First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings; Voter ID Law-hating Media Fail to Note Obama Hypocrisy
The Obama administration has done its best to oppose states from instituting new, stricter voter ID laws, complaining that many minority voters lack photo identification. But those same folks it wants voting in November are apparently not welcome anywhere near the First Lady's book signings. Something tells me that the same media outlets comparing voter ID laws to the Jim Crow Laws, however, won't see any hint of hypocrisy here, if they even report the story at all.
As stated on the blog Obama Foodorama:
On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee. At the same time, customers must also submit their social security number and show an official photo ID (driver's license, passport) to a Secret Service agent, and they will be issued a wristband to the First Lady's event on June 12.( Emphasis added)
The liberal media, particularly Obama-boosting cable network MSNBC has done its best to attack voter ID laws as discriminatory at best and racist at worst.
Appearing on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner in March, former DNC Communications Director Karen Finney managed to connect the Trayvon Martin shooting to Voter ID laws.
In December MSNBC gave a platform to former NAACP chairman Julian Bond, who charged of voter ID laws that "They are racist in intent and aimed at vulnerable people in our population."
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have spoken actively against requiring ID to be presented at polling places. They've maintained this stance despite the fact that a recent Fox News poll reveals a full 70 percent of Americans believe voter ID laws are necessary to stop voter fraud. The poll shows that 52 percent of Democrats agree, as do 68 percent of women and 58 percent of Non-whites, both voting blocs that Democrats see as crucial to their electoral success.
- John Bates's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
DOJ
Submitted by desert3030 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 1:22pm.
Will Holder dispatch the DOJ to this obvious racist move by the frist lady?
I'm thinking of starting a Michelle Obama Gaffe List
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:02pm.
This entry is certainly worthy.
Anyone else have thoughts? I mean, we MUST exclude her wardrobe choices.....else I'd never finish it, she makes more gaffes, wardrobe-wise, than Biden does while speaking.
Obviously, the "first time in my life I'm proud of my country" is a horrible gaffe. Anything else?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Personally?
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:11pm.
I can't think of Mooch ever having anything to say that I could give a rat's ass about
gaffe
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:22pm.
while I don't think it was ever confimed because somebody in the media would actually have to ask a question - the comment on the Flag folding ceremony has always really, really bothered me.
I don't know that it would be considered a gaffe, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:22pm.
except maybe politically, but the infamous death glare the nasty-visaged sASSquatch laid on the foreign leader's significant other surely speaks to the acerbic nature of the minimal personality she possesses.
MD
Michelle - You and Jimmy Carter got it right. ID required.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:39pm.
The R's need to listen up here - they own the popular view.
Allow me to reference a proper analysis by John Fund, a few years back, regarding the recommendations of the Carter-Baker Election Reform Commission, "WSJ - Jimmy Carter is Right" (my bold):
The Carter-Baker commission issued 87 recommendations to improve the functioning of election systems.[..]
[One] was that 18 of 21 commissioners backed a requirement that voters show some form of photo identification. They argued that with Congress passing the Real ID Act to standardize security protections for drivers' licenses in all 50 states, the time had come to standardize voter ID requirements.
Yes - even former President Jimmy Carter supported it. Are they going to call him a racist?
Note: National polling has long illustrated that such has super majority support amongst voters. Let's call it a popular, or, populist view.
Yet, how'd the left react to this super majority view (18 of 21 commissioners on a bipartisan panel)?
Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle joined two other commissioners in complaining that the ID requirements would be akin to a Jim Crow-era "poll tax" and would restrict voting among the poor or elderly who might lack such an ID.
Mr. Daschle's racially charged analogy is preposterous. Almost everyone needs photo ID in today's modern world. Andrew Young, the former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador, believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a video or cash a check, "requiring ID can help poor people" who otherwise might be even more marginalized by not having one.
Don't expect to see anyone in the national MSM bring in a Jimmy Carter, or Andrew Young, and allow them to present their views.
They're still using this lame shrill and dishonest method of pushing their liberal - minority - view.
Are we going to let the radical left win this again, by allowing them to paint the super majority of Americans as an intolerant and/or racist small bunch of outcasts, or, are we going to stand up and till the loud, but small bunch of leftists that they are wildly outnumbered and to shut-up?
