The New Poll Tax ?

[Eghad]

I was reading an article about the the new laws some states have passed requiring that only Photo IDs issued by a government office would be permissible to use for ID to vote. There are several other states that have enacted this legislation. Now look at the national ID legislation. According to another article that I read from the Public Safety Department in Texas this legislation is going to raise the cost of a liscense renewal to $104.00. I imagine the prices for a state ID card are going to rise also. How will this effect poor and elderly folks who are on fixed income and cant afford one.

I think the law in Georgia has been overturned by the court and the one in another state was upheld on the first go round in court but is on appeal. I hope they all crash and burn.

I do not support the national ID card as it is a waste of time and tax dollars. Men have probably been forging identity documents since men learned to write. Im thinking that the reason of terrorism is just a ruse for the card. Just another way for uncle to track us in the future.

when you add the National ID Card + new voter ID laws together it seems as if some smart fellow has found another way to disenfranchise certain voters.

[Doug.38PR]

Personally I have no problem with voter ID or a poll tax. Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege. We are not supposed to be a mobocracy. If you can't afford to pay a poll tax then you probably don't need to be voting. If you can't speak american then you shouldn't be voting. If you can't read and write, you probably don't need to be voting. If you can't properly identify yourself indicating that you are a citizen and resident of the State of ________ via a birth certificate or some other documentation, then you should not be voting.

I am not for National ID card either. Not for State Id's either. I think the Feds should have as little on us as possible. Don't trust them. Birth certificate's on public record are all the ID needed.

[CDH]

Right Doug, we can't confuse a national ID card (I totally oppose it) with HAVING to have a photo ID card to be able to vote (I TOTALLY approve of it).

Eghad; you want the cold, hard truth? If someone can't afford the >$10 it would take to get a simple photo ID card in order to go vote, and to have the presence of mind to do it far enough ahead of time so that they will have it with them in time to vote, then that person shouldn't be voting as far as I'm concerned.

Why? Because:
1. A person who can't afford a crummy $10 is already living on government support, and I'll be damned if I want them to vote to take away MORE of my money so they can collect it for themselves, and
2. A person who isn't bright enough or has so little organizational ability to plan ahead and get their voter ID card ahead of time is too stupid to vote. See point #1.

For my part, I'd like to see people not only have to show a photo ID card to vote, but have to bring their tax returns and show that they actually paid the amount in taxes that their income bracket determined that they should.
If you don't pay taxes, don't presume the right to elect Socialist politicians who will take MORE of my hard earned money away from me.

And oh yea, let's provide for the immediate arrest (at the voting location, real time) of anyone attempting to vote fraudulently, and slap them with a 1 year jail sentence with no parole. If they are not citizens, they serve their year and then get deported.

But no, a national ID card is a step in the wrong direction. However, EVERY non-citizen SHOULD be required to carry a "national" ID card at all times or their temporary visa should be revoked.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that all non-citizens are already required to have some kind of ID with them but I doubt if it's enforced like it should be.

Never get me talking about this stuff...

Carter

[gb_in_ga]

Poll Tax: There's a certain beauty to it, in that it tends to insure that the people who are voting are the ones who actually produce something and are therefore taxpayers, hence tends to weed out those who tend to vote for tax & spend programs, bread & circuses, general socialist ripoff schemes, etc. It also tends to cut down on voter fraud by making it not only an exercise in ballot box stuffing, but also costly in monetary terms as well. Sigh, too bad that poll taxes were eliminated by the 24th Amendment. I'd support them if they were legal. And I think that opposition to such being labeled as "racist" is BS in these days, although that might have been true in the past.

Requiring picture ID to vote: I happen to like this one. Nobody says that you have to get a picture ID, just that you have to have a State issued picture ID to prove that you are the one on the rolls. Since this can be done with current State IDs and DLs, I don't see where this adds any extra snooping potential. There's been entirely too much voter fraud over the years, and thats gotta stop! Likewise, I think that those who pitch fits over the requirements for picture ID claiming that it is somehow "racist" are full of bovine excrement -- pure and simple, and I immediately mistrust them, thinking them to be promoters of ballot-box fraud.

[Mike Irwin]

"Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege."

I'd have to disagree. It's a Constitutionally protected right, and is stated as such in 4 amendments to the United States Constitution.

Take special care to note the language of the 24th Amendment.

