Skip to comments.Pelosi Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID
Posted on 04/28/2008 10:56:58 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Press Releases Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami 202-226-7616 For Immediate Release 04/28/2008 Pelosi Statement on Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID
Washington, D.C. Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in response to the Supreme Courts decision today on Indianas voter identification case:
The Supreme Courts decision is disappointing. The Courts decision today places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizensespecially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilitiesto participate in the electoral process. Requiring American citizens pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hindersand diminishestheir right to vote.
The right to vote is a foundation of our democracy. American citizens who wish to vote must be able to do so.
Pelosi should recall the blantant determination by DUmocrats to disenfranchise THOUSANDS of military votes every election cycle before opening her pie hole.
Pelosi and her kind want “the right to vote” for those using false identifications, those here illegally, and those who vote using the name of deceased DUmocrats, yet still believe Americans defending their sorry a$$es should have their votes thrown out and not counted.
What about the fundamental rights of legitimate voters not to have their vote diluted by fraud, huh? Isn’t that disenfrachisement, when my vote doesn’t count as much as it should?
Requiring American citizens pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hindersand diminishestheir right to vote.
The right to vote is a foundation of our democracy. American citizens who wish to vote must be able to do so.
Gee Nancy all that hindering by having to travel to distant
polling places must stop also, maybe citizens should be able to vote from their beds....
The Constitution of the United States of America.
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
and Amendment XIX:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
They’re mad because it is not so easy for a dead man to get an ID and show it at the polling place, less difficult for an illegal, but still difficult just the same.
“IOW, Pelosi is saying, “Damn...how are we going to get the deceased and illegal alien vote now?”
Good for the court.
that does not say anything about proving who you are
Has anyone heard if McCain had anything to say about this decision?
Do none of you people know/read your Constitution?
Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
At the time of ratification, the right to vote only extended to men of property. The later amendments had to be added to ensure the right to vote would be secured to ALL citizens.
Perhaps you’re unaware of just how dangerous it is to travel in rural Indiana, what with all those bitter, gun toting Bible thumpers and all.
OK, now I’m back on the “you don’t get it” wagon with you.
LIBERALS ARE DISHONEST.
They never state their real reasons for taking whatever position they are taking, because those reasons are abhorrent to most folks.
Obama is exposing the left’s reason for taxation as a means of punishment and socialism, even though he’s been trying to back away from his claim of “fairness” of the cap gains tax.
But I thought the Supreme Court was the Godlike ultimate arbiter of all moral questions, e.g., Roe v. Wade. How dare a Democrat question the almighty supreme oracle!
Are you trying to make Pelosi's argument for her? No, the Constitution doesn't mandate photo identification to cast a ballot -- this was deemed necessary due to all the voter fraud going on this country. Identifying yourself at the polling place is a method to ensure that people do not/cannot cast multiple ballots, and it's not enough to simply have the gal behind the table attempt to compare signatures in the book and on your ballot.
I don't live in California, and besides, I suspect that exposure to sanity and reason might have the effect of Kryptonite on Ms. Pelosi. She'd start to glow and soon there'd be nothing left but a designer dress and a sad little puddle of Botox and DNA. What the hell, it's worth a try...
So what Pelosiis saying is that fat lazy slobs who couldn’t get off their asses if they were on fire or others who only vote in a negative context (i.e. against something rather than for it) and who wouldn’t vote unless the forms were shoved under their noses - these people won’t get to vote. Well good they are probably Democrats anyway - or is that the real problem.
Isn’t it funny how some people will travel thousands of miles to fight for freedom at the risk of their own lives and some lazy b3stards won’t walk down the street to exercise the freedoms they already have.
“...especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities...”
And when you find it, call up the Supreme Court tell them they are incorrectly ruled, not once, but twice that there is no right to vote in a federal election.
Even if you are here, there, or yonder. Vote early and often!
As that great purveyor of democracy once said "It's not who votes that counts, it who counts the votes that count".
Happy day indeed! Our voter ID law is upheld!
Take that Dems!
I already posted it to you, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees a Republican Form of Government. Let me help you with the definition:
republic n 1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and is usually a president; also : a nation or other political unit having such a government
2 : a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law; also : a nation or other political unit having such a form of government
entitle verb (used with object),-tled, -tling.
1. to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim:
Easy been doing it for years with voting machines, now we have computer based machines, that practically make it a science.
Used to be harder, had to have corrupt officials on both sides in a precinct to get the deed done. Then again corrupt people are much easier to buy these days. Sigh.....
The constituency they are no doubt most worried about reside in cemeteries.
Jim Webb would not be in the Senate today and the Democrats would not be in the majority but for the thousands of illegal aliens who voted in the Virginia election after being signed up at Hispanic festivals and storefronts. Webb won by 9000 votes. Hispanic illegal alien advocacy groups and the Democrat party actively signed up these illegals in voter drives that had no oversight or checks by voting registrars.
Every politician is aware of this fraud, but the Democrats gleefully continue advancing it, and the Republicans don’t have the guts to fight back less they be thought of as racist bigots.
Give him time....McLame will condemn the decision, just to appease his fellow DUmocrats.
“...power is held by the citizens entitled to vote...”
I disagree. In “...power is held by the citizens entitled to vote...”, the (who are) is implied. Many citizens are not permitted to vote, for reasons mentioned in previous postings. In your definition, it says “to give a title, right or claim to something...”, not a title, right, AND claim. You can claim something without it being yours. I claim to be head of my household. My wife disagrees.
