New Wisconsin voter ID Law

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
Why don't we simply integrate our current ID systems? Are those IDs valid and meaningful, or not?

And if we can't trust the state and federal government's previous attempts at making legit and trust-able IDs, why would this new ID be any different?

Why do we need different IDs for different things? Why can't we just have One?

Would there be any foreseeable issues with having one single ID for everything everywhere?
Click to expand...
You are not required to have an ID in this country. MIllions of legal voters don't have one. And a National ID was declared UN-Constitutional when they wrote the Constitution.

The national govt may do a census every 10 years and that is IT. This is the same thing that stymied National Gun Registration. NOT LEGAL.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Come on! It is a political forum and you don't have to be here. How can we move past politics if we don't want to?

No one requires that you respect this system. You have the 9th A, to say you don't have to.

For the rest of it, the elected officials voted or not and that is what we have as OUR LAW.. You cannot change it, at all, as an individual. An individual can only be a symbol of Change, like Martin Luther King. It is collective self rule. Your individual opinion is only of worth, to you and a few followers. Get many followers and make your own laws for us.

And you are no legal scholar so, again, the varied opinions of us amateurs is hardly the point, is it?

Just because you say all that "should be illegal" is meaningless. Obviously all that is quite legal and is why we do it.
Click to expand...
So are you suggesting the fundamental intentions of the constitution and bill of rights, are "meaningless?"

The constitutional preservation of my rights, and limitations on my government, are the valid precedent here; anything that anyone does in violation of the constitution, is not okay (partial person rule notwithstanding)... and i'm certainly not the only one who thinks so.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Even felons can get the vote back quite easily if they want
Click to expand...
UMM
NO
Not true in some states
E.g. Florida

Florida’s process for restoring a felon’s civil rights grew stricter last year when Scott and his Cabinet — Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater and Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam — established a five- or seven-year wait, depending on the offense, before felons could apply to have their rights restored.
In 2007, former Gov. Charlie Crist’s first year in office, 38,971 felons regained their civil rights. Last year, Scott and his Cabinet, acting as the Board of Executive Clemency, restored civil rights to 78 people.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
So are you suggesting the fundamental intentions of the constitution and bill of rights, are "meaningless?"

The constitutional preservation of my rights, and limitations on my government, are the valid precedent here; anything that anyone does in violation of the constitution, is not okay (partial person rule notwithstanding)... and i'm certainly not the only one who thinks so.
Click to expand...
No, but you are munging my words. Your lay opinions about it are meaningless See the difference? :)

It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what SCOTUS rules.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You are not required to have an ID in this country. MIllions of legal voters don't have one. And a National ID was declared UN-Constitutional when they wrote the Constitution.

The national govt may do a census every 10 years and that is IT. This is the same thing that stymied National Gun Registration. NOT LEGAL.
Click to expand...
Then how can anyone "require" me to have ID "in public?" How can it be made "illegal" for someone to Not have or produce identification upon request? Pretty sure it's "criminal" to be in public without valid ID in some regions.

Plus, there's that selective constitutional interpretation again... those who claim the power to interpret the constitution "officially," in accordance with their agenda, instead of in accordance with intellectual honesty and as an endorsement of the fundamental notion that we should all be free (as long as we're not harming others), are the ones we need to be scrutinizing. I don't see how cannabis prohibition could ever be construed as constitutionally acceptable, unless you disregard and/or disparage the verbiage therein (which there's an amendment specifically included to guard against, so that would also have to be disregarded by any pro-prohibition interpretation... therefore unconstitutional and invalid!).
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
No, but you are munging my words. Your lay opinions about it are meaningless See the difference? :)

It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what SCOTUS rules.
Click to expand...
And isn't that such a convenient interpretation of how the constitution should be used/abused/misinterpreted?

I'm pretty sure that my opinion about whether i'm being unjustly oppressed and/or injured by "policy," is actually quite relevant, because it is the basis for any potential actions or reactions which may occur from my person, in response to having what i hold as a self-evident injustice, involuntarily imposed upon me, by what are clearly usurpers, and not legitimate authorities.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Constitutional acceptable? WTF?? No Pot is the law of the land these last 90 years. SCOTUS ruled on this long ago.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
BS. Don't make it up if you don't know. I had civvies restored from the State of FL for felony pot.
Click to expand...
When?
In 2011, 78 ex-felons had their right to vote restored. That number rose to 342 last year. That compares with more than 14,000 in 2006, Gov. Jeb Bush's last year in office, and more than 85,000 in 2008, the first full year after the clemency board followed Crist's lead and voted to allow virtually automatic rights restoration for nonviolent former felons.
In the midst of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, Florida adopted a new constitution with a provision prohibiting former felons from voting or holding public office unless their civil rights were restored.
In most states, some or all felons now get back their right to vote, although not necessarily other rights such as gun ownership, upon finishing their sentences. Some states, though, have waiting periods as well as application and approval requirements. Some deny rights restoration for more serious crimes. In Maryland and Vermont, convicts never lose their voting rights and can cast absentee ballots from prison.
Florida is the largest of four states that permanently deny felons the right to vote unless restored by the governor or a clemency board. The others are Virginia, Kentucky and Iowa.
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2013-04-13/Florida-leads-in-denying-ex-felons-voting-rights
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
And isn't that such a convenient interpretation of how the constitution should be used/abused/misinterpreted?

