December 24, 2011


The Philly Inquirer predictably opines against being required to show an ID in order to vote (despite some 70% of the American public supporting such measures, including substantial percentages of the very minorities these laws supposedly "hurt"), stating

Proponents of photo ID argue that people already show a driver's license to pass airport security or to cash a check, so why not flash a photo ID at the polling place? That argument misrepresents the meaning of the right to vote.

Cashing a check or flying on a jet is not a basic American right secured by blood and struggle. Voting is an inalienable right which enables all citizens to participate in their governance.

To which a thoughtful Inky commenter replies:

One needs to produce ID in order to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and purchase a firearm. Does the Inky also view these requirements as 'Trojan Horses'? If not, why?

Indeed. The fact of the matter is, Inquirer idiots, ALL rights are not absolute. Common sense restrictions and requirements have routinely been constitutionally permitted.

And perhaps the Inquirer idiots should have a look at this, which determines that voter ID measures do NOT have an impact on minority voting.

And don't forget Duffy's pic from a few days ago!

Posted by Hube at December 24, 2011 10:56 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Imagine if we treated voting like we do buying a gun here in DE (where it's relatively easy)

TWO forms of ID and a fee? The Inquirer would raise holy hell.

Posted by: mike w. at December 28, 2011 09:44 AM

Precisely, Mike. To progressives, only some rights should be common sense restriction-free.

Posted by: Hube at December 28, 2011 09:48 AM