Dept. of Justice: South Carolina vote...

Dept. of Justice: South Carolina voter ID law discriminatory

There are 3353 comments on the WMT-AM Cedar Rapids story from Dec 23, 2011, titled Dept. of Justice: South Carolina voter ID law discriminatory. In it, WMT-AM Cedar Rapids reports that:

The U.S. Justice Department Friday rejected South Carolina's photo-requiring voter-identification law, saying it discriminates against minorities.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WMT-AM Cedar Rapids.

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#3298 Mar 25, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
States do not have the right to discriminate on who they allow to vote, EasyFaggggggggg.
Check the US Constitution.
Some states- E.G.- SC- have imposed additional barricades to voting.
Not unlike the poll taxes in the 60s.
SMBRD
You're full of sh*t. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws in all states except the few that require approval before enacting such a law...SC is one of those states. Most states can enact voter ID laws without a problem.

If you don't register to vote, you can't vote. If you're a felon, in many states, you can't vote. So, obviously states *do* have the right to say who can vote within their borders.

The crap SC (and other states) have to go through was supposed to be temporary and should've been ended long ago.

The idea of registering to vote when you got a driver's license is what changed everything. They didn't require to prove you're a citizen. All you had to do was check off a box stating you were a citizen and you were registered to vote. That's what is prompting this requirement for voter ID. Many illegals and/or immigrants (legal resident aliens) were found to be registered to vote...illegally. Not saying they *did* vote, but they were registered.

Ralff

“United We Stand”

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#3299 Mar 25, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who is registered to vote has proved already they are a citizen.
The photo ID is lead by GOP to try to remove Democrats from the vote.
Period.
You still need photo ID to prove the person voting under that registered name is who he is claiming to be.

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#3300 Mar 25, 2012
Judge-it Judy wrote:
<quoted text>
or get born....
fact is... you can file real estate documents in a false name.
its legal to use a fake name unless you are doing it to commit fraud..
Actually, it is illegal to use fake names. It's fraudulent in and of itself when one enters into a contract using a fake name. It's not illegal when you use it in a situation where there's no contract, but with real estate, there is most definitely a contract.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-using-...

Quote:
If you thought using a fake name to buy your cellphone plan was a good idea — disregarding the likelihood that you were probably planning some sneaky activity — the Department of Justice is saying you may have just waived away your Fourth Amendment rights with that move.
DOJ: Use of a Fake Name Could Strip Away Your Fourth Amendment Rights

(Photo: US Patent and Trademark Office)

According to the Wall Street Journal, Daniel David Rigmaiden did just that and his phone was tracked without a warrant using a stingray device by the government in order to reveal that he was filing fraudulent tax returns. Use of this device without a warrant was deemed in court as unconstitutional. But now, the Department of Justice is saying that because Rigmaiden used a fake name and address of a deceased person to create this account and purchase equipment, his rights under the Fourth Amendment that would have required a warrant are forfeited.

“It’s not against the law to use a fake name,” said Adam Candeub, director of the Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University. The use of a fake ID and signing of a lease might be a different matter, though.“It can be fraudulent if you are entering into a contract under a fake name, but if it is a simple retail transaction the law is not clear,” he said.
End Quote

Obviously the sale or purchase of a house is done under a contract and is thus illegal to use a fake name.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#3301 Mar 25, 2012
Rebel wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it is illegal to use fake names. It's fraudulent in and of itself when one enters into a contract using a fake name. It's not illegal when you use it in a situation where there's no contract, but with real estate, there is most definitely a contract.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-using-...
Quote:
If you thought using a fake name to buy your cellphone plan was a good idea — disregarding the likelihood that you were probably planning some sneaky activity — the Department of Justice is saying you may have just waived away your Fourth Amendment rights with that move.
DOJ: Use of a Fake Name Could Strip Away Your Fourth Amendment Rights
(Photo: US Patent and Trademark Office)
According to the Wall Street Journal, Daniel David Rigmaiden did just that and his phone was tracked without a warrant using a stingray device by the government in order to reveal that he was filing fraudulent tax returns. Use of this device without a warrant was deemed in court as unconstitutional. But now, the Department of Justice is saying that because Rigmaiden used a fake name and address of a deceased person to create this account and purchase equipment, his rights under the Fourth Amendment that would have required a warrant are forfeited.
“It’s not against the law to use a fake name,” said Adam Candeub, director of the Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program at Michigan State University. The use of a fake ID and signing of a lease might be a different matter, though.“It can be fraudulent if you are entering into a contract under a fake name, but if it is a simple retail transaction the law is not clear,” he said.
End Quote
Obviously the sale or purchase of a house is done under a contract and is thus illegal to use a fake name.
Interesting. You can create endless DBA names(Doing Business as)with no paperwork or approval.

