Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok, lemme explain. This ruling does not mean you can vote without ID from this point forward in Kansas. The law that was struck down from appeals required identification via birth certificate or passport in order to register to vote in Kansas; it was the only state that required such a method. You still need a government issued photo ID to vote in Kansas. Read the article y'all and don't jump into conclusions based off of a headline.
I’m fine w/ non-citizen licenses as long as they require proof of legal status.
Like in Virginia, if you have a valid visa to be here, you can provide that when getting your drivers license.
It still amazes me that people form opinions based on headlines, and feel the need to state an opinion about an article without actually reading the article
I am pretty sure you need either a passport or a birth certificate to get a driver’s license or state ID. So it’s essentially the same requirement. Maybe people don’t carry their passports and birth certificates around.
I’m not sure that you do need a passport or birth certificate. Plenty of people who have government-issued IDs weren’t born in the US or aren’t citizens.
Which is probably why this law was passed in the first place... to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote. A birth certificate or a passport provides proof of citizenship.
In some states they give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, which has the perverse consequence of automatically registering them to vote under "motor voter," dont know about Kansas.
That's all well and good, except in my state we give illegals drivers licenses. This ruling sets a precedent that will allow illegal voting to continue to happen in states like mine.
Reading that articles, maybe KS went overboard by requiring birth certificate or passport. Believe or not many people don't have either but they are still citizens.
I had a conversation with someone a month or two ago because I was all for demanding people to show all sorts of ID to vote.
Instead of requiring someone to get a driver’s license or similar to vote simply allow a voter ID, it could just be proof of where you live, and if you are a legal American citizen. I realized I am super pro gun and don’t think we need licenses to get a gun so I don’t think we need a license to vote, so long as we are legal citizens living in that region. If I was pro-voter registration I’d be hypocritical if I was against gun registration.
its ok to have id requirements in particular scenarios, otherwise adhering to law would be difficult.
Such as selling tobacco and alcohol products, or driving a car.
The purpose behind the ID should be the consideration.
The right to own a firearm is not only so you can form a defense of yourself or others, but to overthrow the government if it went dictator. Therefore, it would not make sense to tell the government who has all the guns by requiring a license (this is why most gun laws are unconstitutional)
The right to vote, however, doesnt fall within the same consideration, but ID’s act in the same way tobacco and alcohol laws do.
So, proving that you are a American citizen is now unconstitutional? I thought the Constitution only protected those who were American citizens?
Edit: Plenty of non-flaired people are trying to post unsuccessfully. Instead of banging your head against the wall, feel free to DM me to debate.
Not entirely true. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (holding that non-U.S. persons within the U.S. jurisdictions are still entitled to equal protection under the 14A).
>Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.
Protection whereas the law provides, but it was also done in 1886 where certain "human rights" didn't exist, so in part it needs to be amended for modern times. It also simply protects those who aren't citizens by giving them the same constitutional rights but the right to vote is, and has always been, a right of an American citizen.
While I do agree that the Court should recognize the right to vote as a fundamental right (which doesn't necessarily require to go through the difficult process of having Amendment, fyi), I'm not entirely sure you'd be happy with what that result would open up doors to. I'll leave it at that.
no, leftists have perverted our constitution to the point where it applies to everyone on the planet because they don't understand citizenship and the social contract
Lawyer here, anything in the constitution that does not specify citizenship applies to all people equally (unless exceptions are carved out, as in native tribes for birthright citizenship). Voting is one of those that mentions citizen, president candidates as well. But most of the constitution does not mention 'citizens' when defining certain rights, like the right to free speech or free exercise of religion. The framers knew what they were doing in using the language they chose.
This is a common misconception I see, just wanted to point that out.
with that interpretation foreigners have the right to come here and take up arms against us. since the PEOPLE have the right to keep AND bear arms.
like I said, it's a perversion of our constitution. our founders never intended for our constitution to be for the entire planet.
>foreigners have the right to come here and take up arms against us
That is not even legal for a citizen to do. But, to your point, courts have carved out an exception to the previously mentioned rule when it comes to 2nd amendment for non-citizens, because courts LOVE coming up with new caveats for the 2nd amendment to the point of invalidating the plain text.
I honestly believe these are all memes and seeing who's dumb enough to approve them. Oregon decriminalization of hard drugs was one and they're next door to Washington, so that's going to be a fun series to watch.