(;~/ Gary
Disenfranchisement
Submitted by r.valynn on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:45pm.
Someone call the DOJ! It will obviously impact who can BUY her meaningless book. We can't have that!
More Obama Hypocrisy:
Submitted by robbied on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 2:58pm.
White House tours also require an official photo ID .From www.whitehouse.gov/about/tours-and-events
All guests 18 years of age or older will be required to present a valid, government-issued photo identification (detailed below). All foreign nationals must present their passport. All other forms of foreign identification will not be accepted.
All information submitted (e.g. name, date of birth, city, etc.) must exactly match the government-issued photo ID you will present when arriving at the White House.
The following forms of photo ID are acceptable for presentation to USSS upon entry to the White House complex:
Valid government-issued United States identification card (e.g. drivers license, military ID, etc.)
Valid United States or other official government-issued passports
No other forms of identification will be accepted; photocopies, expired IDs, or other transmissions of these documents are NOT valid.
Michelle, for being the sharp
Submitted by inquiringmind on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:04pm.
Michelle, for being the sharp go getter they have built her up to be she seems to do a lot of puff appearances. At least Hilliary as first lady tried to do something of substance.
Michelle just tells us to eat better and not drink so much sugared water.
Somwhat different topic: Anyone else see the irony in not being able to buy a Big Gulp in NYC but I can buy and own a bag of pot.
Pot is medicine.
Submitted by ThisnThat on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:21pm.
Come on, now, when's the last time a big gulp has been prescribed for a painful medical condition, huh? wink. wink.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Racist? Or just typically--a nuisance
Submitted by StarAZ on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:10pm.
You wouldn't want the presidency to be consistent and make sense, would you? Where's the fun in that? This woman, who knows absolutely zip about gardening, wrote a gardening book--that is the real joke.
I don't know
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:42pm.
Everything else she's done was pretty much "phone it in" type of stuff-we sure she actually wrote this?
There are too many racists in America
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:13pm.
Why even the people who sell alcohol and cigarettes are racists, they all demand photo ID to buy their products! In fact the police enforce this racist policy by fining any store owner who sells these products without demanding said photo ID. That said, alcoholism should be the lowest per capita by liberal criteria since these poor people are being discriminated against by denying them access to the simple pleasures of beer and wine, never mind those dirty cigarettes. Is that true? If you think so, I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
Employers and the IRS are racists, they require a copy of your photo ID to fill an I-9 form out for employment. So now wonder all these people are unemployed, they don't have photo IDs to fill out the paperwork.
The DMV is the chief racist agency in the US, in every state in the Union, these Jim Crow wannabes issue photo IDs or you aren't allowed to drive. Never you mind they issue personal state photo IDs for free or least cheaper than a six pack of beer or pack of cigarettes.
The community pool is racist, many if not most of them issue photo ID for just using the pool.
Some libraries are racist, as some have photo ID for the user card, but they definitely are all racist none the less since they all require some sort of ID just to get their library card.
Schools are racists, since they issue photo ID just to get into them and for getting lunches. They have the nerve to demand ID from parents to enroll their kids in school in many cases.
Of course the military it goes without saying is racist, they issue photo ID upon enlistment and have the nerve to require it's display upon demand.
ICE is definitely racist, they issue a photo ID called the Green Card just allow a resident alien to work. Racist, definitely racist.
For the obtuse among us: /sarcasm/
Social Security number?
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:41pm.
If I have the required photo ID why on earth should I also be required to provide my SSN?
Is this to keep illegal aliens from getting too close to Mrs. Horse's Ass? Or do they want it just in case someone says something MO dislikes so she can have the IRS perform a thorough rectal exam on the offender?
And you have to leave at the store the book you just bought? WTF is that all about? This whole "event" sounds like BO's administration: One giant cluster-f***.
If they don't match then what?
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:12pm.
Actually, as far as local police are concerned the only thing you are required to give to them IF you don't have your photo ID on you is your SSN. Anyone giving false information to the police are subject to arrest.
IF you don't have a valid SSN, then either you are a minor who is not being claimed on a 1040 form (very rare) OR an illegal alien (very common) OR an resident alien with an ITIN.
