@AttilaTheHorn saidOK,,,,then, you could have simply said, to keep in the gist of this thread, that in Canada, you do not require PHOTO ID, only qualifying papers like Birth Certificate.....but people like me do not find that adequate for solid identification. Or, using a Marauder word from another post, not secure enough.
@AverageJoe1
A birth certificate or documents proving you are a naturalized citizen. It's all you need. It's very easy and simple.
@AttilaTheHorn saidI only just now see this post.......a Passport!!!! Now we are talking.
@AverageJoe1
A birth certificate, passport, or documents proving you are a naturalized citizen of legal age. It's all you need. It's very easy and simple.
You are aware that the BCertificate or other 'documents' dk not carry the same weight as a passport.
So, now, to recap, you would rewrite your first post that a photo ID IS or is NOT required. Since you say passport OR documents, is it that you do not require a photo.???
@Ghost-of-a-Duke saidThe constitution does notexplicitly grant a universal right to vote. Instead, it left voting qualifications largely up to the states. However, several amendments later prohibited states from denying the right to vote on certain grounds, which effectively constitutionalized the right.
So you don't recognise any of the amendments made to the 'original constitution'?
Is that your position?
The Constitution does not say, “Every citizen has the right to vote.”
Over time, the Supreme Court has described voting as a “fundamental right” because it is preservative of all other rights—but structurally, it remains largely administered by the states.
This is the best way to look at it. Y’all could discuss the reasoning of the Supreme Court, blah blah blah, but voting is administered by the states.. boring topic which leads no where.
MORE FUN would be for you liberals to look at the name of this thread, and answer that question. That would be a great discussion and more enjoyable than this thing that Maraldo wants to do….I don’t care about discussing the Supreme Court.
@AverageJoe1
Might as well publish this one, BIG vote this week on Save America bill in the senate, it already passed Congress.
How would you vote if photo ID were easy and cheap.? I would vote that all citizens must have a proof of citizenship and a photo ID. They have nine months right now to go get ID that would be available tomorrow.
So, in that scenario, would you vote that voters must have a proof of citizenship and a photo ID???
@no1marauder saidI want everyone to see this clear example of a liberal who will not answer the most simple of questions. I asked if three people could walk into the meeting of a bridge club and vote on an issue of the bridge club. Of course the answer is no, but why would a liberal not answer a simple question such as this …….probably the largest puzzle ever on the forum.
No. Your question is stupid and I'm not going to waste time on it. Literally no one is saying "non members" should be allowed to vote.
Bill's been in your bridge club for 10 years and has his bridge club ID to prove it. He moves and doesn't have the address on it changed. So now he can't vote.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
To get a passport or documents to prove you are naturalized, you need a birth certificate. The birth certificate is the starting point for anything requiring proof of identity. You can't get a passport without a birth certificate.
One other thing: In Canada, elections are not run by any government. They are run by Elections Canada, which is independent and separate from any political party, or any politics. No party leader has any say in any of this. Of course, political parties monitor everything Elections Canada does, and political parties are invariably on hand at polling stations to see that all goes well.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo leave it to the States like Republican Senator Murkowski said when she announced her opposition to the SAVE Act:
The constitution does notexplicitly grant a universal right to vote. Instead, it left voting qualifications largely up to the states. However, several amendments later prohibited states from denying the right to vote on certain grounds, which effectively constitutionalized the right.
The Constitution does not say, “Every citizen has the right to vote.”
Over time, the ...[text shortened]... njoyable than this thing that Maraldo wants to do….I don’t care about discussing the Supreme Court.
"She said the Constitution “clearly” provides states with the authority to regulate the time, place and manner of holding federal elections.
She argued that “one-size-fits-all” mandates from Washington seldom work in her home state.
“Election Day is fast approaching. Imposing new federal requirements now, when states are deep into their preparations, would negatively impact election integrity by forcing election officials to scramble to adhere to new policies likely without the necessary resources,” she said.
“Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this,” Murkowski added."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5733165-murkowski-trump-election-bill-save-act/
@AverageJoe1 saidI insist right now that you answer the question:
I want everyone to see this clear example of a liberal who will not answer the most simple of questions. I asked if three people could walk into the meeting of a bridge club and vote on an issue of the bridge club. Of course the answer is no, but why would a liberal not answer a simple question such as this …….probably the largest puzzle ever on the forum.
"What is your favorite color?"
That's about as relevant to the thread as your stupid question with an answer nobody disagrees with.
