C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Actually, nothing was compelling one to prove anything, since there was no potential criminal or civil penalty involved to begin with, the requirement was in essence a bluff.It's OK to make it a law that one must PROVE he has health insurance.
But it's not OK to ask that he prove he is a US citizen when voting?
Correct, because there is a potential violation of a fundamental right, in this case voting. There is also no evidence that fraud by identification is of such magnitude as to justify the potential violation of that fundamental right.
It's OK to make a person who an identification to practice their lawful right of buying a gun. But it's NOT OK to make that same person show identification when practicing their lawful right of voting?
To be consistent, one shouldnt be compelled to provide ID for either, as both are a potential preemption of a Constitutional right. Your issue should be with those who advocate providing an ID for a gun purchase, however, not for voting.
There are also different standards of judicial review with regard to both issues, as voting is a fundamental right, owning a gun is not. The government could also make a compelling case and provide evidence in support of requiring ID for gun purchases, which is not the case with voter ID requirements.
It's OK to say a person has the absolute right to have a baby burned by acid inside their womb, or have it killed with a sharp instrument, because it's "their body".
There is no right to an abortion, there is a right to privacy, however. And in that context laws banning abortion violate that right.
BUT if that person decides to leave that body uninsured, because maybe they dont want to use any doctors...ever...because it's "their body"......then the gov't will fine them?
In which case one can refuse to pay the fine.
Consequently one of two things will happen: the person who refuses to purchase insurance will have his income tax refund garnished, or, if no refund is forthcoming, the IRS could file a civil suit. The latter wont occur, however, as the cost of a suit would cost the government more than what it would realize in fines.
You seem to be implying that blacks may kill whites with impunity but not the other way around.It's OK to assume a white person strolling through an all-black neighborhood, say, bad parts of Compton, CA, is gonna get extra attention from cops, and possibly be harmed by the locals simply for being different (heck, it's glorified by "Gangland").........but it is the crime of the century if a black person is strolling through an all-white neighborhood, say ritzy Boca Raton gated community, and that person recieves extra attention from cops and locals??????
Thats not the case, of course, but this seems more an example of conservative paranoid delusion rather than an accurate comprehension of reality.
Just trying to figure out how some ends meet here.
Judging from the above, youre got a long way to go.