Amazing...
Submitted by linebb956 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 4:34pm.
When I was a kid .. I would question my parents and they would say... do as I say not as I do. It did not make since then.. nor now!
And it says on your SS card not to be used as identification. At least it does mine.. but it is old.. back when we gave a crap!
We can't ask for ID to vote.. but can to buy her book... Our world is just messed up.
wrong-headed headline!
Submitted by Cikamarko on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 6:48pm.
Dear John,
I'm not sure if you or the Newsbusters organization is responsible for the headline, "First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings" but it is misleading.
I think it is the Secret Service that is making the requirement, for security reasons, not the first lady herself. Even your article implies this.
My response
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:24am.
Dear Cikamarko,
Talk about purposely going out of your way to miss the point!
- Unsane
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Apples and Oranges
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:14pm.
I have found the section of the Pennsylvania Constitution that guarantees a right to vote -- it's Article VII, Section 1:
"Every citizen 21 [now 18] years of age, possessing the following qualifications [relating to citizenship and residency requirements], shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact."
I cannot seem to find the section that provides a Constitutional right to approach the First Lady at a book signing.
A law requiring voters to show photo ID to exercise their Constitutional right to vote when the Constitution does not so require is unconstitutional. You can read more about it here:
http://freeandequalpa.wordpress.com/summary-of-applewhite-petition/
Oh look, a new troll!
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:18pm.
or maybe a new name for the one who was so recently ousted.
No one said anything about a Constitutional right to approach the First Lady, just how ridiculous it is that she requires such proof of identification, simply to get a signature on a book. But to vote, to take part in deciding who will guide us from local to federal government, the left doesn't believe we should ask anyone to prove who they are, and that they are citizens with the right to vote.
The First Lady is no "lady"*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:26pm.
This is another example of why we call her "Mooch-elle".
I can see why an ID is needed for security purposes, but what is that about not being able to keep a book you bought? Is that so she can sell again and again and again...?
Caj
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:32pm.
I'm kind of wondering why she needs SS numbers. Is she looking for illegal aliens? And the book thing is really strange....
Agree Ms Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:38pm.
EVERYTHING the Obama's do has been weird. Look deep and there is a hidden agenda somewhere. Maybe to add to their mailing list, check voter registration, who knows. Spooky stuff.
Good evening Caj and Rad
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:40pm.
Y'all may not think she's a lady but she dresses like a lady of the evening.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:50pm.
*snicker*
Coco
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:51pm.
So funny, and so true!!
So, it's your contention
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:25pm.
The Constitution, setting requirements for voting, would not be in agreement with vetting such requirements?
Restless*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:29pm.
Questions...Did cameras exist in 1778? Driver's licenses? Xerox machines? SS cards?
Land deeds
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:33pm.
I know what did exist in the 1700's: land deeds, which is why only land owners could legally vote. It was, at the time, the only way to legally establish residency.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Caj,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:37pm.
See Cobra's response above. Restrictions on voting have been eased as time goes has passed, (age of voting, VRA, etc...), but up until recently, I don't remember being so lax in checking that these requirements are met.
Are you saying that as vetting these requirements gets easier, we should stop checking?
Good Heavens NO Restless*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:53pm.
In 1778, there was less than one million population in the US. Today we have over 330 million. People come here by plane, trains, boats and tunnels unlike 300 yrs ago. There was no Bureau of Vital Statistics, no Social Security, no IRS, no DMV's. My point was that things change. The difficulty in sheer numbers eligible to vote presents a problem the founders anticipated. "Qualifications" is a broad spectrum that now we can be more circumspect as to protecting our "rights'. A voter ID to me is not only asking very little but it is otherwise essential to identify qualified voters to keep from de-valuing our vote by allowing fraudsters and dead people from voting away our rights.
Keeping the right to vote, and our vote is our voice, should be a priority for our country with the changes in our technology and society that our founders never even dreamed of but anticipated as evidenced by the language of the constitution.
amend
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:39pm.
So you can amend the Constitution. But until then, the Legislature cannot pass laws that violate it.
How would it violate it?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:44pm.
How would the ID law violate the state constitution? The constitution doesn't state what is or is not a valid way of verifying residence. That's left up to the legislators to decide.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
keep reading
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:36pm.
