Posted on 04/30/2008 8:45:39 AM PDT by neverdem
THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL - Monday's 6-3 Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's voter-identification law has unhinged Democrats and their allies on the political left. Within hours of the ruling, the ACLU was wringing its hands about the judgment of the court that requires someone to produce photo identification in order to vote was not unconstitutional. Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, complained that it was "a body blow to what America stands for — equal access to the polls." But a careful reading of the opinions of the six justices who voted to uphold the Indiana law shows this assertion to be nonsense.
The judgment of the court — that requiring someone to produce photo identification in order to vote is not unconstitutional — was announced by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of its most liberal members. Justice Stevens wrote an opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred, that eviscerates the arguments made against Indiana's reasonable efforts to combat vote fraud...
--SNIP--
A commission co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker reported in 2005 that since October 2002, the Justice Department had launched more than 180 investigations into election fraud, which included instances of multiple voting and providing false information about felon status. In Milwaukee, investigators "said they found clear evidence of fraud, including more than 200 cases of felons voting illegally and more than 100 people who voted twice." The Carter-Baker panel noted one estimate that were more than 181,000 dead people listed on voter rolls in six swing states in the 2004 election.
Vote fraud debases the electoral process by cancelling out the votes of people who obey the law. Those who seek to whitewash such behavior are effectively working to negate the votes of law-abiding citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
All Freepers should go to the website of the Trinity Church and write like if they were Obama’s voters.
Example : “I’m glad Senator Obama finally admitted how much he despised Rev. Wright and your crazy church. We don’t want to hear from you and your crazy pastor anymore.
Shut up and go back to your prayers”
The goal ? Get anger among the Trinity’s members toward Obama.
E-MAIL of the TUCC :
info@tucc.org
Not being able to cheat just pisses the rats off....TFB
Voter fraud: Spelled ACORN.
More than this even, I would proposing closing voter registration 30 days before an election. Democracy is also responsibility. It would end fraud, allow time for authorities to confirm identify of every voter, politicians would have to speak more to the issues, vs. bringing out “their voters.” Finally - if someone is too lazy, stupid or irresponsible to follow a simple procedure to learn the issues and vote, then that person should not be picking our leaders anyway.
Chuck Schumer is just about the lowest, most vile form of self-serving scum on the face of this planet. Makes my skin crawl every time I see or hear him.
Do you need Whitewater to whitewash something?
You need to go the rest of the distance.
Raise the minimum voting age to 21.
> The goal ? Get anger among the Trinity’s members toward Obama.
Why would that help? The Loonie Reverend’s cult followers are probably already angry at Obama because their cult leader is angry with him.
I think it is better to leave dirty tricks up to the Democrats. They seem to be doing a fine job of self-destruction all by themselves.
Operation Get Anger Among the Trinity’s Members Toward Obama?
One of the first steps in converting a free government into tyranny is to undermine the people’s faith in the electoral process through fraud, accusations of fraud, and doubts as to who really won. Once that is done, the electoral process may be eliminated with little to no objection from the people.
In the background to all this remains the question: was the Australian secret ballot truly a good idea?
Any sort of anonymity at the polls introduces the possibility of fraud, and the notion of an anonymous electorate makes the possibility of an irresponsible electorate much more likely.
Between universal suffrage and the secret ballot, the balance between power and responsibility is dangerously disturbed.
Schumer should be required to write this on the blackboard 500 times before he is allowed back into the U.S. Senate on a probationary basis.
ALMOST. I think its close but (as a Nam Vet) I have to give that distinction to that Traitorous, Rat-Bastard, SOB, John "The Snake" Kerry.
As a close second or perhaps a tie for scum, would be one of my own Senators, Patrick "The Leaker of Classified Info" Leahy.
Of course, then you have Dick "The Turd" Durbin and Barbara "The Dog" Boxer and hell, all the DemoRats are just that: slimy, lower than whale dung, scum.
But I do agree with you, Chuckie is one of the most smarmy, phony, slimy, makes me want to puke, Rat.
