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.

 

Requiring ID to exercise a constitutional right

page: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I think it costs five dollars, but might vary by state.

Edit: It does vary by state, here.
edit on 1/26/2017 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Want free speech? Sure! Just step over here, let us scan your ID with your address so we know who you are and where you live.

Want to vote? Sure! Now we require you to show this special ID to prove you're an American. Never mind people on the street sell these ID's to anyone who wants them down on Santa Monica and Western.

Don't worry, now that special federal IDs are required to vote there's no reason for you or anyone else to be questioning the validity of who's elected into office. Anywhere. In fact, how about we make that a crime too?

These good ideas just seem to rain from the sky under a Trump admin. Why didn't I vote for the guy?


So part of your argument is that because people can get forged ID's we shouldn't require an ID to vote?

That makes no sense at all.

As for the rest of your objections, let me ask you a question.

What should a person need to be able to vote? Is a name all that you think is needed?

So if I walk in a polling place and say "Hi I am Bob Smith, I'd like to vote" thats it, I should be allowed to vote no questions asked?

And what to you mean having an ID means you can't question people in office?

I don't know what to make of your comment.

I think you may be approaching this with too much emotional hatred of Trump to articulate your thoughts clearly.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Doesn't the DMV offer free ID cards? (For those without a license)


not in Florida, it cost 25 bucks, plus i think they also charge tax collectors fee.


Identification Cards (Original, Renewal & Replacement)
Tax Collector office additional service fee: $6.25
Driver License Fees


but even at that, most people waste 25 bucks every month buying nothing but a cup of coffee or sodas in the morning.


edit on 26-1-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan




So my question for the ATS community is this: Is it ok/right/legal for the government to require ID from a citizen in order for that citizen to exercise a constitutional right.


Snowflakes don't whine about ID when they sign up for government entitlements.

They only blow a head gasket when it pertains to voting.
edit on 26-1-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: underwerks
Want free speech? Sure! Just step over here, let us scan your ID with your address so we know who you are and where you live.

Want to vote? Sure! Now we require you to show this special ID to prove you're an American. Never mind people on the street sell these ID's to anyone who wants them down on Santa Monica and Western.

Don't worry, now that special federal IDs are required to vote there's no reason for you or anyone else to be questioning the validity of who's elected into office. Anywhere. In fact, how about we make that a crime too?

These good ideas just seem to rain from the sky under a Trump admin. Why didn't I vote for the guy?


So part of your argument is that because people can get forged ID's we shouldn't require an ID to vote?

That makes no sense at all.

As for the rest of your objections, let me ask you a question.

What should a person need to be able to vote? Is a name all that you think is needed?

So if I walk in a polling place and say "Hi I am Bob Smith, I'd like to vote" thats it, I should be allowed to vote no questions asked?

And what to you mean having an ID means you can't question people in office?

I don't know what to make of your comment.

I think you may be approaching this with too much emotional hatred of Trump to articulate your thoughts clearly.

Just because you claim to not understand the point I was making doesn't mean its not valid.

I don't support any rollout of a new federal identification system for any reason. Especially based on Donald Trump's false accusations of voter fraud.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks


I don't support any rollout of a new federal identification system for any reason.


i hate to tell you, but there is already a federal identification system in place, it's called the Real ID Act.
there are 49 states that have adopted it or granted extensions.

here are a couple of links.
first a wiki cause it's fast,
REAL ID Act


BOISE — Lawmakers are scrambling to fix a problem that could result in Idaho driver’s license holders being denied entry to federal facilities nationwide by the end of the year.
Prev Previous Trump announces 'major' voter fraud investigation WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump tweeted early Wedne… Next Next Up Man dead after hourslong standoff with Kuna police KUNA — A man involved in a six-hour long standoff with polic… REAL ID Act catches up with states


real easy way to tell if you have one is to look at you DL or ID and see if you have the little gold star.
edit on 26-1-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: underwerks


I don't support any rollout of a new federal identification system for any reason.


i hate to tell you, but there is already a federal identification system in place, it's called the Real ID Act.
there are 41 states that have adopted it.

here are a couple of links.
first a wiki cause it's fast,
en.wikipedia.org...-compliance" target="_blank" class="postlink">REAL ID Act


BOISE — Lawmakers are scrambling to fix a problem that could result in Idaho driver’s license holders being denied entry to federal facilities nationwide by the end of the year.
Prev Previous Trump announces 'major' voter fraud investigation WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump tweeted early Wedne… Next Next Up Man dead after hourslong standoff with Kuna police KUNA — A man involved in a six-hour long standoff with polic… REAL ID Act catches up with states


real easy way to tell if you have one is to look at you DL or ID and see if you have the little gold star.

There are a lot of things in place I don't support, and that's one of them too. Adding more to the pile isn't a plus.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: EvillerBob

What about those of us in the middle that think an ID for both is reasonable?

I happen to think a license should be necessary to possess a gun with the requirements you can demonstrate full knowledge of basic firearm safety.