The Constitution specifically tells the Legislature how it can vet the requirement -- by requiring and regulating REGISTRATION.
And there's aprocess for that..
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:40pm.
And there's a process for registration, part of which is the requirement for residency verification. The constitution doesn't say how that verification will be accomplished, it left that up to the legislators to decide. If the legislators decide that a state-issued id is the requirement, then there's nothing unconstitutional about it. It all depends on what the legislators decide is the proper way to establish legal residency.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes there's a process -- a REGISTRATION process
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:48pm.
The Legislature could, without violating this section of the Constitution, require voters to show photo ID when they REGISTER. It cannot require them to show it when they vote, which is what the laws do.
It doesn't say ID's cannot be checked
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:53pm.
Therefor, the power to do that is up to the states, via the 10th amendment.
Oh I see, it's unconstitutional
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:01pm.
The states are authorized by the constitution to enact the laws regulating the voting process but it's unconstitutional for states to have laws regulating the voting process. Makes perfect sense.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Try reading the Constitutional Provision I posted again.
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:10pm.
The PENNSYLVANIA Constitution permits the PENNSYLVANIA Legislature to pass laws relating to voter REGISTRATION. It does not say the "voting process." It says registration.
In other words...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:12pm.
it doesn't say anything disallowing voters from being required to show ID.
Perfect sense again
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:29pm.
Voter registration is not part of the voting process.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Coco
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:40pm.
This troll is spinning and spinning and not gettin' anywhere. Poor baby.
You flipped it
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:15am.
Voter registration is part of the "voting process." But the "voting process" is much broader than just voter registration. With respect to voter qualifications, the PA Constitution limits the Legislature to regulating the narrower piece -- voter registration.
You used to have to own land to vote
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:43pm.
To ensure residency. Want to go back to that? Or should a driver's license suffice?
"Following qualifacations"
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:29pm.
"possessing the following qualifications"
How do you determine if someone has "the following qualifications" in regards to residency? Oh, I know, you use an ID card, dumb ass!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
you are embarrassing yourself
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:42pm.
You determine if voters possess the proper qualifications by requiring them to REGISTER. That's why the Constitution says the Legislature can pass law relating to REGISTRATION.
Obnly a resident can regester
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:49pm.
Only a legal resident can register to vote in any given district in any given state. How do you insure that the person seeking registration is a legal resident? I guess you have to ask for some form of identification, correct?
Also, once you have registered and go to vote, how do you prove that you are actually the person who's name is listed on the registration? Once again, I guess you need an ID.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
30 days
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:52pm.
Yes, when they register, which, by law, must happen at least 30 days before the election. Not the day of the election. There is no same day registration in PA.
Why does showing ID scare you so much?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:54pm.
You have to do it if pulled over by the cops, to open a bank account, get a library card, etc.
Where did I say a law requiring ID scares me?
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:59pm.
I said it violates the Pennsylvania Constitution.
From your link
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:05pm.
subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-bates/2012/06/06/first-lady-requires-p...
So the General Assembly may enact laws requiring ID's at the pols.
No,
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:07pm.
The Legislature may enact laws relating to REGISTRATION. Registration, at least in PA, is completed at least 30 days before voting, not at the polls.
Where does it say, in no uncertain terms
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:10pm.
that ID's cannot be asked for? You still haven't answered why this would be such an imposition.
Whether
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:19pm.
It is an imposition is irrelevant. It would not be an imposition to require every gun owner to register their firearms with the government. But it would violate the Second Amendment.
That doesn't violate the Second Amendment
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:27pm.
Federal registrations of firearms, in and of itself, would not violate the second amendment, The second amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that the right to keep and bear arms anonymously shall not be infringed. As long as the registration of those firearms itself doesn't infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear them, no violation has occurred.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The NRA
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:32pm.
Appears to disagree with you: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2012/nra-ila-firearms-fact-card-...
They are wrong.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:37pm.
If the NRA is claiming that a federal firearms registration is a violation of the Second Amendment, then they are wrong. It is a violation of the 10th Amendment, not the Second Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution doesn't delegate the federal government the power, the authority, to require firearms registration.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Learn to read
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:53pm.
the NRA does not say that registration violates the second amendment.
