Former speaker of the house, jim wright prevented from voting

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   

SaturnFX

NavyDoc

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to have an ID to buy a gun and the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Constitution...before the universal franchise, in fact. Would you thus agree that one should not provide ID to own a gun?

Personally? I say gun ownership should require all sorts of identification, from aptitude tests, fingerprinting, etc. But, I stand on the issue not as someone considering constitutional matters, but logical matters. As far as how the con is written, no, you shouldn't need one (to the best of my knowledge).

But

I see the constitution as a living document that should be amended over time to better serve society. Not by any one party or the like mind you (else all sorts of nonsense would be added), but perhaps after a 75-80% margain.

edit on 4-11-2013 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

The Constitution has a means to change, and that is an amendment after a Constitutional Convention, not a simple passage of a law by majority vote. If we can agree with that, then I can agree with your belief that it is a "living document."

I see it as a civil rights issue. If it is an infringement to require ID to exercise one civil right, then it should be an infringement to exercise another civil right.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

NavyDoc
I see it as a civil rights issue. If it is an infringement to require ID to exercise one civil right, then it should be an infringement to exercise another civil right.

Sure. rights should be protected, and expanded upon when logical. It makes -sense- to have a free national ID card, it makes sense to have documentation on armed people. Now the people involved should bring it up and get proper legislation passed to further this..but they won't, because regardless of sense, partisan politics will stop any of it from happening.
the game is greater than sense and logic.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

damwel


Give me a break, the only reason for that law is to prevent democrats from voting.


So only Democrats don't have valid ID's??? Did not know that.

I had to show my ID for at least the last 3 Presidential Elections and all others between them here in Michigan. It's not a Burden, I kind of like that I have to prove I still reside and am who I say I am. Not a big deal.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 




If you must buy a ID off the DMV or whatever, that is very much a tax to vote, therefore it is unconstitutional. Reasonable? sure..but unconstitutional.


EIC in Texas is free.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


no b.s. they just did this because of the popularity of the state senator who led the filibuster in their state house on the abortion issue. she announced she is running for governor now and her popularity is rising.


www.usatoday.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

NavyDoc

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to have an ID to buy a gun and the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Constitution...before the universal franchise, in fact. Would you thus agree that one should not provide ID to own a gun?


I think the 2nd Amendment starts with these words; "A well regulated Militia,"

These new voter ID laws are directed specifically at women, the elderly & minorities. There is no significant voter fraud taking place in Texas but apparently, the Rethugligans like creating problems where none exist. It's also a good way to distract the masses from the real issues, like the insanity that's taking over their party.

I didn't realize it until recently, but after seeing how it's going to affect women, I'm thinking now that they were the primary targets all along. Don't know how I didn't see this coming, but I didn't.

This is going to go full circle and come around to bite the GOP right square in the ass and much sooner than they thought.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
It's interesting that conservatives are mostly unified on their call for less government, until we talk about regulations on who can participate in government.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

MichaelPMaccabee
It's interesting that conservatives are mostly unified on their call for less government, until we talk about regulations on who can participate in government.


A bit of irony:

Less people participating in government would be less government.


I do see you point if it was making some people get a government ID is what you meant.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

roadgravel

MichaelPMaccabee
It's interesting that conservatives are mostly unified on their call for less government, until we talk about regulations on who can participate in government.


A bit of irony:

Less people participating in government would be less government.


I do see you point if it was making some people get a government ID is what you meant.


No, I mean things like SCOTUS gutting the Voters Rights Act. Should have been enough for the Conservatives, right? One more bit of legislation to stop people from being persecuted by the government! That is... until the Conservatives used that as an opening to pass lots more voting restrictions in their sections of the country.

Less voters doesn't mean less government, it just means less democracy.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Flatfish

These new voter ID laws are directed specifically at women, the elderly & minorities.


Ok I'll bite, why exactly do you think Voter ID laws are specifically going after women??? And by Women, I assume you mean Democratic Women, right?

I would appreciate a more detailed answer.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


Even Republican women want Republican men to stay out of their wombs! Women Flee the GOP



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Flatfish

NavyDoc

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have to have an ID to buy a gun and the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Constitution...before the universal franchise, in fact. Would you thus agree that one should not provide ID to own a gun?