I'm pretty sure that my opinion about whether i'm being unjustly oppressed and/or injured by "policy," is actually quite relevant, because it is the basis for any potential actions or reactions which may occur from my person, in response to having what i hold as a self-evident injustice, involuntarily imposed upon me, by what are clearly usurpers, and not legitimate authorities.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS< not you.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
Then how can anyone "require" me to have ID "in public?" How can it be made "illegal" for someone to Not have or produce identification upon request? Pretty sure it's "criminal" to be in public without valid ID in some regions.

Plus, there's that selective constitutional interpretation again... those who claim the power to interpret the constitution "officially," in accordance with their agenda, instead of in accordance with intellectual honesty and as an endorsement of the fundamental notion that we should all be free (as long as we're not harming others), are the ones we need to be scrutinizing. I don't see how cannabis prohibition could ever be construed as constitutionally acceptable, unless you disregard and/or disparage the verbiage therein (which there's an amendment specifically included to guard against, so that would also have to be disregarded by any pro-prohibition interpretation... therefore unconstitutional and invalid!).
Click to expand...
You are not required to have a ID for walking around.
I dont even carry a wallet or my drivers license when I drive
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
you cannot say what is invalid, Self rule protects us from you.
Click to expand...
My first amendment protections declare that i may indeed say what is invalid; you just don't have to agree, and as long as i don't impose anything upon you, all you can really do is dislike whatever ideal or notion i've expressed; legally, of course. You could do whatever you want, for any reason, or none at all... but laws were invented to curb such irrational and outwardly injurious behavior. Those are good laws. But when any person or group or entity takes too far, the authorization to enforce, they also invalidate their own authorization, despite insisting they haven't. When a judge rules in favor of bias, instead of refusing to endorse injustice, regardless of what "is or isn't law," he is no longer honorable, and clearly does not embrace the "justice" part of his duties, and should therefore forfeit his position of authority, accordingly.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
When?
In 2011, 78 ex-felons had their right to vote restored. That number rose to 342 last year. That compares with more than 14,000 in 2006, Gov. Jeb Bush's last year in office, and more than 85,000 in 2008, the first full year after the clemency board followed Crist's lead and voted to allow virtually automatic rights restoration for nonviolent former felons.
In the midst of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, Florida adopted a new constitution with a provision prohibiting former felons from voting or holding public office unless their civil rights were restored.
In most states, some or all felons now get back their right to vote, although not necessarily other rights such as gun ownership, upon finishing their sentences. Some states, though, have waiting periods as well as application and approval requirements. Some deny rights restoration for more serious crimes. In Maryland and Vermont, convicts never lose their voting rights and can cast absentee ballots from prison.
Florida is the largest of four states that permanently deny felons the right to vote unless restored by the governor or a clemency board. The others are Virginia, Kentucky and Iowa.
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2013-04-13/Florida-leads-in-denying-ex-felons-voting-rights
Click to expand...
It was about 4 years ago. FL has an auto restore process. When you find your name is not on the list of restricted you check, you just fill out a little form and a letter comes back from the Governors office.

Now, in many states guns and voting are unlinked. I don't have the civvies to own a gun in FL.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
My first amendment protections declare that i may indeed say what is invalid; you just don't have to agree, and as long as i don't impose anything upon you, all you can really do is dislike whatever ideal or notion i've expressed; legally, of course. You could do whatever you want, for any reason, or none at all... but laws were invented to curb such irrational and outwardly injurious behavior. Those are good laws. But when any person or group or entity takes too far, the authorization to enforce, they also invalidate their own authorization, despite insisting they haven't. When a judge rules in favor of bias, instead of refusing to endorse injustice, regardless of what "is or isn't law," he is no longer honorable, and clearly does not embrace the "justice" part of his duties, and should therefore forfeit his position of authority, accordingly.
Click to expand...
You keeps saying "should." Should is not lawful, just your opinion.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You are not required to have a ID for walking around.
I dont even carry a wallet or my drivers license when I drive
Click to expand...
Well, i'm sure we're all very aware of police using intimidation tactics and insisting on punishing people for things that either aren't actually illegal, or should never have been allowed to be criminalized. I'm pretty sure the rules where i live, say that it's illegal to drive without physically possessing your valid license, and/or other documents that are "mandatory" for legally operating a vehicle on public roads; i'm also pretty sure i've seen/heard people get tickets for merely not having their ID on them when encountering a request from a LEO. Make of it what you will.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
Then how can anyone "require" me to have ID "in public?" How can it be made "illegal" for someone to Not have or produce identification upon request? Pretty sure it's "criminal" to be in public without valid ID in some regions.
Click to expand...
You are from Canada? Regions? We don't have regions here as any kind of govt boundary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top