No, it’s not racist, xenophobic, or unconstitutional to ask voters for valid ID; Update: Obama blasted ruling
The Supreme Court gives us more good news this morning: Indiana’s voter ID law has been upheld.
Half of the states have passed similar laws.
The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar. CQ summarizes:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to show photo identification at the polls, in a closely watched case with important ramifications for the 2008 elections.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Proponents of the Indiana law at issue in the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, said the state’s interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud outweighs whatever burden might be placed on a small number of people. Opponents argued that the Indiana law unfairly burdens poor and elderly voters, who tend to favor Democrats but are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports.
The Justice Department sided with Indiana in the case, agreeing that the voter ID requirement is constitutional.
You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.
D’oh.
La Shawn Barber excoriates liberal black leaders who lobbied against voter ID laws.
SCOTUSblog has full coverage.
Allahpundit takes a closer look at the ruling’s rejoinder to the Left’s argument that ID requirements impose an undue burden. One of the lib justices betrays his own.
***
Update: Barack Obama plies the Left’s bogus undue burden argument:
Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, calling it “wrong,” and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.
“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo identification law — one of the most restrictive in the nation,” Obama said in a written statement.
He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana’s voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that “it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Pirate's Cove
- SCOTUS Upholds Photo ID Law, DUmmies And Assorted Leftards Not Happy | McCain Blogs
- UrbanGrounds
- Democrat Vote Fraud dealt blow by Supreme Court | The TIW Blog
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Supreme Court: No, of course voter ID laws aren’t unconstitutional
- Leaning Straight Up
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Baseball Crank
- ACLU Extremely Upset with Supreme Court Decision on Indiana Voter ID Law : Stop The ACLU
- Random-American » Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting
- monoblogue
- Leaning Straight Up
- Liberty Pundit
- Plumb Bob Blog
Well,this is gonna make it a lot tougher for the wetback vote to make its presence felt…breaks my heart
I am sure the democrats don’t want the derilics they bribe with cigarettes to have to have an ID too. What is this world coming to?
This has been BIG in MN, I can’t wait when I serve as an election judge supervisor this fall…… Score one for SCOTUS…. this is awesome.
Why is it that every time proof of who you are is required for voting purposes, it is an affront to certain parties.
What’s the difference in providing proof of age when buying booze, or providing proof of self when going to vote?
This is really good news for legal and not ‘dead’ voters.
L
Job well done SCOTUS!
Darn. You just have to hate it when someone exercises a little common sense and requires you to prove that you are who you say you are at the polls.
/sarcasm off
how are they going to vote all of the tombstones now?
They are notorious for such in the other end of my state in Memphis/Shelby County and I suspect that is not the only place in the nation that sees its fair share of that.
OH, the horror of having to take my driver’s license to the voting booth….what am I to do?????
i can’t believe we’re reduced to cheering for common sense.
it’s just common sense for people to present ID for voting. there isn’t a sane argument against it. this is why they’re reduced to crying racism.
or proving you are legally in this country?
What about the 3 dissenters ?
This is a good thing.
I shouldn’t be surprised at what the leftist loons will fight for, but this seemed like such a no-brainer. Like deporting illegals that commit crimes, but that’s another story.
You can’t fix stupid….
#1 Armigerous wrote:
Wow.
No puedo… no puedo…
Well, I guess all those dead Democrats will now have to show photo ID at the polls come November.
When the liberals vote against something, it must be a good thing for the average citizen.
Hopefully we can get another conservative on the court because you know Ginsberg and Stevens are going to retire after the election due to age or health - I don’t think they can hang on for another 4 years - Unless they’re like Robert Byrd - shades of “Weekend at Bernies”.
I have a feeling that the illegal photo id industry is going to be cranking up in the liberal bastions of this nation.
I have only ever voted absentee when I was in the Navy which was a long time ago. So here goes my dumb question.
What is to keep them from faking it to flood the absentee votes?
