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: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Many people have already said this but I don't think it can be said enough...

Since we have quite a lot of people that are here on visas, illegally, and such - it's VERY VERY reasonable and in my opinion should be law in every state to show your proof of permanent residency.




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

i thought that i had addressed that in this thread, checked and see that i didn't.
so here it is. most people buy guns in a retail setting, far more than gun shows or private sales, even now in gun shows they are pushing for FFL 's.

in order to buy one from a dealer you must show ID for every gun purchased, every time.

so your point is mute.

so when you vote you should show ID every time, as you said one otherwiseone right would be more equal than the other.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

what?
I`m not sure what you are trying to say.

It doesn`t matter how you obtain a firearm whether you buy it, it`s given to you as a gift, you steal it,or you make it yourself at some point you have to show an I.D. if you want to keep it. keeping it is part of your right to keep and bear arms.

if it`s constitutional to make you produce an I.D. in order to keep your arms then it has to be constitutional to make you produce an I.D. to exercise all or some of your other rights.

showing an I.D. serves partly to prove that you are a citizen and have the right to keep your arms.

if you don`t show an I.D. the police WILL take your arms until they can positively identify who you are and establish that you are legally allowed to keep them.
The same should done at the voting booths if you can`t or won`t produce an I.D. then you should not be allowed to vote until it can be positively established that you are legally allowed to vote.








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

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

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 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: XTexan

Many people have already said this but I don't think it can be said enough...

Since we have quite a lot of people that are here on visas, illegally, and such - it's VERY VERY reasonable and in my opinion should be law in every state to show your proof of permanent residency.


Actually, the law already says that every permanent resident must carry his "green card" with him at all times for identification.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

we are talking about the united states, non citizens do not now nor have they ever had the right to ordain and establish a constitution for the united states.
The preamble clearly and unambiguously states....


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


has there ever been a sovereign country that allowed citizens from other countries to ordain and establish a constitution for them?

That would be absurd.




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



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: AMPTAH

we are talking about the united states, non citizens do not now nor have they ever had the right to ordain and establish a constitution for the united states.
The preamble clearly and unambiguously states....


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






Well, all laws are, of course, subject to interpretation.

And you are entitled to your personal interpretation of the constitution.

Those that wrote the constitution were Freemasons. And they chose their words precisely, and exactly, for good reasons.

They could have said, "We the Citizens of the United States...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States."

But, they did not phrase it this way. They deliberately reserved the word "citizen" for those special cases where only citizens were meant.


So, you'd have to ask yourself this question: "If the framers of the Constitution used the word "citizen," specifically, when mentioning voting or holding office of president, since these things were critical rights of that narrow group, why on earth did they use a vague word like "people", when they could just as easily have said "citizen" there too, and removed all doubt about their intent?"



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

they could have said we the people who are citizens of the united states, but they didn`t because they weren`t stupid men. it would have been redundant, as redundant as saying the blue sky is blue.

there is no doubt about their intent then or now no sovereign country has ever allowed non citizens to ordain and establish a constitution or any set of rules or laws to found their country on.

you know why/ because if other people ordained and established those rules, laws, constitution then it would THEIR country not yours.




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 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

what your talking about falls under the executive's military powers, and includes enemy combatants as prisoners of war, unlawful combatants, and civilian internees. and is a whole other issue, but here are my thoughts on it.

first, i don't agree with arresting and detaining a U.S. citizen without due process. to arrest a U.S. citizen and lock them up with out being convicted of a crime violates a number of rights.

as i have said many times if a U.S. citizen picks up arms in a foreign land and engages U.S. forces or they carry out terrorist attacks, they should be considered a enemy of the U.S. and lose all rights. if he picks up arms and or carries out terrorist attacks and is captured in the U.S. and claims to be representing a terriost group or a country they should have no rights.

second, in the U.S. as far as i know when a person is in remand during a election, and if they are not a convicted felon who has not had their voting rights restored they still have the right to vote, have to check on that.

third, also i have said many times on ATS, that once a person has served their time, their rights should be restored, as the saying goes they have paid their debt to society, they should not be forced to pay for that crime the rest of their life, unless it is a violent crime, then the only right that should be denied is the second.

