I had to show my ID at my polling place.

[Rob in VB]

Oh.  And by the way, there is no constitutional mandate to vote either.

[B.P. in H town]

1.  Interstate Commerce Clause
2.  They are and there is no reason to believe that this is a barrier to anything
3.  As a Conservative, I believe in State's Rights.

1. Sorry champ, that doesn't fly.  The Commerce Clause doesn't guarentee a citizen the right to purchase anything.  If that was the case you would be able to walk into your local drug store and purchase some high grade uranium.  The Commerce Clause is a right that the federal government has, not a right that the citizens have, you understand the difference don't you?  Probably not.

2. Just because you say something is ubiquitous and isn't a barrier to anything doesn't make it so, certainly when it comes to constitutionally protected rights.  Sorry to break it to you pal.

I know your pappy and grandpappy left you the keys to your business, but apparently they didn't leave you the keys to actual, practical, and useful constitutional knowledge.

[B.P. in H town]

Oh.  And by the way, there is no constitutional mandate to vote either.

Agreed, the government cannot mandate that a citizen vote.  100% agree on this with you.

[Rob in VB]

1. Sorry champ, that doesn't fly.  The Commerce Clause doesn't guarentee a citizen the right to purchase anything.  If that was the case you would be able to walk into your local drug store and purchase some high grade uranium.  The Commerce Clause is a right that the federal government has, not a right that the citizens have, you understand the difference don't you?  Probably not.

2. Just because you say something is ubiquitous and isn't a barrier to anything doesn't make it so, certainly when it comes to constitutionally protected rights.  Sorry to break it to you pal.

I know your pappy and grandpappy left you the keys to your business, but apparently they didn't leave you the keys to actual, practical, and useful constitutional knowledge.

To equate buying booze to buying high-grade uranium is ludicrous.  To state that individuals don't have a right to buy goods and services is equally as ludicrous.  You would engage in a circular argument with Bill Clinton on which "is" you're trying to define.  As usual, when you meet an intellectual dead-end, you throw the rhetorical spaghetti against the wall.

[Rob in VB]

2. Just because you say something is ubiquitous and isn't a barrier to anything doesn't make it so, certainly when it comes to constitutionally protected rights.  Sorry to break it to you pal.

  And because you say it it's true?  Typical Liberal.

[B.P. in H town]

To equate buying booze to buying high-grade uranium is ludicrous.  To state that individuals don't have a right to buy goods and services is equally as ludicrous.  You would engage in a circular argument with Bill Clinton on which "is" you're trying to define.  As usual, when you meet an intellectual dead-end, you throw the rhetorical spaghetti against the wall.

Here is the brass constutional tax.  You are trying to say that a person has a constitutionally guarenteed right to purchase something, call it good X.  I asked you to cite which part of the constitution guarentees this, you responded with the commerce clause.  Again, and to repeat, the commerce clause is a power of the Federal government, NOT anything that guarentees a right to an individual citizen.

So again, purchasing anything, be it booze, uranium, diapers, or a car, is not a constitutionally protected right, at least certainly not protected by the commerce clause.

You are the one missing the point, it isn't the object that is attempting to be purchased that is the analysis point, it is what is guarenteed by the constitution.


I'm not saying that individuals don't have a right to purchase goods and services, I'm just saying that nothing in the constitution guarentees this.  That's why laws can prohibit purchasing something without violating the constitution.  You know like blue laws, that prohibit the purchase of booze.  Sorry to inconvenience you with actual constitutional analysis that doesn't comport with your "Rob in VB thinks X so that is what the constitution says" type of reasoning.

[B.P. in H town]

And because you say it it's true?  Typical Liberal.

I didn't say anything is true, I'm just relying on what Federal judges have said in reliance upon the constitution.

I'm not sure that is liberal or conservative, probably just a good course of action.

Rob is a guy who inherited a business and now thinks he is a know it all.  I'll stick on the side of federal judges, sorry if I don't want to listen to Billy Madison's interpretation of the US constitution.

[Rob in VB]

You are the one missing the point, it isn't the object that is attempting to be purchased that is the analysis point, it is what is guarenteed by the constitution.

Then by your own admission, seeing that you have said there is no Constitutional mandate to vote, you should have no problem with requiring a photo ID.

[B.P. in H town]

Then by your own admission, seeing that you have said there is no Constitutional mandate to vote, you should have no problem with requiring a photo ID.

This isn't even a question of constitutional interpretation, but pure reading comprehension:

Do you understand the difference between being required to do something, and being guarenteed the right to engage in an activity in a manner unobstructed by the state?

[Rob in VB]

This isn't even a question of constitutional interpretation, but pure reading comprehension:

Do you understand the difference between being required to do something, and being guarenteed the right to engage in an activity in a manner unobstructed by the state?

guaranteed by waht?

[B.P. in H town]

guaranteed by waht?

See above post, several amendments and Supreme Court Case law.

[Rob in VB]

I thought you just said there was no constitutional mandate for one to vote.  People don't have to participate.  If they choose to do so, they should be required to prove who they are.

Who would maintain a checking account at a bank that allowed withdrawals without first checking ID?

[B.P. in H town]

Then by your own admission, seeing that you have said there is no Constitutional mandate to vote, you should have no problem with requiring a photo ID.

There is no mandate that a criminal defendant must remain silent, so we should have no problem with a law requiring them to show a photo ID in order to do so.

[B.P. in H town]

I thought you just said there was no constitutional mandate for one to vote.  People don't have to participate.  If they choose to do so, they should be required to prove who they are.

Who would maintain a checking account at a bank that allowed withdrawals without first checking ID?

Again, I don't think you understand the difference between something being required, and a right being guarenteed as freely exercisable by a citizen.

Also, I don't know how bank policies in any way shape or form impact the constitutionally protected right to vote.

[Rob in VB]

There is no mandate that a criminal defendant must remain silent, so we should have no problem with a law requiring them to show a photo ID in order to do so.

Great analogy, Matlock.  Because testifying in court controls trillions of public dollars and unfathomable amounts of political power.