I actually agree with the goal that you are trying to achieve. I object for more practical reasons.

The first goes back to the idea of "where is the line drawn?"

For voting it's not an issue - you either can or can't vote. Voting isn't qualified; if you are a citizen, you can vote.

For firearms it gets more complicated. You have to establish standards. Those standards will be under the control and influence of an official body. You have to have testing facilities. You have to pass the tests. The constitution doesn't say "...for everyone who attended a training session, or passed a test", so you're automatically limiting the right which simply isn't constitutional.

Then, there is my biggest concern over that kind of system: mission creep. That line you've drawn becomes a political hot potato. "Reasonable changes" will be pushed. The standards will keep increasing because "won't somebody think of the children!" The license will start having more conditions added. The department tasked with issuing licenses will suffer funding cuts or encouraged to allow backlogs when the government decide to make life more difficult for people who want to own firearms.

Firearms safety is an incredibly important part of ownership, to my mind. The risks of licensing to society as a whole, however, outweigh the risks of irresponsible ownership. I would rather see more opportunities being created for people to learn in a safe environment, and encouraged to take part, not forced by the government.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: eNumbra
The way the constitution reads; those rights belong to everyone, because they're human beings, and those rights outlined therein are ones upon which the government is forbidden to trod.

It may provide the definition of what makes a citizen, but never does it claim only citizens have those rights.


Is it your contention then that the founders intended for everyone in the world to be able to vote in our elections?


No, I think there exist in the constitution clear and unclear definitions and guidelines because I believe it did what it set out to do; tie the hands of government, rather than grant liberties to people.

That's how I've always read it. I think it's fine to require proof of citizenship; but I think it requires an amendment.
edit on 1/26/2017 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
lets imagine that at the present time in America that an I.D. is required to vote but not to buy a firearm.

now lets apply all the excuses that are being used to oppose requiring I.D. to vote and apply them to opposing an I.D. to buy a fire arm.
since voting and buying a firearm are both rights than the reasons for opposing an I.D. should fit both equally.

Here I have taken some of these excuses (reasons) directly from the ACLU website.


Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.

Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.

Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2

The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3

Minorities disproportionately lack ID. Nationally, up to 25% of African-American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 8% of whites.6


www.aclu.org...

if those are valid reasons for not requiring an I.D. to vote then they have to be valid reasons for not requiring an I.D. to buy a firearm.

all rights are equal no right is more or less of a right than another,all rights deserve equal protection.

The ACLU would have us believe that requiring an I.D. to vote deprives minorities and poor people of the their right to vote,but requiring an I.D. to buy a firearm doesn`t deprive those same minorities and poor the right to bear arms.
That`s absurd!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

You're comparing voting to buying/owning guns?



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Tardacus

You're comparing voting to buying/owning guns?


I`m comparing equal protection of all our rights.

no right is more equal than another, a right that is denied or abridged is no longer a right.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Tardacus

You're comparing voting to buying/owning guns?
Yea. Both are constitutional rights.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus



Never mind i misunderstood your post. reread and now delete it


edit on 26-1-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
The ACLU would have us believe that requiring an I.D. to vote deprives minorities and poor people of the their right to vote,but requiring an I.D. to buy a firearm doesn`t deprive those same minorities and poor the right to bear arms.
That`s absurd!


A driving force behind firearms legislation has always been to deprive minorities of firearms.

The $200 tax stamp for suppressors, machine guns, and so on? So only rich people (the vast majority of which were white, especially at the time) could afford them.

They couldn't regulate guns out of the hands of minorities without it being blatantly obvious and unconstitutional, so they placed financial and paperwork hurdles in the way instead.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

A Constitutional Right is only meant to people living under that Constitution, i.e. legal citizens.
If you can not prove citizenship, then you do not hold those rights.
So, yes it is a very easy question to answer. Not only is it right/legal to require proof, but it is actually necessary.
edit on 26-1-2017 by KEACHI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
Flying on a plane requires a photo ID...


Actually, you can get on without one, it is just a bit more time consuming.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Yes it is a good idea because it's merely secretarial. IDs are required for a lot of things that are also a constitutional right. What makes this any different?

it's not like it would change who are what you would vote for or allow anyone to see what's on your individual ballots. So what's the big deal?
edit on 26-1-2017 by gernblan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

The reason it was considered racist and unconstitutional in the first place is how it targets socioeconomically disadvantaged people (which is almost always tied to racism).

To make this a constitutional and racism-neutral thing, the government would have to provide everybody with the proper documentation, free of any charge whatsoever. Meaning if they need several kinds of IDs to get that voter ID, the government would have to pay for all of those IDs.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: XTexan

The reason it was considered racist and unconstitutional in the first place is how it targets socioeconomically disadvantaged people (which is almost always tied to racism).

To make this a constitutional and racism-neutral thing, the government would have to provide everybody with the proper documentation, free of any charge whatsoever. Meaning if they need several kinds of IDs to get that voter ID, the government would have to pay for all of those IDs.
that would be fine it would be an absolutely reasonable thing to do. No problem there.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join