Amendment 15:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment 19:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Amendment 24:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.


Amendment 26:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

[Ausserordeutlich]

Georgia's i.d. was/will be free. Still didn't satisfy the Dems, who, of course, like to vote their "base" more than once in each election.

[Doug.38PR]

Mr. Irwin.
You are correct in pointing to the following amendments. BUT, note I said we are not SUPPOSED to be a mobocracy. That is in fact what we have become because of the above said amendments you quoted. This is not what the Founding Fathers wanted nor any of their decendants prior to the Reconstruction era, which by then corrupt politicans were, as now, just trying to build voting blocks in all states by making promisies to ignorant and foreign people all across the country just to get in power. Voting other people's money to themselves under the guise of fairness. Hence we now have all the amendments you quoted. Wealth and responsibility was redistributed based on region or race or income level all in the name of fairness and equality. It usually resulted and results in tyranny for EVERYONE. With each new amendment voting is treated as a God given right to everyone. Note each amendment is designed to pull back responsible restrictions on voting to give someone who can't afford, or can't pay or isn't old enough or doesn't have enough education, etc. (ex slaves were to a large extent ignorant and uneducated and hence restrictions on race were seen as a wise insurance to keeping responsible people voting) Each new amendment is designed to create a new voting block for politican X (whatever political party was seeking power)

And the result is what you see today.

[Heist]

By all means, I can't wait until only wealthy white male landowners can vote again.

[smooks75]

What about all the folks that do not vote because they are disheartened about our current voting system? What would you do to help? Any suggestions? If it is a privilege.....why do I currently know of many people that do not vote? They are in ALL walks of life so dont give me the "HIPPIE" syndrome discussion.

[CDH]

Mike Irwin said:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote... etc. (as pertains to each section)

Take note, Mike, that the above words (or meaning of those words) are the common starting phrase of all those Constitutionally protected rights you quoted.

There is no provision in the Constitution for people to vote more than once in the same election, nor for dead people to vote, nor for non-citizens to vote, nor for citizens to vote in races outside their place of residence, nor for people to go vote for someone else who chooses not to vote, .... you get the picture.

The only way that both the spirit and the law of the Constitution you quote be met is for positive ID to be made at the time the "citizen" votes.

Anyone who objects to making sure that both the rights and the requirements of the Constitution are met has an ulterior motive. Period.

Carter

[Cowman]

Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Since when?

I guess all those things in the constitution are privileges. I had this crazy idea I had rights or something.

I better call the government and ask if it's ok if I say this stuff, continue to keep arms, and so forth.

[Doug.38PR]

Heist
You completely missed the point. None of that was to say that we should per se return to white only voting, but return to responsible voting. Were things perfect back then? No Should things have changed? Yes.

But I challenge how they were changed. I challenge the motives behind why they were changed. I also put into context the way men viewed thing back then.

Trying to take 21st century conditions and applying them to 18th-19th century conditions and making blanket judgments is foolish.

Cowman,
Since when did voting ever become a right? I don't think this ever appears anywhere in the constitution prior to the lat 1860s. It certainly wasn't viewed as such by the Founding Fathers. Voting was prior to this viewed as a responsibility given to responsible people.

The Founding Fathers wanted only the wealthy to vote (since they had the most at stake) early but ultimately Jefferson and such wanted it gradually to change to where more and more men were able to become voters who were educated and owned land as more and more states entered the Union and more and more people owned and developed land. They wanted responsible people voting, not everybody out there.

We are supposed to be a republic not a democracy or some would call it a democratic-republic

[Bud Helms]

I'd like to see a voter present an ad velorum tax receipt along with a picture ID in order to vote. That's an outright poll tax and I think it would work just fine. Disenfranchised? More minorities than you think are already paying that poll tax. Some I know are better investors and estate builders than most of us.

Voting is the most precious right a citizen of a republic has. It should be safeguarded, not sold for votes.

[BonnieBlue]

Edited to remove references to the civil war. Antipitas.

...That is why the FF created a government of laws not a government of men. The French had a democracy and the first things they did were to eliminate the provinces, the calendar and the church. This is your precious bloody RIGHT to vote!

[Heist]

So basically, Blue, we should just have Falwell or Oral Roberts make our decisions for us instead of using voting? :barf:

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Doug.38PR

You are correct in pointing to the following amendments. BUT, note I said we are not SUPPOSED to be a mobocracy. That is in fact what we have become because of the above said amendments you quoted.

