|
DeusExMachinima posted:Hm yes a system of external passports is equivalent to internal ones because _________________  The federal government already requires an ID to drive on federal roads such as streets in DC.I am loving the logic at work here. Our politicians are evil and will use any id for nefarious purposes, therefore we should let politicians disenfranchise people who could vote them out because ??? You'd think this line of reasoning would lead to being against voter ID period, but nope! Just against poor people being able to get the required ID
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Voter ID is wrong. The only one who should be inconvenienced on voting day is the political candidate who loses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:There's a federal office a few blocks from me (the post office) which already lets me go apply for a national ID card (a passport) on Saturdays. It isn't a one-stop shop. You still have to get your birth certificate, passport photo, another form of ID (a driver's license being one of the examples), complete the DS-11, and pay the fee. Then wait four to six weeks. I'm not seeing how this is less onerous than getting a driver's license. hemophilia posted:I would think a state failing to recognize a national identity card would be a violation of the Full Faith And Credit Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, they don't have to compel anything. If national ID cards were created by an act of congress, all 50 states would have to suck it and accept it. Some might drag their feet and whine a whole lot about states rights but not even this court would weaken the constitution so much as to allow states to choose whether to recognize a federal ID card. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I am against voter ID for the same reason I'm against laws that don't need to exist. It doesn't solve a real problem of any significance so  why have it?But that doesn't change the fact that a) new and improved VRA coverage could also solve the problem you're on about and b) is waaay more politically realistic with c) none of the potential downsides of a National ID card.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:49
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't a one-stop shop. You still have to get your birth certificate, passport photo, another form of ID (a driver's license being one of the examples), complete the DS-11, and pay the fee. Then wait four to six weeks. I'm not seeing how this is less onerous than getting a driver's license. It isn't necessarily any less onerous right now, though of course that could change. But the point of my post was to respond to a particular claim. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Registered Republicans are the only known violators this millennium of election laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would you approve of an EU identification and allow the EU to build databases about every citizen in their respective countries (assuming you're European)? I wouldn't be against it, although the nature of the relationship between EU and the respective countries isn't really directly analogous to the US federal government and the States for the time being at least, so the question isn't really incredibly relevant I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:College students are allowed to vote where they go to school. Here in Jersey you have the right to vote in any election you want anywhere you want, the crux of the problem is that if it gets challenged you will have to vote paper provisional or if it gets crosschecked and if you already voted somewhere else it won't count. You have to be given at the very least an absentee ballot and the opportunity to fill it out and submit it....from there it's the Judge's decision whether it counts. Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Nurge posted:I wouldn't be against it, although the nature of the relationship between EU and the respective countries isn't really directly analogous to the US federal government and the States for the time being at least, so the question isn't really incredibly relevant I think. The attitudes between the Federal Government and the States primarily developed in an environment very similar to the current EU situation (the Antebellum period). There's not an overarching question of something like slavery but the general idea of people being more loyal to their (nation-)states than the greater whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It isn't a one-stop shop. You still have to get your birth certificate, passport photo, another form of ID (a driver's license being one of the examples), complete the DS-11, and pay the fee. Then wait four to six weeks. I'm not seeing how this is less onerous than getting a driver's license. Millions of Texans live in places hundreds of miles away from a DMV open more than three days a week, and Republicans rejected all amendments to the bill to expand availability, this was all gone over in Texas' voter ID case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Registered Republicans are the only known violators this millennium of election laws. http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/melowese-richardson-former-poll-worker-to-be-sentenced-on-four-counts-of-voter-fraud
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The attitudes between the Federal Government and the States primarily developed in an environment very similar to the current EU situation ... the general idea of people being more loyal to their (nation-)states than the greater whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It isn't right now, though of course that could change. The point of my post was to respond to a particular claim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Ahahahaha holy gently caress, I'm actually reading the Scalia dissent now instead of skimming it for delicious tears