>> You need to go the rest of the distance. Raise the minimum voting age to 21.
I actually disagree — those old enough to serve in the military should enjoy all the rights guaranteed able-bodied adults by the Constitution ... including the right to vote and the right to bear arms.
H
Yes. Consider the issue of voter cooercion. In Nazi Germany, they had secret ballots, but in some towns, they would go over the results to figure out who voted against the Party and go after them. (ref. Shirer's "The Third Reich"). Can you imagine the problems of voting for a regime change in a place where the incumbent uses violent, brown-shirt type tactics? Today, think Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
Its a question of which type of potential problem seems the worst. I think you get the best balance when you vet the voters' credentials, but vote anonymously.
That an eligible AMERICAN’s vote is counted and isn’t diluted by ineligble voters such as illegals and felons prevents disenfranchising AMERICAN citizens. The Democrats don’t believe in Democracy. They should change their name. They get way too much mileage from it.
A society in which one cannot stand up and express one’s opinion openly but rather casts secret ballots is already unfree.
If brownshirts are running the electoral process, debating the technical questions of balloting is a cowardly avoiding of the real problems facing society.
If you want to find vote fraud, concentrate on the precincts that get close to 100% voter participation. Much of the participation is leftist poll workers who vote for those who did not show up.
Secret ballots shift power from those who cast votes to those who count votes.
It’s not at all clear that this represents progress or justice.
>> A society in which one cannot stand up and express one’s opinion openly but rather casts secret ballots is already unfree.
You’ve missed the point entirely. We CAN express our opinions openly (as many on this board do) — but we are not FORCED to express our opinions when secrecy may be preferred.
This is the purpose of the secret ballot — no one may force one to publicize their voting habits (for instance, those closeted Republicans in Hollywood who would likely have to vote Democrat to preserve career opportunities may vote their conscience without jeopardizing their livelihoods).
It is the essence of freedom that one may choose to express opinions or not under the American system.
H
Make it 21 unless you have a mitltiary ID then.
Consider the hazards of being a known Republican voter in a majority Democrat neighborhood, particularly in the "inner city" areas
Texas has always done this.
The point of democracy is not irresponsibility.
The secret ballot permits chiefly the sort of duplicity you describe. A voter who is not sufficiently independent to withstand the sort of economic pressure you describe probably shouldn’t have the franchise. A voter who lives in a society dominated by violent thugs is not going to change anything through access to a secret ballot—ask the Chicago or South Philly electorate about that.
A short review of history on non-secret ballots will show that pressure is a very real tool of revolutionaries.
In the French Revolution, the specter of retalition to assembly members by the Committee for Public Safety produced reliably more and more terror approval.
See, I go the other way on this.
Raise the age of conscription, and raise the voting age.
To volunteer is something else entirely. If you decide to volunteer for service then you can bypass the whole age requirement thing. You go in and while your active you are granted full rights and privileges, and those continue uninterrupted if you are honorably discharged. You get booted, and you are returned to your former status.
I just say this: 1960 Presidential election. fraud
and the stealing of an elcction by the Chicago...Dead
Democrats....and no Republican follow-up. Do you
remnember how they (Dems) floated the Florida recount..
they would still be coiunting today, if the SC’s had
not ended it....Seems - it is always the Dems with the
pseudo outrage crapola in the Elections. JK
PS: Who is always against voter, ID...as a simple
requirement? D’s— Why? They are indigenous to cheating.
>> Make it 21 unless you have a mitltiary ID then.
That’s probably not Constitutional — equal protection clause. Either ALL 18-year-olds (meeting the other voting qualifications, of course) can vote, or NO 18-year-olds can vote. Probably can’t Constitutionally allow ONLY some 18-year-olds to vote, and withhold the right until 21 for others.
H
H
Intestinal fortitude is not a voter qualifier in this country. The point of the secret ballot is to allow the right to vote to those without the stomach to stand up to peers, leaders, employers, etc. who may exert pressure to rig the votes.
We’re trying to eliminate fraud here ... not introduce new methods of vote tampering.
