Texas driver's license to jump up to a whopping $100 or more

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:

> Explain how this would confirm that the person claiming to be, say,
> John Doe at 123 Main Street is, in fact, John Doe who resides at 123
> Main St.

The investigation begins when the real Doe shows up to vote.

> Explain to me how the person who claims to be someone he is not would
> be caught? Or, demonstrate that there is actually an effort to catch
> such people.

Any deficiency in existing laws will not be rectified by implementing
new, unenforced laws and will increase the likelihood of legitimate
voters being unable to cast a ballot (both through mistakes and through
turpitude).

> Ah! Enforcement! This is not what is happening.

Increasing the number of laws will not affect their enforcement. It
will merely increase the complexity of the rules required to cast
legitimate ballots. Added complexity will certainly lead to more
numerous mistakes and a greater potential for abuse. Are not U.S.
elections already sufficiently contested?

Concentrating on enforcing existing election laws makes much
more sense.

> In fact, there are, in most states, not even mechanisms for
> determining who that person standing there giving a name really is.

Creating new laws fails to address the current deficiencies. Enforcement
will still be required. Moreover, enacting new laws designed to prevent
specific individuals from voting opens the potential for selective
enforcement. An extremely dangerous precedent no matter where your
sympathies lie.

> With a gun purchase, ID must be checked by Federal law; there's no
> analogy with voter ID.

These rules were and remain heavily opposed-- sometimes even by those
who simply love the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights more than
they fear firearms (or terrorists, for that matter).

>>Really? Check this out:
>>
>>Note that IN ADDITION TO your original birth certificate and your original
>>social security card, you need six more points of ID. Various other forms
>>of ID earn points, such as (photo license from another state, 2 points,
>>whew!)
>>
>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm
>>
>>Basically, to get an ID in New York state, you need a hefty briefcase to
>>organize all the paperwork you need to haul to the NY DMV. This is for a
>>non-driver ID, BTW. -Dave
>>
>
> The rules allow 4 points for a passport (out of 6). The requirements
> for a passport are less onerous than NY requires for other ID.

You mean HS hasn't gotten around to fixing that yet? I'm sure they are
grateful to you for pointing out that oversight, and it will be corrected
overnight. -Dave

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:38:13 -0500, lid wrote:

>In article >,
> Bill Funk > wrote:
>
>> Explain how this would confirm that the person claiming to be, say,
>> John Doe at 123 Main Street is, in fact, John Doe who resides at 123
>> Main St.
>
>The investigation begins when the real Doe shows up to vote.

And if (when) he doesn't?
>
>> Explain to me how the person who claims to be someone he is not would
>> be caught? Or, demonstrate that there is actually an effort to catch
>> such people.
>
>Any deficiency in existing laws will not be rectified by implementing
>new, unenforced laws and will increase the likelihood of legitimate
>voters being unable to cast a ballot (both through mistakes and through
>turpitude).

I don't see the connection between requiring ID and the likelyhood of
legimitate voters being unable to cast a ballot. Meaning, I don't see
getting an ID to be as difficult task as many seem to think.
>
>> Ah! Enforcement! This is not what is happening.
>
>Increasing the number of laws will not affect their enforcement. It
>will merely increase the complexity of the rules required to cast
>legitimate ballots. Added complexity will certainly lead to more
>numerous mistakes and a greater potential for abuse. Are not U.S.
>elections already sufficiently contested?

Without ID, it's *impossible* to determine who voted. Having ID isn't
the complex problem it's being made out to be.
>
>Concentrating on enforcing existing election laws makes much
>more sense.

Existing laws make no attempt to determine who's voting in most
states. Thgis makes no sense, unless you want to allow anyone to vote
regardless of eligibility.
>
>> In fact, there are, in most states, not even mechanisms for
>> determining who that person standing there giving a name really is.
>
>Creating new laws fails to address the current deficiencies. Enforcement
>will still be required. Moreover, enacting new laws designed to prevent
>specific individuals from voting opens the potential for selective
>enforcement. An extremely dangerous precedent no matter where your
>sympathies lie.

I don't understand how requiring ID (by new laws) will not address the
current problem of people voting fraudulantly.
>
>> With a gun purchase, ID must be checked by Federal law; there's no
>> analogy with voter ID.
>
>These rules were and remain heavily opposed-- sometimes even by those
>who simply love the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights more than
>they fear firearms (or terrorists, for that matter).

