Ultimate Obama Hypocrisy: First Lady Michelle Obama Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; However, Dems Against Voter ID Laws

[slim 1,530]

Come on now Slim! Don't go getting cuckoo for cocoa puffs on us!

I know. It's hard to fathom an almost non-existent federal government.

It would really suck to pay no federal taxes, be able to take part in your government and actually get to decide the issues that effect you daily. That would be horrible. Who wants that? I'd rather just have someone else make all those hard decisions for me. Oh, and by the way, I'll make sure I pay them for all their hard work.

[kytwell 179]

I am still not clear why a voter ID is discriminatory. Where I live, we were given the opportunity to register when we turned 18 through forms our high school history teacher gave us. Within a few weeks, they mailed me a voter card with my name, polling location and party affiliation on it. When we go to renew our driver's licenses we are given the opportunity again to register or change party affiliation. When I first voted, I had to show my card at the polling location, now that I have been voting at the same place for roughly 15 years, they don't ask anymore and know me by name. In addition, I work for a county government, we are required to be registered voters as a condition of employment. To put our picture on these cards would not be a huge deal. About 30% of my employer's workforce is African-American, they are not complaining about the fact we have to be registered to vote, So, I am failing to see the argument that it is racist or discriminatory, if it had our picture on it, as all have to go through or have the opportunities to the same process(here at least).

[slim 1,530]

Ever notice how EBT cards don't have picture ID on them?

[james&olya 1,121]

Ever notice how EBT cards don't have picture ID on them?

You may have hit on something that would make everybody happy!!

[Dan J 277]

I am still not clear why a voter ID is discriminatory. Where I live, we were given the opportunity to register when we turned 18 through forms our high school history teacher gave us. Within a few weeks, they mailed me a voter card with my name, polling location and party affiliation on it. When we go to renew our driver's licenses we are given the opportunity again to register or change party affiliation. When I first voted, I had to show my card at the polling location, now that I have been voting at the same place for roughly 15 years, they don't ask anymore and know me by name. In addition, I work for a county government, we are required to be registered voters as a condition of employment. To put our picture on these cards would not be a huge deal. About 30% of my employer's workforce is African-American, they are not complaining about the fact we have to be registered to vote, So, I am failing to see the argument that it is racist or discriminatory, if it had our picture on it, as all have to go through or have the opportunities to the same process(here at least).

Most of these provisions while requiring an ID to vote, don't go out of their way to ensure that every citizen gets the necessary ID's. This is not a problem for most people, but there are a few groups of citizens who may find it difficult get the ID.

1. Homeless people who may not have a stable address.

2. Elderly people who may be lacking documentation such as birth certificates, as they were born at homes or outside of the system, which are often needed to get an ID.

3. Poor people who don't have the money or time to go through the extra hoops.

If these laws went out of their way to ensure that every citizen who wanted to vote was able to get an ID. They would probably find less resistance. But many of them don't which brings into question the motives, which are often about making it very difficult for certain groups to vote instead of protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately some pro voter ID groups have not help themselves by using racially charged advertising in support of the issue.

Ever notice how EBT cards don't have picture ID on them?

Are you presuming that only EBT card users would be disenfranchised by a Voter ID requirement?

None of that establishes a right to vote. It's alluded to. It's even assumed that the right to vote is present. But it's never established on a federal level. If you'll notice, every single mention (up until the amendments) of voting comes from the states through the legislature or electors. The founders did that on purpose. They never meant for "the people" to run the federal government because the federal government was never intended to be "over" the people. It was simply to coordinate the States.

If anything, the amendments open up the door to prohibit folks from voting in federal elections because it acknowledges voting is not an absolute right.

If the Federal Government is too weak, you basically end up with a currency union like the EU. We all know how well that is working.

[slim 1,530]

Are you presuming that only EBT card users would be disenfranchised by a Voter ID requirement?

No. I'm assuming nobody would be disenfranchised by a requirement for ID.

Everyone has an ID of some type because they use it to get what they need. Not a problem then... why is it at the polls? Homeless people without a stable address would have to vote absentee anyway!

If the Federal Government is too weak, you basically end up with a currency union like the EU. We all know how well that is working.