The cell phone guy was dumb, buy a prepaid phone. Maybe Best Buy requires ID but 'Akmed's Phones and check cashing' won't.

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#3302 Mar 25, 2012
mike_lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. You can create endless DBA names(Doing Business as)with no paperwork or approval.
The cell phone guy was dumb, buy a prepaid phone. Maybe Best Buy requires ID but 'Akmed's Phones and check cashing' won't.
I don't know about other states, but in Florida, if you want to use a d/b/a, you have to file paperwork with the state showing what the d/b/a is a d/b/a "of" and giving the owner's information, including social security number (if d/b/a of a person) or FEIN (if d/b/a of a company). You can't just decide to use a d/b/a without registering it.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#3303 Mar 26, 2012
Rebel wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know about other states, but in Florida, if you want to use a d/b/a, you have to file paperwork with the state showing what the d/b/a is a d/b/a "of" and giving the owner's information, including social security number (if d/b/a of a person) or FEIN (if d/b/a of a company). You can't just decide to use a d/b/a without registering it.
I tend to forget 50 states, 50 sets of code, one that uses Napoleonic code.
Judge-it Judy

Mt Meadows Area, CA

#3305 Mar 26, 2012
truthforu2 wrote:
<quoted text> The only thing that voting by mail and phone will do is increase voter fraud I see you are still a degenerate. Hopefully a law will be passed that will not allow people with a double digit IQ to vote. The democrats will lose 75% of their voter base including you . Have a good day
actually vote by mail is the future, its cheaper..

It could eliminate fraud..

Make it where only responsible PROPERTY OWNERS can vote

ballots will be sent to those on the property tax rolls.

repeal the 19th amendment

get the idiots out of the voting system...
Judge-it Judy

Mt Meadows Area, CA

#3306 Mar 26, 2012
I have property in a different precinct from where I live.

they pass laws there that I am forced to pay bonds.

I dont get to vote on those bonds.

that is taxation without representation...FACT
Judge-it Judy

Mt Meadows Area, CA

#3307 Mar 26, 2012
our forefathers had it right.

male property owners should vote

period....

if you dont like our country

LEAVE

lets repeal the 13th amendment

lets go back to

basic America 101....

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3308 Mar 26, 2012
Rebel wrote:
<quoted text>
You're full of sh*t. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld voter ID laws in all states except the few that require approval before enacting such a law...
SCOTUS did not give blanket immunity for photo ID laws: I cannot help you learn how to read.

And **fact** remains: four states (so far in this election) will not be able to impose these restrictions.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3309 Mar 26, 2012
Ralff wrote:
<quoted text>
You still need photo ID to prove the person voting under that registered name is who he is claiming to be.
Not in most states, Sweetie.

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#3310 Mar 26, 2012
mike_lee wrote:
<quoted text>
I tend to forget 50 states, 50 sets of code, one that uses Napoleonic code.
Hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but I went through checking quite a few states and EVERY one of the ones I looked at had laws regarding using a d/b/a. The biggest difference were that some, like Florida, you had to register on a state level and could be used anywhere within the state. For other states, you register a d/b/a with the county and you can only use that d/b/a in the county (or counties) that you register it in (and pay applicable fees). I have never heard of anyone being able to just use a d/b/a without registering it (at least not in recent times...perhaps many years ago it was like that, but not in a very long time).

