Why Do "Desperate Democrats" Strongly Appose Voter Photo I.D. Requirement For 2012 ?

[Navy1960]

On this same note, I think the voter registration should include an affidavit that the person intends to vote in that precinct only. If it turns out they lied about that, they should be subject to a stiff fine at the very least. Actually voting twice in the same election should include jail time.

Fox, my daughter is in her Senior year in college and can tell you from experience helping her get into the place, this voter registration and ID issue is not has complicated as we make it out to be. Take for example a kid going into college, well they are issued a college ID with their picture on it, and as an example, let's say they decided to register to vote, well then it would be a matter of just placing a mark or color or whatever and you have an ID for them. Same goes for my earlier suggestion on the picture on the registration card. Personally, I believe that much to much time is spent on nonsense legislation like these voter ID laws, rather than solving issues like issuing the ID's themselves in order to make political hay be it Democrat or Republican take your pick.

To me the simplest solution is to simply issue a photo voter registration card when you register to vote along with the registrant signing an affidavit that they will vote only in their assigned precinct. And you show your voter ID when you go to vote. I think those three things would eliminate 99% of voter fraud and/or uncertainty without disenfranchising a single soul or compromising the system in any way.

Nobody but a few idiots will accept $1 or $5 or $20 to vote fraudulently and thereby risk a stiff fine or jail time.

See we solved the problem!! *laughs*, the best thing though is the photo voter registration card. I can't see how that would disenfranchase anyone, but as I indicated above a lot of these I.D. laws have little to do with voter fraud I suspect and more to do with politics and keeping the base fired up prior to a big election. If it did, as we rightly pointed out, the fix is not as hard as it appears.

 

[Londoner]

SCOFLA violated the Florida constitution, and by extension the US Constitution.

This is a distortion of the facts.

The Supreme Court did not find fault with Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant Gore a hand recount. Instead they said there was not time to conduct such a recount. SCOTUS decided that the absolute deadline for a recount was December 12th, but neither federal nor Florida law requires the electoral process be completed by December 12, which is a trivial safe harbor deadline not written into law. In fact, many states submitted their votes after December 12.

Because Federal Law does not set a deadline of December 12, and because Florida Law does not mandate such a deadline, the Supreme Court simply invented Florida Law in order to deny Gore his constitutional right to a recount.

The second component of the case turned on something that the rightwing vigorously opposed when it was passed - the 14th Amendment > equal protection clause (which was designed mostly to enfranchise southern blacks). In the context of Florida 2000, equal protection meant that all votes be treated equally. While this is catnip for the Limbaugh crowd, it ends up being dangerously vague. So vague in fact that the clause cannot be logically applied to our current election system. Why? Because each state has different standards, and each county has different machines. Some counties use Votomatic Punch Card systems, others use optical scan systems. Votomatic machines have twice as many errors, which means voters who vote in these counties are treated differently than voters who vote in Optical Scan counties. This is why the Supreme Court said that their equal protection ruling only applied to this case. If they turned the ruling into a general precedent, it would invalidate every election past/present/future. They knew they were on shaky ground when they wrote the ruling.

The Rehnquist court took judicial activism to science fiction levels.

 

[Conservative]

Maine
Citing problems with voter fraud as a reason to end election day registration and require people to present a photo ID prior to voting, Maine legislators are trying to pass two bills that would disenfranchise 11 percent of the state. Maine has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. Apparently, Maine Republicans think this is bad for democracy.

The Sun Journal reported that in early March, "A legislative panel [Joint Finance Committee] voted 6-6 along party lines to recommend LD 199 to the Legislature ... Same-day registration could soon come to an end under a bill [LD 203] proposed by Rep. Gary Knight (R-Livermore Falls). His bill, which has yet to be heard by the committee, would halt voter registration seven days before an election."

Voter Suppression Bills Sweep the Country | Center for Media and Democracy

If you're too stupid to know you need to actually register to vote and you wait until the last possible minute......

Same day voter registration

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOFLA violated the Florida constitution, and by extension the US Constitution.