Troll along now little fellow.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
So?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:05pm.
Ok, so, what's unconstitutional about requiring someone to validate that they are the person who is registered? That registration doesn't include things like a photo. There's no way, in the registration itself, to show if the person who is voting is actually the person who is registered to vote. It would be prudent, and not unconstitutional, for the state to ask people to prove that they are the person who is listed on the registration before they are allowed to vote.
A voter registration card isn't a "bearer instrument." It can't be used by anyone who happens to be holding it. It can only be used by the person for whom it was issued. There's no reason that the state can't ask people to prove that they are the person who is registered. That doesn't violate their constitutional right to vote.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Constitutional Solution
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:05pm.
Would be to photograph the voter when they register and print that photo in the poll book. Then, the photo requirement would be part of the registration process, which the Constitution allows the Legislature to regulate.
I did not write the Constitution. I'm just reading it.
The Constitutional solution
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:20pm.
The Constitutional solution is to let the legislators decide how someone will legally prove their identity. If that is by the use of a State issued ID card, so be it. Why waste all the time and expense of printing a photo on each registration card and printing thousands of those photos on the voter registration rolls when you can simply ask people to provide a photo ID themselves?
The Constitution left it up to the legislators to decide, via legislation, as how someone may register, in what form the registration will be issued, and to how the registration will be applied. That means that the legislators can determine how someone will verify that they are a legal resident when they first apply for registration and that the registration card they present at the precinct actually belongs to them. Anything they decide, and enact as law, via legislation in this regard is fully constitutional.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Expense is not an excuse
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:29pm.
You cannot violate a Constitutional provision because complying with it would be expensive.
Also, you could turn your question around to ask: Why spend all of the time and money passing a new law that will cost millions to implement when there is no evidence that any fraud that would have been prevented by requiring a voter to show ID (i.e. voter impersonation fraud) actually occurs?
And to head off the usual irrelevant talking points: Examples of fraudulent voter registrations or fraudulent absentee ballots do not count -- none of those instances would have been cured by a requirement that voters show ID at the polls.
Cobra's point was that the law could require
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:36pm.
state ID's to be used, rather than issue one when registering to vote.
Actually, fraudulent voter registrations would be hampered by showing ID because driver's licenses in have a picture, name, and address on them. If someone registers a fake name for the purpose of voting more than once, or is not a legal resident of that area, they will have difficulty obtaining a license, and thus have difficulty.
Secondly, do you have a lock on your house? Or are you waiting to be robbed before you take that action?
Irrelevant talking points?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:46pm.
"And to head off the usual irrelevant talking points"
What irrelevant talking points would that be? I didn't make any.
You claimed that a law requiring people to show valid ID at the precinct would be unconstitutional, I just showed you that it isn't. You said that it would be necessary to print everyone's photo on the registration cards and the registration rolls. I just showed you that it isn't.
As for the cost of implementing the requirement to produce a valid ID at the precinct, it wouldn't cost a dime. It certainly wouldn't cost millions of dollars. It may cost you, personally, of course, if you don't have an ID card. If that is the case, you can go out and get one. It may cost you 25 dollars or so, but that's not a lot of money. That's a night at the movies. You should have one already. You're going to need it, sooner or later.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I must have missed it.
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:10am.
I know you did not make any -- that's why I said "head off."
I saw you simply say that the law is not unconstitutional, but I did not see you "show" or prove that a law that does not regulate registration complies with a Constitutional provision that only permits the Legislature to regulate registration.
The PA House of Representatives, when it passes a bill, has to prepare a Fiscal Note to explain how much the bill will cost the state: More than $1 million for FY 2012/2013:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/FN/2011/0/HB0934P3166.pdf
The PA Senate has to do the same thing: $4.8 million in FY 2012:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/SFN/2011/0/HB0934P3166.pdf
You still don't get it, do you?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:22am.
You still don't get it, do you? If it is up to the legislators to determine how a registration is issued, then it is up to the legislators to decide how you will prove that the issued registration actually belongs to you and not to some else, or even if such proof is necessary. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.
Conversely, you haven't shown how it IS unconstitutional.
