Posted on 01/17/2014 9:59:46 AM PST by SMGFan
I’m not familiar with the law that the judge struck down, but did activist PA lawmakers possibly write the law using language that they knew would provoke any judge to strike it down? Or did the judge strike down the law because the judge is possibly an activist? Or did the judge justifiably strike down the law?
Next, note that the states have amended the Constitution to protect voting rights on the basis of race, sex, tax status and age as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. In other words, there is no constitutonal right which protects voters from not having to show a valid photo ID before voting. So the states can make constitutional laws which require voters to present valid photo ID before being allowed to vote.
Again, I don’t know the basis on which the judge struck down this law. And it’s getting too close to November for such laws to be struck down.
Remember, if patriots can elect a 2/3 conservative majority to both Houses of Congress in November then Congress will have the constitutional authority to repeal Obamacare without Obama’s signature.
Why not take a picture of the voter after he votes and put that in the book along with his signature for future ID?
This is not a federal case. A state judge decided it on the basis of the state’s constitution. (Or, at least, that’s the basis he cited.)
You are waaaay too advanced for this crooked system. :-)
when are Americans going to put a stop to all this? If all of us who have a “soap box” went to DC to protest maybe we could get enough people to make an impression on voters.
also why don’t our GOP reps come up with something catchy, dramatic, important, etc - ex. Contract with America. People loved that. why don’t conservatives come up with something. I’ve been thinking but nothing comes to mind.
"You've made your ruling judge, now let's see you enforce it"
Dye their fingers like Iraq!
The system would also ‘store’ the photograph so that it can be compared to other prospective voter photographs to check if that person has already done this at other polling places. Voter fraud would be less likely if the prospective voter was likely to be arrested right on the spot...................
Good solution! Wonder why that was not thought of? [Maybe the object of the law was not to prevent voting twice but prevent voting once.}
Judge Bernard McGinley should explain what he means by it being an unreasonable burden. Is it an unreasonable burden to go to get a photo for a driver’s license or a license to carry? How about a passport photo? How about all other forms of ID?
This judge is another addle-minded liberal who wants the one side to be able to continue to cheat at the polls.
Possibly.
But by then we may be into the next election cycle. Thus providing more opportunity for a left-wing congress to approve more left-wing judges - who then interpret more laws with a left-wing bent, creating a socio-political climate that is more and more hostile to free-thinking people.
We are fast approaching (if not already there) a state of electoral critical mass...
Good point. He should be disbarred for violating SCOTUS’ RECENT ruling.
Also, it’s an “unreasonable burden” for voters to vote knowing that a DemonRAT voter has nullified their vote by voting multiple times.
Precisely. I am 60 years old. I look much younger but not under 21. I have to show my driver’s license buy alcohol in ID everybody states. Here in Alabama I have to show it to vote or show a utility bill proving my address and proper name of the registered voter that is me. I know from several of my black republican friends that live in predominately black precincts, ID is often a wink and a nod between the voter and the roll checkers. Alabama has been purging a lot of dead voters off the rolls since republicans took the legislature in 2010 after 130 years of democrat majority.
It’s not about “Liberal Logic”, it’s about criminal intent by liberals.
So the judiciary has decreed, so let it be done!
Why do we give these political hacks any more credence than the hacks in the executive and legislature? Because they wear black muumuus?
It wasn’t that stringent. In 2012 it was put on hold right after it started and we didn’t even have to show ID.
I live in PA. The law was passed in March 2012.
But then it was blocked by judges in October 2012 from being used in the presidential election.
It was ruled in 2012 they could ask you for an ID but you could vote without one and wouldn’t have to use a provisional ballot.
Apparently now this judge wants to block it on a permanent basis?
It’s doubly frustrating considering I firmly believe PA was one of many states stolen from Romney in 2012.
I always feel you gotta get close first to win by cheatin’
And Caliph Baraq won Penn in 2012 by 5.5 points, so I’m not so sure on that one.
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.