This is a distortion of the facts.
The Supreme Court did not find fault with Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant Gore a hand recount. Instead they said there was not time to conduct such a recount.

That was the 2nd decision that went 5-4

The preceding 7-2 decision regarding equal protection sealed the election.
The court ruled that FL election law, by failing to create a specific standard in evaluating the ballots, did not grant equal protection to the voters of FL -- if the value of a ballot can change depending on where it was evaluated, equal protection cannot exist.

This standard could not be changed, and thus, there was no way to legally evaluate the ballots in question. The only solution, at that point, was to not count them.

:shrug:

 

[Care4all]

SCOFLA violated the Florida constitution, and by extension the US Constitution.

This is a distortion of the facts.
The Supreme Court did not find fault with Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant Gore a hand recount. Instead they said there was not time to conduct such a recount.

That was the 2nd decision that went 5-4

The preceding 7-2 decision regarding equal protection sealed the election.
The court ruled that FL election law, by failing to create a specific standard in evaluating the ballots, did not grant equal protection to the voters of FL -- if the value of a ballot can change depending on where it was evaluated, equal protection cannot exist.

This standard could not be changed, and thus, there was no way to legally evaluate the ballots in question. The only solution, at that point, was to not count them.

:shrug:

if that were simply the case, then the SC should have had no problems forcing this on to all the other states that participate in elections....but they didn't....

it was the worst decision in the past 2 decades or maybe even 3 decades that the SC made...and unconstitutional to boot!

 

[Londoner]

The court ruled that FL election law, by failing to create a specific standard in evaluating the ballots, did not grant equal protection to the voters of FL -- if the value of a ballot can change depending on where it was evaluated, equal protection cannot exist.

Florida law is vague here. It only states "Voter Intent" as the standard, which is why - at the very least - the case should have been returned to Florida for a standard. This was rendered impossible when SCOTUS imposed the December 12 deadline, which is not written into Florida or Federal election law. It is a safe harbor date that is routinely ignored. The electors don't meet until 1/6, which means they could have given Florida at least until the 18th.

The Florida Supremes didn't think a non-legally-binding safe-harbor date (which is routinely ignored by other states) mattered more than a citizen's right to have his vote counted. December 12 is not a Federal deadline; the Supreme Court had no business imposing it. The ruling was indefensible.

The equal protection law is never applied to our current election system because it would invalidate every election. Meaning: every state and every county has different machines and methods, e.g., if you live in a county with a Votomatic-Punch-Card machine, your vote is twice as likely not to count than if you live in an Optical Scan county - therefore voters don't receive equal protection. Secondly, there are no uniform standards for calibrating, cleaning, emptying, or replacing voting machines, which leads to systematic unequal treatment of votes. If equal protection mattered to Republicans, they would try to fix these terrible irregularities. But they don't want to intervene in state election law. They want to give the states control over their elections, unless they produce an unsavory result.

Here is a long article which originally appeared in the Yale Law journal, Bush's Alma mater. It is remarkably jargon-free and accessible for being in a law journal. It is well-sourced and discusses both the safe harbor deadline and the equal protection law. It even suggests a plausible motive for SCOTUS, so Republicans might like it too.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/essayonbushvgore.pdf

 

[Conservative]

If producing a state drivers license or state I.D. is not goo enough to vote, than America is really becoming a Nazi State.

Voting is a U.S. Constitutional Right - not a state privilege. Voter I.D. requirements are thus Unconstitutional, and are an obvious ploy by Republican lead state legislatures to infringe on the most sacredly held U.S. Constitutional Right to Vote.

Voter I.D. State Laws will never make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and will be shot down by lower courts. That is a no brainer.

you might want to review the SCOTUS decisions on the matter. They've stated quite plainly that voter ID laws are indeed Constitutional.

 

[Conservative]

SC voter ID law hits black precincts - Today's News - TheSunNews.com

from the linked piece...
except the id's for voting are FREE.







