« Very Telling | Main | Vote For This Man. »
April 29, 2008
Fewer Dead People To Vote In Coming Elections
The Supreme Court has made it harder for dead people to vote. In addition, illegal immigrants, convicted felons, and carpetbaggers may become disenfranchised. In a display of common sense that is becoming a hallmark of the Robert's Court, the Supremes voted 6-3 to allow Indiana to continue to demand that voters produce photo identification in order to vote. The ruling is expected to encourage other states to adopt similar measures. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, in the broader of two opinions defending voter ID laws,
"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."
What it does represent is a significant burden for the deceased and other segments of the Democratic constituency. Predictable protestations from aggrieved Democrats, from Nancy Pelosi on down, were heard.
April 29, 2008 by Marty | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/395529/28616214
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fewer Dead People To Vote In Coming Elections:
Comments
I forget where I read it (possibly Bench Memos, maybe The Corner, maybe elsewhere), but someone was complaining that, unlike other things that require IDs (porn, booze, cigs, etc.), voting rights are a constitutional right, and thus should have no bars to exercising that right. Of course, this was quickly countered that buying a gun requires an ID, among other obvious constitutional rights. And that gun analogy is great on multiple levels -- sure, you have a right to a gun/vote, but there are reasonable bars to who can exercise that right (no felons, please!), and thus you must be able to reliably filter out those undesirables. Argue for/against one, and you're logically forced to to argue the other. Of course, this can bite both ways depending on just how literalist you are on Amendment number two. Chris, care to chime in?
Posted by: Ben | Apr 29, 2008 8:22:08 PM
I'll take a stab at an answer for Chris: It is perfectly reasonable to ban machine guns. Likewise, it is perfectly reasonable to try to stop Democrats from voting like machine guns.
Posted by: Marty | Apr 29, 2008 8:40:22 PM
Machine guns are legal in most states. You just need to go through a lot of bureaucratic hoops to get one. I think it's a great analogy though, and hopefully, the Heller decision will re-elevate gun rights to the level of those for voting and for killing the unborn.
Some of the Left also likes to say gun ownership should be like the "right" to drive- you should need a license, and pass a test. But they *really* don't want that. To extend the analogy, then you wouldn't need a license to own a gun on your property. And the testing to get a gun would be passed by almost everyone, and the license would be valid across state lines, and would only be revoked after egregious misuse of the gun, etc, etc. As usual, it's a line of liberal BS.
PS: It's amazing how these "disenfranchised" can find ID when cashing government checks.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 30, 2008 6:14:56 AM
Another thing I've seen coming out of a couple states is lowering the voting age to 17. NH is doing this for state and primary elections. Of course it's proposed by Dems. They intend to "enfranchise" more of the ignorant and coerce-able.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 30, 2008 6:42:05 AM
Democrats know that with out the prisoners, the dead, and the ignorant, their constituency decrease by 25%. So naturally they've fought this tooth and nail for years.
A homeless Heroin addict has ID to cash their SSI checks!!
The Democrats must have a seance' and ask the ghost of Boss Tweed what to do now that you can't "Vote, and vote often".
Posted by: hank kaczmarek | Apr 30, 2008 6:52:16 AM
There is no constitutional right to vote. Even though you can't be prevented from voting if you are 18 or a women and you can't control who votes by whether they pay a poll tax, the constitution doesn't say which man or women or 18 year old can vote. That is (still)left up to the states.
Posted by: Paul | Apr 30, 2008 7:39:55 AM
Also, race or color cannot be a condition for voting. Nor can a previous condition of servitude. So Ben and Hank can vote.
Posted by: Marty | Apr 30, 2008 8:00:19 AM
Didn't mean to imply that I thought you were a gun-nut absolutist, Chris -- just that you seem to be the go-to guy for 2nd Amendment stuff 'round here.
What if that condition of servitude persists, marty?
And Paul, I suppose by "constitutional right to vote" I should clarify that there is "a constitutional right for some proportion of the voting populace to vote in federal elections". Which is a valid statement, just like the right for a proportion of the populace to own firearms.
Posted by: Ben | Apr 30, 2008 9:36:43 AM
Ben,
I *am* a gun-nut absolutist. Well, almost.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 30, 2008 9:45:45 AM
Then where's your M-1 Abrams? Or your tactical nuclear weapon? "Almost"... pffft...
Posted by: Ben | Apr 30, 2008 10:12:12 AM
My feeling is thta SCOTUS should develop the 2nd Amendment standard of "if you can carry it, you can own it". That will include small suitcase nukes, but not ones big enough to destroy entire civilizations.
Posted by: Chris | Apr 30, 2008 10:40:00 AM
I'm working on a suitcase black hole. The quantum gravitational equations are a little tricky, and I need some adamantium flexachloride for the containment vessel. But I think I can get a prototype smaller than some of the airplane carry-on I saw on my trip to Phoenix.
Posted by: Marty | Apr 30, 2008 10:49:35 AM
My previous condition of servitude was that of counselor/psychiatrist,nurse and doctor to 140 of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, among other duties. In recognition for performing these acts of mercy and kindness for the lowest possible wage that the government dared to pay me, I was given "the franchise" as a reward for my deprivations at their hands. Bitch that Uncle Sam is.
Posted by: hank | Apr 30, 2008 12:00:22 PM
You know, as heretical as this thought may be to this strict-constructionist crowd (to which I belong, as well), I think I wouldn't mind some sort of "earned right" status for voting, where that right may be earned through service to the country in some way -- military service being one obvious path. And by "service to the country", I DO NOT mean "service to the government".
Posted by: Ben | Apr 30, 2008 1:25:17 PM
