It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Court blocks Texas Voter ID law: Calling it a "Poll Tax"

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, only infringement just a little bit...........for just a few..

Infringement is still infringement.



No ..."Infringement" is whatever someone throwing a tantrum says it is.

I was taxed this morning buying a cup of coffee. My right to happiness was infringed upon.


Show, please show me where the right to purchase a cup of coffee shall not be infringed upon?
Happiness is subjective.



Sure..right after you show me how having to pay for purchasing a gun infringes on your right to own a gun..

Or better yet...show me where in the constitution it declares that the government can't attach tax or fees to gun purchases...something akin to the 24th Amendment that forbids the same for the act of voting.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

-sigh-

the constitution doesn't expressly forbid me stabbing you in the face, either.....however, that doesn't make it constitutional, or legal, or moral, or right, or even socially acceptable... what is your point? again, there is a staggering lack of common sense here...



If it was unconstitutional to associate fees with the purchase of a gun, then the constitution would say the same as it does with voting.


it does, right where it states "shall not be infringed" it is a statement that the GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon a citizen's right to own a gun....imposing taxes, and fees for licensing and permits, is infringement.....however, a business entity, selling a product, can charge whatever amount they want, for the goods they produce....there is still (for now) a legal distinction between a government, and a business entity.

again, you're twisting words, to fit your delusions.

a gun is a good...a product.... it has a pricetag. nobody is saying it shouldn't. the fee attached to obtaining this product is not the point of contention being used for the example, yet you continue to bang away at it, as if it is....because otherwise, your entire argument falls apart, due to that annoying thing we call "reality"

the point of contention being used in the example is the fee associated with a license, permit, or class 3 stamp, that serves as an actual financial barrier to some citizens in exercising a constitutionally protected right. this is the exact same thing you are erroneously claiming requiring I.D. to vote is doing. you cry out against a perceived infringement, yet seem to be perfectly ok with an actual one...



You continue to make no sense. You are claiming ....that as long as the required purchase has another use it is not a Poll tax? The constitution and the courts vehemently disagree with this view... Thus people are not required to be land owners to vote. Nor purchase a candy bar.


no, activist judges, crooked politicians, and deluded fools disagree with this view. the constitution says "no poll tax"...ok, that's good, a poll tax is a dirty trick. requiring I.D. to vote, is not a poll tax...

again, if i must present a valid I.D. to carry out mundane every day activities, why should i NOT be required to present it, to do something as important as voting?



If it is "not a voting license, or voting permit" then it would neither license nor permit you to vote...


it doesn't....what allows you to vote, is being a registered voter, who is a legal U.S. citizen...all the I.D. does is verify the legal citizen bit....

i mean, s**t, by your logic, having to register is a poll tax, because it might require you to travel somewhere, or buy a stamp to mail it in....or being a citizen is a poll tax, because if you weren't born here, it costs money to become a citizen...honestly, where does the silliness end with you?



We are in pretty basic territory here...


yes, we are, which is why it's so infuriating (though, completely unsurprising) that you either genuinely don't get it, or are purposely ignoring anything that doesn't support your flawed argument..



My issue is with facts...perhaps that is the nature of your frustration?


yes, i noticed your issue is with facts, which would quite readily explain why you choose to ignore them, in favor of opinions and hyperbole.

the nature of my frustration is people like you, passing off opinions as facts.
edit on 10-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Sure..right after you show me how having to pay for purchasing a gun infringes on your right to own a gun..

The only person talking about "paying" for a gun as some sort of arguing point is you.
The requirement stated is very clear.
ALL purchases of firearms via FFL require a Govt based Photo ID.
The same as this voter ID issue.




originally posted by: Indigo5
Or better yet...show me where in the constitution it declares that the government can't attach tax or fees to gun purchases...something akin to the 24th Amendment that forbids the same for the act of voting.


If the act infringes the ability to exercise a right, it is infringement. Very simple really.

If it is good to use this logic for voting, it is good to use on other items as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

*yawn*

More Regressive non-speech and pseudo-logic, for the most part, when you're not meandering on about what you think of me. Merely boring at this point. Like most Regressives.

Poll taxes are specifically restricted in the Constitution, Amendment 24.

Showing an ID for a gun purchase is not. Neither is having a background check for a gun purchase. In fact, the Constitution does not address gun purchases.