Not true. One of congress' jobs is to regulate the value of money.

[Dan J 277]

Not true. One of congress' jobs is to regulate the value of money.

The problems with Europe have nothing to do with the value of money, instead its a problem with the lack of a common budget and fiscal policy. In the US, the Federal Government redistributes money from the wealthy states to the poorer ones. If we were like Europe, the Federal Government would have little power to do so.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Slim is partially right, folks. There is no Constitutional right to vote for President because the means for electing members of the Electoral College lies with the states. This was stated clearly in the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, 2000:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Merely quoting provisions from the Constitution to prove one's point is not always reliable, as the SCOTUS exists to interpret it, and that is where the laws and their applications are defined.

[slim 1,530]

Uh oh....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I need to correct myself about Slim being partially right. I just reread his quote below, and he is not partially right, he's absolutely right. This is pretty much the way a good poli sci professor would explain the exception.

Also, he's right about the first lady being a housewife, per se. There is no governmental position of "First Lady". She holds no influence and has no ability to make policy other than through "pillow talk". While a few of the activities she fronts are accommodated through federal funding, most of them are funded through private donations.

Slim actually did very well. Most Americans assume their rights are delineated and enumerated in the Constitution, but they are not. The Constitution is a contract limiting the power of the federal government, its relationships with the states in regards to their powers. The rights and responsibilities of individual citizens primarily spring from the states. Conflicts between federal and state entities over citizen rights are resolved through the SCOTUS.

None of that establishes a right to vote. It's alluded to. It's even assumed that the right to vote is present. But it's never established on a federal level. If you'll notice, every single mention (up until the amendments) of voting comes from the states through the legislature or electors. The founders did that on purpose. They never meant for "the people" to run the federal government because the federal government was never intended to be "over" the people. It was simply to coordinate the States.

If anything, the amendments open up the door to prohibit folks from voting in federal elections because it acknowledges voting is not an absolute right.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Sofiyya

[Dan J 277]

Slim is partially right, folks. There is no Constitutional right to vote for President because the means for electing members of the Electoral College lies with the states. This was stated clearly in the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, 2000:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Merely quoting provisions from the Constitution to prove one's point is not always reliable, as the SCOTUS exists to interpret it, and that is where the laws and their applications are defined.

If we are talking about voting for president, then you are correct, the people don't elect the president. But there is more to voting than just the Office of the President.

The Constitution does indicate that the House of Representatives and Senate are chosen by the people. While it does not explicitly outline who can and can't vote. It does indicate several factors that can and cannot be used in that determination.

If there was no assumed right to vote, at a federal level, then those amendments would be rather pointless.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If we are talking about voting for president, then you are correct, the people don't elect the president. But there is more to voting than just the Office of the President.

The Constitution does indicate that the House of Representatives and Senate are chosen by the people. While it does not explicitly outline who can and can't vote. It does indicate several factors that can and cannot be used in that determination.

If there was no assumed right to vote, at a federal level, then those amendments would be rather pointless.

Assuming a right to vote is a mistake. It didn't always exist, had to be created post-Constitution, and can be altered, if citizens are not vigilant. The Constitution doesn't guarantee rights to individual citizens. It regulates the rights of the federal and the states, not individuals. Since voting and the means by which to vote originate on the state level (states rights), that is where the right to vote needs to be held steadfast and protected.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Most of these provisions while requiring an ID to vote, don't go out of their way to ensure that every citizen gets the necessary ID's. This is not a problem for most people, but there are a few groups of citizens who may find it difficult get the ID.

1. Homeless people who may not have a stable address.

2. Elderly people who may be lacking documentation such as birth certificates, as they were born at homes or outside of the system, which are often needed to get an ID.

3. Poor people who don't have the money or time to go through the extra hoops.

If these laws went out of their way to ensure that every citizen who wanted to vote was able to get an ID. They would probably find less resistance. But many of them don't which brings into question the motives, which are often about making it very difficult for certain groups to vote instead of protecting the right to vote. Unfortunately some pro voter ID groups have not help themselves by using racially charged advertising in support of the issue.

None of these laws address any ID issue for the one form of voting that is the most open to fraud - absentee ballots. Of course, most absentee voters vote Republican so that's not an issue.