One option may be to simply not vote for incumbents, and take our chances with new devils or devilettes we may not know as well? It could be a change of pace and it may take a little while for it to wear off and hopefully, they will be intent on doing a good job while they are at it.
What objection can there be to the several States bearing true witness to our supreme law of the land and solving their own problems in a market friendly manner, as enumerated in Article 1, Section 9, of our federal Constitution?
It's only Democrats that get upset, and they oppose ID requirements because voter fraud is one of their tools to get their guy elected.
How do you account for fake IDs, if it is really that simple? In my opinion, we would not have an illegal problem if we could simply be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws.
The same way you deal with anything fake...you eliminate it where you can, and just make them harder to duplicate.
In my opinion, we would not have an illegal problem if we could simply be moral enough to bear true witness to our own laws. Why do you believe simply making it harder to duplicate a fake ID is an acceptable solution? In other words, why resort to the abomination of hypocrisy regarding less fortunate illegals, to try to make a moral point we don't have?
I actually agree with you on this. But, why is there any voter fraud at all, now, if the voter rolls should be verified anyway?
That's the problem, many precincts don't mind the fraud, if it goes in their direction. Dead people still vote, along with Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler. Check it out: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/14/mickey-mouse-adolf-hitler-allowed-on-wis-recall-petitions/
So, how would a voter ID prevent institutional voter fraud if those "fraudulent" voters show up with a fraudulent ID and vote because they are on a voter roll that that should have been verified to ensure that doesn't happen?
They can't show up with fraudulent ID, if the ID is a biometric one which shows their eye retina pattern to a computer scanner, or fingerprints. As long as the person was verified to be a US citizen when the biometric data was entered in the database, there can't be any fraud unless someone tampers with the database, but that could/should be periodically checked. So how can they be identified as a US citizen, in the first place ? That is something for the professionals to answer, but I'm sure they've got some answers for it. I know one thing. If a guy walks in and can't speak English, never heard of a Big Mac, the New York Yankees, or the Super Bowl, he's gonna have a problem.
They need to clean up the registrations as they catch them. Sure, voter fraud would still be there, but not nearly as prevalent if no IDs were required. This still begs the question: What is wrong with requiring ID to vote?
Do you know how to get to Mexico from New York City? You head west until you smell it, and then head south until you step in it.
Lots of objections. Often, "market friendly manners" are people UNfriendly manners. Want a few examples : 1. Market friendly to dump toxic wastes into a nearby waterway. Costs a lot less than trucking them away to more distant proper disposal sites or chemically reducing them. Cost more to the people living near the stream, river, bay, etc. in cancer acquisition, blindness, deafness, et al harms + medical bills. 2. Market friendly is allowing workers to work in unsafe manners. Always cheaper than enacting safety measures. Not too friendly to those workers. 3. Manufacturing products (ex. automobiles) without safety items is cheaper. Not friendly to the car owners.
All of this shows a distinct DISrespect for American law and the American people. Another verification that Mexico, and wetback invaders like you, are our # 1 enemies in the world.
Nope in the past 5 years there have been less then 70 cases of voter fraud. However just in 2008 alone 5million people showed up to the polls and couldn't vote because they had eahter been removed or did not have the correct ID
Sounds like the personal exercise of individual liberty and natural rights. Our Founding Fathers were not opposed to the concept of natural rights.
Market friendly must also include consumer preference by the private sector; no one should be required to buy an Edsel under our form of federal government. What you describe has more to do with political passions of the moment instead of Statecraft and better husbandry of our Union. There is no reason why public works could not include "conduits to markets" and function as that form of public sector means of production which can also generate revenue to defray the cost of Government. The general government is specifically delegated the power to fix Standards for the Union.
