To the "we have to show ID to do xxxx why not for voting" crowd: Okay, fair enough. Which other constitutional rights should be denied on the basis of lack of a valid ID?

Speech?

Press?

Unlawful search and seizure?

Jury trial?

Privacy?

I had to show my ID when I voted today. It made me feel like cattle.

Those last 4 are already denied even if you do have an ID.

What I find interesting about this is, while you have constitutional rights to the items you listed, you do NOT have a constitutional right to vote There are provisions for reasons you can't be excluded (race, sex, 18 years of age or older)

Nothing in the constitution prevents a state saying things like:

Anyone over the age of 6 can vote.

You must have an IQ >120 to vote

You must have a job or own real property to vote.

You must own a firearm to vote.

There is no written constitutional prohibition against it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...vilege/262511/

There are restrictions on free speech too, therefore you do not have the constitutional right of speech...?

Zikzak, thanks for playing, but no. Section 2 of the 14th does not prohibit it, it just reduces the states representation in congress by the % not allowed.

Have there been no further amendments since 1868?

Phil I'm not sure I understand the question. I have a right to bare arms, but that doesn't mean I have the right to shoot people. I have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean I have the right to incite a riot.

Well, I guess that just about settles it. LASJ has figured it out. I look forward to next week's shocking revelation that there's no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Excellent work, Jay.

Sure, I can't say you can't vote cuz you're female, or 18-21 for example. But a state could pass restrictions that would exclude some 18-21 or some women, and past strict constitutional muster.

But "my constitutional right to vote" is a fallacy.

Do we have a problem we need to discuss in PM's?

All I'm saying is there is a lot in the constitution about voting, but nothing guaranteeing your right to vote., only restrictions on reasons things you can't use to deny certain groups voting privileges.

I'll go one further. If you all want to come up with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to everyone of age who lives in this country regardless of status I'll help back it.

We're all at the mercy of these asswipes, we all ought to send them packing.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The constitution makes it perfectly clear that rights need not be explicitly stated in order to exist. The right to vote is assumed, as evidenced by repeated expansion of that right to more people in half a dozen some-odd future amendments.

Voting rights, or the lack thereof are enumerated in the constitution.

wtf does that even mean?

Look man, tell you what. You go get a state to deny voting rights to people with severe halitosis and let me know if another constitutional amendment is needed to strike that law down.

Well in might make live poker more fun. :P

Oh look, another example of a right winger being completely 100% wrong.

Not shocking at all. But refusing to even acknowledge the argument against when it's been made 100s of times itt alone is just straight up trolling imo.

i mean, this thread should just be about cats now.

No matter how effectively explained or articulately managed, if you are explaining that 2 + 2 = 5, then you're just as wrong as if you stated it in unconvincing fashion.

I'm surprised that this is one issue that nobody seems to be able to give an inch on. The right to vote is reserved for citizens above a certain age. The new voting laws are there to protect our rights as citizens, not to abuse them.

I already know that readers are either 100% in agreement with me, or 100% convinced that I'm a lunatic. I'm fairly certain that this thread hasn't changed one opinion.

So do you have any evidence of voter fraud that the new laws would prevent?

"Evidence" is an interesting term, especially since the first election that most of the new laws (both proposed and in effect) will take place on Tuesday.


To me, the discovery of large numbers of people who are registered to vote both in both Maryland and Virginia, the claims that legitimate voters have been disenfranchised in Georgia, videos of party loyalists encouraging illegals to vote, the reporting of blank ballots being sold for cash, the revelation in the Washington Post, where as many as 6% of adult illegals actually voted in recent Presidential elections, and the publication by La Raza of the states or counties in the country where one can vote without ID, are all "evidence" that the voting laws, are, if nothing else, a good start in cleaning up the elections, because, to me, the stakes have proved to be so high that it's naive to think there's not widespread cheating through the open door policy we have had due to our sophomoric belief that nobody would ever cast a vote when they were not eligible.

I suspect that you do not consider these issues as "evidence."

Since when do republicans need evidence to create new laws? They love big government.

Every single bullet point here, except the stuff you just made up – would not be affected by voter ID laws whatsoever. Voter ID laws are not a "start". They are a means to an end for Republicans – of attempting to tip the voter electorate in their favor.

Republicans have not shown one iota of interest in following up voter ID laws with going after any forms of voter fraud that they could actually prevent – such as absentee ballots. Republicans are literally going after the only form of voter fraud that has never been shown to exist, and ignoring all the others.

I suspect you know this. Anyone smart enough to work a computer keyboard who's spent more than 30 minutes researching this issue – can figure out that in-person voter fraud makes absolutely zero sense on any logical or practical level.

How many people are going to risk federal jail time to cast one or two extra votes? And none have ever been caught? Bigfoot is orders of magnitude more likely than any form of organized in person voter fraud.

How about the fact that basically zero cases of in-person voter fraud have ever been uncovered – despite conservative media scouring the country for the better part of a decade looking for them? What does that tell any rational, not completely disingenuous person?

Also expert move lumping in the Georgia disenfranchisement – which is most likely another pillar of the Republican attack against minority voters - to somehow ostensibly support the arguments for voter ID laws. Frank Luntz would be very proud.