.004% of the precints

the Devil is in the details

Previously-reported statewide numbers suggested that overall, the law’s impact would roughly affect white and nonwhite voters proportionally: 70 percent of the state’s 2.7 million registered voters are white and 30 percent are non-white; 66 percent of the 216,596 active, registered voters without state-issued photo IDs are white and 34 percent nonwhite.


But stepping below the state-level numbers offers a much different picture: Lacking state-issued IDs are 11,087 nonwhite voters in Richland County, 5,385 in Charleston County and 4,544 in Orangeburg County. That means half the voters affected by the law in Richland County aren’t white and in Orangeburg County it’s 73 percent.


Whitmire said the state is preparing a new round of data for the Justice Department. Once that is submitted, the agency will have up to 60 days to respond. South Carolina’s election law changes have to be cleared by federal authorities because of past voting rights abuses.

Read more: SC voter ID law hits black precincts - Today's News - TheSunNews.com
​

wonder what their PAST voting rights abuses were?

Unless you have proof that voting rights abuses are taking place in the present, then PAST is the operative word there.

 

[Foxfyre]

The court ruled that FL election law, by failing to create a specific standard in evaluating the ballots, did not grant equal protection to the voters of FL -- if the value of a ballot can change depending on where it was evaluated, equal protection cannot exist.

Florida law is vague here. It only states "Voter Intent" as the standard, which is why the case should have been returned to Florida for a standard. This was rendered impossible when SCOTUS imposed the December 12 deadline, which is not written into Florida election law. It is a safe harbor date that is routinely ignored. The electors don't meet until 1/6, which means they could have given Florida at least until the 18th. The Florida Supremes decide that a non-legally binding deadline was less important than counting legal votes. They didn't think a safe-harbor deadline which is routinely ignored by other states mattered more than a citizen's right to have his vote counted.

The equal protection law is never applied to our current election system because it would invalidate every election, that is, every state and every county has different machines and methods, e.g., if you live in a county with a Votomatic-Punch-Card machine, your vote is twice as likely not to count than if you live in an Optical Scan county - therefore voters don't receive equal protection. If equal protection mattered to Republicans, they would try to fix the terrible irregularities that besiege national elections. But they don't want to intervene in state election law. They want to give the states control over their elections, unless they produce an unsavory result.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have an all seeing, all omnipotent, all encompassing, all compassionate, all benevolent government who saw to it that no citizen wanted for anything and everybody would have as much as everybody else, no questions asked? And no responsibility would be required of anybody to learn HOW to vote, WHO deserves or does not deserve to be voted for, WHERE to go to register to vote, or ACCEPT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to get themselves to the polls and make sure they complete their ballot accurately and as intended? And being stupid or careless or lazy or indifferent would have no consequences? And it wouldn't be necessary to know anything or put out any extra effort to get exactly what we needed?

Some people would call that heaven.

Some people would call that the utopian world of the political class/statist/leftist or whatever term might apply.

And some would say that it is the responsibility of the people who live in a specific district to petition their government and demand better voting methods if that is what they need instead of blaming the Republicans because they don't have them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This is a distortion of the facts.

The Supreme Court did not find fault with Florida Supreme Court's decision to grant Gore a hand recount.

Are you sure?

{Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based. Bush I, ante, at ___—___ (slip. op., at 6—7). On December 11, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision on remand reinstating that date. ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (slip op. at 30—31).}

Instead they said there was not time to conduct such a recount. SCOTUS decided that the absolute deadline for a recount was December 12th,

Not really.

{The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U.S.C. § 5 and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.}

but neither federal nor Florida law requires the electoral process be completed by December 12, which is a trivial safe harbor deadline not written into law. In fact, many states submitted their votes after December 12.

Not factual.

{he Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the intent of the voter be discerned from such ballots. For purposes of resolving the equal protection challenge, it is not necessary to decide whether the Florida Supreme Court had the authority under the legislative scheme for resolving election disputes to define what a legal vote is and to mandate a manual recount implementing that definition. The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right. }

Because Federal Law does not set a deadline of December 12, and because Florida Law does not mandate such a deadline, the Supreme Court simply invented Florida Law in order to deny Gore his constitutional right to a recount.

