Systematic Issues

Originally posted by socool8520
Well, don't get caught using illegal drugs and it won't show up anywhere lol.

Originally posted by socool8520
If it becomes legal, then don't do anything stupid and it won't be reported. No issues.

Originally posted by socool8520
If you are blabbing it on social media (I'm not meaning you directly) then it becomes public record and I would factor into my decision making process.

^ That's my thing. If it shows up, i'm using it

I've never been caught with illegal drugs. This is because I will not walk around with that shit in my pocket. I take precautions too. I always place it in my trunk. This way if you get pulled over a cop won't smell it. The shit I get SMELLS. It smells good, but you can tell it's weed immediately.

Originally posted by SquallX

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege.

Voting being a right is the fundamental foundation our democracy is based on.

Originally posted by Emperordmb

Agreed, if you do drugs and commit crimes those crimes should appear on public record.

Fair enough, but that's more in the realm of what a person voluntarily reveals. [/B]

Why should the government actively aid in the sabotaging of people's lives?

And BTW, part of the reason we have so many criminals is because those who get out are always coming back, largely because of how hard it is to get back on your feet once you've already paid for your crimes.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That's absolute nonsense.

Voting being a right is the fundamental foundation our democracy is based on.

Interesting article:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/right_to_vote/

Seems we do, but at least one ruling said we don't. Or rather, there is a qualifier.

"In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

Originally posted by socool8520

Because one can be rectified by obtaining an ID (easy to get and makes things legal) while the other puts a restriction on an illegal activity. That's not hard to think through.

The only way you can argue for this policy is pragmatically, and that's going to get you nowhere since you're actively doing a lot of bad for an unknown amount of good.

You can implement voter id once you've made sure voter ID's are easy and free for everyone to access. Untill then though, it's just bad policy.

Interesting article:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/right_to_vote/

Seems we do, but at least one ruling said we don't. Or rather, there is a qualifier.

"In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”

Well no. I'm not saying that is correct. The ruling was from 2000 so maybe more recent ones changed?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well no. I'm not saying that is correct. The ruling was from 2000 so maybe more recent ones changed?

Though no, unfortunately that still seems to be the case and is unlikely to change with a conservative supreme court,

Another really depressing article on this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

The judges conceded Indiana Voter ID laws were partisan but said it was ok because it wasn't "excessively burdening".

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It's not easy to get for tens of thousands of people state by state, that's the point.

The only way you can argue for this policy is pragmatically, and that's going to get you nowhere since you're actively doing a lot of bad for an unknown amount of good.

You can implement voter id once you've made sure voter ID's are easy and free for everyone to access. Untill then though, it's just bad policy.

How is it not easy? It doesn't cost much, and the worst part about it is hanging out at the DMV. I got a state ID when I was 17 in like an hour for 25 bucks

Originally posted by socool8520
How is it not easy? It doesn't cost much, and the worst part about it is hanging out at the DMV.

For certain parts of the population, voter ID laws can make voting very difficult:
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.2

The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.3

States exclude forms of ID in a discriminatory manner. Texas allows concealed weapons permits for voting, but does not accept student ID cards. Until its voter ID law was struck down, North Carolina prohibited public assistance IDs and state employee ID cards, which are disproportionately held by Black voters. And until recently, Wisconsin permitted active duty military ID cards, but prohibited Veterans Affairs ID cards for voting.

Not to mention voter ID laws are used to suppress certain types of voters for political gain:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/09/voting-right-or-privilege/262511/

In voter ID cases all over the country, courts are considering the proper level of "scrutiny" to apply to "burdens" on the right to cast a ballot. In 2008, the Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law, even conceding that it had a partisan basis, because it was not "excessively burdensome" to most voters. (Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concurred separately to suggest that the proper level of scrutiny was more like "whatever the legislature wants."😉

A 2014 GAO study found that strict photo ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points,4 which can translate into tens of thousands of votes lost in a single state.5

Unless
A. Voter ID is something that is universally easy and free to receive

B. We get evidence of voter fraud on the scale of tens of thousands per state

Voter id laws have no justification for their existence.