|
Home > Archive > Architecture > September 2005 > National ID
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| James Baker and Jimmy Carter are working up a deal where voters must have a
picture ID.
Apparently *disadvantaged* persons, or those with *unequal opportunities*
have little time, need or funding to aquire a drivers license to present as
a picture ID at the polls.
In past elections these persons simply supplied a utility bill or voter
registration card so that they might vote.
The idea is that the proposal by those 2 folks, Baker and Carter, will cause
thousands or millions of poor persons and others to not be able to vote in
elections.
Is this a good idea?
Is this in accordance with the strict writings of the Constitution that
requires no such thing?
(photgraphy itself was not invented until long after the ratification)
Why should people that do NOT pay income tax be allowed to influence, no
matter how small that influence might be, how those taxes are disbursed
through their voting of chosen politicians?
As the spending of taxes is only one facet of the power wielded by elected
politicians is it not right that all persons that meet the qualifications
set forth by the Constitution (go read it sometime, I double dog dare ya) be
able to choose those people that have effect upon their lives?
Hopefully you'll be able to connect the dots here to see clearly that when a
National ID is required of *some* of the populace it is only a matter of
time that ALL of the populace will be required to possess the same ID. Once
this is done whats next, tattoo barcode?, implanted ID chip?, retina
printing? frenum tracks? You get the idea.
I will remind you, just in case you somehow forgot your 8th grade Civics
class, that the United States of America is unique on this Earth that it is
unlike other countries that are sovereign entities unto themselves, and it
is rather a collection of FIFTY individual sovereign states (sort of like
small countries), prohibiting the unification by gov't or others into one
mass body. Though this fact is mainly disregarded by misconstrued things
like the Interstate Commerce clause and the General Welfare clause, just to
mention two, (banking, assembly of national military force, social security,
and on and on and on, etc.) this is no justification for the total disregard
of the sovereign status of each of the individual states comprising these
United States of America. I won't even go there about the sovereign status
of the individual persons.
In other words, isn't the issue of identification of voters a *states* issue
rather than a national issue?
*When the responsibilty and rights of states has been finally discounted in
full by incremental steps there will be no point of individual
representation of these bodies.*
--gs, 2005
(sounds like something Jefferson would have written, rather than the whiney,
embarrassing stuff demonstrated by popular politicians of late)
14 or fight.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-09-20, 9:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:Qa0Ye.1956$q1.343@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> James Baker and Jimmy Carter are working up a deal where voters must
> have a picture ID.
>
> Apparently *disadvantaged* persons, or those with *unequal
> opportunities* have little time, need or funding to aquire a drivers
> license to present as a picture ID at the polls.
>
> In past elections these persons simply supplied a utility bill or
> voter registration card so that they might vote.
Hell, Don, I remember when they didn't even put your picture on your
license......how times have changed (for the worse)...
> The idea is that the proposal by those 2 folks, Baker and Carter, will
> cause thousands or millions of poor persons and others to not be able
> to vote in elections.
>
> Is this a good idea?
>
> Is this in accordance with the strict writings of the Constitution
> that requires no such thing?
> (photgraphy itself was not invented until long after the ratification)
I think (but check as I am not sure) that one had to be a property owner
and of the age of majority in order to vote back then.
> Why should people that do NOT pay income tax be allowed to influence,
> no matter how small that influence might be, how those taxes are
> disbursed through their voting of chosen politicians?
Originally, the thought was similar - people who were itinerants of
temporary residents or whatever were not deemed to have a permanent stake
in the nation.
> As the spending of taxes is only one facet of the power wielded by
> elected politicians is it not right that all persons that meet the
> qualifications set forth by the Constitution (go read it sometime, I
> double dog dare ya) be able to choose those people that have effect
> upon their lives?
>
> Hopefully you'll be able to connect the dots here to see clearly that
> when a National ID is required of *some* of the populace it is only a
> matter of time that ALL of the populace will be required to possess
> the same ID. Once this is done whats next, tattoo barcode?, implanted
> ID chip?, retina printing? frenum tracks? You get the idea.
People have been calling for a national ID for a while now. For *all*
people.
I wonder whether Australia has a national ID/tracking system...
> I will remind you, just in case you somehow forgot your 8th grade
> Civics class, that the United States of America is unique on this
> Earth that it is unlike other countries that are sovereign entities
> unto themselves, and it is rather a collection of FIFTY individual
> sovereign states (sort of like small countries), prohibiting the
> unification by gov't or others into one mass body.
Oh Don, stop confusing the issue with the facts. You and Gruhn and 3D
Peruna just *insist* upon doing that! How un-American of y'all.
> Though this fact is
> mainly disregarded by misconstrued things like the Interstate Commerce
> clause and the General Welfare clause, just to mention two, (banking,
> assembly of national military force, social security, and on and on
> and on, etc.) this is no justification for the total disregard of the
> sovereign status of each of the individual states comprising these
> United States of America. I won't even go there about the sovereign
> status of the individual persons.
Oh Don, don't you realize that these days, the term "individual" is merely
a metaphor? Get with modern politics!
> In other words, isn't the issue of identification of voters a *states*
> issue rather than a national issue?
One would think. Same as right to vote. You have to register to vote in
each state you move to. Just as you have to get a new driver's license
each time you move from one state to another.