Alcohol purchase ID … check
Cigarette purchase ID … check
Nightclub entry ID … check
Cash a check ID … check
Board an airplane ID … check
Travel international ID … check
So all this time the ID requirement for the things in list above was much more important to verify your identity than proving you were a legal voter … go figure …
Kind of puts voting at the lower end of legal priorities apparently …
Good for SCOTUS …
This year’s primary was the first time I’ve had to give ID to vote in our precinct here in Illinois. I sent the county clerk a thankyou e-mail. I thought it was great and about time.
This is awesome news. I NEVER understood the argument that such a thing places an undue burden on voters.
The other thing that is just laughable to me are the reasons/excuses those who don’t want commmon sense voting laws use to justify their position. Do they THINK we don’t know the REAL reason they don’t want voter identification is because they want to cheat??
This is like 2 lumps o’ suga in my coffee.
Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan may or may not have their e-mail votes count. We kept in touch via e-mail when grandson was in Iraq and there is NO more secure e-mail transmissions than those by the military. Support the troops and assure their votes will count in your state!
Bingo. Illegal aliens already forge or steal identification documents to work illegally. Teenagers already support this market by getting fake state licenses to allow them to drink underage. How much of a stretch is it for people like the lady who created this case (who was fraudulently registered to vote in two states) to get fake ID’s and vote illegally? You think the elderly volunteers at the voting booth are going to know which ID is real or not?
I applaud the 6 justices who upheld common sense and the rule of law, but this particular struggle is far from over.
That’s strange. They didn’t ask for mine.
Nice call SCOTUS, now lets hope they do the right thing on the 2nd Amendment rulling allowing the right to bear arms (or is it arm bears, I always forget) as an individual right.
#19, A very good question you asked. This might be their way around the photo ID.
L
LOL, will the valid voters please stand up.
A Black American not willing to allow illegal voting? Horrible.
Oh please let there be a national, valid picture ID to vote law.
Hello?! How are the deceased supposed to keep their id/license current, so they can still vote?
Enough said.
USMCgramma,
I read about that this morning. Hopefully, the quirks are ironed out by the Nov. rolls around. Not holding my breath.
But it is wrong. It is for the purpose of suppressing the Democratic vote. Like Dred Scott, it will not be a proud moment in our past.
lgm #33, what makes you say that this ruling would suppress the Democrat vote? and WHY would the SCOTUS want to suppress the Democrat (or any other) vote?
Excellent news! We need some these days.
I hope your comment gets deleted and you get tossed.
yeah lgm … such an inconvenience … get a life … those same people that supposedly don’t have id because they are so poor are driving, buying alcohol and cigarettes, and other things they are supposed to provide id for … they even wnt to see id to rent a hotel room these days … so stop the BS …
lgm said:
You need some tissue with that?
I work on a Federal Government facility. I need to show a photo ID every morning just to get in to work. I’m on a first name basis with several of the security guards, yet they will not let me in to work unless I can show my badge with my picture. What if I lose my badge? They will check to make sure I really do work there and then issue me a temporary badge.
So, if I need to show an ID just to get to work in the morning, I see now reason why, every few years, we should show and ID when we’re choosing our countries leaders.
Your party just has to go look for a new core constituency, lgm. This just puts the deceased, illegal immigrants, etc. out of bounds for you guys on election day.
Gee whiz. The card carrying members of the local union who swarm the precinct offices on election day will have to start fabricating more than just their fictional voters. Now they’ll have to forge an ID too!
lgm
you probably meant to say ” suppress the dead democrat vote”
So you admit that it is majoritively Democrats who are abusing the system to vote illegally?
Thanks lgm.
P.S. The next time you fly to visit your friend Hugo to discuss socialism I would hope you object vocally to the security agents to having to show identification as a supression of your rights and a conspiracy to stop Democrats from flying.
Speaking for me, it IS a proud moment. How about that?
forgot to mention, how is Milwaukee going to get more people to vote than are registered to vote, if they have to show an ID?
The moonbats are in a lather that Justice Stevens wrote for the majority.
So, every time one has to show ID it is a slap in the face of Democrats? Well, now I am ticked off.
Those idiots at the store keep thinking I am a Democrat, when they card me for the purchase of an alcoholic beverage?
there ya go lgm fixed it for ya. and dont forget the dead peeps.
lgm overdosed on stupid pills this morning.
ut it is wrong. It is for the purpose of suppressing the Democratic vote.
On April 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, lgm said:
No, it’s not racist, xenophobic, or unconstitutional to ask voters for valid ID
But it is wrong. It is for the purpose of suppressing the Democratic vote. Like Dred Scott, it will not be a proud moment in our past.
So, are you admitting that Democrats are the ones who commit voter fraud?
Well, boo-freakin’-hoo
lgm, there are times I swear that you don’t believe in half of what you post here and are just trying to get a reaction.
Before posting here, I went over to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ website to check on the fees for identification. The cost of such a card, which lasts for six years, is free.
How in the world can you compare asking someone to get a document that is free to a person back in the 1850s fighting for his freedom?
Perhaps we are beginning to see a resurgence of common sense in this country.
This is a great moral, legal, and common sense victory. Kudos to SCOTUS and the other supportive lower courts!! But as some of you indicated or hinted, criminal minds will find ways around it, such as fake photo ids. The minimum penalties for producing and selling fake ids, and for using them, should be far more severe than at present.
Hey, folks - time for your dental exam
Those are all privileges. Voting is a right. Rights should not be dependent on possession of government identification.
The great thing about a democracy is that the homeless dude on the street or the elderly lady who hasn’t been to the DMV in 20 years all have the same say as us. This decision sets us back.
And if you think ID checks are going to cut back on illegal aliens voting, you are sorely mistaken. If it helped in that regard, I would have more sympathy towards the IN legislation. But do you really think an ordinary citizen volunteering his/her time is going to have the skills to spot a fake? This is more likely to hurt the American citizens who have the right to vote but not the means or time or ability to get an ID. Namely the very poor and the very elderly.
It may very well be Constitutional. Doesn’t make it right or good law.
What part of the Democrat vote does this supress? The dead vote? The illegal immigrant vote? The fraudulent vote?
I’m happy to have that part of the Democrat constituency supressed, and the Democratic party would be too, if it weren’t more interested in power than the welfare of this nation.
Rusty, I appreciate what you’re saying. However, in order for anyone’s vote to be valid, there must be a way for them to be counted only ONCE. Otherwise, the “little old ladies” and “homeless guys” and anyone else can vote AGAIN and AGAIN. If anyone is that concerned and interested to vote, they should also be diligent enough to get a proper ID…after all, ID is not just for voting, as has already been noted here.
I don’t know a single person that doesn’t have a photo ID card. As a matter of fact, I don’t think that I’ve ever known anyone that didn’t have an ID card. The government says they will provide you, free of charge, a photo ID. Where is it unreasonable?
We have a right to know that the people voting in America are who they say they are. Anyone can forge a signature. This claim that requiring a photo ID is wrong in any way is simply absurd.
On April 28th, 2008 at 12:24 pm, bloghooligan said:
“i can’t believe we’re reduced to cheering for common sense”
Exactly my thoughts. I can not believe anyone would argue with this ruling. Not doing so is letting the tail wag the dog. I bet not more then .01% of the population could not show ID at the voting place (and they COULD get an ID if they so desired anyway). But not requiring ID to vote opens up the entire popultion (you know the other 99.99%) to voter fraud which negatively impacts them, the majority. So how can any logical person, who truly beleives in fairness, argue that protecting the entire voting process on behalf of the overwhelming majority is bad? It is illogical in a republic for the few to dictate to the many the rules of the game. Only those who benefit from voter fraud, you know the dems would fight such common sense..
Voting is a right…. of legal US Citizens.
Amendment XIX
An illegal alien a US Citizen it does not make.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizen#Possession_of_citizenship
Thanks Rusty for clarifying how liberals twist the rules to try and justify illegal behavior.
