Obama the Liar at it again...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That would assume the situation was ripe for fraud. The evidence doesn't appear to prove that's the case.

Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse. That there is dispute along party lines as how to effect those safeguards, or even if they're necessary, is not unusual. There have been bitter disputes over smaller matters. Each party accuses the other of either suppressing the vote to gain electoral advantage, or fostering fraud to gain electoral advantage. There may be some truth, or even documentation, for both in certain cases. The overall argument is "ripe" with accusations of litigation to gain advantage either way. Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives. The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

What you're saying is that you want legislation that would expand the regulatory power of government in a manner not congruent with the Costitution.

How so? Are voting regulations not in the constitutional purview of government?

According to Detbuch's other thread you're supporting liberal policy.

-spence

If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.

But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.

Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence