Supreme court upholds voter ID law, disenfranchising native Americans in ND

The constitution doesn't restrict states from making election laws except those outlined in the 15th Amendment.

Having a proper, with the state defining proper, ID is not unconstitutional or the many states that require an ID would be outside the law.
 
So you provide no proof that voter id is rampant and extrapolate some insignificant figures to make your case? By that logic, some gun owners are nuts, so the problem must be pervasive among gun owners.

I provided proof. You don't accept that proof - as I said to your liberal buddy, I can't help it if you don't accept the proof or don't want to accept the proof.

An ID shouldn't be needed for voting for the same reason I can tell ND to fuck off. See, I don't need an ID to exercise my 1st. Nor should I need an ID to exercise my 15th and telling them to fuck off w/my vote.

So why aren't you rallying against all the other things that require an ID? What makes voting different from any of those other ones? You've ignored this question now at least 4 times.
 
He ignores your questions because there is no legitimate argument against voter ID. If people really care about citizens without valid IDs, then they should focus their efforts on helping them get valid IDs. Many states offer free IDs to low income citizens. All states should. The same is true regarding ND tribal addresses. The address requirement should have been rectified after the law was passed.

Exactly. You can tell when Ricter gets upset because the profanity begins to fly.
 
I provided proof. You don't accept that proof - as I said to your liberal buddy, I can't help it if you don't accept the proof or don't want to accept the proof.



So why aren't you rallying against all the other things that require an ID? What makes voting different from any of those other ones? You've ignored this question now at least 4 times.

You provided proof that voter fraud is miniscule, which I've never argued against, I accept your proof.

What makes the 1st amendment different? Why aren't we asking for IDs to express opinions?

To use the common sense argument, I can't shoot someone with my vote, that's why you need an ID for your 2nd.
 
You provided proof that voter fraud is miniscule, which I've never argued against, I accept your proof.

What makes the 1st amendment different? Why aren't we asking for IDs to express opinions?

To use the common sense argument, I can't shoot someone with my vote, that's why you need an ID for your 2nd.
Actually the vote is potentially more dangerous than any gun, which is why it's so important to make sure that the only people voting are legal citizens. You can only kill so many people with a gun. You can take down an entire country with the vote, and that's why the radical left wants voting open to any and all.
 
You provided proof that voter fraud is miniscule, which I've never argued against, I accept your proof.

What makes the 1st amendment different? Why aren't we asking for IDs to express opinions?

To use the common sense argument, I can't shoot someone with my vote, that's why you need an ID for your 2nd.

Wait, what? Why aren't we asking IDs to express opinions?

Why aren't you railing against using IDs to drive? To get on an airplane? To buy cold medicine? Why don't you think it is disenfranchising people to require an ID to get a job? Buy a cell phone? Apply for medicaid or social security? Or food stamps?

Why aren't you guys up in arms over all of that? Why just voting?

I'm not questioning that people should need an ID to buy a gun. I absolutely agree with it.
 
Back
Top