Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Hypocrisy, much?

If I want to buy a bottle of bourbon -- which I have the right to do -- I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government encourages it.

If I want to drive my pick-up on a public road in the State of Texas -- which I have the right to do -- I have to provide a specific form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government encourages it.

If I want to exercise my right -- a right guaranteed by name in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States -- to buy a firearm from a dealer, I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government actively encourages this. At the point of a gun, sometimes.

If I wish to board an aeroplane to travel to some other part of these United States -- which I have a right to do -- I have to provide some form of State-issued photo ID to do so.

And the Federal Government is not only okay with this, the Federal Government mandates it.

I opened an account at a credit union recently. I had to provide a picture ID -- mandated by the Federal Government -- to do so.

Hmph.

Voting is a right which when misused or subverted creates far more damage, damage that lasts for far longer, than any use of a firearm. Than any boarding of a plane. Than any drive down a highway.

The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. The Federal Government says, "If you show ID first."

I have the right to travel -- Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution -- the Federal Government says, "If you show ID first."

I have the right to buy booze. "Show ID first."

I have the right to buy tobacco. "ID, please."

I have the right to rent a P.O. Box. The Feds demand that I show ID.

I have the right to open a bank account. IF I show ID first.

Mr. Holder and the US Department of Justice will break the Fed.Gov's foot off in someones butt if you do any of the above -- or more -- without ID. And he -- they -- are perfectly okay with this.

But have one State decide to ask for ID before exercising another right -- the right to vote -- then Holder, the DOJ and the Fed.Gov decide that it violates the Constitution.

Every other right, it's okay to demand that we show ID before enjoying such right.

Huh.

I haven't checked yet -- if you look up the word "hypocrite" in the dictionary, is there a picture attached? Of whom?

LawDog

28 comments:

Basinah said...

Wow! In any province in Canada (that I know of) you have to show photo ID to vote, and have for the 24 years I have been of voting age. Two pieces of ID if your name isn't already on their list. Not having to show ID kinda promotes the "Vote early, vote often" mentality.
I have always found it amusing that they will accept my firearms licence, my driver's licence, or my passport, but NOT my government issued photo ID that says I work for the government.

Drang said...

in Washington voting is all postage paid.

BGMiller said...

Dog...
Have you considered running as a third party candidate?

I'd happily put a Law Dog sign in the front yard.

Just a thought.


BGM

Orion said...

I just checked my dictionary.

Hypocrite Hyp"o*crite, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, a dissembler, feigner. See
Hypocrisy.]

Syn: Deceiver; pretender; cheat. See Dissembler.
[1913 Webster]


SEE LIBERAL, esp DEMOCRAT

Just in case you were curious. :D

Orion

Shy Wolf said...

Orion is correct- I don't have a dictionary, but I looked in the Encyclopoedia Britannica and found the same definition.

KBCraig said...

Ah, but that's going the wrong way. You have to right to walk down the street without showing (or even having) any form of identification.

For now, anyway.

There is good reason to confirm that a voter really is the person listed on the roles, and there are multiple ways to do so without demanding a REAL-ID enhanced government ID card.

The other items you list... no, not so much. We should be seeking fewer demands for ID, not more.

idungeoncrawl said...

What KBCraig said. We should be outraged over the amount of times we are required to show government ID to do perfectly legal and normal things rather than outraged that for once the feds (even if its for all the wrong reasons) doesn't want you to show ID for something.

That said we should be equally outraged that the federal government is once again trying to overstep its bounds and make law concerning a state issue since last I read, the constitution made no mention over how a state was to determine eligible voters except the amendments concerning race, age and gender.

Anonymous said...

And the Supremes (DC version) ruled 6-3 in April 2008 that requiring voters to show proof of identity is within the bounds of the Constitution. So Mr. Holder, can we see your driver's license?

LittleRed1

Ol Feller said...

Excellent comment LawDog. If I may, I'd like to use some of it in the future. Thanks

John Hardin said...

Show ID to vote? Jeeze, you should have to show proof of responsibility, not just proof of identity.

Gerry N. said...

The word you actually wanted, Mr. Dog is Democrat as in "National Socialist DEMOCRAT worker's Party, or NSDWP as I call it.

DanB said...

Let's not forget seeking gainful employment. Or was that I-9 form, requiring me to present two forms of ID to prove I was legal to work, a figment of my fevered imagination?

Skip said...

Not to worry Dog, when David and Mike and Issa and Grassly et al. get done with Holder, he and hopefully his boss will be perpwalkin' a fed country club soon. Gawd willin'.

Mr.B said...

And, let us not forget that in order to have JOB, you need proper ID.

But not to vote early or often....or dead:

http://middleoftheright.blogspot.com/2012/01/getting-job-must-be-undue-burden-for.html

Frank W. James said...

To KBCraig: I believe the law in some states is YOU HAVE TO HAVE ID ON YOU or that's a violation, so you just can't walk around without some sort of photo ID...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Stuart the Viking said...

