So, basically there is nothing required to actually prove who they are? Is that correct?
Also, if they are homeless with no phone they could give a name and birthdate verbally and register (leading to a vote in that district)?
I am assuming that an address is not required because then it may deny a homeless person's rights..
You still have it backwards. Constitutionally speaking, all that is required is for the individual to claim they are eligible. Voting is a right. The constitution has very specific language on what is required to deprive a person of a right. "Due process" includes "innocent until proven guilty" and places the burden of proof on the prosecution. You don't have to prove your eligibilty; the government has to prove your ineligibility.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
So, basically there is nothing required to actually prove who they are? Is that correct?
#6 states an ID number (drivers license number or SSN, there could be more options depending on state. If either are not available, the state will issue a number.)
I'm sure a picture ID or what ever required by the state could be falsified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
Also, if they are homeless with no phone they could give a name and birthdate verbally and register (leading to a vote in that district)? I am assuming that an address is not required because then it may deny a homeless person's rights..
The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) help in verifying identity, selecting a location of residence for precinct determination, providing an address for mail, and obtain the required ID to register to vote.
You still have it backwards. Constitutionally speaking, all that is required is for the individual to claim they are eligible. Voting is a right. The constitution has very specific language on what is required to deprive a person of a right. "Due process" includes "innocent until proven guilty" and places the burden of proof on the prosecution. You don't have to prove your eligibilty; the government has to prove your ineligibility.
Some say that's the case for operating a motor vehicle.
Some say that's the case for operating a motor vehicle.
Who?
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Revocation of a driver's license without due process may be illegal, but due to violating state licensing law, not the constitution.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Revocation of a driver's license without due process may be illegal, but due to violating state licensing law, not the constitution.
It has been presented in court, such as "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
However, since the populus in general has waived the right it now seems a moot point. The run of the mill citizen is consistently reminded that he is free so he does not take the time to rationalize that he really isn't.
It has been presented in court, such as "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
However, since the populus in general has waived the right it now seems a moot point. The run of the mill citizen is consistently reminded that he is free so he does not take the time to rationalize that he really isn't.
Yes, the *use* of the road - or any public space - is a right. Driving on that highway is not a right. You can use a bike, shoe leather, or have someone else drive you to get around.
Driving is a privilege extended to those who have passed a few tests. If driving were a right, you wouldn't need a license to do it - you'd go get in your car and drive, no driver's ed, no vision, written, or road test, no visits to the license bureau. If it were a right, you would have to take a blind person to court to deprive them of the right to drive. But since it's a privilege, the applicant has the burden of proving to the state's satisfaction that he is capable of driving.
The fact that something is a privilege does not imply that it can be restricted arbitrarily. The licensing laws are clear on who can and cannot get a basic driver's license, and the application of these laws is quite liberal.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
If driving were a right, you wouldn't need a license to do it - you'd go get in your car and drive, no driver's ed, no vision, written, or road test, no visits to the license bureau. If it were a right, you would have to take a blind person to court to deprive them of the right to drive.
Oh, I see.... It's like the right to bear arms? Oh, wait.....
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Oh, I see.... It's like the right to bear arms? Oh, wait.....
It is similar, yes. There are some significant differences. We have the right to bear arms; congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, including the gun trade. The right to carry and the power to regulate commerce are going to bump heads. The right isn't to buy arms, it's to bear arms.
No, the commerce clause wasn't intended specifically to regulate the sale of firearms, but the power undeniably extends to the commercial sale of firearms.
Federal law has no problem with me building a gun for my personal use. Google "80% lower" - I can purchase a block of aluminum with all *major* milling operations complete to turn it into an AR15. But it's still a block of aluminum when it reaches my door. I can then perform a couple simple operations - drilling a couple holes, filing, grinding, and finishing and turn it into a perfectly lawful firearm for which the government has no record.
What power does congress have that is going to similarly bump heads with the right to vote? Voters need not acquire any unique type of commercial product to exercise their right to vote, so the commerce clause doesn't apply. Is there a constitutional power that does tend to conflict with voter rights?
The right to vote is similar to the right to *build* a firearm, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to exercise your own religion. You do not need to show identification for any of these things. Demanding identification for any of these would be an infringement of the right.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Most places that allow you to carry (or "bear") a handgun require a permit. Also, if I "build" a full auto AR15 from a semi auto, it is breaking the law right?
Below is from the ATF site. It is from the FAQ section. Answer to the question "can an unlicensed individual build a machine gun?
Generally, no. However, if documentation can be provided, along with the Application to Make a Machinegun, which establishes that the weapon is being made for distribution to a Federal or State agency, an individual may be permitted to make the machine gun.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2), 27 CFR 479.105(e)]
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Linear Mode