The Constitution does not say voter ID is illegal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:47:13 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

>>>Really? Check this out:
>>>
>>>Note that IN ADDITION TO your original birth certificate and your original
>>>social security card, you need six more points of ID. Various other forms
>>>of ID earn points, such as (photo license from another state, 2 points,
>>>whew!)
>>>
>>>http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm
>>>
>>>Basically, to get an ID in New York state, you need a hefty briefcase to
>>>organize all the paperwork you need to haul to the NY DMV. This is for a
>>>non-driver ID, BTW. -Dave
>>>
>>
>> The rules allow 4 points for a passport (out of 6). The requirements
>> for a passport are less onerous than NY requires for other ID.
>
>You mean HS hasn't gotten around to fixing that yet? I'm sure they are
>grateful to you for pointing out that oversight, and it will be corrected
>overnight. -Dave
>

It's entirely possible there's much more going on here than a simple
need for ID.
However, looking at the requirements, I don't really see anything that
makes getting an ID particularly hard.
Of course, I'm a pretty mainstream person; those who want to stay off
the grid might have a harder time than me. But then, such people don't
want to vote anyway.
Those who are pushing the no ID thing ar eusing the argument that ID
at the polls will keep people from voting; looking at the figures for
how many eligible people actually vote, it would seem that the very
act of voting is too hard for the majority of them. In that sense, I'm
sure that getting an ID is also too hard. But it seems to me that, if
you actually want to vote instead of complain, getting an ID isn't the
hardship some think it is.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"necromancer" > wrote in message
th.net...
>> said in rec.autos.driving:
>> In article >,
>> lid wrote:
>>
>> > Like gun laws, a little enforcement would go a long way toward
>> > preventing voter fraud without introducing even more laws.
>>
>> In line with tampering with votes, here in Wisconsin, the fraud occurs
>> at levels far above the individual voter, and includes both parties:
>>
>> Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green, for instance, has
>> accumulated over $182,000 in his campaign coffers than is permitted by
>> state law. Thus far, the state Elections Board has done nothing.
>>
>> On the other side of the aisle, Democratic incumbent Governor Jim
>> Doyle's campaign manager, Marc Marotta, is increasingly the focus of an
>> investigation into the connection between campaign donations and
>> government decisions. Marotta was previously Administration Secretary to
>> the Governor's office.
>>
>> I assume it is the same everywhere at every level of government. We the
>> voters have nauseatingly been reduced to choosing between the following
>> parties:
>>
>> The party of corrupt self interest
>>
>> The party of dictatorial fascism
>>
>> The party of evil fundamentalism
>>
>> BTW, to see who is responsible for these (and possibly worse) being our
>> only choices in elections, go into the bathroom and look in the mirror.
>>
>> This situation will continue until we all demand that our elected
>> officials start doing the job we gave them: serve the public (not
>> private companies, not churches, not foreign interests, not their own
>> family and friends. The Public).
>>
>> If we demand that (which is what we are due), and we do not get it
>> (which we are certainly NOT), we should do whatever it takes, up to and
>> including open rebellion, to get them out of office posthaste. If they
>> steal from us, get 'em out. If they lie to us, get 'em out. If they
>> behave like nincompoops during national emergencies, get 'em out.
>>
>> That image you see in your bathroom mirror? That's the only one who can
>> accomplish it. And you can't do it if you don't know what's going on.
>
> Well said. But the sad fact is that come election day - be it this years
> elections or the elections in 2008 and beyond - the sheeple here in
> these United States will just go to the polls and re-elect the same
> tired old purveyors of the failed establishment - or if feeling really
> *bold* vote in the purveyors of the previous tired old establishment
> which is still tired and failed. People don't have the guts to - heaven
> forbid - go into that election booth and vote for someone else - be it
> the Libertarian, the Green, the Communist or what ever. We see it in
> Massachusetts (the kennedy klan), Chicago (right, Brent?), FL and TX
> (the Bush Bozos) and all over.
>
> People bitch about the Dems and the Repubs, yet every 4 years what do we
> get? A Repub or Dem president eventhough there are usually at least 3 or
> 4 other candidates on the ballots. We keep reelecting the same tired old
> failures to the Congress every 2 or 6 years. And untill We The Sheeple
> wake up and start voting for third party or independant candidates, we
> will get more of the same old, same old. IOW, we get the government we
> deserve.
>
> <stepping down from soap box>

Sounds like someone's been either reading Michael Savage's books or
listening to his radio show. In any case, well said.

