Sunday, July 29, 2012

Gun Control and Voter ID and Constitutional Rights

Recently the issues of gun control and the requirement for Voter identification (ID) have surfaced as hot topics. Gun control has re-surfaced as an issue due the unfortunate mass murders in Aurora Colorado. Voter identification has become an issue as both the Democrats and Republican continue to claw for votes in the upcoming presidential election. The Washington Post, as a newspaper, has covered these stories and posted editorials concerning these issues. Unfortunately, the Post (along with many others) seems to have politicized and misrepresented the voter identification issue to the public.

In a July 20, 2012 editorial concerning gun control the Post correctly states that: "Yes, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own a gun, but it does not preclude reasonable regulation for public safety.". However, when it comes to government having reasonable regulations concerning voter identification, the Post, in a July 28, 2012 editorial, lamely asserts that these voter ID laws place an unfair impediment to voting; equivalent to a poll tax. This is hypocritical.  Whether it is voting or gun ownership, Government has a legitimate right to verify that those who are purchasing a gun or are voting are who they say they are.

As a good follow-up to the editorial commenter9871 (in part) wrote:
My question is, with NO voter ID requirement, how could the authorities possibly know whether the person who cast any specific vote was a qualified and legal voter? We use a secret ballot. Once the voter is admitted without any ID check, he/she proceeds to the ballot box and votes. Until/unless someone files a complaint that a specific person was not qualified, the prosecutor has nothing to investigate. But when it's a a dead-voter, or an unauthorized felon, a la the Chicago tradition, there is nobody who could possibly know that they person is not the deceased or is a felon -- unless the poll official who takes his requests just happens to know the person in question and knows their personal situation -- and is willing to report him/her.  ... Requiring ID and putting the ID info down next to the voter's registration information is the only way to know if a voter was not authorized"
An interesting response by tnvret that that raises the issue of the mental capacity of the voter:
"If patients with diagnosed severe Alzheimer's or dementia (who didn't know who they were on a good day - much less anything about a candidate) were denied the vote, then that would reek of literacy testing to Dems. Just shuffle in here; we'll help with the selections and get you to the polls. Dems just need bodies - live ones if the dead, criminal, or four legged varieties are not available."
 jkk1943 provided this response below:
"This article as well as the constant harassment by the DOJ to stop states from implementing voter photo ID laws does not pass the stink test for three reasons: 

1. The Supreme Court has upheld Indiana's photo voter ID law by a 6-3 majority. Arizona's voter photo ID law was also supported by the most liberal appeal court in the nation, the Ninth Circuit. 

2. Requiring a photo ID is not an onerous requirement. The vast majority of people have them, most that don't are quite capable of getting them. Most states passing these laws provide free photo id's, some even provide transportation to the DMV to have the photo taken. Most allow provisional balloting for those not presenting the proper ID at the polling place. 

3. Contrary to the bilge spouted by liberals voter fraud is a problem. It is so widespread that Congress defunded Acorn because of widespread voter registration fraud in the 2008 election. Voter fraud if probably underreported especially in states that require little or no id to vote. We do after all have 12-20 million illegal aliens in our country. Due diligence requires that we protect the franchise by requiring the kind of ID required to board a plane, cash a check, enter a government building or by Sudafed over the counter at your local pharmacy. 

Whats really the issue here is two fold. One Eric Holder, Obama and the liberals want to stoke a sense of grievance in the minority community to ensure they come out to vote this November. More problematic is my sense that the Democrats really do not want a clean voting system. Google voter fraud and you will find that the majority of folks charged or convicted are Democrats. The Democratic Party in FL has fought our Governors plan to purge the voting roles of legal aliens and the deceased. He took the Feds to court and won. This is a losing issue for democrats. The vast majority of Americans favor these polices and that includes independents in swing states. There only payoff is a high turnout of minorities in the fall."

No comments: