DC Tom Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yeah, except you're not charging anyone to vote. You're not clever for twisting it that way either. Any of the lefty stooges could (and have) come up with that one. It's incidental which is a material difference. The courts would almost certainly argue that, if you require an ID to vote, and you charge for the ID, then you are charging people to vote. One election official was on Eliot Spitzer saying he won't enforce it b/c it was passed too close the election and is thus unfair. Yeah, I can buy that. It shouldn't take that long to get a photo ID, but...new regulation, implemented at the speed of government, less than four months before the election. It hadn't occurred to me until now, but I'm almost surprised the state legislature passed the law intending it to apply in this electoral cycle (almost surprised - I didn't think of it, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone in any state government is even close to being even half as smart as I am drunk and asleep). That's a recipe for a contested election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 If you want a photo ID, which is the only thing you need to vote...and it is required by law...it still costs $13.50. Tell, me. If I want to vote, how much does it cost? Gas is incidental because it is not required to vote. But if I don't have the ID, I am forbidden to vote. ID DNE incidental. ID is required by law. And the minimum I can get the ID for is $13.50. Therefore, minimum cost to vote: $13.50. Now, in a move bound to baffle the best of minds, the fee is waived if you sign an oath that says, more or less, "I have no form of ID in my entire life to prove I'm me." Which makes no sense. So if I have no ID...I can get a photo ID (with anyone's name I guess) for nothing. WTF? Here's the form you sign to waive the fee: http://www.dmv.state...NoProofofID.pdf You sure turned that inside out......................... Before going to PennDOT, a voter should call 1-800-932-4600 to make sure his/her information is in the database. This is especially true if the voter’s driver’s license (or non-driver’s license photo ID) expired before 1990. G. How much does it cost to get a photo ID for voting? We mentioned this earlier, but it’s worth saying again: Photo IDs that will be used for voting purposes are provided free of charge as long as the voter signs the oath/affirmation described in Question D. above. However, it is important for voters to communicate that they need a photo ID for voting when they arrive at a PennDOT Driver’s License Center. Otherwise, the voter could be charged $13.50 – which is what it costs to get a non-driver’s photo ID. There is NO cost if you are getting the ID for voting and sign, its only otherwise that there is a charge. Not the other way around. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 If you want a photo ID, which is the only thing you need to vote...and it is required by law...it still costs $13.50. Tell, me. If I want to vote, how much does it cost? Gas is incidental because it is not required to vote. But if I don't have the ID, I am forbidden to vote. ID DNE incidental. ID is required by law. And the minimum I can get the ID for is $13.50. Therefore, minimum cost to vote: $13.50. Now, in a move bound to baffle the best of minds, the fee is waived if you sign an oath that says, more or less, "I have no form of ID in my entire life to prove I'm me." Which makes no sense. So if I have no ID...I can get a photo ID (with anyone's name I guess) for nothing. WTF? Here's the form you sign to waive the fee: http://www.dmv.state...NoProofofID.pdf I see what you did there. You changed it up from saying it's "charging" $15 to vote to saying it "costs" $15 to vote. These are not necessarily the same thing, but I suspect you already know that, hence the change of phrase. It's all academic anyway b/c as you said the issue is easily resolved by comping the ID for indigents. Although I would maintain the same requirements necessary to get a DL regardless of financial situation. The courts would almost certainly argue that, if you require an ID to vote, and you charge for the ID, then you are charging people to vote. "c-a-t" spells cat regardless of whether 5 stooges in robes say it really spells dog. Sorry, I tend to look to the plain meaning of words before parsing them & here the distinction is fairly clear. Of course, you may be right. I've been meaning to look up my con law notes to compare this but it keeps slippingmy mind. I'll try to get around to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 "c-a-t" spells cat regardless of whether 5 stooges in robes say it really spells dog. Sorry, I tend to look to the plain meaning of words before parsing them & here the distinction is fairly clear. Of course, you may be right. I've been meaning to look up my con law notes to compare this but it keeps slippingmy mind. I'll try to get around to it. Actually, it's not at all that clear. The court decisions against a poll tax had as their basis the idea that voting was a right that any "test" could strip away, and have usually taken a very liberal view of what constitutes a "test". While it's easy (and correct, in my opinion) to make the argument that proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous test when balanced against maintaining the integrity of the electoral system (specifically, "one man, one vote"), it's an equally easy argument to say that requiring a person pay a fee to prove they are who they say they are (and you will have a hard time making a meaningful distinction between "pay a fee to prove they are who they say they are" and "pay a fee to acquire a document that proves they are who they say they are") is an onerous test for at least one person that can't find the money to pay for it (and I can easily think of at least one person who couldn't - a couple of my in-laws are that poor and couldn't find $15 for a photo ID.) And someone will probably bring up the "but if you have a driver's license already, how is it onerous?" or "How do you live in this world without an ID?" points. Quite simply...if anyone files suit against a voter ID law saying the need to acquire proof of identity was disenfranchising, and they drive themselves to the hearing and stop for a six-pack on the way, that case should never be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Actually, it's not at all that clear. The court decisions against a poll tax had as their basis the idea