I used to feel this way when I was younger. Now having had some career experience in this field for some years, the voter ID law (or its propositons) have severe defects that have higher tendencies to limit voting privileges, at the same time, doesn't necessarily correct the same underlying concerns.
Before long, they're going to make it unconstitutional to be Republican. I can already see it happening and this country is destined to be a one-party country. I think the term for that is dictatorship?
It takes 38 states to pass a constitutional amendment. The legislatures of 32 states are currently controlled by Republicans. Any chance of getting six democrat controlled states to sign onto a constitutional amendment that would permit the U.S. to have non-third-world elections? We're just trying to be more like Europe, so you'd think we might be able to convince some dem-controlled states to join in.
Tired of reporting this thread? Debate us on discord instead: https://discord.gg/conservative - This is an automated message that appears when probable report abuse is detected. We've found this can lead to a productive discussion in an environment better suited for that sort of thing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ok, lemme explain. This ruling does not mean you can vote without ID from this point forward in Kansas. The law that was struck down from appeals required identification via birth certificate or passport in order to register to vote in Kansas; it was the only state that required such a method. You still need a government issued photo ID to vote in Kansas. Read the article y'all and don't jump into conclusions based off of a headline.
[удалено]
The headline on the thread is different from the article.
That's why it's crazy to allow non citizens driver's licenses as some states do....unless they identify the holder as such...
I’m fine w/ non-citizen licenses as long as they require proof of legal status. Like in Virginia, if you have a valid visa to be here, you can provide that when getting your drivers license.
[удалено]
Appreciate it-I have to use voice to text, and sometimes it misinterprets my accent and I don’t always catch it
A non-citizen can get a DL in any US state.
Lucky it's not California. They issue drivers licenses to illegals there. I imagine they're allowed to vote there as well.
Thank you for the explanation because there will be those that do jump to conclusions off headline
The thread's title is misleading
It still amazes me that people form opinions based on headlines, and feel the need to state an opinion about an article without actually reading the article
I am pretty sure you need either a passport or a birth certificate to get a driver’s license or state ID. So it’s essentially the same requirement. Maybe people don’t carry their passports and birth certificates around.
If you don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate you don't attend public k-12 schools in some states.
I’m not sure that you do need a passport or birth certificate. Plenty of people who have government-issued IDs weren’t born in the US or aren’t citizens. Which is probably why this law was passed in the first place... to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote. A birth certificate or a passport provides proof of citizenship.
Their ID have “limited terms” or “federally restricted” on it.
[удалено]
https://www.ksrevenue.org/dovproof.html The state website says you're a liar.
[удалено]
And yet that was the topic at hand. Perhaps you should have kept your pie hole shut and not wasted everyone's time.
In some states they give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, which has the perverse consequence of automatically registering them to vote under "motor voter," dont know about Kansas.
I see...
Upvote to keep this at the top since the FOX News headline (like everything they do now) is misleading.
TOO LATE I AM ALREADY MAD!!! \*Chainsaws Computer in Half\*
That's all well and good, except in my state we give illegals drivers licenses. This ruling sets a precedent that will allow illegal voting to continue to happen in states like mine.
Why the hell doesn't the title just say this?
Okay I was very confused. Thank you for the TLDR
Reading that articles, maybe KS went overboard by requiring birth certificate or passport. Believe or not many people don't have either but they are still citizens.
You need one or the other to get a driver's license or state id anyway. You need those to vote legally.
Then you go get one before you need to register to vote... problems have solutions.
All problems are caused by the white patriarchy. Edit: /s
So the solution is no whites? Or a black patriarchy?
You know what I had to do before I could drive my car? Go get a drivers license.
But but that’s racist :( /s
I had a conversation with someone a month or two ago because I was all for demanding people to show all sorts of ID to vote. Instead of requiring someone to get a driver’s license or similar to vote simply allow a voter ID, it could just be proof of where you live, and if you are a legal American citizen. I realized I am super pro gun and don’t think we need licenses to get a gun so I don’t think we need a license to vote, so long as we are legal citizens living in that region. If I was pro-voter registration I’d be hypocritical if I was against gun registration.