>

"Mike T." > wrote in message
reenews.net...
>> Personally, I'm for requiring ID. Otherwise, how do you know who is
>> actually able/allowed to vote? An ID isn't anywhere as hard to get as
>> some make it out to be.
>
> Really? Check this out:
>
> Note that IN ADDITION TO your original birth certificate and your original
> social security card, you need six more points of ID. Various other forms
> of ID earn points, such as (photo license from another state, 2 points,
> whew!)
>
> http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm
>
> Basically, to get an ID in New York state, you need a hefty briefcase to
> organize all the paperwork you need to haul to the NY DMV. This is for a
> non-driver ID, BTW. -Dave
>

The problem with getting ID nowadays is the run around you get if you are
missing both of your most basic forms of identification. Those being your
birth certificate and social security card. Locally where I live near
Nashville, TN, I've heard that many of the problems related to those trying
to help the legitimately homeless (in other words, not drug addicts), is
that very few of the homeless have a valid driver's license/state ID or a
birth certificate or social security card. The problem is, many states
require that a valid state ID to get a copy of your birth certificate. So
basically, the homeless are stuck in sort of a catch-22, and it requires a
lot of work (and help, from someone who's experienced dealing with that it)
to get around that issue. For what it's worth, in Tennessee, I think you
need your birth certificate and two items with your current address on them
to get a license.

> to get around that issue. For what it's worth, in Tennessee, I think you
> need your birth certificate and two items with your current address on
> them to get a license.

So how do you get a driver's license in TN if you just moved to TN, and just
rented or bought a property at the same time that you moved? If you wait a
couple of months (to get a TN driver's license), then you will have utility
bills, etc., with your name and current address on them. But I wouldn't be
surprised if TN law requires you to get a TN driver's license within X
number of days of moving TO TN, or you are automatically suspended/heavily
fined/something else nasty. -Dave

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:47:53 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

>> to get around that issue. For what it's worth, in Tennessee, I think you
>> need your birth certificate and two items with your current address on
>> them to get a license.
>
>So how do you get a driver's license in TN if you just moved to TN, and just
>rented or bought a property at the same time that you moved? If you wait a
>couple of months (to get a TN driver's license), then you will have utility
>bills, etc., with your name and current address on them. But I wouldn't be
>surprised if TN law requires you to get a TN driver's license within X
>number of days of moving TO TN, or you are automatically suspended/heavily
>fined/something else nasty. -Dave
>
Most people who move into a state and want a driver's license already
have one from the state they moved from. Problem solved there.
If the mover doesn't have one already, planning will overcome that
problem, too.
A failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my
part.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:47:53 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:
>
>>> to get around that issue. For what it's worth, in Tennessee, I think you
>>> need your birth certificate and two items with your current address on
>>> them to get a license.
>>
>>So how do you get a driver's license in TN if you just moved to TN, and
>>just
>>rented or bought a property at the same time that you moved? If you wait
>>a
>>couple of months (to get a TN driver's license), then you will have
>>utility
>>bills, etc., with your name and current address on them. But I wouldn't
>>be
>>surprised if TN law requires you to get a TN driver's license within X
>>number of days of moving TO TN, or you are automatically suspended/heavily
>>fined/something else nasty. -Dave
>>
> Most people who move into a state and want a driver's license already
> have one from the state they moved from. Problem solved there.

Nope. From what someone else posted, TN requires ID with current address on
it. That is, out-of-state driver's license wouldn't likely have a TN
address on it. -Dave

In article ews.net>,
Mike T. > wrote:
>> to get around that issue. For what it's worth, in Tennessee, I think you
>> need your birth certificate and two items with your current address on
>> them to get a license.
>
>So how do you get a driver's license in TN if you just moved to TN, and just
>rented or bought a property at the same time that you moved?

Birth certificate, deed or lease agreement, and some random piece of
paper you printed out which has your address on it...
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.