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: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
It's our constitutional right to have confidence our elections are not being highjacked by illegal immigrants that our politicians have allowed in to sway elections in their favor.

Until the borders are secure and millions deported then an ID proving your citizenship should be required to vote, especially since it's required to do nearly everything else in society.



Yes this insures the integrity of our votes as citizens.

In fact we have to consider folks that ask this question and harp about must be up to something.....cant be that stupid.




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: XTexan

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.


Although I don't buy into the requiring an ID to vote is racist, race baiting nonsense disingenuous politicians use, I do see that as a fair point.

However the government has no money, they are the caretakers of our money. All government money is taken from we the people and those we elect are entrusted with using it rightly and not wasting it. Forgive my diversion for a bit here as it bothers me that anyone thinks the government pays. The government does not, we do.

Having said that, I'd have zero issue with ID's being provided for free, but in this instance it is a State issue. I'd be happy if they all did that.

Whenever an illegal or improper vote is cast, it negates someone else's vote who did have that Right. It denies someone the Right to have their legal vote count. I do think that it's utter nonsense to even suggest that requiring proof is racist or wrong. The race card is old and tattered around the edges and I'd bet most of us, Left, Right or in the middle like me are sick to death of that phony garbage.
edit on 1/26/2017 by Blaine91555 because: forgot to proof



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

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.


It is statements like the above that tell me that we really do need to investigate who voted.
How many people believe such nonsense.

Look at the Constitutional amendments. ALL say "citizen".


Amendment 15 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment 24 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment 26 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


That is pretty clear.


They all say "The right of citizens to vote, [...] shall not be denied" - Literally, you cannot take away a citizens right to vote for x reason; none of these contradict my reading.

Like I said, the constitution grants no rights; all humans have the following rights, of which the government may not infringe. None of those statements explicitly deny non-citizens the right to vote, only the lack of wording granting the government leave to do with them what they will.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I've been asked for ID every single time I've ever voted.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: JBUSA
If you can't find a way or means to get a 10 dollar ID I do not want your input on anything especially who will lead the country.


If you want to charge people to vote, I don't want your input on anything, especially who will lead the country.


He makes a valid point. The people who pay the piper should be the ones who call the tune. People who depend on other people's money will only ever vote to give themselves more of it.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Australia gives people fines for not voting.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra


They all say "The right of citizens to vote, [...] shall not be denied" - Literally,


you are wrong they all "Literally" say, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . five times in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. don't believe me, check it out for yourself.




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



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   


Does the constitution or the bill of rights expressly state that the bill of rights only apply to citizens


The preamble to the Declaration of Independence says that they were creating the US (and the constitution) to protect them selves and their PROGENY, meaning descendents. So no, that doesn't apply to foreigners, but it also means they didn't want corporations to have human rights either.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: eNumbra


They all say "The right of citizens to vote, [...] shall not be denied" - Literally,


you are wrong they all "Literally" say, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . five times in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. don't believe me, check it out for yourself.


So, you haven't contradicted me.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
This really shouldn't be so hard, but it ends up being so anyhow.
If you can register to vote at a DMV or DOL or whatever they call it in your state then you should do so and a record of your current address/voting precinct should then be stored or updated in a state database.

So one way to do this is:
Most new licenses and state issued ID cards have a magnetic strip or barcode that can be scanned. They should be scanned at the entry to the polling place and during any voting session, only one scan shall be accepted fur the duration of it. Any duplicate scans would result in you being ejected from the voting place. For federal voting, the scans will be collected in a national data base for that voting session. The scans will only be used to track whether you went to a polling place or not. They can still be private by not being tied to a ballot or identifying a person's voting affiliations but still enforce the one person, one vote rule as well as eject someone (or send them to a secondary ID processing line) for those who do not have a # in the database.

Another way to go about it would be to use the facial recognition that the DMV's are using to enforce the vote. If you can apply for the right to drive a car, you should be able to handle checking in to vote.

I do not think it is a loss of liberty or infringement of your rights to have a voter ID system of some sort. In fact, the very same liberties and rights that we are always worried about losing would be more protected this way than having a slew of unregistered or copy-cat votes cast in an attempt to change or enact a law.

Disclaimer: I write software that is used by DHS, State Police and other LE/Armed Forces & private sector and I am all for this and it has nothing to do with job security.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
This really shouldn't be so hard, but it ends up being so anyhow.
If you can register to vote at a DMV or DOL or whatever they call it in your state then you should do so and a record of your current address/voting precinct should then be stored or updated in a state database.

