I posted earlier about an effort to require ID to purchase prescription drugs. Apparently the abuse of prescription drugs is enough of a concern for liberal lawmakers to require proof of identity.
See, in North Carolina you don’t have to prove identity to vote. You only have to appear and recite your address. The polling volunteer can’t so much as ask you how long you’ve lived there or how many people live at the residence.
They just nod, smile and give ya a ballot.
That may change with the first Republican congress in over 100 years:
Raleigh, N.C. — Republican lawmakers say requiring identification at the polls is a common-sense way to prevent voter fraud, but critics argue the move would open the door to discrimination.
House Bill 430 would require voters to present some sort of identification, such as a driver’s license or Social Security card. Currently, people have to show identification only when they register to vote for the first time.
Understand, this is not saying that you have to provide ID every time you vote, only when they register to vote. You can still show up at the polling station with just your self and nothing else.
However, this sounds exactly like Obama’s ice cream cart analogy when he was talking about Arizona’s immigration bill. There he mentioned that just any ‘ol body could be search taking his family for ice cream.
The opposition? Typical in both their defense and their lack of understanding:
“Driving or going to the bank, these are all privileges in society, whereas voting is a right,” said Damon Circosta, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education.
Except, of course, that voting is NOT a right, but a privilege.
I hope that Republicans are doing this in an honest effort to make sure their isn’t fraud and not in some sick and demented way to exclude a certain groups of citizens. However, I hold no such hope for the Democrats. It’s been clear to me that they work, at every turn, to create laws and provisions that assist their constituents.
In Alabama you have to show ID to vote and get sudafed…which used to be my drug of choice for combating allergies. (Pollen is a plague here.) Re voter ID…zzzzzzzzzzz. Whatever. But the sudafed pisses me off. The aim of the law is to crack down on meth heads. Personally it’s amounted to an assault on my sinuses…since nothing was as good as sudafed.
Do you think the distinction between right and privilege is used to beat people up? Point the finger at the felon (for example)…you are NOT worthy. I seem to only hear right vs. privilege when someone means to exclude another.
Voting is a basic American right with language applied in an undramatic, non-semantical fashion. Citizens of color and women have the right to vote and conditions that exclude this sphere of the population are illegal. So what’s the utility of the word “privilege” except as a means to exclude?
(This is pure mind-meandering; so, I appreciate your patience. 🙂 -Melissa)
But the sudafed pisses me off. The aim of the law is to crack down on meth heads. Personally it’s amounted to an assault on my sinuses…since nothing was as good as sudafed.
I know, right. I couldn’t believe it when I was carded for medicine.
Do you think the distinction between right and privilege is used to beat people up?
I think the concept of “right” has been stretched. There is a “legal” right. Like, you have the right to drive 55, and then there’s the “Ought” right. I think the Ought has been lost. And yeah, I think it’s been used to beat people up.
I think we confuse “a reasonable society would act in such a manner” and the term “Right”. In a reasonable society, people would get paid a good wage for their labor. However, it’s a stretch to claim that an individual has a “Right” to another’s money.
I seem to only hear right vs. privilege when someone means to exclude another.
I think there’s validity in whatcha’ say. There was/is a time when such language was code for “keep out the black man”. And insofar as that meaning has legs, it should be fought. But there has to be some amount of validity in asking an individual to demonstrate citizenship or residency in order to vote? Here in Carolina all I have to do is match a name with an address. I could vote in each precinct.
Voting is a basic American right with language applied in an undramatic, non-semantical fashion.
Well, kinda. Even children are extended the natural/divine rights. Voting IS restricted based on age. But in matters of the State, we should act without bias towards anyone based on the protected “classes” delineated.
This is pure mind-meandering; so, I appreciate your patience.
Everything I type is meandered too; no problemo.
Do you think that a Nicaraguan citizen that has been living in the United States for 4 years should be able to vote for President?
Pingback: Forgive Me If I Say No | Tarheel Red