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: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
It actually shocked me when I learned that it is not necessary in the US to show a (photo) ID when you go and vote...
You have the greatest democracy in the world, but at the voter booth you just belief that someone is actually who he/she said he/she is... Based on what?? On their word?? If you want to be sure, just check it!
In the Netherlands and most parts of Europe you cannot vote without your (photo) ID.

How it works here is maybe not the best, but it looks good to me:
We get a paper voter pass at home before election, you bring this to the voter booth of choice (voter pass has your name on it). You give this pass + you show your valid ID at the frontdesk. Then you get a (anonymous) paper ballot (yes, we only have paper, we don't trust the computers) and you go to the booth and vote.
Without the pass or the ID, you cannot vote. This pass makes sure you don't vote twice.
With some rights, there are some duties in my opinion. Just to make sure that there is no fraude.

Here an example of a voterpass.
I used google translate to translate this link to English.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Duh... Yeah! How else can we determine they HAVE any constitutional rights?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Only US citizens are allowed to vote. Proof of your citizenship should be required, period. Not a picture ID, as we all know the rampant fraud at DMV. I've had a few illegal friends that had family at DMV and guess what, nice shiny new DL.

Let's also not forget Robert Creamer and Scott Foval on hidden camera, stating how they bus voters to three different states to cast votes.

I foresee some big (yuge) changes coming to our election system, and also some nice proof on how bad the election system really is. I think it's important to the American people that they see those 3 million votes were cast by the dead, unregistered, illegals, and 3rd and 4th votes cast.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
And the government is going to pay for you to get these IDs as well as transport you where you need to be (including all processing fees for birth record requests, etc...)? That's the only way something like this would fly.

Voting is a right.
Having to produce an ID that you have to "pay for" or "work for" is a form of discrimination.
Having a universal ID system that the govt pays for and provides, then makes it so that the ID necessary for voting would be available to all us citizens.

I'm not saying that having to show an ID is a bad idea, I'm saying that forcing people to pay for an ID in order to vote is a form of a poll tax (which, by the way is illegal and rationale for many of the voter ID laws being struck down).



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Yes, and mainly because there is one party that does all it can to get as many double voters and non citizen voters and recently felony voters to vote for them.

They have been caught busing in people who vote in one state to go vote in another.
They have practically begged illegal aliens to vote in our elections.
The governor of Virginia made it law that all felons in his state can vote.
Many of the cities this party "runs" keep dead people on the voting list and refuse to purge them.

ID requirement would help in some manner from this happening.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:02 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.


Then it`s racist to require an I.D. for any rights, like the right to keep and bear arms.

the founding fathers made no distinction between the rights, they are all equal, no right was given higher priority than any other.

if it`s not racist to require I.D. for one right then it can`t be racist to require I.D. for other rights.

There is no wiggle room on this point.This is an all or nothing proposition.
edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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.

On the surface it would seem that this is an easy answer. On a site like ATS I would almost expect everyone to say "No, it is not alright for the government to require ID from us for constitutional rights!". I also would say it is not acceptable.

But its not an easy answer... or is it? I don't know.

The strict constitutionalist inside me says no, but all around me I see that it is. Lets look.

Right to free speech: Most would say you don't need ID for free speech, but do you? The big city near me requires insurance to hold a protest, it doesn't need to be in everyone's name and not everyone has to show ID. But someone does, and they'll need money too. What if you live in a state that requires you to produce ID at request of law enforcement?

Right to freely travel: There's no right to drive per-say so I'm not sure if drivers licenses are a good example but we do accept them. What of the states that require you to show ID at request of law enforcement, does that count?

Right to bear arms: All states require ID for this one. Some say it's good, some say it's bad, lots of debate.

Right to vote: Lots of debate here, not sure if any states require it yet. edited to add: thanks Woodcarver, 34 states require it.

I'm sure there are many other examples, hopefully some of ya'll will post them.

So, is this an easy question? Should the requirement for ID be banned for any constitutional right or is it an acceptable restriction?


XTexan

I'm sorry...but that was not a well thought out question. No...it is NOT ok/right/legal to demand anything from a citizen in order for that citizen to exercise a constitutional right. Never will be...and I would die fighting for that against what has been a corrupt government.

But...it is also not ok/right/legal to allow a NON-CITIZEN access to rights meant only for Americans. It is also not ok/right/legal for a legal citizen to access excess rights (eg. multiple votes) meant only for Americans. THAT is the problem. When you have roaches in the house, how much food can you confirm the family members are consuming...vs...what the roaches are consuming.

And yes...these are roaches by their nature. What we need is an exterminator.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: gernblan

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.


No conservative that I know of has come forward with that solution. Instead, it is seen as voter suppression since it would mostly prevent the impoverished from voting because suddenly, it would cost money to vote.

If conservatives truly wanted a Voter ID law because they are worried about fraud, they would create a program to provide these for free. This has been an issue for years yet nobody wants to do that. There's a reason why. It's because it has nothing to do with voter fraud in the first place.



Then we have to apply that same reasoning to all rights,otherwise you are saying some rights are more of a right than other rights. The founding fathers didn`t say that nor did they even imply that that was the case.
so lets apply that reasoning to our 2nd amendment right.

Instead, it is seen as 2nd amendment suppression since it would mostly prevent the impoverished from exercising their 2nd amendment right because suddenly, it would cost money to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

a poor or impoverished person who is gifted a firearm is deprived of their 2nd amendment right if they are unable to pay the cost of getting an I.D., paying for background checks etc.

what you are saying is that it`s ok to deprive the poor of some rights but not of other rights.
in your America who gets to decide which rights the poor should be deprived of?

there is no way to spin, rationalize, justify requiring an I.D. for some rights while not requiring it for other rights.






edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
That's a really good question, one not easily answered. First off, I'd like to think we are born with inherent rights to life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness; governments don't allot our rights we are born with them.