So one way to do this is:
Most new licenses and state issued ID cards have a magnetic strip or barcode that can be scanned. They should be scanned at the entry to the polling place and during any voting session, only one scan shall be accepted fur the duration of it. Any duplicate scans would result in you being ejected from the voting place. For federal voting, the scans will be collected in a national data base for that voting session. The scans will only be used to track whether you went to a polling place or not. They can still be private by not being tied to a ballot or identifying a person's voting affiliations but still enforce the one person, one vote rule as well as eject someone (or send them to a secondary ID processing line) for those who do not have a # in the database.

Another way to go about it would be to use the facial recognition that the DMV's are using to enforce the vote. If you can apply for the right to drive a car, you should be able to handle checking in to vote.

I do not think it is a loss of liberty or infringement of your rights to have a voter ID system of some sort. In fact, the very same liberties and rights that we are always worried about losing would be more protected this way than having a slew of unregistered or copy-cat votes cast in an attempt to change or enact a law.

Disclaimer: I write software that is used by DHS, State Police and other LE/Armed Forces & private sector and I am all for this and it has nothing to do with job security.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

yes i did,you say all humans have rights that is true to a point, but not in the U.S. as far as some right are defined in the Constitution.



all humans have the following rights, of which the government may not infringe. None of those statements explicitly deny non-citizens the right to vote,


with the words "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged" this effectly rules out non citizens. if you are not a citizen of this country even though you are a human you do not have the right to vote here in the U.S..

and besides the Declaration of Independence is the one that says "unalienable rights which you seem to go on about, siting natural law which was a tactic used to over throw monarchy not the Constitution.


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.
United States Declaration of Independence



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



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

you have that backwards,
the Constitution says that.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Preamble to the United States Constitution


the preamble of the Declaration of Independence


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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



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

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



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: eNumbra


They all say "The right of citizens to vote, [...] shall not be denied" - Literally,


you are wrong they all "Literally" say, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . five times in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments. don't believe me, check it out for yourself.


So, you haven't contradicted me.


It's not a contradiction. Only the voting rights of U.S. citizens are protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution doesn't guarantee or protect voting rights of non-citizens -- it gives them no voting rights. And it is, in fact, a violation of federal law if they do fraudulently vote.

This has been posted several times now.


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



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: JBUSA
If you can't find a way or means to get a 10 dollar ID I do not want your input on anything especially who will lead the country.


If you want to charge people to vote, I don't want your input on anything, especially who will lead the country.


He makes a valid point. The people who pay the piper should be the ones who call the tune. People who depend on other people's money will only ever vote to give themselves more of it.


And let's just use the constitution to line a bald eagle's bird cage while we're at it.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

It takes documentation to get those things, as well. If it's all not very much, the make the government pay for it.

Nobody should pay out-of-pocket to vote. Nobody.


Then Trump needs to make access to legal documents for voting IDs simpler

But, that didn't bruise his ego. No motivation for revenge.

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



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
You should have to show ID to vote. Your name shouldn't be attached to said vote but the ID should be shown to proceed to the booth. I dont see why people don't like this. How else can you prove you are legally eligible to vote. It stops under age voting, illegals voting and fraud. Should be a non issue



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: andrew778
You should have to show ID to vote. Your name shouldn't be attached to said vote but the ID should be shown to proceed to the booth. I dont see why people don't like this. How else can you prove you are legally eligible to vote. It stops under age voting, illegals voting and fraud. Should be a non issue


The watering-down of eligible voters' votes because of ineligible fraudulent voting is a nebulous thing to define. It's difficult to prove it happens at an impressive-enough rate when the system isn't designed to throw up any red flags.

But it's disenfranchisement, none-the-less.

I think it's just easier -- for those who believe they benefit from fraudulent voting -- to say, "Hey, minorities and the elderly are unfairly disenfranchised by voter ID laws, and I am a totes neat and tolerant, non-bigot for saying so." *pat on the back*



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: buster2010

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

If I'm not on your plane your ID has nothing to do with me yet I support the airline checking the IDs of every person on every plane…

Voting, on the other hand, affects me and every other citizen so why not make sure they are who they say they are…

is easy to get a photo ID if u can't get a drivers license…

What is the logic in requiring a photo ID for plane travel but not for voting???

-Chris

Flying on a plane or driving a car are privileges not rights.


So why all the gun restrictions from the left?

I think you have fallen for right wing propaganda. Obama got an F from the Brady foundation so if the left were passing laws like you said then he would have gotten a better grade.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
You should absolutely have to prove your citizenship to partake of rights granted to US citizens. You are also required to identify yourself if asked to by law enforcement.

ETA- I am sure that you would want to be able to ID the people you felt were infringing upon your rights, be it God given rights or civil rights. It is appalling how many people only want the laws to protect them, but they never want to be held accountable by them
edit on 26-1-2017 by onthedownlow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join