Originally Posted by rubicon

So as a negative to a negative in sentences result in a positive or affirmtive statement does that mean applying the illegal Texas voter ID to an illegal alien voting in Texas makes it a positive?

And most important are you catching many fish?

Huh???

Originally Posted by hdh1470

Maybe if he wasn't a moron he wouldn't need protection?

That didn't prevent Herman Caine, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich from having protection during the republican primary. What a waste of taxpayer money.

people running for pres have been getting for a very long time.My buddy got stuck with Jesse Jackson for his detail. He is another winner.

Originally Posted by janmcn

I haven't been able to find the story you mentioned of the gentleman who said he voted 17 times. While searching, I found this story about PA state rep, Mike Turzai, a GOP lawmaker, saying on camera that the voter ID law PA recently passed is "gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of PA". It would seem, according to Turzai, that the law wasn't passed because of voter fraud but to disenfranchise 750,000 voters.

I would think that the judge that hears this case won't take too kindly to Turzai's remarks as they are played over and over in court.



Mike Turzai, GOP Lawmaker Behind Controversial Voter ID Remark, Was Backed By Education Union

I appreciate your position and agree I have placed myself at a disadvantage and wish i had the foresight to have made a better mental note but never did I expect the reporter to get this guy to admit to voting 17 times for Obama. so if I can cite the authority well then it didn't happen Fair is fair

As I stated earlier, I believe Florida charges $25 for a photo ID card. Therefore, it is a poll tax.

If it were free and readily accessible to everyone, I would have no problem.

There are many counties in Texas that don't have a DMV. They expect people that don't drive to somehow get to another county to get a photo ID. The court should announce its decision on the TX law by next month.

Presidential candidates can decline secret service protection, as Ron Paul has.

Originally Posted by janmcn

There are many counties in Texas that don't have a DMV. They expect people that don't drive to somehow get to another county to get a photo ID. The court should announce its decision on the TX law by next month.

Presidential candidates can decline secret service protection, as Ron Paul has.

Yea and as a kid I told my teacher "the dog ate my homework" and i never owned a dog

Voting aside.....not even discussing that, and not putting my life in someone elses but it makes sense in this day and age, if the least bit responsible, to have a state photo id. It just makes sense.....the 25 bucks that make people call this a poll tax is stupid...it is offered for IDENTIFICATION and will be an absolute necessity in years to come for sure if it is not now.

You can do very little in this world without such a thing anymore !

Originally Posted by Bucco

Voting aside.....not even discussing that, and not putting my life in someone elses but it makes sense in this day and age, if the least bit responsible, to have a state photo id. It just makes sense.....the 25 bucks that make people call this a poll tax is stupid...it is offered for IDENTIFICATION and will be an absolute necessity in years to come for sure if it is not now.

You can do very little in this world without such a thing anymore !

I agree with you on this, Bucco. However, you know that someone will gripe about having to spend $25 for ID and will call it a tax - even though it is needed in everyday life. I do not think anyone is so poor they cannot afford $25 every 8 years for an ID card with photo.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I agree with you on this, Bucco. However, you know that someone will gripe about having to spend $25 for ID and will call it a tax - even though it is needed in everyday life. I do not think anyone is so poor they cannot afford $25 every 8 years for an ID card with photo.

With all due respect, you seem to agree with me but you also seem to agree with those who find it outright offensive to ask for this id at a polling place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding

Originally Posted by Bucco

With all due respect, you seem to agree with me but you also seem to agree with those who find it outright offensive to ask for this id at a polling place. Perhaps I am misunderstanding

I am actually torn on this issue. It seems reasonable on one hand and seems unconstitutional on the other hand.

The right to vote is certainly protected by the Constitution to the extent that there can be no discrimination by race or gender. There are also provisions that give people 18 years or older the right to vote and a prohibition against poll taxes. Outside of these criteria, determination of eligibility to vote is left to the States.

Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by our Constitution. In 1869 the Supreme Court defined freedom of movement as "the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the States and Federal Government have chosen to set the criteria that limit this right. You may not drive without a valid Driver’s License and proof of insurance. There is, of course, cost associated with getting the license and insurance. You may not board an airplane or train without a valid photo ID. Under law, hotels are required to have you produce a valid photo ID. Greyhound does not require a photo so long as you pay for your tickets with cash. However, if you want to travel very far, you have to stay at a hotel. Greyhound does not allow you to crash at its stations and the cities take exception to sleeping on the streets. The police can pick you up and if you do not have a photo ID, count of getting a few nights with free room and board.

I fail to see any difference with the restrictions placed on the right to vote by requiring a valid photo ID and the restrictions of Freedom of Movement by the same requirement. In both these cases, a nominal fee is required to assure the integrity of the election process and the safety of the public. Neither requirement seems unreasonable to me. If a photo ID requirement violates your freedom to cast your ballot, then it certainly violates your freedom of movement.