What is "simply invented" is your claim.

{ In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.}

The second component of the case turned on something that the rightwing vigorously opposed when it was passed - the 14th Amendment

By "the right wing," you mean the democratic party...

> equal protection clause (which was designed mostly to enfranchise southern blacks). In the context of Florida 2000, equal protection meant that all votes be treated equally. While this is catnip for the Limbaugh crowd, it ends up being dangerously vague. So vague in fact that the clause cannot be logically applied to our current election system. Why? Because each state has different standards, and each county has different machines. Some counties use Votomatic Punch Card systems, others use optical scan systems. Votomatic machines have twice as many errors, which means voters who vote in these counties are treated differently than voters who vote in Optical Scan counties. This is why the Supreme Court said that their equal protection ruling only applied to this case. If they turned the ruling into a general precedent, it would invalidate every election past/present/future. They knew they were on shaky ground when they wrote the ruling.

The Rehnquist court took judicial activism to science fiction levels.

The facts entirely refute the KOS lies you spew.

BUSH v. GORE

 

[M14 Shooter]

The court ruled that FL election law, by failing to create a specific standard in evaluating the ballots, did not grant equal protection to the voters of FL -- if the value of a ballot can change depending on where it was evaluated, equal protection cannot exist.

Florida law is vague here. It only states "Voter Intent" as the standard, which is why the case should have been returned to Florida for a standard.

There was already a standard- to 'determine the intent of the voter'.
The law was indeed too vague, and thus the EP issue.

This was rendered impossible when SCOTUS imposed the December 12 deadline, which is not written into Florida election law.

Actually, no - it was rendered impossible the fact that only the FL legislature can write/create election law and the standards contained within, and that election law cannot be changed -durung- an election.

The equal protection law is never applied to our current election system...

Eual protection is ALWAYS applied.
"Election systems" vary from state to state as every state has its own standards. The standasrd set in FL election law have absolutely no bearing whatseoever in any other election - state laws must provide equal protection for the voters from that state; elections laws of other states are meaningless in this regard.

that is, every state and every county has different machines and methods,

Differing machines/ballots matters not a whit, so long as the evaluation of the ballots is consistent within the type of machine/ballot used. Regardless of the means of castng a bllot, if the law allows for county A and county B to evaluate their same-method ballots differently, then equal protection has been denied. That's exactly what happened in FL.

The 7-2 EP decision was perfectly sound, and, alone, necessarily meant that the ballots in question could not be legally counted.

 

[Intense]

Why are "Desperate RePugs" working to suppress the vote?

So long as your Vote is Legal, and you only Vote once there is no problem is there?

Why do Democrats run cover for Voter Registration and Voter Fraud?

there is no rampant voter fraud that a photo id will stop, so what is the purpose of it? Rampant voter fraud could take place via absentee voting, the photo id required won't stop that what so ever....

and I am all against voter fraud and voter registration fraud.

I see the photo id as one step closer to a National id card, which I oppose, vehemently, and i see it as a means to make poorer citizens without a need for a gvt photo id, have to jump through hoops or as jumping over hurdles since many of the poorest do not drive or own cars....while the other voters who can drive and do already have a gvt id to qualify, don't have to go through those hoops to be able to vote....

but as I have mentioned before, I suppose I could agree to a gvt photo id in order to vote, if and only if it is paid for by the state for everyone without an id, if they made the accessibility to getting this id easy peasy instead of closing down DMV offices through out their states, making it more and more difficult for those without id to get one.

and even with that said, what voter fraud is occurring that a photo gvt id will stop? NONE.

It is a guise....while they turn a blind eye to true voter fraud or voter registration fraud that takes place at the registration process or through absentee voting.....

Why does a photo gvt id vs a birth certificate and phone bill make a difference at the polls?