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



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with voter ID, but the ID should be free and easy to obtain. How can those conditions be assured?
edit on 27-1-2017 by Tearman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Tearman

they aren`t assured now to exercise your right to the 2nd amendment and that seems to be acceptable to a lot of people so why wouldn`t it be acceptable for the right to vote?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: Tearman

they aren`t assured now to exercise your right to the 2nd amendment and that seems to be acceptable to a lot of people so why wouldn`t it be acceptable for the right to vote?

Are you saying it shouldn't be easy or free to get a voter ID?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
requiring anything for a constitutional right is unconstitutional.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

How do you identify which humans are entitled to exercise their Constitutional rights?

I'm from Australia, if I happen to be holidaying in the US in 2020 during the day of the election, can I exercise your Constitutional right to vote or do I have to be a US citizen?

For example, As an Australian with an ulterior motive to cast a vote in your election, how do you know I'm not a US citizen?

You know the answer to all of these questions, we all do.



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

I`m saying all rights should be treated equal just as the founding fathers intended. the founding fathers didn`t establish one right as more important than any other right.

if we are going to require an I.D. to exercise our rights then it has to be for all rights.
if we are going to not require an I.D. to exercise our rights then it has to be for all rights.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: AMPTAH

you know why/ because if other people ordained and established those rules, laws, constitution then it would THEIR country not yours.



Before the United States existed, who were the Citizens of the United States?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Tardacus

You're comparing voting to buying/owning guns?




Yep.

Both are citizen rights.

Can't vote if you're a felon, can't buy a gun either.





posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:53 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.

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?


I would challenge the requirement of insurance in order to protest as unconstitutional. As for producing id upon demand from law enforcement its narrowed by supreme court rulings. Passengers in a vehicle are not required to produce id unless the stop is for something other than a traffic violation or if a traffic stop turns into / expands to some other type of investigation.

Randomly stopping a person and demanding ID is not lawful as its a voluntary contact.




originally posted by: XTexan
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?

Freedom of travel inside a state as well as across state lines is constitutionally protected. The basis resides in the Privileges and Immunities Clause and is defined by Corfield v. Coryell and Paul v. Virginia. While travel is protected the method of travel is not.



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

ID should be required in order to verify the person purchasing the weapon is lawfully allowed to do so. Non citizens are generally prohibited from purchasing firearms.





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

While the US Constitution guarantees the right to vote how that voting occurs is reserved to the states. Also only citizens can vote in elections so again an ID should be required to ensure the person voting is allowed to do so. A non citizen voting, imo, fundamentally interferes with the citizens right to vote in addition to interfering with how government services are affected (think funding initiatives / population representation in the state / federal government etc). States have laws that make it a crime to vote when you are not eligible to do so.





originally posted by: XTexan
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

Yes ID should be required and the states should have a system that allows people to freely obtain ID's in order to vote. Making an individual pay for an ID to vote is tantamount to a poll tax.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Without ID the election can be gamed very easily with both citizens and illegals.
For example let's say a political party knows they have a state in the bag, but another state is purple and can swing either way, what's to stop them from busing in people from that state to vote without id.

And illegals they can just pay them and move them around to wherever, and as they are not citizens of America they are not guaranteed it's constitutional rights. Just because you set foot in America, doesn't mean you instantly have the same rights as those that have American citizenship.

Somebody at work told me that was racist to think that way, but really how can it be, because I would feel the same way toward any nationality white, brown, black or yellow. It has nothing to do with race but the laws of the land, I told him he was using the word racist incorrectly and he vehemently disagreed with me. And he is a white male.

The media has brainwashed people that everything is racist now that doesn't conform to their world view, and by just saying that you are automatically on the high ground, even if you have totally misapplied the word in it's context.
But I digress.

If I want to pick up a package from the post office I need to show my ID, I don't feel offended at all, I know why they are asking for it. If I am boarding plane and they want to see my ID, again no offense taken I know why. Finally if they ask to see my ID to vote no freedom is being taken from me because I know why they are asking.

edit on 27-1-2017 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I don't think you can even rent an apartment in my state without proving who you are..
think this a battle already lost, sorry.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
sorry, don't know why, but it seems that it wanted to make sure everyone got the message..
double post..
edit on 27-1-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)







 
65
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join