Frank,

I don't know that any states required you to have ID on your person for just walking around, but if you say they exist, I'll take your word for it. Do you have any ideas which ones? Because I sure would never want to go there.

Anonymous said...

"Not to worry Dog, when David and Mike and Issa and Grassly et al. get done with Holder, he and hopefully his boss will be perpwalkin' a fed country club soon. Gawd willin'."

Nonsense: They are "Too Big to Fail"!

Methinks the Fed.gov is too big to succeed.

Dad29 said...

In Wisconsin, one must present photo-ID to purchase over-the-counter cold remedies, AND one cannot purchase more than 2 boxes of the stuff at a time.

(Drug-war, ya'know).

Robert Fowler said...

With your permission, and proper credit and links, I would like to post this on my blog and spread the word a little farther.

you can e-mail me at robertsgunshop@mchsi.com

Thanks.

KBCraig said...

Frank W. James,

No, there is no state in the union that requires anyone to even have ID, much less carry it.

In most states, you're not even required to verbally identify yourself unless you're under arrest.

shovelDriver said...

The reason no state has laws requiring you to carry ID is that the Supreme Court has confirmed, more than once, that there is no Constitutional authority for such a requirement. Except that now police often cite the Patriot Act. Which, if you actually read it - unlike the Congress puppets who passed it - clearly and unambiguously fails the Constitutional test. The LIMITS on government cannot lawfully, under our Constitution, be changed by a Congressionally-mandated or Executive-demanded act. No matter what justification is claimed "for the public's safety". See Article V to the Constitution. However, if they can (1) convince us they have the power, and (2) take away our guns, and (3) fool us with their assertion that it is a crime for us to defend ourselves against unlawful acts by cops and such; well then . . . .

For the uninformed, those are much the same tactics Hitler used, and Mao, and Stalin. Look it up.

Matt G said...

Shovel Driver, you're on a cop's blog. I'm a cop.

I promise you that neither LawDog nor I have ever done ANYTHING on duty as cops that we then declared we could, because of the Patriot Act.

And under Article 1 of the US Constitution, the states run their elections, in the times, places, and manner of their "chusing."

KBCraig said...

Matt G, I'm glad you share LD's approach to police work.

But, there are police out there who do claim the Patriot Act gives them all sorts of authority that they don't really have. It frequently involves photography in public places, and the innerwebz are full of examples of that.

Lanius said...

US is weird.

Where I live, you can only vote in the district where your residence is registtered.

Before you're handed the paper ballot (no voting machines, won't ever happen), you present your ID. Clerk then ticks off your name on the roll, you go behind the curtain, select your ballot, circle preferential votes (it's been known to happen that people who were on the last place of some party's ballot jumped to the first, because they recieved lots of preferential votes)

You don't have to be a citizen to vote in local elections, though. As long as you are a EU national registered to live there..

@Orion
Hypocrisy is universal to the political class. If you're not a hypocrite, you're not a true politician..

Also, see Larry Craig. On a lighter note, supposedly Nixon had a decades-spanning gay affair with a mob-affiliated Florida developer..

They needen't have bothered with a casket in his case. So crooked they could've screwed him into the ground instead..


Jeeze, you should have to show proof of responsibility, not just proof of identity.

Maybe voting should be restricted to highly intelligent people with good credit ratings who are not recieving any sort of welfare...
(yeah, sure, and if that passes, I'll be elected pope the next year)

Lanius said...

US is weird.

Where I live, you can only vote in the district where your residence is registtered.

Before you're handed the paper ballot (no voting machines, won't ever happen), you present your ID. Clerk then ticks off your name on the roll, you go behind the curtain, select your ballot, circle preferential votes (it's been known to happen that people who were on the last place of some party's ballot jumped to the first, because they recieved lots of preferential votes)

You don't have to be a citizen to vote in local elections, though. As long as you are a EU national registered to live there..

@Orion
Hypocrisy is universal to the political class. If you're not a hypocrite, you're not a true politician..

Also, see Larry Craig. On a lighter note, supposedly Nixon had a decades-spanning gay affair with a mob-affiliated Florida developer..

They needen't have bothered with a casket in his case. So crooked they could've screwed him into the ground instead..


Jeeze, you should have to show proof of responsibility, not just proof of identity.

Maybe voting should be restricted to highly intelligent people with good credit ratings who are not recieving any sort of welfare...
(yeah, sure, and if that passes, I'll be elected pope the next year)

tweell said...

Arizona Law - ARS 13-2412:
A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.
B. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

The tricky part here - the officer then requests that you prove that the information you provided is correct.
So, better have that ID on you, otherwise the officer can detain you on suspicion of violating this law. However, we can carry open and concealed without a license. Strange, no?

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Drano

45er said...

Of course, you know it's not so much hypocritical as protecting the voting "base" that gets them into power.