If we were entitled to vote, that right could not be taken away, even temporarily.
The Poor, the elderly and individuals with disablities ALL hve ID!!! You can do NOTHING without ID!! The ILLEGALS might not have the proper ID to vote, but everyone else does.
butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth.
Must have thought about meeeting his MAKER!
Maybe you would be interested in doing some reading.
Snip... The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it. ...end snip
From "You have no right to vote", http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/21/no_right_to_vote/
Snip... Most Americans believe that the "legal right to vote" in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.
The U.S. Constitution contains no explicit affirmative individual right to vote! ...end snip
From "FIGHTING FOR A RIGHT TO VOTE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" from The Center for Voting and Democracy. http://www.fairvote.org/articles/jessejr.htm
If the Constitution already has a "right to vote" guarantee in it, why would HJ Res 28, a proposal to amend the Constitution to add a "right to vote" be needed?
Would you like more?
From "ReclaimDemocracy.org", Why we need a Constitutional right to vote...
snip... As thousands of civil rights advocates celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in Atlanta last weekend, most media coverage conveyed the Act's importance in protecting minorities' political rights. Yet many of those same stories helped perpetuate a dangerous illusion by asserting that a right to vote is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.
The trouble is the Supreme Court doesn't see it that way.
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one representative in the House who can speak, but cannot vote). The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution "does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is qualified.
As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments. ...end snip
Here is your link... http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html
Shall I continue?
From "The Nation"...
snip... "The vote" is a human right. It is seen as an American right. In a democracy there is nothing more fundamental than having the right to vote.
And yet the right to vote is not a fundamental right in our Constitution." ...end snip
Here is your link, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060206/jackson
Nice try Nancy. My brother is mentally-challenged and he has a state Id. In fact, he looked at it last year and saw that it was about to expire and TOLD US (his siblings). He was happy to go and renew it and someone in the family drove him. Seeeeee Nancy, no need for government intervention. (And my brother doesn’t like being treated like he’s incapable, so watch it Libs!)
It's the same article that gives enemy combatants the rights to a trial and illegals the right to health care, food stamps and free education....at least thats Pelosi's position!
In a sense that is correct, since we only vote for electors in the state, and the state determines how the vote shall take place. Those amendments apply to the states, I think.
Care to guess where Souter stood on this one?
You got it!
Further, if a state constitution allowed, a state could pass a law saying the electors of the state would vote for president based on the outcome of a coin flip and no citizen would cast a single vote. And there isn't a damn thing the citizens of that state could do about it.
“Hey Nancy! What about my right to not have my vote cancelled out by some dead guy or by a Democrat operative who spends all election day going from precinct to precinct, voting as many times as he can?”
Honest voters who vote once are the ones who’ve been disenfranchised by the examples you gave and the inner city precincts with 120% turnout. Those people are not only not smart enough to vote, they aren’t even smart enough to cheat.
But then how smart do you have to be, if no one ever challenges you?
Anyone over 18 has the RIGHT to vote.
It is a PRIVLEGE because if you are convicted of a felony you lose that RIGHT.
It is a RESPONSIBILITY because we must all do our part.
Well, I can honestly say that the Speaker hasn't disappointed me, yet. She's holding course; running hot, straight, and true...
They must be feeling nervous right now. Very nervous.
There, Nancy. Took the spin out and fixed it for ya.
LOL - you and I were editing at about the same time.
I noticed that too. ;o)
“Where to begin..”
I think you nailed it pretty good in 4 succinct points.
Your post is very instructional.
If you have more, please share. It is most interesting.
The rats are worried about nothing but remaining in power. You would think they would welcome a legitimate clean-up of the election process....they would, if they weren’t looking for easy ways to scam the system.
Boo Hoo! All those illegal alien votes going down the drain!
Can't you see what this cruel and senseless Supreme Court ruling means? It will now be possible to restrict many members of federally protected minority groups to just 1 vote apiece. How is that fair, when many members of one or more of these groups were enslaved by the white heteronormative hegemonic eurocentric Christian patriarchs of this country for over 400 years?
These people must, must I tell you, be allowed to make up for the many hundreds of millions of votes denied to their people throughout this tragic period in our tragic history of tragic oppression. And pray tell me, members of the VRWC and your rigged Supreme Court, how are the dead supposed to get their picture taken?
These faithful voters don't ask for much, you know. They just want to join us in spirit on election day, which even hard-hearted capitalist oppressors of the poor have surely noticed is rather close to Hall'o'we'en y el día de los muertos.
A faithful bloc for us has been the "Clandestine Migrant" community. Where in the cruel deserts surrounding our virtual border fence are they supposed to get picture ID? Thank goodness for Affirmative Action which has placed many of their compadres at the DMV of many states, to minimize this bureaucratic high hurdle in front of the voting booth. And also thank goodness for the hundreds of "virtual voters," and the "virtual families," living at "virtual addresses," qualifying for absentee ballots. (Please don't argue. They are absent, are they not?) We are completing a full range of composite "virtual ID photographs" for them right now. Yes, it is a terrible expense, but well worth it.
I am not worried. For every evil there is a Democrat Party remedy. I do not anticipate our most faithful and frequent voters in our four multiple voter categories:
As Andrew Jackson once said, "The Supreme Court has ruled. Now let them enforce it."
The Very Reverend Jeremiah Wright
Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.