By the way, Regressive, did you answer the question about whether you think the rights of mentally ill Americans should not be infringed in the purchase and ownership of firearms? Or are you still proving your independence by only responding to what suits your twisted argument, like most Regressives.

I'm sure we'll all be fascinated with your Regressive answer.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

*yawn*

More Regressive non-speech and pseudo-logic, for the most part, when you're not meandering on about what you think of me. Merely boring at this point. Like most Regressives.







originally posted by: Gryphon66
Poll taxes are specifically restricted in the Constitution, Amendment 24.

Yes, a fee directly to enter a voting booth.
There is none.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Showing an ID for a gun purchase is not. Neither is having a background check for a gun purchase. In fact, the Constitution does not address gun purchases.

It is an infringement.
Without that Govt based ID, which one has to pay for, the person can't exercise their right.
So, a tax...er fee.....uh tax..which ever the Govt has deemed it is this week.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
By the way, Regressive, did you answer the question about whether you think the rights of mentally ill Americans should not be infringed in the purchase and ownership of firearms? Or are you still proving your independence by only responding to what suits your twisted argument, like most Regressives.

I'm sure we'll all be fascinated with your Regressive answer.


Already addressed this. Thanks for asking for the forth time, and answered for the forth time as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
We do seem to be doing nothing but chasing our tails in this discussion.

Okay, both Pro and Con thread respondents, do you have any issue with the States requiring a form of photo ID to vote as long as the State makes the Photo Voter IDs available free of cost, available in easily accessible locations, with no hidden fees, and with every effort made to accept reasonable methods of identification?

My answer is that so long as the Photo Voter ID is accessible to everyone equally, and passed with enough time in advance of the next election for everyone to get one that wants to vote ... I have no issue with it. I'm actually in favor of a Federal or National ID, so that a lot of these silly issues go away.

Of course, I'm also fine with an RFID chip being placed under the skin in a reasonably accessible place like the palm of the hand or the forehead ... but I'm a godless heathern [sic] that's not afraid of faery tales about Marks and Beasts.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
MAC:

Please demonstrate where Amendment 24 states "a fee directly to enter a voting booth."

Please demonstrate where Amendment 2 states anything about the process of purchasing a firearm.

And I'll be darned if I can find anywhere in this thread where you actually addressed the question of the mentally ill and the 2nd Amendment. I will admit my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. Can you toss me a link or at least a page number in the thread where you responded?

Thanks.

edit on 15Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:15:42 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
MAC:

Please demonstrate where Amendment 24 states "a fee directly to enter a voting booth."


The onerous is not mine.
Poll tax. Hmmmmm, what exactly does that mean. Directly or indirectly.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Please demonstrate where Amendment 2 states anything about the process of purchasing a firearm.

The statement "Infringement" is very easy to understand.
An infringement is is anything that inhibits someone in any way.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
And I'll be darned if I can find anywhere in this thread where you actually addressed the question of the mentally ill and the 2nd Amendment. I will admit my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. Can you toss me a link or at least a page number in the thread where you responded?

Thanks.

Maybe you should look harder. And stop looking for others to provide for you.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

i believe you're being somewhat disingenuous...

in order to really get into a serious discussion about the 24th amendment, one must understand the circumstances that precipitated it's crafting, and passage....

boiled down to it's simplest components, it was written because states were requiring citizens to pay a fee, to vote....this was initially an attempt at an end run around the 15th amendment which codified the rights of all male citizens, to vote, thereby making it illegal to deny black people the ability to vote.. it later interfered with the 19th amendment's codification of the rights of women to vote.

this is why the 24th amendment exists....because racist southern states were charging a fee to enter the polls, to keep black people from voting. it was all about "a fee directly to enter a voting booth". just because those words are not in it, verbatim, is just so much quibbling over semantics.....come on now, you're above this...

edit on 10-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

So, Amendment 24 does not say what you said it does then. I didn't think so. So that's a "no." Check.

Right, infringement of the right to bear arms. Doesn't say anything about the right to purchase arms. Another "no" then. Check.

Well, now you're just being a mean ol' Regressive, Mac.

What's the big deal about repeating your statement? It's not like I'm asking for a handout or something, jeez.

Mean ol' Regressive.

