Senators turn back ID requirement for immigrant healthcare

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You are stating that you want to deny people the right to vote if they do not have ID. Not having ID is not a crime.

There is more to the US constitution than the Second Amendment; often I think you overlook the rest.

he is not denying them the right to vote - they can get their ID and then vote

if a non-citizen votes that IS a crime - how do you propose it be enforced so that legal voters are not disenfranchised?

If a non-citizen votes for candidate A, and you vote for Candidate B - (the only two on the ballot). Don't you consider that his action denied you your vote? In terms of you getting to vote, how is that different from that person kidnapping you the day before and duct taping you to a flagpole until the polls close?

why don't you think having your vote count matters - is the only thing you consider important is just the act of going to the poll and pushing a button - even if it doesn't count?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,169]

>he is not denying them the right to vote - they can get their ID and
>then vote

Right. Just as you could get a registration for a gun before you buy it. But I still think people here would claim that's a violation of their constitutional rights.

>if a non-citizen votes that IS a crime - how do you propose it be enforced
>so that legal voters are not disenfranchised?

Well, it could be done the way it's done here. You need some kind of ID with proof of address (a phone bill works) to register, and then you sign on a sheet when you vote.

>why don't you think having your vote count matters - is the only thing you
> consider important is just the act of going to the poll and pushing a
>button - even if it doesn't count?

Yes, that's it exactly, how wise of you to identify it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

he is not denying them the right to vote - they can get their ID and then vote

Do you (or Ron) believe the ID should be free? It seems that charging for the ID that would be required to vote would be a violation of Amendment 24. Is that amendment not important?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BartsDaddy 7]

***Let's go after one of your sacred cows. Suppose we passed some laws that said you had to provide ID every time you bought a gun or ammunition so that there was a record of who owned what? Would you be OK with that?



Living here in California I do have to show ID to buy a gun or ammo. Nice try.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Asking someone to prove they are a citizen prior to having them vote
>is not taking away a right.

You are stating that you want to deny people the right to vote if they do not have ID. Not having ID is not a crime.

No, I am saying people have to prove they are able to vote before they are able.

The 2nd says you have the right to keep and bear arms.... Yet you say that has limits.

Why do you support EVERY Amendment blindly BUT the 2nd?

Quote

There is more to the US constitution than the Second Amendment; often I think you overlook the rest.

Huh, I tend to think you count 1, 3, 4, 5,...ect. It is like the 2nd does not exist to you.

BTW you do know that you have have an ID to buy a gun right? Why are you not up in arms about that?

You think we should remove the ID check and the background check to buy a gun?

If voting were like buying a gun.

1. You would have to fill out a form listing who you were going to vote for. This form would have to be filed FOREVER.

2. You would have to produce a valid Govt ID.

3. The polling location would have to make a phone call to make sure you are not a criminal. (and some States they charge to make that phone call).

4. In some States, you would have to leave and then come back 3-5 days later in order to actually vote.

Now why do you think all these are fine for buying a gun, but it is wrong to ask for ID to vote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Do you (or Ron) believe the ID should be free?

I think that if your income is below a certain level that the ID card should be free.

Now, do you think it is unconstitutional that I have to show a valid govt issued ID to buy a gun?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Now, do you think it is unconstitutional that I have to show a valid govt issued ID to buy a gun?

Since judicial review has found that the right to bear arms is an individual right that is not unlimited, it would not seem to be unconstitutional. But, don't take my word for it; interpretation of the Constitution by the judicial branch is the only interpretation that really matters.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,169]

>The 2nd says you have the right to keep and bear arms.... Yet you say
>that has limits.

Correct - just as you wish voting to have additional requirements and limits.

>It is like the 2nd does not exist to you.

I think every sane, law abiding adult in the US should be able to bear arms if they so choose. I believe that's pretty much what the second amendment says, unless you have a different interpretation.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

You are stating that you want to deny people the right to vote if they do not have ID. Not having ID is not a crime.

So is making people register to vote "denying their right to vote"? You have to show a photo id and a utility bill to register in my county. Or are you ok with acorn type voter fraud?

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

None of those are constitutional rights.

Healthcare isn't either.

[billvon 3,169]

>So is making people register to vote "denying their right to vote"?

Nope, provided the requirements to do so are not onerous.

>You have to show a photo id and a utility bill to register in my county.

In our county you have to show one _or_ the other. (Or a bank statement, or government check with your address on it.) Seems to work OK.

[Ron 10]

OK so you think it is not unconstitutional to require an ID to buy a gun.... Why would it be to vote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

OK so you think it is not unconstitutional to require an ID to buy a gun.... Why would it be to vote?

It isn't if the ID is obtainable free of charge. If it isn't freely available, then it constitutes a poll tax, a violation of Amendment 24 of the Constitution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,212]

Quote

Quote

Do you (or Ron) believe the ID should be free?

I think that if your income is below a certain level that the ID card should be free.

Now, do you think it is unconstitutional that I have to show a valid govt issued ID to buy a gun?

So a poll tax is OK as long as poor people are exempted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

BTW you do know that you have have an ID to buy a gun right? Why are you not up in arms about that?

You think we should remove the ID check and the background check to buy a gun?