Oh, and by they way, why should rights not be dependent on possession of government identification?
Rights should absolutely be dependent on the ability to identify any person’s identity. You say this as if this is some sort of hardship.
Yes, on both counts. If it is constitutional, it is good law and that makes it right. If you don’t like it, change the Constitution.
Getting a valid state identification isn’t going to set them back in Indiana, Rusty.
I do think it will cut back on voter fraud. It may not eradicate it but it will cause it to dwindle some. That is at least a step in the right direction.
So, who is it going to disenfranchise that you are so worried about, again?
Rusty and LGM:
Maybe if the liberals didn’t abuse the right to vote, this would never have become an issue.
The only reason most voluntarily homeless people vote is for the few “gifts” the Democrats are willing to pay them - without that incentive, do you honestly think they are really concerned about voting? Yes, my liberal friends, it may come as a surprise to you, but there is a sub-culture that choses homelessness.
Law abiding citizens have no problem with producing an ID when requested.
I disagree with what you call priveleges. At one time they were - but try preventing someone from exercising one of them and watch the ACLU and race baiters claim that their “rights” have been violated.
On April 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm, Rusty said: Those are all privileges. Voting is a right. Rights should not be dependent on possession of government identification.
So do you believe we should also allow foreigners to vote in our elections? If not, how exactly would you prevent it if we do not at a minimum require someone to prove they are US citizen? Or are you ok with the consequences of potentially having thousands of foreigners votes count in our elections in order to ensure a handful of Americans who for whatever reason can not provide any proof of citizenship (simply amazing) get their vote counted. Fraudulent voting appears to be no issue to you. If it is then provide a better solution but there must be a solution to the obvious potential for fraud without ID.
Clueless anti-democracy trolls
Here are some facts for the “victims brigade”.
I am elderly.
I am poor.
I live in a rural area.
I have voted in every state and national election since 1962.
If you are not just along for the ride you can and should find a way.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg…
…..What a freakin joke she is.
Liberal black leaders? Is this an oxymoron…? Anyway, these self-annointed “leaders” don’t want voter ID laws enacted because:
1) They fear too many criminal members of their race, currently on the lam, will be located and put in jail for crimes they have committed.
2) It gives them opportunity to rant about racist “white” America, thus creating opportunity to collect “donations” to further their “battle” for “justice.”
3) They feel the majority of their sheepish race are too stupid or uneducated, or (as Jerry Wright says,) Afro-Americans are right-brained cognitive, so they are unable to fill out registration forms without the help of Euro-Americans explaining it to them. (That must explain the “creative” side he mentions.)
or, 4) Black leaders are paranoid that the “white devils” in charge of America, have devised an intricate plan to identify, locate, and exterminate the black population.
Have I left anything out?
Rusty
Regardless of the whole right versus privilege discussion the last time I checked in order to register to vote in any state you had to have identification and a legal and verifiable address …
by definition that means you couldn’t be “homeless” and be legally registered to vote …
may sound a bit “picky” but so is the rest of the argument against simple proof of identity …
now … as for rights … I have a 2nd amendment right to own and bear firearms … but I have to provide ID and undergo a background check before I can exercise that right … and if I want to carry that weapon with me I have to undergo more scrutiny to be able to exercise that extended right … according to that “rights’ argument I should not have to show ID to buy a weapon and carry it …
there are “rights” that we go through additional screening including verification of personal identification to take part in … voting should not be any different …
Do you trolls work hard at being stupid, or does it come naturally?
Do you trolls work hard at being stupid, or does it come naturally?
lgm, Rusty, et. al.,
Since the concept of “one person, one vote” ensures that all voices are heard, shouldn’t we all be concerned with voter fraud? Should there not be a way to ensure someone does not negate your vote?
