Why do Democrats oppose photo ID to vote? (solution, elections, Illinois)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of it is about driver's licenses and learner's permits. It also has some sections about state IDs. This is what it says about stopping and asking someone for ID. This is Section 9, straight from your link, BTW, I am not paraphrasing.
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
I asked for verification. The poster supplied a link, but it did not prove what it said he did. See below:
Most of it is about driver's licenses and learner's permits. It also has some sections about state IDs. This is what it says about stopping and asking someone for ID. This is Section 9, straight from your link, BTW, I am not paraphrasing.
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
So if stopped and asked to provide name and address during a stop, especially a driving infraction, the person can be cited and detained for driving without a license. The social security number never has been considered a form of identification and as such should not be asked for.
The inability to produce identification is likely to cause the one asked for it to be taken into custody, if conditions warrant it, until proof of identification can be obtained. Much more costly and inefficent than the simple process of providing the requested identification.
Because it is unconstitutional to require payment in order to vote. Requiring the purchase of an ID renders that requirement unconstitutional, though offering a free ID negates the violation. I personally don't care if you have to have ID to vote, as long as a free ID is available for people who don't need ID for any other purpose, and that ID is easily acquired in poor rural and urban districts. One way, I've read, for Republican administrations to limit poor and rural voting is to close DMV offices in those districts, forcing people to travel (during business- aka, working hours) to get an ID.
Closing of underused state offices is being done across the US. To say it's only "Republicans" doing it is disingenuous at best. Many times a person has to take off work to go to those offices no matter what his/her income level is, so another false argument.
"But you need an ID to open a bank account!" Yeah, you do. Look how many people in the US don't have bank accounts. Like, millions. Seventeen million of them. You also need an ID at check cashing places, car title loan operations (another thread just about those slimeballs might be in order), pawn shops, etc. So again the "bank account" argument kind of falls flat.
What do you think should happen to those organizations (all Republican, as far as I've seen) who deliberately attempt to fool the voting public (registered Democrats) by sending out flyers and/or making robocalls to announce the incorrect date for voting? That is election fraud on a large scale.
That's illegal and I don't support it. But then again, someone who would fall for it may just be too dumb to vote anyway. Kind of like the people who send money to Nigerian "princes" to help smuggle their assets to the US (I know a couple of people who have done that, by the way).
PS. I was being facetious earlier. I don't think I indicated that well in my post.
So if stopped and asked to provide name and address during a stop, especially a driving infraction, the person can be cited and detained for driving without a license. The social security number never has been considered a form of identification and as such should not be asked for.
The inability to produce identification is likely to cause the one asked for it to be taken into custody, if conditions warrant it, until proof of identification can be obtained. Much more costly and inefficent than the simple process of providing the requested identification.
Where do you get that from what I quoted from the law NBP so kindly looked up.
Ditto, plus, total speculation on your part. Do you live in Colorado?
I asked for verification. The poster supplied a link, but it did not prove what it said he did. See below:
Most of it is about driver's licenses and learner's permits. It also has some sections about state IDs. This is what it says about stopping and asking someone for ID. This is Section 9, straight from your link, BTW, I am not paraphrasing.
16-3-103. Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.
Yes it did, you're being obtuse.
I'm guessing it's buried in the driving statutes because that's where issues about identification made sense. I could also make an argument for it being included in the alcohol statutes.
I'm guessing it's buried in the driving statutes because that's where issues about identification made sense. I could also make an argument for it being included in the alcohol statutes.
I quoted the entirety of Section 9. It says produce ID IF AVAILABLE.
Having to produce a driver's license when driving a car is not the same as having to produce ID (your "papers" sir/madame) when walking down the street!
These are Amendments, or in others words after thoughts or lobbied for changes in the constitution. They are not part of the original constitution which indicates the writers thought they were not worth putting into writing. Similar to the minorities clause.
... I don't even know what to say to this.
The "minorities clause" I expect you're referring too is the Fifteenth Amendment.
Most of the Founding Fathers didn't expect the Constitution to last past their lifetimes. Thomas Jefferson in particular was extremely vocal about that, he expected each generation to re-write the Constitution totally to reflect the needs to the time.
The Constitution has ALWAYS been meant to be a living document that changes with the times and reflects how America changes. Thus the mechanism to add Amendments as needed.
Expecting a group of farmers and self educated men to be somehow smarter then people two hundred years later, precognitive enough to also see the future, and anticipate the needs of Citizens two hundred years later, is naive at a minimum.
If you really want to go back to the basic Constitution, remember that you'll also be giving up a lot of other rights such as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, right to bear Arms, fair and speedy trial, limits term limits, and a whole host of other pretty important items that make government run much more smoothly then it good.
I quoted the entirety of Section 9. It says produce ID IF AVAILABLE.
Having to produce a driver's license when driving a car is not the same as having to produce ID (your "papers" sir/madame) when walking down the street!
You're right, but that's exactly what the law says. It's a catch-all law that states that an officer can stop someone who he suspects is committing, has committed or is planning to commit a crime and require the person to state their name and produce identification if available. And it doesn't mean just while driving.
So, I get stopped and tell the cop that my name is Joe Bag-o-Doughnuts (a false name). He calls that in and Joe comes back as a 20 year old. I've just been made and am now arrested for supplying a false identity.
Here are some outstanding examples of it, I think. Admittedly this was only New Hampshire in a primary but so many zombies could have voted in the Democrat primary if one man had taken the so easy to get ballots for the Dem party. Oh yes, you will find that in every case he was offered a Democrat ballot when he claimed to be a dead person.
Maybe the best example of why we need IDs, these days, is exhibited at the end of the video. The man says that there are people scanning obits from all over the state to see when people die and expunge their names from the registered rolls. He says it only takes about a month and yet some of the people who the "zombie" said he was died back as early as last October.
Count how many times this man could have voted for dead people in the video. I was amazed at it all.
Because it is discriminatory. Minorities, the poor, and others more likely to vote for Democrats are less likely to have photo IDs, which makes elections unfair. Voter fraud is not enough of a problem in this country that we need these laws; they are clearly politically motivated.
You're right, but that's exactly what the law says. It's a catch-all law that states that an officer can stop someone who he suspects is committing, has committed or is planning to commit a crime and require the person to state their name and produce identification if available. And it doesn't mean just while driving.
So, I get stopped and tell the cop that my name is Joe Bag-o-Doughnuts (a false name). He calls that in and Joe comes back as a 20 year old. I've just been made and am now arrested for supplying a false identity.
Well, yes, but what does that have to do with what we are talking about? A cop or other "peace officer" cannot stop someone who is walking down the street just "because" and ask him/her for ID.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