If voting were like buying a gun.

1. You would have to fill out a form listing who you were going to vote for. This form would have to be filed FOREVER.

2. You would have to produce a valid Govt ID.

3. The polling location would have to make a phone call to make sure you are not a criminal. (and some States they charge to make that phone call).

4. In some States, you would have to leave and then come back 3-5 days later in order to actually vote.

Now why do you think all these are fine for buying a gun, but it is wrong to ask for ID to vote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

: >So is making people register to vote "denying their right to vote"?

Nope, provided the requirements to do so are not onerous.

Then to show a photo Id to prove you are who you say you are is not a problem. I am glad we agree.

[Ron 10]

That is not even close to what I said.

So why is it OK to demand an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,212]

Quote

That is not even close to what I said.

So why is it OK to demand an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote?

I have no problem with either, so long as the ID is provided at NO CHARGE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

That is not even close to what I said.

So why is it OK to demand an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote?

I have no problem with either, so long as the ID is provided at NO CHARGE.

Hmm, I have to pay $20 to get a permit to purchase a hand gun in Iowa, unless I want to wait 3 days despite the use of the NICs system

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That is not even close to what I said.

So why is it OK to demand an ID to buy a gun, but not to vote?

I have no problem with either, so long as the ID is provided at NO CHARGE.

Hmm, I have to pay $20 to get a permit to purchase a hand gun in Iowa, unless I want to wait 3 days despite the use of the NICs system

Paying for "RUSH" service is quite common. FedEx make a good living that way.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Hmm, I have to pay $20 to get a permit to purchase a hand gun in Iowa, unless I want to wait 3 days despite the use of the NICs system

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think everyone should have to show ID to vote as well.
I don't see why showing an ID it is such a big deal.

Responding genuinely as if there was a question there.

For some civil libertarians, it’s a big deal ideologically because of the imposition on civil liberties and what’s seen as a privacy issue.

On similar ideological grounds, some civil libertarians would prefer all State and federal laws regarding gun ownership and registration be like those in Georgia, which if I understand correctly are even more liberal than Texas. (If I’m wrong on the latter, I’m confident someone will correct me. ) Now, I recognize that you (literally - ‘you’) may not see that line of thinking or find value in it. I do, in both cases ... as well as others.

For some folks who know history, including recent history (perhaps know it too well?), it’s a big deal because such efforts have historically been used to try to limit or completely disenfranchise the rights of some voters.

At the same time, if one recognizes that voting fraud does occur and that ideologically (because usually the error bars are pretty small compared to the overall electorate) it potentially undermines our process, what is the best course of action?

Would you (general or specific 'you') recommend one stick to one’s ideological ground out of stubbornness (?) or commitment (?) and refuse to compromise? View the world as only having binary options? Or enable mechanisms by which those at risk of disenfranchisement are not, or that risk is lower significantly?

I respect those who object to voter ID requirements on civil liberties grounds. At the same time I can hold ideological beliefs in the value of clean voting and recognize the pragmatic reality of some level of voter fraud, so I prefer a pragmatic option that reaches a compromise across multiple issues.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Hmm, I have to pay $20 to get a permit to purchase a hand gun in Iowa, unless I want to wait 3 days despite the use of the NICs system

From District of Columbia v. Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

If you would pay attention to what the hell I was responding to you would not have made this post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon.

And I'd agree with what he said.
If an illegal (a crime) goes so far as using someone else's credentials for a purpose of fraud (a crime), including citizenship status (also a crime) and SSN (another crime), to fraudulently obtain government services (yet another crime), they would have no problem to produce a fake ID as well.

Now you'd ask what are the drawbacks if the law requires checking IDs? I see some already - for example, you would not be able to apply online or by mail, therefore increasing the overall costs. People also need to be trained to check the IDs - it's not as easy as some think, for example, to confirm the identity of Asian using an 8-year old picture in their passport, unless you grown up in a diverse community and could compare face features quickly. So, increasing cost without really increasing security.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[dsandreas 0]

Medicare/Medicaid fraud is $80 Billion PER YEAR at the low-end estimate and over $200 Billion PER YEAR at the high end. Most of this is by submitting fraudulant bills for people who don't get the treatment on the bills or don't even exist.

- The current legislation has no provisions to reduce this fraud.
- By not having to provide identification...the fraud will certainly grow/increase.

You may agree with Bingaman but that just makes two people wrong instead of just him.

Quote

But Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, who represents the border state of New Mexico, said that the type of fraud Grassley said he wants to prevent is highly uncommon.

And I'd agree with what he said.
If an illegal (a crime) goes so far as using someone else's credentials for a purpose of fraud (a crime), including citizenship status (also a crime) and SSN (another crime), to fraudulently obtain government services (yet another crime), they would have no problem to produce a fake ID as well.

Now you'd ask what are the drawbacks if the law requires checking IDs? I see some already - for example, you would not be able to apply online or by mail, therefore increasing the overall costs. People also need to be trained to check the IDs - it's not as easy as some think, for example, to confirm the identity of Asian using an 8-year old picture in their passport, unless you grown up in a diverse community and could compare face features quickly. So, increasing cost without really increasing security.

• Quote