Funny how the detractors from the left are not concerned with the integrity of the vote, just the cost of getting a FREE voter ID card. (Class warfare 101)
In my mind, there is no issue that so exposes the left as ANTI-democratic and in complete warfare against our culture as their insistence on breaking down democracy by corrupting the ballot process. I regard anyone opposing safeguards to assure the integrity of our elections to be as much my enemy as an armed terrorist. And I am apt to treat him accordingly, although I must be a little covert as he, himself, is launching his attack in a covert fashion.This is tough, because when I see Democrats pushing in support of chaos and fraud at the polls, then I see them as people with whom I am at war. Not a metaphorical war…a real war.
This ruling by the SCOTUS, at least, takes a step away from the day when this war might openly erupt in the streets.
cool.
Hahahaha. So slavery, until the 1860s, was good law? Then the Constitution was amended and now it’s good law? By your reasoning, abortion is good law. I hate to assume, but your presence here leads me to believe that not your position.
And I don’t think that illegal aliens should vote in American elections. I just don’t think that the IN law is going to stop them.
Maybe I should ask a bunch of homeless people if they have ID on my lunch break? I’m willing to bet that many do not. They have, like you and me, a right to vote. These laws makes it harder for them. Others with physical and mental illness are going to be hurt by this. Pretending that this is a good first step to combating voter fraud without hurting legitimate voters is incredibly naive.
Um, did you just threaten to kill me?
DesertLover #68:
Good point on the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms and the restrictions imposed…
Those with CCW permits are law-abiding citizens and comply with the regulations of their states in order to obtain one including providing not only proof of identify but also a training certificate in many states and fingerprinting at the time of application.
I totally agree. But easier said than done. I think it’s more important to ensure that everyone legitimate US citizen gets their say before we start working on limiting the say of others who aren’t entitled to it (or are, you know, dead).
In NC….land of illegals, even they can vote.
All you have to show is an address; just a bill will do. No photo ID required.
How about writing NC Board of Elections and help the citizens to fight this?! We’d appreciate your help folks!
Yo!!! This is 2008. Neither of my father’s parents were even IN America before 1911. So, we have four generations raised in this Great Country never having anything remotely to do with slavery. Why do you left-tards keep bringing this up? Oh, that’s right…NONE of you have any original thought!
The typical “brain-storming” sessions among YOUR national leadership always begins with:
1) Prayer
2) A shot or a toke
3)
National ID?
Oops! hit wrong button…must reboot!
#64 rooster wrote:
Because I called a commenter out for using “wetback?”
You’re even slower than usual today, rooster. Which I’d previously thought impossible…
Ditto on #35… hate has no place here.
I do not know how and why this issue was even litigated. I see the backers of this litigation as being pro-voter fraud.
See? There you go, again. No one on here is even talking about slavery or abortion.
This SCOTUS ruling was based on a specific point in the Constitution.
But, regardless, rulings based on what is in the Constitution at any given time are sound. If we don’t like it, we change the Constitution, through the process set up for that, not the courts.
You could go ask them, if you feel like wwasting your time. And, as U.S. citizens, they do have a right to vote but there are still and have been requirements for that.
I think DesertLover hit on flaws for you in that part of your argument already.
I will hand you this, Rusty. You truly are a master baiter.
No, he called anyone who opposed the laws that safeguard this country from harm by terrorists an accessory to terrorists by allowing people to circumvent the law and thus break down the Democracy we have in place that is run on the rule of law.
Thus he called you “his/her enemy” because your views threaten the security of this nation by opposing common sense security measures that ensure fair elections and not the voter fraud and illegal tricks that undermine free and fair elections.
I second his/her views, I also consider you an enemy of Democracy. And I will do everything in my power, legally, to stop you from destroying this country.
Could you imagine, under the way liberals like you want no ID checks at the polls, what would happend it for example a large group of Iranians, North Koreans, Russians, (name a country) flew in on Nov 1st-5th and showed up at the polls to vote? Under your proposed system of no checking everyone in the world who is physically able to get to a US poll would be allowed to vote, including enemies of the United States that we are at war with. Which is why the point made is valid about your views being a potential accessory to terrorism. But most liberals don’t think outside their little boxes of trying to get more illegals and homeless and ederly to vote Democrat.
lgm, even for you that’s a pretty stupid comment. No offense, I usually don’t pile on you personally, but hey…
(Continued from #79)
3) The word, “DUH!”