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In that case, the Post Office isn't actually a passport issuing agency. They are just accepting your forms and delivering them to the State Department. The office that actually issues passports is open Monday through Friday just like most other government offices. That doesn't seem particularly relevant. The point of weekend hours is to make the public-facing part of the operation available outside of normal working hours. It doesn't matter if the forms get processed M-F.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In that case, the Post Office isn't actually a passport issuing agency. They are just accepting your forms and delivering them to the State Department. The office that actually issues passports is open Monday through Friday just like most other government offices. So there is a federal office open on Saturdays that will submit your forms for you?  Okay let's do this: states are deliberately refraining from making voter ID available outside of normal working hours, yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The attitudes between the Federal Government and the States primarily developed in an environment very similar to the current EU situation (the Antebellum period). There's not an overarching question of something like slavery but the general idea of people being more loyal to their (nation-)states than the greater whole. Is that still true today though? It seems to me that people from the US seem to identify with the country a lot more than the state they reside in going by media and the internet. The situation in the early days of the republic may have been more scattered, but there are still severe differences in how much more homogenous culturally and by language the early US was compared to modern Europe due to the majority of the settlers having originally been from a relatively small region of Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Exactly this. Many (most?) historians agree that a critical issue decided by the Civil War was "Am I an American, or am I a Virginian living in the U.S."? After the war, the established opinion -- except, of course, among the people who lost -- was that you were primarily an American, and after that you were a resident of a State." That's what the "state's rights" argument is all about -- the question of whether a State can override or ignore a Federal law or Supreme Court ruling. (Answer: they can't.) I'm always surprised by Europeans who would say they're "Ligurian" instead of Italian. Most Americans, if you ask them where they're from, would say "I'm an American", sometimes modified by "from Minnesota". We're pretty wired to think in the federal model rather than the state model now, so finding out that other polities work differently continues to surprise. ("America loses its innocence quite frequently. Fortunately, it quickly grows back." e: Yup. Nurge posted:It seems to me that people from the US seem to identify with the country a lot more than the state they reside in going by media and the internet. There are individual trends -- you'll find a lot more people who, humorously and not, say "Texan" first than "Minnesotan" -- but in general the first reaction is "American" and the Federal Constitution is treated as Holy Writ, even among people who don't believe in Holy Writ per se. Arsenic Lupin fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Nurge posted:Is that still true today though? It seems to me that people from the US seem to identify with the country a lot more than the state they reside in going by media and the internet. The situation in the early days of the republic may have been more scattered, but there are still severe differences in how much more homogenous culturally and by language the early US was compared to modern Europe due to the majority of the settlers having originally been from a relatively small region of Europe. It's not nearly as strong as it was back then (Secessionists are a joke here while UKIP is reasonably plausible in the UK) but there is still a very strong individualist streak across the country. Even in the more progressive areas that traditionally support the Feds there are still issues that states will defy the national government in the name of liberty or whatever (legalizing marijuana is the current example here).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's not nearly as strong as it was back then (Secessionists are a joke here while UKIP is reasonably plausible in the UK) but there is still a very strong individualist streak across the country. Even in the more progressive areas that traditionally support the Feds there are still issues that states will defy the national government in the name of liberty or whatever (legalizing marijuana is the current example here). There are two overlapping issues here; one is "What do you identify as" and "Which parts Federal law do you want your state to ignore?". Texas and IIRC Louisiana hare currently doing their best to fight back against the Supreme Court equal marriage decision; Oregon (or Washington?), Colorado, and a bunch of medical marijuana states are ignoring Federal drug law. An Oregonian or Coloradan (Californians are officially legally weird, ask Scalia) will still reply "American" if you ask them what they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Why the hell is voter discrimination on the basis of political affiliation legal anyway? That seems way, way more harmful of democracy than voter discrimination on the basis of race, which is already pretty obviously terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Something I consider very personally sad about Scalia's dissent:quote:[This court] consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers[18] who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges..." Scalia is a Catholic born and raised in New Jersey who was educated in DC and Massachusetts. Yet he, by implication, considers the true Americans the ones who live between the coasts and are evangelicals. (If it were just a matter of underrepresentation, then California would count.) So he's a partial American rather than a real American.