We COULD have a national ID card

[pecksniff]

This is the information age. Technologically, it would be easy to issue a national ID card to every citizen and resident alien, keyed to a database-file recording every interaction with government you have had since the day you were born -- birth certificate, school records, tax records, arrest records, etc., etc. "I hope you know this will go down in your permanent record." It will!

There would be no need to register to vote -- your national ID would BE your registration if you're legally qualified. The card would also reflect your citizenship or or residency status.

It would be very, very convenient for law enforcement, including ICE, to have such a system in place.

So what's the downside? Just a general sense of the creeping Orwells?

 

[CornusKousa]

No need.....elections are a state matter.

Why do you hate the USA so much??

 

[pecksniff]

No need.....elections are a state matter.

And the states would take national ID for voting purposes.

 

[CornusKousa]

And the states would take national ID for voting purposes.

No, some will reject it as some already do.

Why do you hate the USA so much??

 

[Bud_Spencer]

If the Left didn't look at Orwell as a how-to manual, I wouldn't be so paranoid.

 

[pecksniff]

No, some will reject it as some already do.

There is no national ID at present, there is nothing to reject.

Why do you hate the USA so much??

It is you who hates the USA, if you are trying to erect or maintain barriers to voting.

 

[phrodeau]

If the Left didn't look at Orwell as a how-to manual, I wouldn't be so paranoid.

Ayn Rand is much better, isn’t she?

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Ayn Rand is much better, isn’t she?

Objectively.

 

[CornusKousa]

There is no national ID at present, there is nothing to reject.

I personally have two national (federal) ID's.

One you can't get, the other you could if you want.

It is you who hates the USA, if you are trying to erect or maintain barriers to voting.

Incorrect....the USA was never meant to be an open and simple majority democracy.

The USA was also not a unitary state as you would like to make it and even most of the time pretend it should or was supposed to be.

It's the authoritarian control freaks who want to erase the states along with all our other civil liberties, comrades such as yourself, who hate the USA.

Not us liberty loving pro-states existing folks.

Ayn Rand is much better, isn’t she?

https://memegenerator.net/img/images/73076624.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41P7w+2sv-L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

[pecksniff]

I personally have two national (federal) ID's.

One you can't get, the other you could if you want.

If you mean passport and military ID, I suppose states would reject them as voting ID because they don't show your address. But the card I'm talking about would. It would also show whether you are a citizen, and could be swiped to see if you have any felony convictions, in states where that is disqualifying.

 

[CornusKousa]

If you mean passport and military ID, I suppose states would reject them as voting ID because they don't show your address.

It's rejected as valid ID in a number of states because states.

But the card I'm talking about would. It would also show whether you are a citizen, and could be swiped to see if you have any felony convictions, in states where that is disqualifying.

Does it allow nation wide open/concealed carry??


Even then, I'd say no. Because states.

Why is it such a problem for you that we have states??

 

[pecksniff]

It's rejected as valid ID in a number of states because states.

"Because states"? There ought to be some better reason than that for turning away a voter. I should hope you have no principled objection to the Voting Rights Act which is federal legislation.

Does it allow nation wide open/concealed carry??

It could be swiped to show whether you have such a license anywhere.

Even then, I'd say no. Because states.

Why is it such a problem for you that we have states??

Why is it such a problem for you that they're not independent? This isn't 1860.

 

[CornusKousa]

"Because states"? There ought to be some better reason than that for turning away a voter.

Not as a voter ID but as an ID in general.

You can't buy booze or ciggs for example in some states without a STATE ID, they don't accept military ID or a passport.

I should hope you have no principled objection to the Voting Rights Act which is federal legislation.

Other than it being 100% totally unnecessary??

No.

It could be swiped to show whether you have such a license anywhere.

So no....your ID program is totally fucking worthless.

Another plastic card scam clogging up my man purse with a 6th ID.

Why is it such a problem for you that they're not independent? This isn't 1860.

It's not, I didn't say it was and I'm not proposing any independence.

Nice dodge on the question though.

Why is having states such a problem for you??

 

[pecksniff]

Not as a voter ID but as an ID in general.

You can't buy booze or ciggs for example in some states without a STATE ID, they don't accept military ID or a passport.

That's dumb.

Other than it being 100% totally unnecessary??

No.

The VRA was necessary in 1965, and you are an idiot if you think so much has changed that it is not necessary now.

So no....your ID program is totally fucking worthless.

Another plastic card scam clogging up my man purse with a 6th ID.

Don't bitch, it's free, and you can use it for various purposes. For instance, your national ID could BE your driver's license -- that is, it would show whether you are licensed to drive and in what state. It could also serve as your passport. You could discard all the others.

Why is having states such a problem for you??

Because "states' rights" only ever seems to be invoked as an excuse to block some national reform.

Also, as a general rule, the further down you go in the federal-state-local hierarchy, the more dumbassery there is in government. This is called "Lind's Law," coined by commentator Michael Lind after experience with various levels.

 

[CornusKousa]

The VRA was necessary in 1965, and you are an idiot if you think so much has changed that it is not necessary now.