4) F**k Bush
5) F**k Rove
6) “Who brought the hookers?”
Talk about status quo? How about coming up with a plan to help America, without putting your hands in our pockets, demagoguery, or opening our borders? What’s the matter? Don’t those things fit in with your party’s “true vision” OF America? You guys are pathetic!
I work EMS in Manhattan. Every homeless person I’ve transported to a hospital has a photo ID. They use it to pick up their benefit checks.
Rusty said:
This is baseless. If you are who you say you and you’re an American citizen it shouldn’t be a problem. There’s been too many instances when people who’ve been dead thirty years cast a vote.
All Right there is just one small victory for our country.
Rusty, you probably should go out and ask those homeless individuals if they have some type of photo ID. I bet that you’d be surprised to see the number of benefits cards with photos, etc.
Again, do you KNOW of anyone that doesn’t have a photo ID????
Under the Second Amendment we have the right to keep and bear arms. We have to show an ID to purchase a weapon. So Rights and ID’s are not mutually exclusive.
Ergo, we should take no no steps to combat voter fraud, especially the easy things like ID?
The reason the ID needs an address is because you vote for people who represent the district where you live, not where you don’t (Dodd, is it?) nor multiple districts where you want to change the outcome for your political party.
Hey lgm,
Here’s another question you can avoid answering.
Why is it wrong? Please don’t hand me that cock and bull story about the infirmed, because several states will go to their home to provide IDs. Now’s your time to prove that you can actually answer a question. This is the third one I’ve asked you. Please don’t be a seagull.
I have not heard one good argument, so far, as to why we should not require I.D.’s to legally vote in this country. C’mon libs! Give us ONE good reason voters should not be identified as citizens of the United States of America. One! (And please don’t waste your reason on some conspiratorial nonsense!)
A seagull? You mean like pooping all over everything, squawking loudly, harassing passersby, and then leaving triumphantly?
Dear angry black woman,
I never knew what wet back actually meant until I moved to Houston, Texas in 1982. I saw a news report about illegals sneaking into Texas by wading and swimming accross the Rio Grand River.
Please keep in mind, when you actually go into water nyk, you get wet!
Wow, what a concept! This is where illegals sneaking accross our border became to be affectionately called “wet backs”.
Much like the solidarity amongst blacks affectionately saying to one another, wat up n!ggah.
The constitution that liberals despise actually guarantees freedom of speech.
Get over it, liberals are losing step by step!
I’d rather be moving slow than stuck on stupid.
iamsaved #77
Thanks … glad to see someone picked up on the analogy I was trying to make …
Rusty,
Yes, the homeless (US citizens only) have the right to vote; What they usually lack is the motivation. Just like those who refuse to get a POSITIVE PHOTO ID. If they were sincerely interested in voting, they would do whatever it took, within reason. Getting a photo ID at taxpayers expense is, I believe, within reason.
Have to admire the nerve of the mentally defective trolls on this board. Do they actually believe their own reasonings? How does a free ID card deprive anyone here who is an actual citizen? Seems to me there will still be abuses with fake ids and such.
Nice to see LaShawn Barber commenting on stuff other than the musically stuff like the Hansons. At least that’s why I haven’t checked her out in ages.
Wondering how just how this voter id prevents people who have think its ok to vote in several states though. It has been stated that thousands voted for President in 2004 in both Florida and NY? It is easy enough to check with computers and yet there appears to be no penalties incurred by the perps. What happened to one man, one vote and equal protection?
And how about that Wash. state thing with bogus recounts, lost ballots, newly found ballots, etc.? The dem was given that election too.
Don’t worry, rooster, it’s okay when they say it.