I think the 2nd Amendment starts with these words; "A well regulated Militia,"

These new voter ID laws are directed specifically at women, the elderly & minorities. There is no significant voter fraud taking place in Texas but apparently, the Rethugligans like creating problems where none exist. It's also a good way to distract the masses from the real issues, like the insanity that's taking over their party.

I didn't realize it until recently, but after seeing how it's going to affect women, I'm thinking now that they were the primary targets all along. Don't know how I didn't see this coming, but I didn't.

This is going to go full circle and come around to bite the GOP right square in the ass and much sooner than they thought.


"Who is the militia? The whole of the people." Madison, author of 2nd amendment. Nice try but Constitutional history fail.

How does requiring an ID for something target women. Last I checked women were able to get an ID just as easily as men. Unless you find a law where women are denied ID based on gender, your assumption does not fly at all.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   

pavil

Flatfish

These new voter ID laws are directed specifically at women, the elderly & minorities.


Ok I'll bite, why exactly do you think Voter ID laws are specifically going after women??? And by Women, I assume you mean Democratic Women, right?

I would appreciate a more detailed answer.

Thanks


Sure. As i previously stated, I didn't see "it" at first either.

Here goes; When women get married and/or divorced, they usually go through various name changes, especially with regards to how their name is reflected on things like driver's licenses and voter registration records.

For instance; When they get married, many women, (some by choice and some by legal mandate) begin placing their maiden name as their middle name on their driver's license followed by their new spouse's last name.

As some have demonstrated in this thread, here in Texas it's the law with respect to their driver's license but not with voter registration.

When they get divorced it gets even worse. Some women may choose to keep using their X's last name for various reasons, while others will choose to navigate the bureaucratic maze of getting it changed back, usually at their own expense.

Men on the other hand, (regardless of their race, age and/or financial background) never have to submit to this process of name juggling. Much less making sure that it is reflected exactly the same way in all their pertinent records at any given time.

I assure you, women will be the most affected group and they will suffer the most from these new voter ID initiatives, whether they be in Texas or anywhere else.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

NavyDoc

"Who is the militia? The whole of the people." Madison, author of 2nd amendment. Nice try but Constitutional history fail.


So, according to your own interpretation and apparently that of Madison, it's "the whole of the people" that should be well regulated. What's your point?


NavyDoc
How does requiring an ID for something target women. Last I checked women were able to get an ID just as easily as men. Unless you find a law where women are denied ID based on gender, your assumption does not fly at all.


See the post I made just previous to this one.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Thank you for the reply, now we have things to discuss. I appreciate your effort in making your point.

First of all only 10% of so of women Hyphenate their maiden and new spouses last names. If they do that, their last name will accurately be portrayed as that on things, voter registration included. Personally I have never come across a married women who used a second Middle Name as a pseudo way a hyphenating, maybe that's just my experience. I doubt that adds much more to the overall 10% rate. In fact, the use of hyphenated names has actually declined with the generations following the Baby Boomers.

In the past, some women chose create a SECOND middle name (their maiden name) instead of hyphenating. That causes problems for sure as you are just kinda making up an additional name.

It sounds like to me, Mr. White Male here, that as a women, as you get married, you should pay attention to how you decide what your new (if any) is going to be. Seems like it would be a very important decision for me, if I were contemplating changing my name. If you decide on keeping your maiden name, fine. If you decide on Hyphenating the two names, fine. If you decide to take your husbands surname solely, fine. Hell, my brother and new sister in law are talking about creating a NEW last name, fine. Just don't make up a second Middle name, I don't include my Confirmation name in any of my Legal documents, it's very confusing. Is that second middle name my last name? Should the last two names be a hyphenated? ect ect.

No I understand that some people have issues when you create that second middle name, primarily voter ID and Drivers Licences don't jive. Those are problems that CAN and NEED to be fixed. If the States mechanism for recording names is too antiquated to deal with Hyphenated names, then that system NEEDS to change. Primarily it's women using that second Middle Name for their Maiden name that is the real problem from a technical aspect. The proper way to do it, if you want to keep your maiden name is hyphenating in whatever combination your maiden and spouses surname.

The moral of the story is that WHATEVER name you chose, fill out all the proper forms to LEGALLY make it happen. Don't try to finesse your way around it by creating a new imaginary second Middle name that never existed prior and think the rest of the world will understand what you did.

