How do any of these restrict anyone's rights?
Nobody is being denied anything.
it doesn't deny them, it restricts them, i.e. makes it harder for certain people.
Well....are there actual examples of proven cases where there was widespread voting fraud as a result of lack of identification?
I'm not talking about the 'dead people voting' allegations made every year after an election or allegations of stealing elections. I am talking about actual proven cases by independent entities investigating fraud.
I know that there are plenty of studies that can be cited by the heritage foundation or media matters, etc. alleging this but I mean an actual independent organization, absent one for political gain, and studies that show that the fraud occurred because of lack of proper identification.
Well....are there actual examples of proven cases where there was widespread voting fraud as a result of lack of identification?
I'm not talking about the 'dead people voting' allegations made every year after an election or allegations of stealing elections. I am talking about actual proven cases by independent entities investigating fraud.
I know that there are plenty of studies that can be cited by the heritage foundation or media matters, etc. alleging this but I mean an actual independent organization, absent one for political gain, and studies that show that the fraud occurred because of lack of proper identification.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of my second paragraph in post #31.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of my second paragraph in post #31.
Bottom line is that it is the right of the state legislature and Secretary of state to make voting laws and rules. If they are discriminatory they will be found unconstitutional.
This is just beating the drum for the Federal Government to come back in and deny the state their constitutional rights.
Bottom line is that it is the right of the state legislature and Secretary of state to make voting laws and rules. If they are discriminatory they will be found unconstitutional.
This is just beating the drum for the Federal Government to come back in and deny the state their constitutional rights.
I honestly think we need some serious voter reforms. I do not believe for a second that Californians voted to not have GMO labeled I think that this was a clear sign of tampering. I think there is vote manipulation and suppression, but having checks and double checks prevents it from happening more often. Having a state issued identification card tied to a vote is one way to make things more secure. I can't think of many other ways that aren't draconian.
Have you ever read Greg Palast's book "the best democracy money can buy"? It shows how shady these voting machines/software are. When companies run by Soros have access to them, and Spanish contractors run the programs, there is tons of room for manipulation.
I honestly think we need some serious voter reforms. I do not believe for a second that Californians voted to not have GMO labeled I think that this was a clear sign of tampering. I think there is vote manipulation and suppression, but having checks and double checks prevents it from happening more often. Having a state issued identification card tied to a vote is one way to make things more secure. I can't think of many other ways that aren't draconian.
Have you ever read Greg Palast's book "the best democracy money can buy"? It shows how shady these voting machines/software are. When companies run by Soros have access to them, and Spanish contractors run the programs, there is tons of room for manipulation.
I honestly think we need some serious voter reforms. I do not believe for a second that Californians voted to not have GMO labeled I think that this was a clear sign of tampering. I think there is vote manipulation and suppression, but having checks and double checks prevents it from happening more often. Having a state issued identification card tied to a vote is one way to make things more secure. I can't think of many other ways that aren't draconian.
Have you ever read Greg Palast's book "the best democracy money can buy"? It shows how shady these voting machines/software are. When companies run by Soros have access to them, and Spanish contractors run the programs, there is tons of room for manipulation.
Far right wingers are funny people.
In paragraph one, the argument is that we need identification in order to prevent fraud, which, of course, is made moot by paragraph two which alleges that it doesn't matter because the machines/software will create manipulation.
I honestly think we need some serious voter reforms. I do not believe for a second that Californians voted to not have GMO labeled I think that this was a clear sign of tampering. I think there is vote manipulation and suppression, but having checks and double checks prevents it from happening more often. Having a state issued identification card tied to a vote is one way to make things more secure. I can't think of many other ways that aren't draconian.
Have you ever read Greg Palast's book "the best democracy money can buy"? It shows how shady these voting machines/software are. When companies run by Soros have access to them, and Spanish contractors run the programs, there is tons of room for manipulation.
Far right wingers are funny people.
In paragraph one, the argument is that we need identification in order to prevent fraud, which, of course, is made moot by paragraph two which alleges that it doesn't matter because the machines/software will create manipulation.
Bottom line is that it is the right of the state legislature and Secretary of state to make voting laws and rules. If they are discriminatory they will be found unconstitutional.
This is just beating the drum for the Federal Government to come back in and deny the state their constitutional rights.
By the same reasoning, shouldn't the states have the same right to make laws regarding to firearms? After all, if they are so far-fetched, they will be found unconstitutional.
Bottom line is that it is the right of the state legislature and Secretary of state to make voting laws and rules. If they are discriminatory they will be found unconstitutional.