Super Mojado
#100 rooster wrote:
So wetback is an “affectionate” term, huh?
rooster, you are special.
Yep! It is here in California. Just like the term “Gringo” or “Ranchero Americano!”
While I agree with you on the premise of your argument that the name is uncalled for, I don’t see you or any other liberal for that matter denouncing Hispanics from calling anyone with a light colored skin a “gringo”. I lost count of the hundreds of times I’ve walked through Phoenix and heard that term used in a negative manner. Little do they know that this gringo has taken some Spanish in college and can understand the majority of the conversations they think are somewhat private.
Not that either case of obvious ethnic slurs are acceptable. I’m just curious why the attacks are only one way?
Alas, this off topic anyhow. Back to the crazy world of liberals arguing against common sense ID checks when the Constitution makes it clear only US Citizens are allowed to vote in the US.
Dear angry black woman,
I am not, and most times will not try to be politicaly correct just to appease the race master baiters like those on your side.
affectionately with hugs,
rooster
The case regarding slavery is precisely the point. When people realized that slavery was unjustifiable the people changed the establish law. They made “good” law better[or more gooder]. Now people understand that not all votes are ‘created’ equal. Therefore, we are fixing the “Good” law to make it better. These laws will ensure that all votes are indeed equal, AND REAL.
yay me!! that’ll lop 10% off the top of the democratic results, to be sure.
Also, the homeless alcoholics most definitely have ID– to buy booze. Again, motivation. If it is something they want, they will find a way.
Those who want to vote, will comply.
Well,the libs and trolls on here who wax all whiny about how this is going to deprive poor or black or whoever of the right to vote aren’t fooling anyone but themselves…the only reason NOT to require that an ID be shown is so that people not qualified to vote can do so…and since they believe they should implement their agenda ‘by any means necessary’, they can justify to themselves letting these people vote….even wetbacks
Anyone without enough gumption to have a legit photo ID is probably incapable of making an intelligent decision in the voting booth anyway. Read: “Tell me who to vote for.”
Let me correct one thing:
…of legal alive US Citizens.
I guess the only people in this country who don’t have an ID card of any sort are Democrats. No Republicans or Independents, right?
Get over yourself. An ID card is very easy to obtain. VERY easy. If you’re alive, voting age, a US citizen, etc.
All others need not apply.
Gringo and wetback are both seen as demeaning, derogatory and/or offensive terms. Granted, they are in our lexicon but neither can be construed as a term of endearment.
Right on! Slurs are wrong unless they are directed at gringos. They are even more accepted when directed at male gringos.
Just illustrate liberal stupidity by using what they use until it fades away, or they pass their hate crime laws against whites
slurs.When they enact laws forbidding affectionate terms, then you best shut up white boy!I can at least understand the Democrat position. Now that IDs are required the illegal alien vote will be that much harder to get. One more reason they’ll try to shove “comprehensive immigration reform” (Amnesty) down our throats before long. This time it won’t happen before the election as they know it is a vote killer.
#108 rooster wrote:
It’s not p.c. to not go around using racial slurs, such as “wet back.” But I’m not surprised you don’t know that…or anything else.
Anyway — have fun revelling in (and revealing) your ignorance and stupidity.
Kisses,
nyk
#115 Barry F.
Of course. However, rooster doesn’t understand logic (or…much else), but thanks for stating the obvious truth.
Hmmm. I wonder why lgm hasn’t answered my question?
Man, that’s what I get for going to lunch…I miss a great thread.
I’m all in favor of Voter ID laws. Over the weekend, I had to pick up something I ordered from Wal-Mart on-line. I had it shipped to a store at no cost.
When I picked it up, I had to show a valid photo ID. No ID? No purchase.
I need an ID to cash a check, buy alcohol, pick up tickets from a will-call window, get a job, write a check at the grocery store, cash my paycheck, and many other things.
Why is it the integrity of something like my internet purchase is more worthy of protection than the ballot box?