H
>> If you decide to volunteer for service then you can bypass the whole age requirement thing.
Like I said — probably not Constitutional ... equal protection clause. Also — those who are mature enough to choose to voluntarily give their lives for their country are mature enough to cast a vote.
If you want to raise the age that one can volunteer for service to 21, that’d probably work. Still don’t think its a good idea for military recruitment purposes — but its probably Constitutional.
H
I think it goes deeper.
They know that without cheating, as close as all the votes have been in the past couple of decades, that they could be facing national level extinction.
They would have already found examples in other states, if there were any.
The RATS know that if they can’t cheat, they’ll lose a lot more elections at all levels. Think of all the elections they’ve stolen just in the last 20 years. The RATS wouldn’t control the Senate, and maybe mot the House, if they couldn’t steal elections.
Ever see a side view of Schumer. He has only half a head. The part that holds the brain seems very small. Really.
The distinction between vote-rigging and vote-buying is academic.
It’s going to be hard to root out fraud without being crystal clear about what constitutes illegitimate voting, and that includes consideration of both the why and the how of people’s votes.
Bingo!
>> It’s going to be hard to root out fraud without being crystal clear about what constitutes illegitimate voting, and that includes consideration of both the why and the how of people’s votes.
Ultimately, the “why and how” should be private information to the extent that a voter wants to keep it private. It is not for the government or any individual to force disclosure of such information — and allowing forcible disclosure introduces far more problems than it solves. The secret ballot is an effective means of eliminating most coercion from the voting process.
H
Voter fraud: Spelled DEMOCRAT!
They're known as Democrats.
Bu but but, what if those milltary people DONT have an ID....What then?
bump
It is easier to keep an eye on vote counters than it is to protect voters from intimidation.
The real problem is not the votes. Its is what we’re voting on... There is so much at stake in every election that, to the true believer, “any means necessary” are justified. If our Federal Government were confined within the boundries of the Constitution, none of this would be an issue.
That is actually a non sequiter. The reason the military needs young (17.5 years and older) men [ok, and woman] is precisely because they are young with near boundless stamina. Even couch potatos can be molded into lean, mean fighting machines.
Do not, however, confuse young, strong, lean and mean with maturity. No offense to anyone of that generation serving in the military and I have walked in your shoes (actually Navy boondockers). But, old enough to fight and die does not automatically, and generally does not, translate into knowledge or desire to adequately educate oneself to make learned decisions in the voting booth.
But, then, perhaps the better alternative is and despite my argument, if you are serving or have served honorably, you may vote at age 18. If you are not serving or have not served, you can vote at 21.
>> But, then, perhaps the better alternative is and despite my argument, if you are serving or have served honorably, you may vote at age 18. If you are not serving or have not served, you can vote at 21.
As I’ve said — this would run up against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is likely unconstitutional to allow the franchise for 18-year-olds who serve, and disenfranchise 18-year-olds who do not.
>> Do not, however, confuse young, strong, lean and mean with maturity.
It is simply my opinion that it is not good policy to ask 18-year-olds to jeopardize their lives for their country when they are not allowed a voice in its governance. Sort of a “no-taxation-without-representation” type argument.
>> But, old enough to fight and die does not automatically, and generally does not, translate into knowledge or desire to adequately educate oneself to make learned decisions in the voting booth.
I never said all 18-year-olds, or even all soldiers, are necessarily learned enough to cast what I would consider an “informed” vote — nor do I deign myself qualified to make the determination of precisely whom is sufficiently intelligent, educated or informed to be allowed a vote. I simply stated that soldiers have earned the right to a vote regardless of their political aptitude (and, due to the 14th amendment, all 18-year-olds must thusly be granted that right).
Ultimately, this is the crux of the matter — no individual or governing body should have the power to disenfranchise someone based on percieved lack of knowledge (partially because no one is qualified to make that determination). The United States is simply not governed by an oligarchy of the informed (and the implementation of one would be entirely unconstitutional). Freedom means allowing even those whose intelligence or aptitude we may question the ability to express their opinion, however questionable, in the voting booth.
H
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.