EDIT PS: Just read every one of your responses in this thread again. You addressed the 2nd and Convicted Felons. You've not said a thing about whether the mentally ill shouldn't be "infringed" against. So, I'm adjusting my citation.

Mean ol' prevaricating Regressive.
edit on 15Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:04 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Indigo5


it does, right where it states "shall not be infringed" it is a statement that the GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon a citizen's right to own a gun....imposing taxes, and fees for licensing and permits, is infringement



Again...this precise argument has been tested in the courts by Gun Rights advocates and has summarily and repeatedly failed by rulings handed down by judges across the political spectrum and up and down the courts.


It always amazes me the ever expanding definition of the word "infringement" by gun rights zealots.

Every word, comma, letter in the constitution is pin-point, concrete, literal to conservatives...except the word "Infringement"...which is defined as EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING!!



the point of contention being used in the example is the fee associated with a license, permit, or class 3 stamp, that serves as an actual financial barrier to some citizens


It is a tax...Products have taxes and fees..Ever buy a car, a dog etc. ? What you are asking for is a special subsidy, whereupon the expense of running background checks and regulating gun ownership is not contributed to by gun owners, but rather tax payers at large...and claiming the constitution demands this.



this is the exact same thing you are erroneously claiming requiring I.D. to vote is doing.


And you keep pretending that a Voter Registration card is not a Valid ID???




no, activist judges, crooked politicians, and deluded fools disagree with this view. the constitution says "no poll tax"...ok, that's good, a poll tax is a dirty trick. requiring I.D. to vote, is not a poll tax...



Voting does require ID..A voter Registration card?



again, if i must present a valid I.D. to carry out mundane every day activities, why should i NOT be required to present it, to do something as important as voting?



Yawn...again, see above. Voting does require ID..>Voter Registration cards.





it doesn't....what allows you to vote, is being a registered voter, who is a legal U.S. citizen...all the I.D. does is verify the legal citizen bit....



No..a Voter Registration cards validates you are a Legal US Citizen and is checked on the voter roles for it's legitimacy...were you unaware of this?



being a citizen is a poll tax, because if you weren't born here, it costs money to become a citizen...



Please just think about your ..ahem..logic ...once in a while. Aside from the difference between applying for citizenship and voting...when you are charged to become a citizen you are not a citizen at the time of the expense..nor eligible to vote..I don't even know where to start to unravel that one..


edit on 16-10-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

Do some of these laws require a photo ID to vote?

Is the process of acquiring said ID completely without cost to the voter?

If not, then there is a State-mandated cost associated with a citizen exercising the right to vote, and that, under any definition, is what is meant by a Poll Tax.

What is so hard about that? Talk about disingenuous.


edit on 15Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:59:55 -050014p0320141066 by Gryphon66 because: Added two words in clarification



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

I have never claimed that identifying oneself for voting was a barrier to voting, and honestly, neither has anyone else. I have been very clear, as have most in this discussion, that it is the requirements for a new specific type of ID that serves to repress some voters either because of the cost, accessibility of dispensing locations, records required, etc., and that fact is patently clear. I have repeated several times my own thought that I am completely in favor of a Photo Voter ID so long as acquiring it does not place undue burdens on any voter.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
DOUBLE POST

edit on 16Thu, 16 Oct 2014 16:24:36 -050014p0420141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


So, Amendment 24 does not say what you said it does then. I didn't think so. So that's a "no." Check.

See above your post.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
Right, infringement of the right to bear arms. Doesn't say anything about the right to purchase arms. Another "no" then. Check.

Oh good hell.
The Federal Govt has enacted infringement by requiring a photo ID for....................................Add either purchasing a firearm or voting.

If the action by the Govt, "infringes" upon a right, like requiring a Photo ID, and a fee be paid for certain lengths of firearms...it is infringement.
I do like your tap dancing act on this.
And, even if I were to manufacturer my own weapon, there are still infringements upon that as well. By the Federal Govt. SO........it isn't just for the "sale" of a firearm, from a manufacturer to a consumer. There are infringements in place for all firearms.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, now you're just being a mean ol' Regressive, Mac.

Yes, yes I am mean. I make no qualms about it. I am a nasty savage that doesn't really care about the feelings of others.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the big deal about repeating your statement? It's not like I'm asking for a handout or something, jeez.

