SCOTUS weighs in on Texas Voter ID law

[Mexican_Hippie]

.

 

[rsayloriii]

I guess you are going to tell me you are the smartest guy in the room or the World, other than Obama of course.

So smart that ONLY YOU knew this information, as if it has not been addressed long before you were even a gleam in your daddys eye. So the answer is still NO, it does not give us the right to vote. This has been argued at a few higher levels that this forum I think, maybe...

Wrong, ohh I think so and I personally am appalled that our SC does not see it that way, to me its apparent and implied. SO why has the courts seen otherwise???? Got me beat. Which may beg the question about the makeup of the USSC. Educated, scholars, smart (?) men and women, YES? BUT did our forefathers not design and write the founding documents to be read and understood by the common man? If yes, then were is the common man on the Court? Maybe we need a few less lawyers and a few more folks from everyday life???? YOU THINK? LOL I do!

You can be an ass if you wish, but your questions have been answered. The Declaration of Independence states that rights are endowed by your creator, whomever that is in YOUR belief, or even lack thereof. The only thing the Constitution does is enumerate these rights, not create them. And then you asked, err stated, that voting is not a right, yet the Constitution blatantly states that voting is a right, and I have provided you the exact text that states that voting is right, not a privilege.

 

[winchster]

So lets get this straight, ALL rights are God given unless you don't believe in God then you make them up yourself I am guessing. Then it appears that what ever I want to do, its my right to do so and all I have to say is God gave me the right or the devil made me do it.

Are there more than the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights?

So then the govt and states cannot grant rights they can ONLY grant privileges????

Exactly.

Voting is a right. You have the right to do anything you so desire. However, society has set consequences for the times that your doing so impacts others.

 

[V-Tach]

Also no dead people voting

These are the only Texas that will now have a hard time voting........

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Well, I'm willing to both live and die for my beliefs - especially if my RIGHT to vote is taken.

So for those that disagree you better make up your minds and buckle your seat belts if push ever comes to shove.

Remember, convicted Felon's lose their right to vote!

 

[Ole Cowboy]

So here is the question: Does it make any difference if its a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE to vote insofar as to requirre PROOF of citizenship in the US and proof of citizenship in a state???

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Remember, convicted Felon's lose their right to vote!

No, the state just puts in place a penalty if they try to exercise their right. Same with guns.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

So here is the question: Does it make any difference if its a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE to vote insofar as to requirre PROOF of citizenship in the US and proof of citizenship in a state???

Well now you're moving from theory and getting all "practical" on us, lol.

 

[Younggun]

So here is the question: Does it make any difference if its a RIGHT or a PRIVILEGE to vote insofar as to requirre PROOF of citizenship in the US and proof of citizenship in a state???

It matters in the discussion of the subject in that allowing the idea of voting being a privilege to propagate opens the doors for future violations based on that erroneous idea. For that reason, the idea must be combatted when it is brought up in that light.


Voting is a for the US gov is a right for US citizens. Requiring proof of citizenship serves to preserve that right.

 

[breakingcontact]

"Democracy" isnt working.

 

[rsayloriii]

"Democracy" isnt working.

That's ok. The United States isn't a democracy. We are a republic. In a democracy, the majority rules. In a republic, the rights of the individual are preserved.

 

[breakingcontact]

That's ok. The United States isn't a democracy. We are a republic. In a democracy, the majority rules. In a republic, the rights of the individual are preserved.

I was referring to the process...

 

[TheDan]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

That last line is a pretty important testament to what the framers wanted the government to be vs. what it actually is. The vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats in all parties have either lost sight of that intended purpose or choose to ignore it.

"Democracy" isnt working.

It never does.

That's ok. The United States isn't a democracy. We are a republic. In a democracy, the majority rules. In a republic, the rights of the individual are preserved.

Well... indirect and sometimes partial democracy. The people we elect are supposed to be constrained by law, but they are allowed to change the law. Also, when they ignore the law, they are the one's who are supposed to enforce it on themselves. A bit of conflict of interest there.