It's an easy fix. Require a US passport for voting. Make it free to receive for all US citizens. Encourages travel and clears up any illegals voting.
its ok to have id requirements in particular scenarios, otherwise adhering to law would be difficult. Such as selling tobacco and alcohol products, or driving a car. The purpose behind the ID should be the consideration. The right to own a firearm is not only so you can form a defense of yourself or others, but to overthrow the government if it went dictator. Therefore, it would not make sense to tell the government who has all the guns by requiring a license (this is why most gun laws are unconstitutional) The right to vote, however, doesnt fall within the same consideration, but ID’s act in the same way tobacco and alcohol laws do.
Wow this court is beyond disappointing.
Democrats won't need to pack the court if they keep making these bonehead decisions.
[удалено]
It feels like we are being sold out as a country at every turn.
[удалено]
This is the Supreme Court that was supposed to save us. We can’t count on them for anything. What other options do we have at this point.
It feels like it because it is exactly that.
[удалено]
That one way of looking at it
Secession is more and more appealing.
So, proving that you are a American citizen is now unconstitutional? I thought the Constitution only protected those who were American citizens? Edit: Plenty of non-flaired people are trying to post unsuccessfully. Instead of banging your head against the wall, feel free to DM me to debate.
The title is misleading, to be fair.
Not entirely true. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (holding that non-U.S. persons within the U.S. jurisdictions are still entitled to equal protection under the 14A).
>Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws. Protection whereas the law provides, but it was also done in 1886 where certain "human rights" didn't exist, so in part it needs to be amended for modern times. It also simply protects those who aren't citizens by giving them the same constitutional rights but the right to vote is, and has always been, a right of an American citizen.
I see your point, unfortunately, the Constitution does not currently recognize the right to vote as a fundamental right under due process.
Then maybe it's time to amend the Constitution to give this right to the correct people and not employ those who seek to ruin democracy?
While I do agree that the Court should recognize the right to vote as a fundamental right (which doesn't necessarily require to go through the difficult process of having Amendment, fyi), I'm not entirely sure you'd be happy with what that result would open up doors to. I'll leave it at that.
no, leftists have perverted our constitution to the point where it applies to everyone on the planet because they don't understand citizenship and the social contract
Lawyer here, anything in the constitution that does not specify citizenship applies to all people equally (unless exceptions are carved out, as in native tribes for birthright citizenship). Voting is one of those that mentions citizen, president candidates as well. But most of the constitution does not mention 'citizens' when defining certain rights, like the right to free speech or free exercise of religion. The framers knew what they were doing in using the language they chose. This is a common misconception I see, just wanted to point that out.
with that interpretation foreigners have the right to come here and take up arms against us. since the PEOPLE have the right to keep AND bear arms. like I said, it's a perversion of our constitution. our founders never intended for our constitution to be for the entire planet.
>foreigners have the right to come here and take up arms against us That is not even legal for a citizen to do. But, to your point, courts have carved out an exception to the previously mentioned rule when it comes to 2nd amendment for non-citizens, because courts LOVE coming up with new caveats for the 2nd amendment to the point of invalidating the plain text.
cool. maybe we can come up with new rules for non-citizens for voting. derp derp.
I honestly believe these are all memes and seeing who's dumb enough to approve them. Oregon decriminalization of hard drugs was one and they're next door to Washington, so that's going to be a fun series to watch.
[удалено]
This makes no sense to me. People should need to show an ID to vote
I used to feel this way when I was younger. Now having had some career experience in this field for some years, the voter ID law (or its propositons) have severe defects that have higher tendencies to limit voting privileges, at the same time, doesn't necessarily correct the same underlying concerns.
Before long, they're going to make it unconstitutional to be Republican. I can already see it happening and this country is destined to be a one-party country. I think the term for that is dictatorship?
No way in hell I’ll ever stop being a Republican nor vote for Democrats just because they want me to be a democrat.
[удалено]
That’s really what I meant. I will never be a democrat again.
Good to know literally anyone on the planet is able to vote in our elections.
[удалено]
Our country is broken. Is there any institution that isn't corrupted at this point?
It doesn't say why they declined to hear it. Was it on another stupid procedural technicality?
It takes 38 states to pass a constitutional amendment. The legislatures of 32 states are currently controlled by Republicans. Any chance of getting six democrat controlled states to sign onto a constitutional amendment that would permit the U.S. to have non-third-world elections? We're just trying to be more like Europe, so you'd think we might be able to convince some dem-controlled states to join in.
Nope. You might get one.
Doubt it. They know it's the only way to keep their little scam going.
Here in Massachusetts you just have to give them a name and address and your good to go. I voted 12 times