You want me to do your work for you. Typical.


originally posted by: Gryphon66

EDIT PS: Just read every one of your responses in this thread again. You addressed the 2nd and Convicted Felons. You've not said a thing about whether the mentally ill shouldn't be "infringed" against. So, I'm adjusting my citation.

Mean ol' prevaricating Regressive.

And as I have stated before, there are no restrictions of those people within the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
We do seem to be doing nothing but chasing our tails in this discussion.

Okay, both Pro and Con thread respondents, do you have any issue with the States requiring a form of photo ID to vote as long as the State makes the Photo Voter IDs available free of cost, available in easily accessible locations, with no hidden fees, and with every effort made to accept reasonable methods of identification?


This is getting us there.


originally posted by: [post=18544795]Gryphon66]
My answer is that so long as the Photo Voter ID is accessible to everyone equally, and passed with enough time in advance of the next election for everyone to get one that wants to vote ... I have no issue with it. I'm actually in favor of a Federal or National ID, so that a lot of these silly issues go away.


This is probably the best suggestion yet, solves many issues, and moves in the right direction.


originally posted by: [post=18544795]Gryphon66]
Of course, I'm also fine with an RFID chip being placed under the skin in a reasonably accessible place like the palm of the hand or the forehead ... but I'm a godless heathern [sic] that's not afraid of faery tales about Marks and Beasts.


Oh dear God man, you almost had me up to this one! They warned me this would happen if I listened to the Godless Democrat's. I am immediately dispatching a preacher I know from Louisiana, along with several of his followers, to your location. They are really good guys, just make sure you are closer to the exit than the snakes!

Seriously, I am sure there are ways to overcome all our differences. Just gonna take some work and collaboration.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn
At this time, we are arguing a moot point. The Texas Voter ID law is back in effect, and will be enforced in the upcoming election.


I wouldn't bet on it if I were you.

This will be headed to the SCOTUS prior to the upcoming election and if recent history is any kind of indicator, I'll just bet they strike it down and uphold the current ruling issued by Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi last week.

That's what they did last week with respect to the voter ID laws in Wisconsin and I'd bet they do the same thing here.

Just remember, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Texan:

Our differences used to make us stronger as a country and as a People.

Now, with the dual-pronged approach of dumbing down the general population coupled with 24/7 NLP on every available media outlet ... most of us are quite literally pawns.

To what end? I'm not sure. I don't think it's a good one though...

Thanks for your comments, I laughed outloud at your dispatchment of the Snake Handlin' Posse.
edit on 20Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:00:25 -050014p0820141066 by Gryphon66 because: Boy was that a miscue ...



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I withdraw the comment.

edit on 20Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:32:22 -050014p0820141066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

This will be headed to the SCOTUS prior to the upcoming election and if recent history is any kind of indicator, I'll just bet they strike it down and uphold the current ruling issued by Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi last week.

That's what they did last week with respect to the voter ID laws in Wisconsin and I'd bet they do the same thing here.

Just remember, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.


I'm pretty sure the fat lady has sung, done an encore, and left the building with Elvis. This may go to SCOTUS, but most likely they will not hear it, or will sustain the ruling by the 5th Circuit. The reason being, Wisconsin and Texas are actually reverse of each other, yet SCOTUS ruling in Purcell applies to both cases, and was rightfully invoked and cited by the 5th Circuit.

You see, Wisconsin's law was originally only put in effect by an appeals court, and had never been used in an election cycle. SCOTUS reversed, and cited Purcell, stating it was too close to an election to institute a new voter ID law, especially since absentee ballots were already mailed, with no notice that a copy of an acceptable photo ID was required.

Texas, on the other hand, had already utilized it's law during the last 3 voting cycles since 2011, poll workers had already been trained or were in the process, and voting guides for all polling stations and workers had already been printed. The 5th Circuit cited the SCOTUS ruling in Purcell, and Wisconsin. Seeing the 5th Circuit's decision is based on SCOTUS' decision, it is highly unlikely SCOTUS will reverse itself in Texas.

And unfortunately for those who rally around Judge Ramos' decision, she pretty much excluded herself from any further involvement in the Voter ID law in Texas. She refused at first to give an appealable decision on the matter, then when forced to by filings by Texas to the 5th circuit, withheld her final decision until a Saturday. You just don't play games with an appeals court or the SCOTUS, and expect anything to be returned to your court. Judicial suicide, IMO.




top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join