 

[majormadmax]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet (my apologies if it has), but in Texas there is an option for individuals who do not already have a driver’s license or another form of state-issued identification, military identification, a passport, a naturalization certificate or a U.S. citizenship certificate. They can apply for an Election Identification Card AT NO CHARGE, which is issued at Department of Public Safety (DPS) offices and will be accepted at polling locations. Select DPS offices will be open Saturdays through Election Day.

TxDPS - Election Identification Certificate (EIC)

 

[Younggun]

Yup, and the dems are claiming it is too much if a hardship for someone to go to the DPS office.

It's unreal.

 

[Odiferous]

Yup, and the dems are claiming it is too much if a hardship for someone to go to the DPS office.

It's unreal.

Yet Dems are all about transporting people to the polls to vote for them.

 

[Chupacabra Hunter]

Yup, and the dems are claiming it is too much if a hardship for someone to go to the DPS office.

It's unreal.

Without an ID, how do people claim benefits? No ID... no benefits...

 

[breakingcontact]

Ginsberg had to rewrite her dissent. She claimed this law wouldn't allow people to use Veterans Affairs ID to identify themselves. Turns out thats not true.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...sent-on-texas-voter-id-law/?intcmp=latestnews

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Ginsberg had to rewrite her dissent. She claimed this law wouldn't allow people to use Veterans Affairs ID to identify themselves. Turns out thats not true.

Rare correction made in Justice Ginsburg?s dissent on Texas voter ID law | Fox News

Gin-berg has no idea what side of the bed she got upon every morning.

“Texas did not begin to demonstrate that the Bill’s discriminatory features were necessary to prevent fraud or to increase public confidence in the electoral process,” Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. What follows are the 12 major points she wrote:
1. This was a dispute about facts not fears. Unlike many other voting rights lawsuits, civil rights attorneys in this case did not sue without showing that there were real victims and harm. Ginsburg noted that important distinction writing that there had been a “full trial and resting on an extensive record from which the District Court found ballot-access discrimination by the State.”
2. But the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court ignored that. That’s right, judges in the first tier in the federal appeals court process decided to ignore the factual record. “The Fifth Circuit’s refusal to home in on the facts found by the district court is precisely why this court should vacate the stay.” (This case came to the Supeme Court because the Fifth Circuit ignored the district court and ruled that the voter ID law could take effect.)
3. Texas’ previous voter ID requirements are ample. Ginsburg noted that the state would not be left without any legal means to ensure eligible voters were getting ballots at polling places. “Texas need only reinstate the voter identification procedures it employed for 10 years (from 2003 to 2013) and in five federal elections.”
4. Texas officials have not informed the public about the new law. There has been a lack of public education about the new law, which will lead to confusion at the polls as it is implemented, Ginsburg noted. “The District Court found “woefully lacking” and “grossly” underfunded the State’s efforts to familiarize the public and poll workers regarding the new identification requirements.”
5. The state is to blame for confusion at the polls. Ginsburg said the state, which claims it needs the stricter photo ID laws to protect the process’ integrity, will instead be to blame for creating chaos and confusion. “In short, any voter confusion or lack of public confidence in Texas’ electoral process is in this case largely attributable to the State itself.”
6. The law concerns only polling place voting. This is an easily overlooked point, because the stricter voter ID laws do not effect people who vote by mail—which often is the way the Republican Party tries to turn out its base—but only people who show up at polling places. “The bill requires in-person voting to present one of a limited number of government-issued photo identification documents,” she wrote, noting that this list is narrower than what is accepted in other states, citing Wisconsin.

​

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Scathing Dissent Offers 12 Reasons Why Texas' New Voter ID Law Is Racist | Alternet

 

[Odiferous]

Maybe Darth Vader Ginsburg should go and spend a year in some Third World craphole, where she can experience true racism.