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:There are two overlapping issues here; one is "What do you identify as" and "Which parts Federal law do you want your state to ignore?". Texas and IIRC Louisiana hare currently doing their best to fight back against the Supreme Court equal marriage decision; Oregon (or Washington?), Colorado, and a bunch of medical marijuana states are ignoring Federal drug law. An Oregonian or Coloradan (Californians are officially legally weird, ask Scalia) will still reply "American" if you ask them what they are. Well yeah, my point is that just because you identify as an American over a [State]ian doesn't mean that you still have absolute/very high trust in your ruling government. The problem in the analogy I think is that there's very few countries as big as the US with a stable cultural identity. The closest analogue I can think of is China, who (at least in the Eastern areas) does have a unified national identity but still has regional tendencies that they like displaying. Obviously they're not big on dissent, though. Arsenic Lupin posted:Oregon (or Washington?), Colorado, and a bunch of medical marijuana states are ignoring Federal drug law. It's both Oregon and Washington now, btw (At least as of July 1 for Oregon).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So there is a federal office open on Saturdays that will submit your forms for you? Seriously, in what way would the national ID card scheme be different from applying for a passport? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would you approve of an EU identification and allow the EU to build databases about every citizen in their respective countries (assuming you're European)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's both Oregon and Washington now, btw (At least as of July 1 for Oregon).  This Spring, I think, Obama announced that he was no longer going to assign Federal law-enforcement resources to enforcing personal-use violations of marijuana laws within states where pot was legal. (Cross Federal lines and all bets are off.) There had been a lot of scandals and irritation in California when the Feds swooped in and closed well-regarded and well-known dispensaries that were seen as behaving responsibly, while being unable to touch the sleazier ones that were somewhat less prominent. A survival of the worsest situation there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, they don't submit your forms for you, because they're a loving delivery service. Jesus christ. Yeah, the fact that you can take the single step of dropping off your passport application on a Saturday means that getting a driver's license is more onerous than applying for a passport, which literally requires you to get a driver's license or similar ID, and invalidates all the other issues I raised with a national ID scheme. Q. loving E. D. I appreciate that it's frustrating to have people focus on just one aspect of what you said, but the more constructive way to respond to one of your premises not being true is for you to admit that and reconstruct your argument without using that premise, which would easy in this case. But it's silly to expect us to do the work of saying that one of your own premises is, in fact, irrelevant for you. Like, I think everyone agrees that any sort of national ID program would require an effort by the federal government to offer better service than the states. This isn't an impossibility, and the point is that it would have motivations for doing so that the states don't have. But, and I think this is part of what you're getting at, it would take a bigger act of political will than anyone is likely to put towards it. And it wouldn't be so simple as, say, converting the passport process to a national ID process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I for one wouldn't mind all vital government services being federally required to be open 24/7/365 to accommodate every possible person's schedule. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Could we split the discussion of arguing with voter ID trolls off into its own thread, maybe? This please. Someone make a new thread to discuss voter ID issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
The problem with any sort of national ID is that it's turtles all the way down. To get a national ID you have somehow to prove that you're a legal citizen. The Federal government has no idea how to locate the person corresponding to Social Security Number X, because people move around. That means that any Federally-issued ID is going to either (A) rely on tax returns and Social Security payments -- which excludes a lot of poor people -- or (B) require citizens to prove U.S. citizenship, which relies on having at some point had adequate state-issued ID. You need a birth certificate, which, as repeatedly pointed out upthread, is difficult or impossible to attain for the poor and the transient, or naturalization papers, or military documents. A lot of Americans don't have those, or will have extreme difficulty acquiring them. Imposing a national ID system where none exists will either be wildly exclusionary because it requires people to obtain state identification they never had, or will cost enormous time and effort by the Federal government to track down citizens who aren't currently interacting with any part of the federal government (no tax payments, no Social Security card, no gun license, ...