Comments on: Supreme Court Affirms Common Sense

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:38:03 +0000

Gee, the nun was 93 years old and apparently has no time to obtain a free state-issued photo ID. Yet, she has time on election day to go to the voting booth even though she knew she wouldn’t be allowed to vote.

Seems to me that one additional trip a couple of months ago could have taken care of the entire situation, especially given all the publicity that the Supreme Court case generated.

By: boopinkbutterfly

boopinkbutterfly — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:11:55 +0000

To ensure that the voter is really a citizen of a certain place, why don’t they let the voter show their birth certificate or before given a voter’s ID, the election committee would examine the birth certificate first.
_________________
mai
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters http://www.e-us-visa.com

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:59:15 +0000

Congratulations to the Supreme Court and Indiana's Voter ID law for preventing a dozen 80 and 90-year-old nuns from voting in the May 6 primary. Click Here.

Comment edited by Administrator to prevent link from extending into sidebar.

By: teqjack

teqjack — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:50:35 +0000

“They emphasized the difficulty of obtaining the required documentation, particularly for poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters.”

Oh, so that’s why they passed laws that such people must show picture IDs to drink alcohol, smoke or chew tobacco, cash a check or open a bank account – and have proposed it (in light of “huffing” fumes) for buying housepaint! I’d wondered why, at over sixty, I had to provide proof beyond my rather decrepit appearance that I was beyond 21.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:29:40 +0000

In theory, using your government-issued photo ID could replace voter registration cards. So, once implemented, you wouldn’t need to show both.

Next, the ID doesn’t have to be a driver’s license; States issue plain ID cards all the time. In fact, when the voter ID law was proposed the last time, it offered to issue the id cards at no charge for those who couldn’t afford the small fee they collect for it.

So, getting the ID costs nothing, and once we start you only have to show the ID. Frankly, I don’t see where there is a “burden” for anyone.

As for this “evidence” you say will “eventually” show up, get real. The people in this case had over a year to find such evidence and couldn’t find any (or any credible enough to bring to the Court’s attention). This “burden” you talk about seems to be imaginary.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:49:14 +0000

I don’t mean just show an ID to buy a gun. I mean you have to register to own a gun and have a photo ID issued. We already have to register to vote. The only issue beyond that is to demonstrate that you are the person registered when you vote. That is typically done by showing your voter ID card. Why do you have to show a photo ID on top of that? I have shown my driver’s license to vote when I have forgotten or misplaced my voter registration card. Why should I have to show both? Some people, for whatever reason, don’t have driver’s licenses – some because they are too old to drive or maybe they are too poor to own a car. Forcing them to get a government issued photo ID (and paying the subsequent fees) on top of registering to vote (which already covers your paranoia over citizenship) is an unneccesary burden for voting. The Supreme Court was totally wrong in this case and I’m sure it is just a matter of time before enough examples will be compiled to satisfy Justice Stevens complaint about the lack thereof in the initial complaint.

By: Nick Marinelli

Nick Marinelli — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:21:47 +0000

Mike, I have no problem with a person being asked to prove he is a legal citizen before he is allowed to exercise his rights under the Constitution. Especially with something as important as the right to vote. I also have no problem with a person having to show identification when he is making a gun purchase.

Please explain how proving citizenship is an infringement on the right to vote. Given the fact that this right is only allowed to legal citizens, I see nothing wrong with ensuring that the people who show up at the polls are, in fact, citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we have to assume someone is a citizen just because they say they are.

By: Mike Thomas

Mike Thomas — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:29:40 +0000

OK, Nick. How about if they combine the voter ID law with a gun registration law. The new law will require photo IDs for people who want to own guns as well as for those who want to vote. Fair deal? Or are you going to tell me that owning a gun is a Constitutional right that can’t be infringed, unlike, say, voting?
Then the next thing we can do is put in an intelligence test for anyone that wants to own a gun. They will have to pass a multiple choice exam along the same lines as the TAAS exit exam for high school seniors.