Since you've called me out this once again shows you have no understanding of the difference between the terms "rights" and 'privileges" or how are Constitution works. If you are going to complain about a definitional bias then you might as well say that the US Constitution is an invalid since it has a definitional bias. You seem to have this view that if there are restrictions then that isn't a right. That is an absolutist standard that isn't taken by our laws including the US Constitution. Technically certain restrictions are placed on every right, for example the right to free assembly, you can't just get a bunch of people and assemble in the middle of the street whenever you want even though the First Amendment specifically calls it a right. Under your reasoning though then the Constitution is wrong since that free assembly is actually restricted so not a right. What you don't understand is that rights under our system are defined as either: specifically enumerated in the Constitution (free speech, religion, owning arms, due process and etc..) or derived from case law (privacy). Rights can be restricted but the restrictions are recognized as being due to where conflicts of rights exist and to public safety. Privileges are pretty much everything else that is why driving, drinking and etc. can be heavily regulated far greater than speech, religion or voting. Further 'rights' technically aren't consider things that are granted by the Constitution but things that are protected by the Constitution. In the case of a vote it isn't so much as giving people the vote but protecting the right to vote. To make it simple. Rights are things that have been considered by the Framers and the courts since as essential to the function of our society. That means that there is a higher bar to cross regarding regulation. (to get a jump on the Second Amendment debate I will point out that regulation there are issues of public safety which is recognized as a legitimate reason to place restrictions on rights.) Since we are a democratic republic system voting is essential to the governance of our society. Privileges are not essential to our society and are easier to regulate. Driving a car isn't essential to the governance of our society.
Because as a right, and not a privilege, the ability to vote has to be guaranteed to all eligible voters. As has been shown countless times it is impractical to provide ID's to all eligible voters. Driving is a privilege so there is no Constitutional impetus to provide drivers licenses to everyone who may be able to drive.
I would say rather that that is what the other side is saying. The idea of a voter ID law has gotten a lot of heat here because there are those who seem to want to say that you can't restrict a right. I say that we already do it. I'm quibbling with those who seem to want to say that a right is something unassailable. It's not... as you've pointed out. Why is a Voter ID requirement such a threat to the right to vote if everyone must have one? It would be a requirement of all voters. According to this report 88% of US adults have a Driver's License. Not sure about other states but here in NC, you have to get a DL every five years. Somehow we manage to do that without killing each other. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_licensed_drivers_are_there_in_the_US There may be some challenges to the Motor Voter ID concept but most challenges, especially bureaucratic ones, can be overcome.
Except many poor and elderly people don't drive. You keep ignoring the fact that these laws are being passed not to protect the system but to decrease turn out of democratic voters.
http://www.dmv.org/nc-north-carolina/id-cards.php This is the virtual equivalent of a NC state driver's license-- without driving privileges. Not that hard to get and I'm sure that most states have something like this in place already. Taken at face value, the program would help ensure going forward that only eligible voters do vote.
The issue is the difficulty of even getting to a DPS office. If you have no car and have to rely on our lousy public transportation system which can take hours just to go a few miles, how can you say that's a reasonable burden. Not to mention people who live in rural counties where a DPS office can be over a hundred miles away. You are looking at this solely through your own lens. And while your experience with the ease of getting a license is probably similar to 85% of people in Texas, there is a group of people where it isn't so easy. So in order to justify making voting harder for that group of people, you need some very concrete proof of voter fraud. That simply hasn't been demonstrated in any state to date (in Pennsylvania they straight up admitted that there was no evidence of voter fraud)
Well, we all are looking at it through our own lenses, aren't we? If they can't go get a voter ID card how are they going to go to vote? Seems like there should be some way to venture into the more rural areas and take the registration process to the people who need that kind of assistance.
And if lawmakers made provisions for people who need that kind of assistance, the laws would be much more widely accepted. Unfortunately, lawmakers did not make those kinds of provisions because they would render moot the entire reason these lawmakers want the laws (hint: not because they are concerned about voter fraud).
We shouldn't have to pay to exercise our constitutional right to vote in elections. This is why poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional.
'right' and 'privilege' are not opposites. Nor, is one a subset of the other. Therefore, your question makes no sense. Liberals should stop trying to use words they don't understand such as 'right'.