Considering that State ID is required even to receive Benefits, it is not really a problem for People to have a State approved ID. Funny when I went to Renew My Drivers License, I tried to get an Enhanced License, and was refused because I didn't have my Social Security Card on my, I had misplaced it, and could not dig it up. What I did have was my Current License, the Original Social Security Card Stub from back in the Early Seventies, My Yearly Social Security Statement, My 2010 Tax Return, 2 Major Credit Card Statements, 2 Utility Bills, My Business License, and an Expired Passport from the mid 80's.

That wasn't good enough for the Bitches at DMV. God, just watching the way they treated people, was enough to make you want to Puke. That said, I survived the Incident. You need a State ID to Sign Up for Benefits. The rest is total Bullshit.

You require ID when a Person Votes, Investigate Cross Voting by Absentee Ballot in Multiple States, especially Absentee Ballots, and you can show credibility. No Body is going to find a Problem by running cover for Fraud and Abuse. No Investigator is going to find and Report Anything He or She Refuses to find.

 

[Care4all]

So long as your Vote is Legal, and you only Vote once there is no problem is there?

Why do Democrats run cover for Voter Registration and Voter Fraud?

there is no rampant voter fraud that a photo id will stop, so what is the purpose of it? Rampant voter fraud could take place via absentee voting, the photo id required won't stop that what so ever....

and I am all against voter fraud and voter registration fraud.

I see the photo id as one step closer to a National id card, which I oppose, vehemently, and i see it as a means to make poorer citizens without a need for a gvt photo id, have to jump through hoops or as jumping over hurdles since many of the poorest do not drive or own cars....while the other voters who can drive and do already have a gvt id to qualify, don't have to go through those hoops to be able to vote....

but as I have mentioned before, I suppose I could agree to a gvt photo id in order to vote, if and only if it is paid for by the state for everyone without an id, if they made the accessibility to getting this id easy peasy instead of closing down DMV offices through out their states, making it more and more difficult for those without id to get one.

and even with that said, what voter fraud is occurring that a photo gvt id will stop? NONE.

It is a guise....while they turn a blind eye to true voter fraud or voter registration fraud that takes place at the registration process or through absentee voting.....

Why does a photo gvt id vs a birth certificate and phone bill make a difference at the polls?

Considering that State ID is required even to receive Benefits, it is not really a problem for People to have a State approved ID. Funny when I went to Renew My Drivers License, I tried to get an Enhanced License, and was refused because I didn't have my Social Security Card on my, I had misplaced it, and could not dig it up. What I did have was my Current License, the Original Social Security Card Stub from back in the Early Seventies, My Yearly Social Security Statement, My 2010 Tax Return, 2 Major Credit Card Statements, 2 Utility Bills, My Business License, and an Expired Passport from the mid 80's.

That wasn't good enough for the Bitches at DMV. God, just watching the way they treated people, was enough to make you want to Puke. That said, I survived the Incident. You need a State ID to Sign Up for Benefits. The rest is total Bullshit.

You require ID when a Person Votes, Investigate Cross Voting by Absentee Ballot in Multiple States, especially Absentee Ballots, and you can show credibility. No Body is going to find a Problem by running cover for Fraud and Abuse. No Investigator is going to find and Report Anything He or She Refuses to find.

if there is not a problem and everybody has id or easy access to an id, then how come there were 150,000 people who voted in Georgia, that did not have one? Do those 150k not count? are they a mere "nobody"?

How will having a gvt photo id protect us from voter fraud that has been taking place? who is the voter fraud boogy men here?

illegals?
Dead people?

 

[NoNukes]

so essentially, the student id's will NOT be valid gvt id's to use to vote based on what i bolded above.

gun laws are by state, along with voter id requirements.

As long as they have the required information, they are.

Why should the ID requirements to buy a gun be more strict than to decide our leaders?

Are you really this stupid? it is a rhetorical question.

 

[Intense]

there is no rampant voter fraud that a photo id will stop, so what is the purpose of it? Rampant voter fraud could take place via absentee voting, the photo id required won't stop that what so ever....

and I am all against voter fraud and voter registration fraud.