By the way, just how will it cost the state a million dollars? The bureaucracy needed for a State to issue valid ID's is already in place. It's not like they have to start from scratch. And instructing precinct captains, or precinct workers, to check ID's before allowing people to vote can't possibly be that expensive. I'm not going to follow your links because they're in a PDF format and my browser doesn't open them.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Good night Cobra
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:24am.
I'm going to bed, see you later. Enjoy your ride on the Balboabyanothername merry-go-round. I've enjoyed as much of it as I can stand for tonight.
Gd bless you, you'll need it with this little fool.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
opps
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:26am.
opps, sorry, wrong post.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Free
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:32am.
Free, explain to me how regulations requiring proof that the person who claims to be registered is actually the person who is registered is NOT a type of voter registration regulation? It deals specifically with voter registration. Your argument seems to be that the regulation deals with registrations that have already been issued, but how it that a violation of the constitution?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
He can't.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:37am.
Yet another idiot that thinks something is banned because the Constitution of the United States specifically did not mention it.
I should be allowed to show up at a polling station with a bazooka, a banana taped to my forehead, naked, greased down head to toe with axle grease, dragging a backpack full of grenades, and carrying a sign that says "Today, you die. Enjoy!"
Because, hey, the Constitution does not say I can't do that, now does it?
LMAO!!!!!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:55am.
The Vet nails it again!!!! I'm still rolling with laughter!!!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
You are just laughing because the banana fell off.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:58am.
Note to self: Tape the banana BEFORE greasing yourself down.
Your killing me!!! LOL!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 1:15am.
You have such a way with descriptive words!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
So, the only "relevant" points, then, are those ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:51pm.
that you choose to deem relevant, eh, freeandequalpa?
So far your only point has been to hammer registration.
What, exactly, in the real world, does that have to do with the stupidity of crying 'disenfranchisement' of minority voters relative requiring a photo ID to ensure a person is who they say they are preparatory to entering the voting booth?
MD
freeandequalpa
Submitted by jimmynoname on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 1:59pm.
You cannot take a word, a sentence or a phrase out of the Constitution or any law for that matter to prove a point, as you are trying to do. You must read the document in its entirety to understand what a particular reference is speaking to. Your ignorant, stupid, comments regarding voter registration are ignorant and stupid, which is why none of the other commentators agree with you. The only problem is that you can't teach a stupid ass such as yourself why you are wrong when all you keep saying is "I'm not wrong" in so many words.
Why in the world would any law require registration of a human being to perform a specific act, but then turn around and say that requesting that someone to show evidence of compliance is not required. That is ridiculous and so is your obstinacy regarding any agreement or acknowledgment of other people's attempts to educate you.
Your position is akin to saying that yes, there are laws that make it unlawful to drive with a blood alcohol % above a certain limit, but then make it illegal for anyone to perform a test to measure a drivers blood alcohol content for compliance with the law.
If a governing unit makes a law regulating a certain behavior, but is not allowed to monitor compliance of that behavior, then one can reasonably infer that no law exists. Very simple. Very logical. I bet a dolphin could even understand it, but apparently freeandstupidinpa does not have the intelligence of a dolphin.
jimmynoname
Unless you can point to where the Constitution
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:36pm.
SPECIFICALLY forbids the states from requiring proof of citizenship at the polls, via registration card, photo ID, or a chip in in ass, then you are whistling Dixie.
The Second Amendment
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:55pm.
Does not SPECIFICALLY forbid the government from requiring gun owners to use trigger locks when they store their firearms, but the Supreme Court still found that requirement unconstitutional:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=district+of+columbia+v+heller&h...
Why did they find it unconstitutional?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:07am.
Why did they find that law constitutional? Because it violated the 10th Amendment. That Amendment SPECIFICALLY forbids the federal government from assuming authority over things that are not SPECIFICALLY delegated to them in the Constitution.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Very first line of the opinion
Submitted by freeandequalpa on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:20am.
"We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
Then they are wrong
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:48am.
If that is what they claim, then they are wrong. A trigger lock is the same as a trigger safety. It prevents the gun from firing accidentally. That's not a violation of the Second Amendment, even if the federal government requires it, for it doesn't prevent someone from using a firearm, as long as they have the key, as all firearm owners would have already.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Actually it does
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 10:32am.