> *When the responsibilty and rights of states has been finally
> discounted in full by incremental steps there will be no point of
> individual representation of these bodies.*
> --gs, 2005
>
> (sounds like something Jefferson would have written, rather than the
> whiney, embarrassing stuff demonstrated by popular politicians of
> late)
Ah yes, whining - the path to power of the "terrible twos" - pretty
disgusting that, these days, it remains so right through adulthood and to
old age...
> 14 or fight.
??
| |
| P Fritz 2005-09-21, 9:21 am |
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:Qa0Ye.1956$q1.343@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> James Baker and Jimmy Carter are working up a deal where voters must have
a
> picture ID.
>
> Apparently *disadvantaged* persons, or those with *unequal opportunities*
> have little time, need or funding to aquire a drivers license to present
as
> a picture ID at the polls.
They can get a "state ID" .......hell most of the drivers in Detroit think
that works as a drivers license. ;-)
>
> In past elections these persons simply supplied a utility bill or voter
> registration card so that they might vote.
>
> The idea is that the proposal by those 2 folks, Baker and Carter, will
cause
> thousands or millions of poor persons and others to not be able to vote in
> elections.
>
> Is this a good idea?
Yes.........it might decrease the turn out of dead voters in Chicago ;-)
>
> Is this in accordance with the strict writings of the Constitution that
> requires no such thing?
> (photgraphy itself was not invented until long after the ratification)
It is left to the states.....
>
> Why should people that do NOT pay income tax be allowed to influence, no
> matter how small that influence might be, how those taxes are disbursed
> through their voting of chosen politicians?
>
> As the spending of taxes is only one facet of the power wielded by elected
> politicians is it not right that all persons that meet the qualifications
> set forth by the Constitution (go read it sometime, I double dog dare ya)
be
> able to choose those people that have effect upon their lives?
>
> Hopefully you'll be able to connect the dots here to see clearly that when
a
> National ID is required of *some* of the populace it is only a matter of
> time that ALL of the populace will be required to possess the same ID.
Once
> this is done whats next, tattoo barcode?, implanted ID chip?, retina
> printing? frenum tracks? You get the idea.
We are already well om the way....can you say Social Security number?
>
> I will remind you, just in case you somehow forgot your 8th grade Civics
> class, that the United States of America is unique on this Earth that it
is
> unlike other countries that are sovereign entities unto themselves, and it
> is rather a collection of FIFTY individual sovereign states (sort of like
> small countries), prohibiting the unification by gov't or others into one
> mass body. Though this fact is mainly disregarded by misconstrued things
> like the Interstate Commerce clause and the General Welfare clause, just
to
> mention two, (banking, assembly of national military force, social
security,
> and on and on and on, etc.) this is no justification for the total
disregard
> of the sovereign status of each of the individual states comprising these
> United States of America. I won't even go there about the sovereign status
> of the individual persons.
>
> In other words, isn't the issue of identification of voters a *states*
issue
> rather than a national issue?
Yes
>
> *When the responsibilty and rights of states has been finally discounted
in
> full by incremental steps there will be no point of individual
> representation of these bodies.*
> --gs, 2005
>
> (sounds like something Jefferson would have written, rather than the
whiney,
> embarrassing stuff demonstrated by popular politicians of late)
>
> 14 or fight.
>
>
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> I think (but check as I am not sure) that one had to be a property owner
> and of the age of majority in order to vote back then.
I've heard of this one before.
Being a property owner doesn't afford one any benefit from the election
process.
Paying an income tax at the national level does.
Person A owns a dumpy little piece of property but pays little in income tax
and suffers little from rate hikes.
(a elderly minority that inherited the property and collects SS)
Person B owns no property but pays $100k per year in income tax, set and
raised at the national level.
(a single stockbroker that earns lots of money and doesn't want to be
saddled with property)
Which, A or B, should have the most influence on a national election?
| |
| gruhn 2005-09-21, 12:21 pm |
| > > Why should people that do NOT pay income tax be allowed to influence, no[color=darkred]
* strikes a heroic pose:
"Because that's the only fair way to run a democracy."
* preens a little
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-09-21, 12:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:v2dYe.2365$q1.543@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> I've heard of this one before.
> Being a property owner doesn't afford one any benefit from the
> election process.
> Paying an income tax at the national level does.
I don't know whether they had income tax back then, so I guess property
ownership was their yardstick.
Income tax, social security tax.
OTOH, what about stay-at-home mothers (or fathers) whose spouse works?
No income-no income tax, so any non-working spouse or partner would be
closed out as well, even tho' such people are also directly affected.
> Person A owns a dumpy little piece of property but pays little in
> income tax and suffers little from rate hikes.
> (a elderly minority that inherited the property and collects SS)
> Person B owns no property but pays $100k per year in income tax, set
> and raised at the national level.
> (a single stockbroker that earns lots of money and doesn't want to be
> saddled with property)
> Which, A or B, should have the most influence on a national election?
More to the point, where and how would or could *any* line be drawn? That
end up being the problem.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> More to the point, where and how would or could *any* line be drawn? That
> end up being the problem.
Hey!
You jumped ahead two steps and proved my point!
| |
| Kris Krieger 2005-09-21, 8:21 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:3hfYe.1673$vw6.28@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Hey!
> You jumped ahead two steps and proved my point!
Uh-oh, now I'm worried.... ;)
|
|
|
|
|