Having said that, and to answer the question, without law and order, society wouldn't exist as we know it. It's a catch 22...ID limits corruption, on the other hand it enables the government to assert authority over you and l.

The system has become one that tracks and traces every step, ID nudges this along and provides the means by which control and dominance can preavail.

Any who, back to the question about election fraud and ID. In the early days corruption was rampant in our election process, cooping, gangs and paid thugs controlled much of the process,

It may not answer the question directly, however, none the less, it provides insight how our democratic process evolved into its current form; read below.

Source

This summer Donald Trump stoked fears that rampant voter fraud could hurt his chances in the 2016 presidential election even as federal courts were striking down voter-identification laws in several states, with a judge in Wisconsin rejecting what he called “a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud.”



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: XTexan


What is to stop say a large enough group of people from a foreign country/government from bringing in a large enough group of "Undocumented" individuals, organize and motivate others to hate the Constitution, get people elected into our government and completely take over this country if in fact anyone here whether a citizen or not could vote in our election?




Been there. Done that.

That's how the Native American Indians lost their land.

But, today, both the Native American Indians and the new settlers live in peace and harmony.

So, what's the problem?

Essentially, what makes a person an "American Citizen" is simply the desire and will to come and live here and contribute to the building of the great nation. Citizenship is in the mind of the individual.

Those that just come to rape and pillage, and then leave ruins behind are the non-citizens.


edit on 27-1-2017 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: eNumbra

Wrong....First sentence "We the people of the United States" doesn't say anything about human beings of the world. Our laws are for our citizens. Pretty straight forward.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:42 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.



Really? So, you're telling me that if an American Citizen is arrested on suspicion of terrorist activity, and sent to Gitmo for internment without trial, that when elections time comes, that person still has the right to vote? Who is going to let him out to exercise his right to vote? Who is going to let him "mail in" his vote to exercise his right?

All those "written statements of law" are just "ideals".

In practice, many people are denied these rights. They'd have to "fight for them" to get them back.

Even people simply charged with felony crimes are often denied the right to vote:

Felony disenfranchisement

There's written law, then there's practice.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Very easy answer, if we are required to have a ID for our constitutional rights make tax dollars pay for it. Include all documentation used to get the ID free of charge also. Then there is no excuse. On the flip side if you are not required to have ID for one right then you shouldn't have to have one for the rest. Average ID costs $20 x 300 million do the math case closed!



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: tmeister182
a reply to: eNumbra

Wrong....First sentence "We the people of the United States" doesn't say anything about human beings of the world. Our laws are for our citizens. Pretty straight forward.



"We the people" doesn't mean "citizens".

It means "all the people" including all citizens and non-citizens.

When the constitution wants to restrict rights to just the citizens, it actually uses the word "citizens".

For example, all "permanent residents" have the same rights under the constitution, except the right to vote or hold the office of president etc..



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexanlook i understand what you are saying but look at it like this some states have huge amounts of non citizens now if all you had to do to vote was show up how many non citizens would turn out and vote i have quite a few and they were pissed because they could not vote for hillary these weren't illegal they were refugees from burma. non look at california at one time la county had 23 million non citizens now if they voted how would that be fair to the ones who were allowed to vote?




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:35 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 then you agree that requiring an I.D. to keep and bear arms infringes or denies some citizens their 2nd amendment right?

right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

or
perhaps you agree that requiring an I.D. to vote doesn`t infringe or deny a citizen the right to vote?

those are the only 2 choices, otherwise you are saying that some rights are more equal than others and can`t be denied or infringed while the less equal rights can be denied or infringed.
That would not be constitutional, the founding fathers never prioritized the rights all the rights are and were meant to be equal.

edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lenert29
a reply to: XTexan

Very easy answer, if we are required to have a ID for our constitutional rights make tax dollars pay for it. Include all documentation used to get the ID free of charge also. Then there is no excuse. On the flip side if you are not required to have ID for one right then you shouldn't have to have one for the rest. Average ID costs $20 x 300 million do the math case closed!


so, you support making the government pay for all the costs associated with exercising our 2nd amendment right, background checks, I.D. etc etc?

point is, if it`s constitutional to require an I.D. for your 2nd amendment right then it has to be constitutional to require an I.D. for all of your other rights.
edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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.



We're required to register to vote, and we get a voters card, so what is the big deal to actually put a picture on that card, or make it fraud proof?

We already have a "Voter's card" so why not enhance it so it actually works, and protects each voter's constitutional right to vote.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: tmeister182
a reply to: eNumbra

Wrong....First sentence "We the people of the United States" doesn't say anything about human beings of the world. Our laws are for our citizens. Pretty straight forward.



"We the people" doesn't mean "citizens".

It means "all the people" including all citizens and non-citizens.

When the constitution wants to restrict rights to just the citizens, it actually uses the word "citizens".

For example, all "permanent residents" have the same rights under the constitution, except the right to vote or hold the office of president etc..



of course it means the citizens,
do non citizens have the right to and have non citizens ever had the right to ordain and establish a constitution for the united states??
of course they didn`t, that`s absurd!


We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

edit on 27-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus

of course it means the citizens,
do non citizens have the right to and have non citizens ever had the right to ordain and establish a constitution for the united states??
of course they didn`t, that`s absurd!


We the People of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America


Tell that to the Native American Indians. Of course, non-citizens have the right to establish the new rules. They do that everywhere in the world. They come in to new land, write down the law, and make themselves legal. This is how Israel gets new settlements every day, to the chagrin of the Palestinians. And Donald Trump is in full agreement with Israel and it's policies and practices. So, he too believes in the right of the non-citizen to "make himself legal" under the law.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join