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The problem with any sort of national ID is that it's turtles all the way down. To get a national ID you have somehow to prove that you're a legal citizen. The Federal government has no idea how to locate the person corresponding to Social Security Number X, because people move around. That means that any Federally-issued ID is going to either (A) rely on tax returns and Social Security payments -- which excludes a lot of poor people -- or (B) require citizens to prove U.S. citizenship, which relies on having at some point had adequate state-issued ID. You need a birth certificate, which, as repeatedly pointed out upthread, is difficult or impossible to attain for the poor and the transient, or naturalization papers, or military documents. My mom got to experience just how "turtles" it can get. When she got married she forgot to send in the form to legally change her name. The DMV and all other agencies didn't check and gave her IDs with her married name on them. A decade or so later our house burned down so we lost all of the older documents, and by then she'd thrown away any IDs with her maiden (but still legal) name on them anyway. I'm not sure why they caught it but eventually the IRS figured out that she was turning in her taxes under a 'false' name (but one that was on all of her ID.) She went to try and legally change her name but had no ID with her maiden name, and a copy of her birth certificate wasn't enough. Any old school records, tax forms, expired IDs or anything like that had either been thrown away or burnt. Amazingly the thing they ended up accepting was her bringing in her father's family bible that had her name and date of birth and marriage in it. If she hadn't had that I'm not sure how she could have gotten it fixed. And we're a middle class white family. I can only imagine the headache it could have caused had we been Hispanic near the border.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I appreciate that it's frustrating to have people focus on just one aspect of what you said, but the more constructive way to respond to one of your premises not being true is for you to admit that and reconstruct your argument without using that premise, which would easy in this case. But it's silly to expect us to do the work of saying that one of your own premises is, in fact, irrelevant for you. The problem with a national ID system is that it wouldn't solve the issues you're complaining about. Voter ID laws aren't bad because it's too difficult for citizens to get a state issued photo ID. States have a compelling interest in establishing someone's identity prior to giving them photo ID, and most are aware that business would grind to a halt if a significant fraction of the population couldn't get a driver's license. The problem is that state legislatures are using the ID as a barrier to exclude that small fraction who lack the means to get a license or other ID. A national ID system would not solve this problem, because anyone who lacks the wherewithal to get a picture ID from their state is going to lack the means to get one from the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I'm seeing people try and claim that somehow marriage equality violates the tenth amendment. Who's telling them this, Breitbart?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Probably that or somewhere like it, where do conservative memes get started?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:I'm seeing people try and claim that somehow marriage equality violates the tenth amendment. Who's telling them this, Breitbart? Unless that freak shambled out of his dumpster as some coke-zombie mumbling "beeehaaave..." it wasn't breitbart.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Well, Breitbart's site I mean. It's just so strange. Yes, the organ of government that decides what is constitutional broke federalism because....
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:Well, Breitbart's site I mean. It's just so strange. Yes, the organ of government that decides what is constitutional broke federalism because.... Because they are too loving stupid to grasp the difference between their goddamn bigotry and the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Which court case was mentioned a few pages ago that said something to the effect that nullification was dumb and they can't just decide not to participate? I can't remember the name, but I get the impression someone making the tenther argument is against desegregation too. Do any of the dissenting opinions even mention the tenth, for that matter?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:I'm seeing people try and claim that somehow marriage equality violates the tenth amendment. Who's telling them this, Breitbart? Googling it shows the talking point has been around at least since march 2014, since there was some trashy right wing org or something whining about its usage (since implying that you can define marriage at all is an affront as marriage was ordained by God and therefore inapplicable to being described power delegated to the states or people). Most of its usage I've come across is in that sort of "gently caress you for not being conservative enough" sort of deal. The whole argument seems to hinge on being intentionally dense about how much a government institution marriage is, and waving your arms in umbrage about federal overreach when the court rules about 14th Amendment violations of government policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Dr. Red Ranger posted:I'm seeing people try and claim that somehow marriage equality violates the tenth amendment. Who's telling them this, Breitbart? My favorite claim right now is that this decision means that every concealed carry permit is good in any state now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:23
|
|