Those who cannot vote - be they illegal or felons - cannot vote because of choices they’ve made. The “system” didn’t make them cross the border against the law or commit a crime. The “system” does not make them create fake addresses, vote under the name(s) of dead people, etc.
The “system” is in place to protect my right as a law-abiding legal citizen of the US to cast a vote knowing it won’t be cancelled out by an illegal, fraudulent vote.
There is no reason why we cannot protect the ballot box and our elections.
None.
I’d fully support a program giving free IDs to seniors and those who can’t afford it. Althought, even if an ID is $30/year that comes out to $2.50/month out-of-pocket for an ID.
You cannot tell me all the people who would be “disenfranchised” by this do not hold jobs, do not make purchases, do not write/cash checks, etc.
It’s very simple ‘Concerned Citizen’…because he doesn’t like the fact we use demeaning terms to describe people who SHOULD be demeaned…people who enter the US illegally and then attempt to vote….even Hispanics I know here in Houston call them ‘mojados’ with equal contempt…and rightly so
#107 alaskangrizzly wrote:
Sigh. I specifically called out a commenter here for using the word wetback. My response was to point it out. This was scenario-specific. Not a thesis on racist terms overall. I promise to call out the next commenter here who uses “gringo” pejoratively, but until then…your post has nothing to do with mine.
Yep.
I assume you meant “not good law”. In which case, yes, slavery is not now good law.
No, it is not. The Constitution was not amended to make abortion legal, the way it was to make slavery illegal.
Mohamed Atta (sp?) had 3 drivers licences… guess he coulda voted 3 times, huh? Hey, 9/11 was an election day…
Time for national ID, already.
Rusty
Does this mean that you think nobody should have to produce any ID when buying a gun?
In fact, since gun ownership is a right, why should anyone even have to pay for one? The government should issue every American an assualt rifle at birth.
What ‘nyk’ apparently isn’t capable of comprehending is that the term wetback isn’t racially specific…it applies to ANY ethnic or nationality who enters the country here illegally…if he lived here in Houston where we have to deal with the problem on a daily basis,he might have more insight into the problem
DC allows people to draw a map of where you sleep if you don’t have a legal residence.
There should be no limitations on American citizens to vote. I don’t care if you’re homeless or in prison. You’re still an American citizen who deserves a say. These laws put that in jeopardy. Some people just can’t afford to wait in line at the DMV all day. And not everyone has a computer. These people are at risk of losing their vote. Just because I’m concerned for them doesn’t mean I am an accomplice to terrorists or trying to come up with new dastardly ways to have non-citizens vote.
And, as I’ve said before, this really won’t change much. The people the laws are targeting, illegals, are the people most compelled to have fake identification. It’s the people who aren’t compelled to have ID that are being targeted. And those people are likely to be American citizens.
Best of luck in trying to FIND any homeless people. If you find any, you can also ask them when is the last time they voted. Finally, you can ask them why they don’t simply get some ID. It’s not that difficult.
But they have enough time to wait in line to vote? The library has free access computers. Please give a REAL reason why someone can’t get an ID.
Yes, there should. First, it should be “American citizens” only. Second, that citizen should have to PROVE he/she is who he/she says she is. Third, if you are convicted of a felony, you give up some rights - no one forced you to be a felon.
I’m calling BS on this one. Unless someone works 7 days a week from 9 am - 5 pm without vacation time or lunch breaks, or flexibility, there is time to go to the DMV to get a license. I don’t doubt those who claim work is barring them from doing so find plenty of time to do other things…
I have a right to go to the ballot box believing my vote will count once, and not be cancelled out (or outvoted) by fraudulent votes cast.
Why do I and the millions of other law-abiding citizens not have the right to that security?
Voter fraud is inexcusable.
I’d also like to see the “purple finger” rule enacted here. Make it clear that you’re voting once and that’s it…
Really? None? I should be able to vote in NY, CA, and Florida?
There are limitations on all other other constitutional rights, even the ones spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Why should voting be singled out for differ