"...shall not be infringed".
Obviously the court found that prohibiting firearms, or requiring they be unassembled, or otherwise rendered inoperable, qualifies as an infringement.
Does it say that the right to vote shall not be infringed, or denied?
Declaring victory here.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:08am.
Another troll PWNED!!!!
In other words . . .
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:44am.
Restless 1: 3
Troll: 0
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
OK...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:25am.
So you don't care about the integrity of elections either.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Leave it at the store?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:31pm.
"On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee."
What, does the Secret Service think that someone's going to hollow out the interior of the book and use it to smuggle in a weapon or something? Talk about over kill!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
This sounds like just another headline:
Submitted by bkeyser on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 10:44pm.
"Security Concerns Force First Lady to Require ID's at Book Signing" or something to that effect. You see, it's a dangerous world out there for poor black folk from DC. Whitey might get em. So sad. We really should vote for them. So. Sad.
If I'm not mistaken, the Boy
Submitted by killa37 on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 11:14pm.
If I'm not mistaken, the Boy Baraka campaign has staged a number of events where this same sort of process was going on - having to show ID and that type of thing, so it's no surprise that Mooooooooooochelle 'Imelda' Obama would use the same criteria............although I can't imagine why ANYBODY would want to read her stupid 'I'm a nutrition expert' book anyway!!!
If you're gettin' (Obamaspeak) close to them they want to know who you are............but if you're votin' for them, they don't need to know anything else, since they're just usin' you anyhow. I don't think the 'blacks', 'latinos', 'gays', or even the damn 'white folks' are doin' any better since Boy Baraka was coronated, and he's even proven to the unions and other backers that they're just useful idiots to him as well. And Moooooooochelle??? She doesn't give a Clysdale's rear end about ANYONE but herself either!!
The bottom line is this:
Submitted by dscott on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:19am.
IF the Secret Service detail can require photo ID for anyone to participate in Michelle's event as a reasonable precaution for her safety, then should any less diligence be shown for safe guarding that everyone's vote matters? Every fraudulent vote by someone not respecting the process is a disenfranchisement of those who exercise their right to choose who governs them. The very foundation of a Republican form of government is at stake in government by consent of the governed.
IF the Democrats can’t win by cheating, then they are really a minority party on the order of Socialists, Communists and the other fringe political groups. They are literally the mouse that roared or Bullwinkle’s Mr. Big.
All of this means we are on the proper track when it comes to focusing on voter integrity measures:
1) Verification of write in ballots.
2) Purging voter roles of dead people and those who moved out of the area.
3) Voter ID to ensure those who are entitled to vote don’t have their votes cancelled out by those who are seeking to disenfranchise them.
4) Social Security # check of everyone who registers to vote.
Voting is not simply an individual right to be exercised, it is a duty to responsibly choose those who exercise power over the governed. The legitimacy of any Republican form of government hangs solely on the integrity of the voting process otherwise voting becomes a formality for the ruling elite. The exercise of power is not a right of any group, it is a responsibility to be sincerely and judiciously executed with great trepidation, anything less is flippancy.
The opposition by liberals to voter ID smacks of intentionally enabling vote fraud and in fact makes them complicit when it takes place by refusing to secure the process. When it takes a photo ID to buy beer, wine and cigarettes, then you have no argument to claim the poor will be disenfranchised since they demonstrated they have ready access to these things using photo ID. The claim by liberals that there are not enough places for the poor to obtain photo IDs is equally absurd on it's face, they demonstrated the means to access government benefits at government offices for a plethora of government benefits and then don't have the wherewithal to get a government issued ID? And you liberals wonder why your arguments don't fly?
Photo I.D.
Submitted by onewildman on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:49am.
I guess Michelle don't want no poe black people at her event. besides the Ebonics edition isn't out yet due to the inability of the typesetters to read Ebonics.
IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !
Is this acceptable?
Submitted by Russ in OR on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:59am.
How about a wadded up cable TV bill?
https://twitter.com/robertcostaNRO/statuses/210161159876247552
this is great
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 12:22pm.
what
FRAUDS
along the way BHO has history with a big Socialist Group as a member.
You folks who voted fro these two criminals happy now.??