@no1marauder saidI am sure all of that is correct. This is not con-law, man. Give it a rest. This forum is for entertainment. Example, Shav does not believe in Capital punishment, I have total respect for his position. I do. So, each of us gleans what we can from the mind of someone with a total diff viewpoint. Where else would we hear it? I do not know any liberals with whom I could discuss this, as I am a quiet man who cannot IMAGINE bantering it. So, the forum is great, it is entertaining, we learn about the world of diff people.
So leave it to the States like Republican Senator Murkowski said when she announced her opposition to the SAVE Act:
"She said the Constitution “clearly” provides states with the authority to regulate the time, place and manner of holding federal elections.
She argued that “one-size-fits-all” mandates from Washington seldom work in her home state.
“Election Day is ...[text shortened]... owski added."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5733165-murkowski-trump-election-bill-save-act/
So Shav and I know that we will not change minds. Add to that, Sonhouse writes like he will change our minds, but it is still entertaining to scan his stuff.
Sorry, a bit off the wall, but your llinks and pontificating and lectures prob go over a few heads.Yeah, right most of the time, but..............................What about the OP?
Try this one to get back on track,,,,to be answered please. If Senate, hypothetically, of course, sends out pho ID to every QUALIFIED citizen, would you agree that photo ID would be required to vote? Keep in mind that there are thousands of NON citizens in our lands who would thus NOT be able to vote,,,,not having such an ID.
@AverageJoe1 saidNon citizens can't vote now, so what is the point?
I am sure all of that is correct. This is not con-law, man. Give it a rest. This forum is for entertainment. Example, Shav does not believe in Capital punishment, I have total respect for his position. I do. So, each of us gleans what we can from the mind of someone with a total diff viewpoint. Where else would we hear it? I do not know any liberals with whom I co ...[text shortened]... thousands of NON citizens in our lands who would thus NOT be able to vote,,,,not having such an ID.
No, I don't support every citizen having to carry a government issued document to exercise their rights. That flips the central idea of what a government is for as declared by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence.
@no1marauder said"what is your favorite color', or 'who do you think will score the home run' do not have the same basis as a question of"If someone should have the right to do something or not". You are losing it, Marauder.
I insist right now that you answer the question:
"What is your favorite color?"
That's about as relevant to the thread as your stupid question with an answer nobody disagrees with.
Forget it, you won't answer. But.....strange.....You say in this post that the obvious answer, which I give in the post, is that they should not be allowed to vote. But INSTEAD of just answering that, you waste even more ink by saying it is a stupid question. Let us let your contemporaries decide if it is stupid or not. The question is EXACTLY on point with the OP.
@no1marauder said???? Right, non citizens cannot vote. The Point, the point, is that under lax voting procedures,,,follow me here..a Yeminite non-citizen can canoodle his way up to a voting table and talk a pollster ....stay with me.....talk a pollster into letting him VOTE for the next president of the United States.
Non citizens can't vote now, so what is the point?
No, I don't support every citizen having to carry a government issued document to exercise their rights. That flips the central idea of what a government is for as declared by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence.
So after he and his friends do that all over the country, that will sway a win for a democratic president. This Yemenite-supported president would institute laws which would require people like me to provide ALL KINDS of stuff to the undeserving (yes, undeserving) non-citizens. Like the Yemenites....who you say here 'can't vote now'.
Now I hope you get the point, because I have said it about 6 ways, and not been once refuted. Getting exhausted, dead horse and all. Jesus.
And no, god forbid we flip the central idea of what govt is. 🤔
@AverageJoe1 saidIt's as stupid as stupid gets. As all you dumb ass anlagies.
"what is your favorite color', or 'who do you think will score the home run' do not have the same basis as a question of"If someone should have the right to do something or not". You are losing it, Marauder.
Forget it, you won't answer. But.....strange.....You say in this post that the obvious answer, which I give in the post, is that they should not be allowed to ...[text shortened]... et your contemporaries decide if it is stupid or not. The question is EXACTLY on point with the OP.
1 edit
@YEAH-BOY saidNo, it is exactly on point. The three people walking into the bridge club to vote? You see, they represent the guy off the street who walks into a voting precinct with no authorization to vote. Same thing.
It's as stupid as stupid gets. As all you dumb ass anlagies.
Take it from there, not too hard. Have you guys been doing PMs to mess with Avjoe. I am wore out, so you must be winning!
@no1marauder saidALL your links point to DISCRIMINATION...that is in the constitution.
You can't read; it explicitly says a right to vote in all those amendments I linked to.
EDIT: The 24th Amendment too.
The constitution gives states the right to make voting laws.
Read this slowly...there is no right to vote mentioned in the constitution....that is a states right issue.
You have made an ignorant ass of yourself.