This really isn't rocket science.... As a married couple, we have had ZERO problems with voter registration, ect. Anything legal really.

Just an FYI, here in Michigan, my Wife and I voted today, we BOTH had to produce valid State Licenses or ID's which they ran through a Magnetic strip reader to verify our Residency. NO Issues.

It's not a big deal, IMO. Worst case scenario you still get to cast a provisional ballot.

Honestly from what I have seen of politics the real Voter Fraud occur with Absentee Ballots, not with the actual people who come in to Vote. I think showing proof of your residence by State ID is a still of good way of showing residency at the polling station. It's been in place in Michigan for at least a decade as far as I know, maybe longer. It's not a problem and I don't hear either side really complaining about it.
edit on 5-11-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Flatfish

So, according to your own interpretation and apparently that of Madison, it's "the whole of the people" that should be well regulated. What's your point?


No, I think you misunderstand the phrase. Perhaps this will help:


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


In otherwords, for a militia to function correctly without Government intervention, the rights of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed, would be the way it would sound in Modern English. It's worded well in the Second Amendment, we just think today of "well- regulated" meaning "lot of regulations". That was not the intent of the F.F's. Kinda funny how Modern politics changes the definition of words.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

pavil

Flatfish

So, according to your own interpretation and apparently that of Madison, it's "the whole of the people" that should be well regulated. What's your point?


No, I think you misunderstand the phrase. Perhaps this will help:


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


In otherwords, for a militia to function correctly without Government intervention, the rights of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed, would be the way it would sound in Modern English. It's worded well in the Second Amendment, we just think today of "well- regulated" meaning "lot of regulations". That was not the intent of the F.F's. Kinda funny how Modern politics changes the definition of words.


While I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me with respect to how you think the term "well regulated" should be defined when referring to documents created by our founding fathers, I'm not sure I buy it.

I tend to believe they would have used the word "functioning" as opposed to "regulated" if that's what they really meant. It's not like the word didn't exist and our founding fathers were a pretty literate group, so I think they meant what they said, "well regulated."



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Flatfish

While I appreciate you taking the time to enlighten me with respect to how you think the term "well regulated" should be defined when referring to documents created by our founding fathers, I'm not sure I buy it.

I tend to believe they would have used the word "functioning" as opposed to "regulated" if that's what they really meant. It's not like the word didn't exist and our founding fathers were a pretty literate group, so I think they meant what they said, "well regulated."



You may disagree with my interpretation, however the Founding Fathers used the Term in a much different way back in their day.
Well here is some of the FF's in their own words:


We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Federalist Paper #29

Sounds like he means very well trained, not very well regulated with laws, Militia.


This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.



That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated , and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.


Journals of the Continental Congress

And finally George Washington:


I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))


I seriously doubt George Washington was imploring to make up the deficiency of manpower with the Militia with the most regulations and laws. I'm pretty sure he is talking about their ability to perform by being better trained and drilled.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but don't say that the FF's didn't mean a well drilled/trained militia when they say well regulated. That plainly isn't in evidence.

Way off Topic now, but I needed to clarify.
edit on 5-11-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2013 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

blackthorne
former speaker of the house, jim wright was prevented from voting in texas' election's tomorrow due to the new voting restrictions in place. find this sad, humorous, and absurd at the same time. what do you think?

www.huffingtonpost.com...


So wait...he waited til last minute to do this? Even though the law has been in place since 2011? Sounds like a setup to me...

"Texas driver’s license that expired in 2010 and a TCU faculty ID"

That whole responsibility thing coming into play...

States make their laws in regards to voting and the State of Texas has established this since 2011. We should feel sorry how?!

ETA:

Why the fuss when the State of Texas proclaimed the following:
"Election officials in Tarrant County and statewide have stressed that voters who have no valid photo ID or election identification certificate can still cast ballots Tuesday."

Why have a law if it isn't going to be enforced unless for political points from either side? What a damn joke and you are all part of it...hope you get paid for your stage time...
edit on 5-11-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

ownbestenemy

Why have a law if it isn't going to be enforced unless for political points from either side?


I don't know about Texas, but I'm pretty sure they are talking about casting a provisional ballot, ie if your residency and Identity check out via other methods your ballot is accepted into the rest of ballots.





top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join