I see the photo id as one step closer to a National id card, which I oppose, vehemently, and i see it as a means to make poorer citizens without a need for a gvt photo id, have to jump through hoops or as jumping over hurdles since many of the poorest do not drive or own cars....while the other voters who can drive and do already have a gvt id to qualify, don't have to go through those hoops to be able to vote....

but as I have mentioned before, I suppose I could agree to a gvt photo id in order to vote, if and only if it is paid for by the state for everyone without an id, if they made the accessibility to getting this id easy peasy instead of closing down DMV offices through out their states, making it more and more difficult for those without id to get one.

and even with that said, what voter fraud is occurring that a photo gvt id will stop? NONE.

It is a guise....while they turn a blind eye to true voter fraud or voter registration fraud that takes place at the registration process or through absentee voting.....

Why does a photo gvt id vs a birth certificate and phone bill make a difference at the polls?

Considering that State ID is required even to receive Benefits, it is not really a problem for People to have a State approved ID. Funny when I went to Renew My Drivers License, I tried to get an Enhanced License, and was refused because I didn't have my Social Security Card on my, I had misplaced it, and could not dig it up. What I did have was my Current License, the Original Social Security Card Stub from back in the Early Seventies, My Yearly Social Security Statement, My 2010 Tax Return, 2 Major Credit Card Statements, 2 Utility Bills, My Business License, and an Expired Passport from the mid 80's.

That wasn't good enough for the Bitches at DMV. God, just watching the way they treated people, was enough to make you want to Puke. That said, I survived the Incident. You need a State ID to Sign Up for Benefits. The rest is total Bullshit.

You require ID when a Person Votes, Investigate Cross Voting by Absentee Ballot in Multiple States, especially Absentee Ballots, and you can show credibility. No Body is going to find a Problem by running cover for Fraud and Abuse. No Investigator is going to find and Report Anything He or She Refuses to find.

if there is not a problem and everybody has id or easy access to an id, then how come there were 150,000 people who voted in Georgia, that did not have one? Do those 150k not count? are they a mere "nobody"?

How will having a gvt photo id protect us from voter fraud that has been taking place? who is the voter fraud boogy men here?

illegals?
Dead people?

Yes and Yes.

What is the problem? Are Elections not Important Enough? One Person, One Vote. Simple Principle. I wish We would have a Paper Trail too, though for so many it seems too big a burden. Too many holes in the process. That serves no good, Care. Defending Incompetence and Corruption does not serve Justice Either. We need an Honest, Accountable, and Transparent Process that defends the Integrity and Privacy of the Ballot. We are still not there yet.

 

[Contumacious]

President Obama Has His Panties In An Uproar Over Most States Requiring Photo I.D. o:

Every American should oppose the national ID:

National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I have no problem with voters showing IDs to vote as long as IDs are readily available and free

My only question for Republicans is how do you check the IDs of those who vote by mail?

What's wrong with having to appear before a government agency, in requesting an absentee ballot, and showing a valid photo ID there? I'm sure they are quite capable of judging whether you are dead or alive, illegal, or truly a member of the Dallas Cowboys team.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Look at it this way, in a more extreme scenario, can you imagine a "No ID" required policy? We are talking open season for 100's of individuals to vote in all 20 or so precincts in his/her district. This is what Ed Schultz wanted to do,, remember when he told his viewers he would of voted 10 times for Obama if he could?

I would think the technology is there, to perhaps use your thumb print for identification purposes at the voting booth. It's also a great way to have them accurately check to see if you have a criminal record, or are an illegal, making you ineligible to vote. Going by a Photo ID or having your prints taken, are either really a violation of someone's Constitutional rights? I'm sure now the left will have something to say about those in prison losing their "privilege" to vote.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you really this stupid? it is a rhetorical question.

Buying/Owning a gun is a constitutional right. Explain from your perspective as a fascist, why one constitutional right should require ID to exercise yet another should not?


Standard Disclaimer: There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

 

[Care4all]

President Obama Has His Panties In An Uproar Over Most States Requiring Photo I.D. o:

Every American should oppose the national ID:

National ID Cards Won't Stop Terrorism or Illegal Immigration

.

agree!!!