that voting was a right that any "test" could strip away, and have usually taken a very liberal view of what constitutes a "test". While it's easy (and correct, in my opinion) to make the argument that proving you are who you say you are is not an onerous test when balanced against maintaining the integrity of the electoral system (specifically, "one man, one vote"), it's an equally easy argument to say that requiring a person pay a fee to prove they are who they say they are (and you will have a hard time making a meaningful distinction between "pay a fee to prove they are who they say they are" and "pay a fee to acquire a document that proves they are who they say they are") is an onerous test for at least one person that can't find the money to pay for it (and I can easily think of at least one person who couldn't - a couple of my in-laws are that poor and couldn't find $15 for a photo ID.) And someone will probably bring up the "but if you have a driver's license already, how is it onerous?" or "How do you live in this world without an ID?" points. Quite simply...if anyone files suit against a voter ID law saying the need to acquire proof of identity was disenfranchising, and they drive themselves to the hearing and stop for a six-pack on the way, that case should never be heard. What irritates the **** out of me is that you're probably right that someone could argue the case and have a chance of getting a SC justice to go along with it. The landmark case that covers this is South Carolina v. Katzenbach where the court held that congress could outlaw literacy tests as a barrier to the ballot if it was determined that it had a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether it was neutral on its face. This is a far cry from claiming that even a literacy test is inherrently unconstitutional; it simply states that congress iss empowered under the 15th to make that call. It would be quite a leap from that to say that the constitution itself bars a state from requiring an ID to vote, but hey, with the intellectual level of political discourse in the country and the absense of any meaningful measure of judicial restraint by the court, nothing would surprise me at this point. Edit - This is the case most pertinent to the 15th amendment argument. I came back to address the 24th but B-Man beat me to it. Edited August 16, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The charge leveled against photo ID requirements has a particularly nasty echo: It is, critics say, no different than the Jim Crow poll tax used in Southern states until the mid-1960s to keep blacks from the voting booth. But the Supreme Court has addressed that issue. In a 2008 decision (6-3) upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, the opinion of the court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens — certainly no conservative — dismissed the poll tax argument on the grounds that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud. Justice Stevens said that neither was there “any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification.” The “risk of voter fraud” was “real,” he said, and there was “no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Famous Paul Weyrich speech to close: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Famous Paul Weyrich speech to close: What issue do you take with the dude's speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 What issue do you take with the dude's speech? I think it's a lovely speech. As Romney recently pointed out to Obama the politics of "division and attack and hatred". If Weyrich were alive today Romney could use his vision on unifying our electorate and bringing people together to make our country better. My only issue with Weyrich would be his stance on outsourcing which puts him at odds with Bain Capital; "If we want to stop or at least reduce outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, we should tax outsourcing. In my view, that would be a good new tax." http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/weyrich/060320 We need more outsourcing in my opinion, I mean 8% of all U.S. adult workers are in unions. That is a crazy high number given its 2012! We need to follow Scott Walker's advice on the politics of divide an conquer to turn the people against public sector workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) You sure turned that inside out......................... There is NO cost if you are getting the ID for voting and sign, its only otherwise that there is a charge. Not the other way around. . Read the oath. There is a charge unless you have no ID. Said another way, you can't get a free voter ID if you have certain other photo IDs. It's wacky. Edited August 16, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 (2) People won't know about the law change until they show up to vote Plus, how are people supposed to know about their right to vote in the first place? I think the government should hire people to go door to door to register voters. And then to deliver ballots to everyone's house on election day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I think it's a lovely speech. As Romney recently pointed out to Obama the politics of "division and attack and hatred". If Weyrich were alive today Romney could use his vision on unifying our electorate and bringing people together to make our country better. My only issue with Weyrich would be his stance on outsourcing which puts him at odds with Bain Capital; "If we want to stop or at least reduce outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries, we should tax outsourcing. In my view, that would be a good new tax." http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/weyrich/060320 We need more outsourcing in my opinion, I mean 8% of all U.S. adult workers are in unions. That is a crazy high number given its 2012! We need to follow Scott Walker's advice on the politics of divide an conquer to turn the people against public sector workers. I always get a chuckle at libs whining about outsourcing. Even if it weren't a manufactured issue from 04 to give Democrats something to talk about even though they can't, won't, & haven't done anything about it, the best part is your argument contradicts the core of your ideology. And most of you don't even know it. You just march to the piper's tune as though it were your own. and the best part is, you feel morally superior for being your master's tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I