?

    Also, is voter registration a waste of monet?

    Already answered. You do realize it's Voter ID a waste of money not monet?
  • LJ
    Bigdogg;723414 wrote:It's your party go ahead A.J. It's a funny story. Been sharing it with my friends all day. Back on already. It's not hard. Just need lots of IP addresses which I have an endless supply.

    But whats fun is that if you dont stop acting like you are using someonea real name you will be banned from here.

    Did you know there is a minimum posts requirement to post in the poli forum?
  • LJ
    Bigdogg;723420 wrote:Already answered. You do realize it's Voter ID a waste of money not monet?

    You never answered the question.


    And im glad you can pick out my touchscreen phone keyboard spelling mistakes
  • queencitybuckeye
    Bigdogg;723420 wrote:Already answered. You do realize it's Voter ID a waste of money not monet?

    You realize your sentence is a garbled piece of shit. It's what happens when functional illiterates attempt to correct the mistakes of others.
  • fish82
    Bigdogg;723414 wrote:It's your party go ahead A.J. It's a funny story. Been sharing it with my friends all day. Back on already. It's not hard. Just need lots of IP addresses which I have an endless supply.

    You have my initials backwards, tard. If you're still intent on revealing my identity, at least get it right. :rolleyes:
  • CenterBHSFan
    @Fish: go ahead, tell us the story :)

    @dogg: I don't give a damn about Indiana's laws.

    @everybody: He's stringing you along. He's even admitted in another thread that he's pulling chains.
  • queencitybuckeye
    CenterBHSFan;723439 wrote:@Fish: go ahead, tell us the story :)

    @dogg: I don't give a damn about Indiana's laws.

    @everybody: He's stringing you along. He's even admitted in another thread that he's pulling chains.


    He can claim whatever he likes. It's pretty obvious such a statement is a cover for his upset of being pwned by, well, everyone.
  • Bigdogg
    fish82;723433 wrote:You have my initials backwards, tard. If you're still intent on revealing my identity, at least get it right. :rolleyes:

    I thought that was your nick name. You know we are prevented from revealing anybody's identities on here right? I also thought name calling was out also. Can't you do better then that. By the way my sister has a developmental disability, Tard is so yesterday. I was hoping the address you gave me was not your mommy and daddy. Pretty easy to get all kinds of information on the net.

    What do you have against people with DD? You know they can vote right? Got to get me that free ID card now though;)