You would be wrong Doug. It was the 17th amendment that did this.

By electing both the Representatives and Senators by popular vote, we moved within inches of becoming a full democracy. Why do you think so many left leaning types want to do away with the electorial college and make the presidency a popular election also?

[Doug.38PR]

You would be wrong Doug. It was the 17th amendment that did this.

By electing both the Representatives and Senators by popular vote, we moved within inches of becoming a full democracy. Why do you think so many left leaning types want to do away with the electorial college and make the presidency a popular election also?

Well, that is just one more example. The 17th Amendment is another early straw on the camel's back. But they all point to the same thing. As you noted, leftists also want to do away with the electoral college.

That is why the FF created a government of laws not a government of men. The French had a democracy and the first things they did were to eliminate the provinces, the calendar and the church. This is your precious bloody RIGHT to vote!

VERY true. Good point Bonnie.

Another point. If voting truly is a right....then why can't 14 year old citizens vote? Why can't 10 year old citizens vote? Why can't 5 year old's vote? The left, via one of the amendments Mr. Irwin quoted has already rolled it back to 18. Why not 16 or 13 or 5? If voting is a right, then it should be the right of all citizens? Correct?

[Al Norris]

NOW HEAR THIS!

The next person who brings up the civil war when it is outside of the parameters of the current discussion will be banned. No buts. No Ifs. No how!

Voting is a right as enumerated within the Constitution. Period. End of Story. Don't agree with it? Take it up with the people who voted the amendments in. Not here.

[Doug.38PR]

^

............... I thought we were having a nice honest L&P discourse.....what the heck happened?

[Al Norris]

Doug, check your PMs.

[Mike Irwin]

"BUT, note I said we are not SUPPOSED to be a mobocracy."

OK, Doug, two questions.

1. What makes you think that we're a mobocracy?

2. What makes you think that you, personally, should have the right to vote? In other words, explain why you're not a member of the mob of which you appear to be so fearful.

I submit to you that the current voting structure is well in line with what the Founders intended for a number of reasons, primary among those are that property ownership rates are FAR above what they were in Colonial times, and that the average American, even those who did not complete high school, today far exceed the educational levels contemplated by the Founders.

"If voting truly is a right....then why can't 14 year old citizens vote? Why can't 10 year old citizens vote? Why can't 5 year old's vote? The left, via one of the amendments Mr. Irwin quoted has already rolled it back to 18. Why not 16 or 13 or 5? If voting is a right, then it should be the right of all citizens? Correct?"

Why?

Because even the Founding Fathers recognized that no right is always absolute. The age of majority, the age at which an individual becomes fully and legally cognizant in society, has been a legally recognized concept as far back as Babylonia over 3,000 years ago. It was a recognized part of English Common Law as early as 800 A.D.

Trying to frame your argument in those terms is ludicrous.

[Mike Irwin]

"There is no provision in the Constitution for people to vote more than once in the same election, nor for dead people to vote, nor for non-citizens to vote, nor for citizens to vote in races outside their place of residence, nor for people to go vote for someone else who chooses not to vote, .... you get the picture."

And your point is?

The Federal Government, in the Constitution and subsequent U.S. Code, gave the states great leeway in determining how individuals will vote.

Note that in some states, such as Wisconsin, women had the right to vote at the state level as early as the 1870s.

[Mad Martigan]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

Voting is a right as enumerated within the Constitution. Period. End of Story.

Do you think that deserves a little description before the Period? Like, voting is a right for our citizens, or voting once per election is a right. Something along those lines.

[rick_reno]

I'm probably poor copmpared to many of you and I have very little disposable income. I'm not on welfare but my income is limited to my VA disability from Vietnam. Should I have to pay to vote I doubt I would do it. I've voted a solid Republican ticket since I first voted for Nixon in 1968 - I contined doing this until 2004. I might learn slow, but eventually I do learn and in 2004 I voted Libertarian. I doubt I've voted to take away any more of your money.

[tyme]

Originally Posted by CDH

But no, a national ID card is a step in the wrong direction. However, EVERY non-citizen SHOULD be required to carry a "national" ID card at all times or their temporary visa should be revoked.

That doesn't work unless everyone can be stopped and forced to present his papers. You cannot require certain classes of people to carry papers. They can claim they're not in the class you think they are, and then what?