14A, it wasn't necessary then, it's not necessary now.

Don't bitch, it's free, and you can use it for various purposes. For instance, your national ID could BE your driver's license -- that is, it would show whether you are licensed to drive and in what state.

My state drivers license already does that.

There is no upside to your proposed national ID card for the citizen.

Because "states' rights" only ever seems to be invoked as an excuse to block some national reform.

You mean all those national reforms that are so authoritarian and draconian you wouldn't DARE do in your own state??

LOL....yea, that's why we have states.

To stop power hungry goons from fucking the the entire nation and turning it into a giant Detroit/Baltimore/SanFranshitco.

If you want "progress" do it in your community/state....you don't get to put a gun to the other 49 states heads and force them into it, Liberalism FTW!!!

Also, as a general rule, the further down you go in the federal-state-local hierarchy, the more dumbassery there is in government. This is called "Lind's Law," coined by commentator Michael Lind after experience with various levels.

True, there are advantages and disadvantages to centralized totalitarian forms of government. China was welding people into their apartment buildings and leaving them to starve to death before we could get mask mandates out for example.

The USA however has been from the get go, a decentralized and liberal nation....to avoid shit like that.

Seeing as you detest the USA literally from it's basic structure to it's Bill of Rights...... why not just move to a nation more to your liking, like China, N. Korea or Venezuela???

 

[pecksniff]

14A, it wasn't necessary then, it's not necessary now.

Do you mean the 14A was not necessary? Or that the VRA was redundant because the 14A guarantees voting rights? Actually that would be the 15A -- which Southern states found many ways around between Reconstruction and 1865.

 

[CornusKousa]

Do you mean the 14A was not necessary? Or that the VRA was redundant because the 14A guarantees voting rights?

No.

14A makes 15A apply to all.

It's a self re-enforcing double whammy against racism.

Then the CRA of 64 further re-enforced that.

Actually that would be the 15A -- which Southern states found many ways around between Reconstruction and 1865.

That's what the SCOTUS is for.

VRA was superfluous.

It would be like an 'equal pay' amendment....totally superfluous extras because dumb fucks don't realize this is already the case.

 

[pecksniff]

That's what the SCOTUS is for.

VRA was superfluous.

Whatever the SCOTUS may have ruled, the Southern states didn't let most blacks vote until after the VRA was enacted. It was not superfluous, and is not now.

 

[icanhelp1]

If you mean passport and military ID, I suppose states would reject them as voting ID because they don't show your address. But the card I'm talking about would. It would also show whether you are a citizen, and could be swiped to see if you have any felony convictions, in states where that is disqualifying.

States are bending over backwards to *HELP* people to get a legitimate ID

 

[pecksniff]

I notice nobody has raised what I might have expected to be the first objection: "I don't want every cop who pulls me over to have one-swipe access to my life story!"

 

[WillJ8787]

This is the information age. Technologically, it would be easy to issue a national ID card to every citizen and resident alien, keyed to a database-file recording every interaction with government you have had since the day you were born -- birth certificate, school records, tax records, arrest records, etc., etc. "I hope you know this will go down in your permanent record." It will!

There would be no need to register to vote -- your national ID would BE your registration if you're legally qualified. The card would also reflect your citizenship or or residency status.

It would be very, very convenient for law enforcement, including ICE, to have such a system in place.

So what's the downside? Just a general sense of the creeping Orwells?

I'm game...make it free.

Your going to somehow convince these States rights boneheads that this is a good idea for the Federal Govt to do it.

While we're at it, let's federalize the entire general election process so that it is run the same everywhere.

Also, a national singe payer healthcare system would be nice.

 

[CornusKousa]

Whatever the SCOTUS may have ruled,

It would have no doubt re-enforced 15 and or 14A rights.

the Southern states didn't let most blacks vote until after the VRA was enacted.

1) lie.

2) states not following the law or violating their citizens rights is what the SCOTUS is for.

Notice how regularly you and your fellow anti-civil rights lefties get slapped around by SCOTUS when it comes to 1, 2 and 10A rights that you like to pretend aren't REAL civil rights???

Same thing would have happened.

It was not superfluous, and is not now.

You want to pretend 14/15A weren't there before 1965 and still don't exist?? That's a special kind of stupid.

Right up there with the prposed "Equal pay" amendment.....again by leftist who have no fucking clue that they already have one in effect.

 

[CornusKousa]

I'm game...make it free.

Your going to somehow convince these States rights boneheads that this is a good idea for the Federal Govt to do it.

WillJ also seems to hate states existing.

Why does the authoritarian left hate the USA so much??

 

[pecksniff]

1) lie.

The difficulty Southern blacks had in voting before the VRA is a very well-documented historical fact.

You are the sort who will not only tell me the sky is green, but, if I take you outside on a cloudless day at noon and point to the sky, will say, "See?! I told you! It's green!"

 

[pecksniff]

As for SCOTUS rulings, remember, it took a long time after the Brown v. Board of Education decision for real school integration to happen. A SCOTUS ruling means nothing until the executive branch enforces it.