always get a chuckle at libs whining about outsourcing. Even if it weren't a manufactured issue from 04 to give Democrats something to talk about even though they can't, won't, & haven't done anything about it, the best part is your argument contradicts the core of your ideology. And most of you don't even know it. You just march to the piper's tune as though it were your own. and the best part is, you feel morally superior for being your master's tool. Outsourcing is inevitable. But--unless I'm missing something--our country was much MUCH better off when manufacturing provided a more reliable backbone to our national economy. Again, I could be wrong, but from what I hear, from what I see, manufacturing jobs (which paid pretty, pretty nice) have left in boatloads (technology is to "blame" for a lot of that too, I acknowledge), and since they've left the American standard for living has plummeted. So, assuming I'm not wrong (that we've lost manufacturing jobs en masse, and that the workforce vacuum has sucked quality of life right down with it), and if outsourcing is partly to blame, but unavoidable, where/how do we re-generate those manufacturing jobs, or the equivalent (in pay and stability), and how do we do so as quickly as they're disappearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieScooby Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Outsourcing is inevitable. But--unless I'm missing something--our country was much MUCH better off when manufacturing provided a more reliable backbone to our national economy. Again, I could be wrong, but from what I hear, from what I see, manufacturing jobs (which paid pretty, pretty nice) have left in boatloads (technology is to "blame" for a lot of that too, I acknowledge), and since they've left the American standard for living has plummeted. So, assuming I'm not wrong (that we've lost manufacturing jobs en masse, and that the workforce vacuum has sucked quality of life right down with it), and if outsourcing is partly to blame, but unavoidable, where/how do we re-generate those manufacturing jobs, or the equivalent (in pay and stability), and how do we do so as quickly as they're disappearing? As the world's reserve currency the US dollar has allowed us to run massive trade deficits yet not seem to be able to devalue our currency where we could become a strong exporter. Think about that for a moment there is more money leaving our country for goods and services than coming in. Thankfully the U.S. multinational corporations that run our country have decided it may be in their best interests to bring some of this manufacturing home. I mean a couple of decades more of this and we won't have the military power to protect their global trade routes and their business interests around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Outsourcing is inevitable. But--unless I'm missing something--our country was much MUCH better off when manufacturing provided a more reliable backbone to our national economy. Again, I could be wrong, but from what I hear, from what I see, manufacturing jobs (which paid pretty, pretty nice) have left in boatloads (technology is to "blame" for a lot of that too, I acknowledge), and since they've left the American standard for living has plummeted. So, assuming I'm not wrong (that we've lost manufacturing jobs en masse, and that the workforce vacuum has sucked quality of life right down with it), and if outsourcing is partly to blame, but unavoidable, where/how do we re-generate those manufacturing jobs, or the equivalent (in pay and stability), and how do we do so as quickly as they're disappearing? The American standard of living has plummeted? Really? I'm over 50 and go back when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's and compare the two eras. Compare the cars, home entertainment, phones, tablets, computers that everyone has today to what we had or didn't have back then. Try to find the variety of foods in the grocery store we have today back then. The variety of affordable restaurants, convenience stores, cleaner air and water. I'm sorry but the standard of living in this country has not plummeted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The American standard of living has plummeted? He didn't say standard "of" living." He said standard "for" living. I'm not sure what the difference is, but I suspect he'll come up with one before calling you a dumbass and explaining that he wasn't not saying what you thought he was saying before arguing against it the last time he was for not being against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Not surprising that the right-wing nut jobs who obsessively hover over this place for constant validation had trouble grasping the complexities of life. It's a ****ty law. But sensible and reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 The American standard of living has plummeted? Really? I'm over 50 and go back when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's and compare the two eras. Compare the cars, home entertainment, phones, tablets, computers that everyone has today to what we had or didn't have back then. Try to find the variety of foods in the grocery store we have today back then. The variety of affordable restaurants, convenience stores, cleaner air and water. I'm sorry but the standard of living in this country has not plummeted. As far as I can tell, the biggest standard of living challenge that we have today that wasn't around as much 50 years ago is obesity, and people are fatasses by choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 The American standard of living has plummeted? Really? I'm over 50 and go back when I was a kid in the 60's and 70's and compare the two eras. Compare the cars, home entertainment, phones, tablets, computers that everyone has today to what we had or didn't have back then. Try to find the variety of foods in the grocery store we have today back then. The variety of affordable restaurants, convenience stores, cleaner air and water. I'm sorry but the standard of living in this country has not plummeted. Are you saying the exodus of American manufacturing had no affect on communities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 As far as I can tell, the biggest standard of living challenge that we have today that wasn't around as much 50 years ago is obesity, and people are fatasses by choice. I think our obesity problem has to do with our current standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts