><snip>
>
>>>Assuming you were born in PA and that you have a birth certificate. Some of the people we're talking about were born in places and times where they don't have one.
>>
>>We're talking about people "born in places and times where they don't have" a birth certificate yet they came here legally without any documentation and after becomming a citizen they have no proof of doing so?
>
>I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about old folks who were born out in the countryside. I heard last night about a old black man who's been voting in PA for 40+ years. He was delivered by a midwife in North Carolina and no birth certificate was filed. Unless this law is repealed or overturned, he'll never be able to vote again.

There is a solution to this as well which required under a minute to locate.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/secondary_evidence/secondary_evidence_4315.html

>>>Assuming you can go at those times without losing your job.
>>
>>Again, who are these people who work M-F 8-5 52 weeks a year?
>
>They're poor people who are working every hour they can to try to feed their families. They may be taking 3 buses to get to work.

You're honestly suggesting there are vast swarms of people working during DMV business hours, every single weekday of every year and have no form of identification? This is where I'm having a disconnect. Under what SS# are they paying their taxes?

>>>Bottom line for me is that putting impediments in the way of people exercising their legitimate right to vote is unconscionable.
>>
>>"Legitimate" is the very issue. How do we determine legitimacy without identity verification? Shouldn't the voter have any responsibility to prove themselves or should we take everyone's word for it? Why even require registration in the first place?
>
>So based on very few documented cases of fraud, you're willing to risk large numbers of citizens being denied the right to vote? What trade-off is fair to you? How many legitimate voters denied to prevent 1 fraudulent vote?

My purpose in this was to point out that the excuses are not legit nor a solid position to oppose this from. I am not advocating for the law. Doris had it right in my opinion, we are innocent until proven guilty.

>>Besides, we put much stronger impediments in the way of other legitimate constutional rights? Hate speech laws & gun restrictions to name just two that have been perfectly "conscionable" to you in the past.
>
>I don't think you've ever heard me speak in favor of hate speech laws. I'm in the "I detest what you say, but will fight for your right to say it" crowd.

Fair enough.

>As for gun restrictions, there is legitimate room to discuss what the second amendment was meant to say.
>
>Tamar

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. In 1813 Kentucky tried to implement a concealed weapon restriction. It was shot down. ;)

In 1837 Georgia banned pistol sales. Its state Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. It's noteworthy because Georgia's state constitution did not include a right to bear arms as many other states had enacted. Thus, the court had to look to the US Constituition.
The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for a redress of grievances; to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures; in all criminal prosecutions, to be confronted with
the witness against them; to be publicly tried by an impartial
jury; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence, is
as perfect under the State as the national legislature, and cannot
be violated by either.

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less
comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms
shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and
young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear
arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the
smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally
necessary to the security of a free State.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txt

In 1938 the feds successfully implemented a restriction on gun ownership. That's 147 years between ratification of the Bill of Rights and the first standing restriction on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment meaning and intent were quite clear and understood for 147 years.