This is just beating the drum for the Federal Government to come back in and deny the state their constitutional rights.
By the same reasoning, shouldn't the states have the same right to make laws regarding to firearms? After all, if they are so far-fetched, they will be found unconstitutional.
"The idea that voting can be severely restricted has a long history in America"? Well, we have a long history of not letting blacks and women to vote, too.
Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable. We can pretend all we want but THE reason they want to do it is to limit a certain segment of our population to vote because they believe those groups would have a lesser chance in voting for them. What make you think they would contemplate the idea in the first place, purely on the "noble" ground of preventing voter-fraud? Sure....
"The idea that voting can be severely restricted has a long history in America"? Well, we have a long history of not letting blacks and women to vote, too.
Requiring an ID to vote seems reasonable. We can pretend all we want but THE reason they want to do it is to limit a certain segment of our population to vote because they believe those groups would have a lesser chance in voting for them. What make you think they would contemplate the idea in the first place, purely on the "noble" ground of preventing voter-fraud? Sure....
Far right wingers are funny people.
In paragraph one, the argument is that we need identification in order to prevent fraud, which, of course, is made moot by paragraph two which alleges that it doesn't matter because the machines/software will create manipulation.
I understand the desire for identification, and can't disagree with the sentiment.
I know that there is manipulation in other places.
Are we going to pretend that thousands of African Americans were not disenfranchised based on measures to discount their votes after the fact in 2000 in Florida?
If they were tied to a specific identification card/ Social Security number, (which uncle sam mandates we have) then they could not be disenfranchised.
Far right wingers are funny people.
In paragraph one, the argument is that we need identification in order to prevent fraud, which, of course, is made moot by paragraph two which alleges that it doesn't matter because the machines/software will create manipulation.
I understand the desire for identification, and can't disagree with the sentiment.
I know that there is manipulation in other places.
Are we going to pretend that thousands of African Americans were not disenfranchised based on measures to discount their votes after the fact in 2000 in Florida?
If they were tied to a specific identification card/ Social Security number, (which uncle sam mandates we have) then they could not be disenfranchised.
By the same reasoning, shouldn't the states have the same right to make laws regarding to firearms? After all, if they are so far-fetched, they will be found unconstitutional.
No, not at all.
Constitution says that an individuals right can not be infringed.
It also says that States have the right to make their own voting laws.
By the same reasoning, shouldn't the states have the same right to make laws regarding to firearms? After all, if they are so far-fetched, they will be found unconstitutional.
No, not at all.
Constitution says that an individuals right can not be infringed.
It also says that States have the right to make their own voting laws.
DL, I see most of the other ones as housekeeping issues that are within the purview of the state's rights to change. I don't think they restrict rights on their face but have not done a ton of homework on the issue.
DL, I see most of the other ones as housekeeping issues that are within the purview of the state's rights to change. I don't think they restrict rights on their face but have not done a ton of homework on the issue.
I see these states issues as that, state issues that need to be fought out at that level. Unless these measures are found to be discriminatory the FEDs can not weigh in.
I think likening these measures to jim crowe is hyperbole and a half.
they really aren't making "hoops", unless I missed something.
I see these states issues as that, state issues that need to be fought out at that level. Unless these measures are found to be discriminatory the FEDs can not weigh in.
I think likening these measures to jim crowe is hyperbole and a half.
they really aren't making "hoops", unless I missed something.
I do not see how some of the measures benefit anyone. They do seem kind of dumb, I wouldn't say that I am "blindly complying" because I am not a NC voter, and I have never advocated the measures they are taking. I think that it is just tearing down some institutions that were put up while the federal government suspended NC State rights.
I have a feeling that some of these programs/ institutions will return, it is up to the people of NC to decide what they want, and to elect their state representatives accordingly. I think that this is a positive thing for NC, and they are going to be much more accountable now that their state offices have consequences, and are not just proxies of the Federal Govt.
I do not see how some of the measures benefit anyone. They do seem kind of dumb, I wouldn't say that I am "blindly complying" because I am not a NC voter, and I have never advocated the measures they are taking. I think that it is just tearing down some institutions that were put up while the federal government suspended NC State rights.
I have a feeling that some of these programs/ institutions will return, it is up to the people of NC to decide what they want, and to elect their state representatives accordingly. I think that this is a positive thing for NC, and they are going to be much more accountable now that their state offices have consequences, and are not just proxies of the Federal Govt.
Yup, I sure didn't read those on the Constitution and since the 2nd Amendment is so absolute.........
Yup, I sure didn't read those on the Constitution and since the 2nd Amendment is so absolute.........
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.