Common argument on voter ID law: it's not a big problem

Considering that a US citizen, who served honorably as a combat veteran, is told that his honorable discharge , and his DD214 form are not acceptable forms of ID, nor his registration card, nor his old drivers license, even as the bureaucrat confirms his 30 year Safe driver Motor Vehicle record on the computer, then the only conclusion is that more Voter ID legislation IS JUST ANOTHER DAMN STUPID BUREACRATIC EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.

 

*yawn*

I am a combat vet, and without a photo IID MY little brother who hasn't been to sea a fay in his life could hold my birth certificate and DD 214 and you couldn't tell the difference without a photo ID.

 

A direct cost does not equal a direct tax. When I was in the service I had to do cruddy work that ruined my uniforms more often that my uniform allowance would pay to replace them - that's not a tax. Last time I voted I drove to the polling location - the gas/vehicle were not a tax.

Just the same, states should give state phot IDs for free.

 

you can get around the cost of getting to the polling station. You cannot get around the cost of an ID used solely for voting.

I agree that photo ID's should be free, and, since the REAL ID act requires things like birth certificates in order to issue photo ID's, the costs of obtaining the documents necessary to GET the free ID should be zero as well..... imho.

 

So your brother, could use your birth certificate, and a power bill, and an electric bill, from your garbage showing your address, and registration card with your name, and get the "photo" ID with your name on it, but his face on it.

But no, he cannot do that, because the bureaucracy the Dept of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety probably already has your old license in their data base, which has your photo, so will compare that... OH WAIT... They cannot do that because that old license is NOT valid ID according to that same STUPID BUREACRACY.
.

 

Yeah it's possible to get around the cost of going to the polling station - it doesn't matter, your fundamental view that you haven't defended, that cost=tax, is flawed. Otherwise the majority of what I paid for uniforms was a tax! Obviously that's not the case.

 

you don't have a constitutional right to clean uniforms. you do have a constitutional right to vote... and if you are a citizen who does NOT have a photo ID, and the state requires you to have one and the sole purpose that you use it for is voting, the cost of obtaining the ID IS a tax

 

Okay dude, you're either upset with the most extreme views on photo ID that most photo ID proponents oppose, or you're setting up straw men.

As far as our own exchange no, that's not what you had said before. You're free to amend what you're said, but to get (*)(*)(*)(*) because I responded to what you said and not what you meant is not silly.

 

This is what, the third time you've tried to ignore the point? IF you wish to maintain that the cost to get a photo I'd is a tax, then you've got to maintain that other things - which are not taxes - are taxes. You can quibble if you wish, but your quibbling and ignoring the point only works against you.

 

The constitution does not mention military uniforms and a soldier's right to clean ones. It does, however, specifically mention voting and it does specifically prohibit charging any sort of fee to exercise that right. If you think that pointing out that clear distinction is "quibbling", I am sorry, but I disagree with that characterization.

 

haha, if you think sailors replace their uniforms all the time because they feel like it, you're sorely mistaken. Wasn't by individual choice, it was by necessity forced on by the command.

And again - for the 4th time now? - you've evaded the point. The comparison isn't to show that there isn't a constitutional amendment regarding poll taxes, it's to show that calling voter ID a poll taxes is erroneous. I mean, did I actually just have to explain that?

btw, the Supreme Court has already decided this. I don't insert the SCOTUS opinions as substitute for my own, since I'm more than capable of holding an argument myself and b/c no one comes here to see what SCOTUS said, we're here for debate (or at least that's my case). But, fyi, it's already settled.

Crawford v. Marion County (2008 )

 

the case in question concerns Indiana, which gives their voter IDs out for free....ergo, no poll tax.

 

So then you are saying that my uniform costs beyond the funds appropriated to me for that purpose were a tax?

Maybe you just skimmed over the ruling. A slight burden which is non discriminatory and neutral is acceptable. It's why the state can charge citizens for concealed carry permits when the 2nd clearly states "shall not be infringed." And those fees are far higher I can surely tell you, and actually have the effect of being prohibitive on some people. Unless you're ready to say that concealed carry should be free (or inherent)... :/

 

That would be stupid. If you are required to have a ID to prove your a U.S. citizen to vote, that ID should be good for all other instances where an ID is required. Much like a state ID. It could be used to get on a plane, open a bank account, etc. etc.

 

as a guy who spent twenty-five years in uniform, I never felt that the cost of makng myself presentable was any thing other than the cost of being a professional, your unifdform argument falls completely flat on me. Some states give ID's for free.... Some don't. Those that do, I have no problem with.

 

but there are citizens who have no photo ID..., to require them to purchase. one solely for the purpose of voting is a poll tax.

 

The government requires you to have a birth certificate before drawing Social Security, but they don't pay for it if you don't have one.

 

As I said, to require a photo ID just to vote is stupid. You need a birth certificate to show your an American citizen. Than that ID should be good for anything a photo ID is required.

 

apples and oranges.

 

Not apples and oranges. Both require a birth certificate to prove your an American citizen. The only people against photo ID is Democrats and we know why. When your Party pulls drunks and hobos off the streets and under bridges to register and vote, they aren't going to want to pass up the chance to cheat in voting when no ID is required to prove who they are. They have a proven record they can't be trusted to be honest.

http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp

 

apples and oranges. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship (starting at age 18 ), the other is a government run retirement fund.

and what do you have against drunks and hobos voting?

 

Nothing as long as they are willing to make an effort to do it on their own without undo influence. How many pints of whiskey does that cost the Democratic Party?

If you can actually prove your a citizen and you only have a right to vote once which voter ID helps do.

 

actually, if you are registered to vote, after you vote at your polling place once, and they draw a line through your name, it's hard to vote a second time.

And I see nothing wrong with giving indigent folks, and old folks who no longer drive a ride to the polls.... both parties do it all the time. I used to be a driver on election day all the time, and there was never any program to give anyone anything - let alone a pint of whiskey - in any effort to convince them to vote one way or the other.

 

we can indeed!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/gop-voter-fraud/
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...ns-account-for-most-cases-of-u-s-voter-fraud/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/republican-voter-fraud
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/florida_finds_evidence_of_voter_fraud_in_gop_tied_firm/
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_25017277/republican-aide-charged-felony-voter-fraud