“Assimilate & Speak English!”

Since: Jan 07

Lansing, IL - now: Pomp Bch FL

#3311 Mar 26, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS did not give blanket immunity for photo ID laws: I cannot help you learn how to read.
And **fact** remains: four states (so far in this election) will not be able to impose these restrictions.
A ruling for one state (as long as it's not on the list of states that must get permission) sets precedent for other states to enact the same type of law. I cannot help you learn how the law works. They will not be hearing the same case over and over if other states enact voter ID laws as long as there's nothing extremely different about the law vs. the one already ruled on in Indiana.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3312 Mar 26, 2012
Rebel wrote:
<quoted text>
A ruling for one state (as long as it's not on the list of states that must get permission) sets precedent for other states to enact the same type of law..
It doesn't.

Putting aside that there are twenty versions of the "same"law.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3313 Mar 26, 2012
Rebel wrote:
.They will not be hearing the same case over and over if other states enact voter ID laws.
A ruling is defined by the question asked.

If you learn how to read, you might look at where the justices suggested the ruling might fail- e.g., the ruling was not made where a specific party was aggrieved.

.

Ralff

“United We Stand”

Since: Dec 11

Divided We Fall

#3314 Mar 26, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not in most states, Sweetie.
You dumbazz, I was pointing out the need you claim doesn't exist. Twist all you want, I hit you square in the face with that.

Since: Feb 08

Spokane, WA

#3315 Mar 26, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't.
Putting aside that there are twenty versions of the "same"law.
"bareassed000000000000000 00000"
There could be 50 versions of the "same law". I know it posses you off but the states have the right to set voting requirements;. i.e.;
- Residency
- Citizenship
- Photo ID
Other than the 6 or 7 southern states not even nobam's justice department is challenging ant state.
Live with it boy.
Peace

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3316 Mar 27, 2012
Ralff wrote:
<quoted text>
You dumbazz, I was pointing out the need you claim doesn't exist.
You can stomp your feet all you like.

Declaring something doesn't exist doesn't make it go away anymore than saying you won an argument.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3317 Mar 27, 2012
EasyEed wrote:
<quoted text>
"bareassed000000000000000 00000"
There could be 50 versions of the "same law".
EasyFaggggggggggggggggg: I am not going to teach you to read, obviously, you failed that in 6th grade a long time ago.

(e.g.):
Perhaps, they suggested, the outcome could be different in another voter-rights case, one in which a plaintiff could show that his or her rights had been violated. That was the approach suggested by the Bush administration, whose solicitor general, Paul D. Clement, urged the court to wait for a lawsuit brought by someone was actually barred by the statute from casting a ballot.
(snip)

SCOTUS has not placed unrestricted use of photo ID no matter how hard you stomp your ignore feet.

I think the SCOTUS justices know a bit more about law than you, Hon.

“Uzi Does It”

Since: Nov 08

UZILAND

#3318 Mar 27, 2012
Zimmerman went after and sought to detain and question a person when Zimmerman had no authority to do so, when his plans turned on him, he used his gun to finish what Zimmerman started. There's no self defense claim by an aggressor. LOL, It's like you idiots want to start the clock when Zimmerman started getting his ass kicked for letting his aligator mouth get his humingbird ass in trouble. The clock started when Zimmerman was advised the police did not need his assistance and Zimmerman chose to exit his vehicle to confront the kid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Moderator Lester Holt under scrutiny during debate 4 min Ronald 4
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 8 min lides 18,472
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min Uncle Tab 243,839
News The debate as seen through millennials' eyes 10 min Le Jimbo 29
News Wells Fargo claws back part of CEO, other execu... 11 min Beggar Cheever 6
News Study finds 20M would lose health coverage unde... 11 min Le Jimbo 118
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min Left of centre 1,432,875
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 12 min positronium 395,720
News Post-debate poll: Clinton takes round one 25 min swampmudd 205
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 32 min renee 10,393
More from around the web