I would hardly call providing ID to prove who you are a "road block".

@Kelly J: Neither did the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on Indiana's similar law. That's why the opposition shopped for a more agreeable ruling from the State courts!

Richard: I wish you could discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks. I will ask you, "Do you believe that positive ID checks prior to boarding an aircraft make it safer to fly?" Most passengers do. I agree with them. I believe that your argument is with Judge Simpson and not me. Cordially, JR
PS Did you know that Allyson has increased her net worth by over $1 million while in office? Good work if you can get it!

Joe, where was the "attack"? You mean using the word "clown"? OK sorry....you are still going to lose by double digits.

Joe, getting on a plane isn't a consititutionally protected RIGHT, voting is! All the rest of it is just a smoke screen.

As for Schwartz (whom I'm not a huge fan but will vote for over a right wing nut), how is her making money bad? Mitt Romney made many, many millions while Governor of MA. Are you mad at him too?

Joe----I whole heartedly agree with showing ID in order to vote---not sure why anyone would be against that. It's ludicrous!! I'll be voting for you! Good luck!

Richard: First you called Mr. Rooney a 'clown', the you called him a 'nut'. Show some respect for the man. Have you seen his CV? He has accomplished 1000 times what Schwartz has.

Because Democrats never have any need for a photo ID. Apparently, all productive members of society (who either drive, fly on planes, ride trains, have jobs, buy alcohol, or do the myriad other things that require photo ID) are Republicans.

Actually, RIchard, I believe the people DO have a right to get on a plane, because the right to move about freely is well established and the federal government has no constitutional right to keep people off planes. There is an FAA and (regrettably) a TSA that are able to regulate travel by air for safety and security reasons. So unless you're threatening the rights of safety or security of other people, yes, you have a right to get on a plane. This is different from driving, where as the operator you clearly need to meet a higher level of scrutiny to meet the requirements of safety than by just getting on a plane.

Stephen: Good luck going to an airport without a ticket and demanding your right to fly on a plane. We'll see how far you get before you're being waterboarded in Guantanamo. Having a RIGHT and being ALLOWED TO are not the same thing.

Voting is a right that all Americans over a certain age receive, and the Government should not do anything to infringe that right or make it something that is harder for one segment of society to do over another. And it's why that right can be taken away for people who are convicted felons (as a punishment).

Flying on a plane is NOT a right that all Americans have. It's a choice they can make and something they are allowed to partake in doing, assuming they can afford the costs, fit in the seats and are not on a terrorist/no fly list. A person can be removed from a plane if they act unruly -- but they are not given a provisional flight in that instance, are they?

IDs being required to do both now in PA is about the only thing they have in common.

Obviously, I don't have a right to fly on a plane without a ticket because I don't own the plane. What makes you think people have a right to other people's property? You seem to have trouble distinguishing between public and private property. Airlines are privately held. I have to buy a ticket to fly. The government doesn't get to tell me no, unless I pose a threat to security (and that's a different issue, but let's assume we don't have an overreaching bureaucracy created by the USA Patriot Act). It's the Occupy people who seem to think that their "rights" including having a right to other people's property.

Stephen, you may have the right to move as you please, but that right doesn't mean that you have the right to certain means of travel. You have the right to walk as you please, nothing else is guaranteed because every other form of travel is regulated by the government and is not a right.

I'm sorry, but again, I don't see in the PA or US constitutions where the government has the right to tell us how we are allowed to travel.

Necessary and proper clause and any and all references to the "general welfare" of our country (I believe it is in the preamble).

Well, then, the federal government can do anything, can't it? How about they require you provide identification any time you pass a police officer? That would improve public safety. How about they do random drug testing of every citizen? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. By the way, the preamble is not law; that's why they call it a "preamble".

The preamble most certainly is law. You need to study up on your Constitution because the preamble states the fundamental purposes of our government.

Also, some people do have to provide documentation while passing police officers (see some immigration laws, not that I agree with them). Also, if there is reason to believe you have been doing drugs you can be forced to take a drug test or a search of your person and belongings. If these things bother you so much you should really go after them first.

You are wrong. Please see Jacobson vs. Massachusetts.

Expecting me to go after government abuses of the rights to one's person before I can engage in a discussion about voting rights is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

The government can force us to have vaccines... I fail to see your point. The "general safety" of the public trumps individual liberty. If anything that court case only supports my views.

Well, in case anyone missed it, Mrs. Applewhite, who was paraded in front of Judge Simpson in Commonwealth Court as the face of those being "disenfranchised" by this law, got her very own photo ID with all the problems she faced. She did it - in the face of all those documentation issues - with a dose of persistence and a little outside help.

If she could do this, (in a wheelchair!) then NOBODY has an excuse for not getting one!

BTW ... SHe really sounds like a sweet old lady, and as a Republican I welcome her vote this November!

But why should she or anyone else have to do much more than you and me in order to be able to vote?

See, people? That's all you need! "A dose of persistence and a little outside help" in order to do what is your constitutional right.

Republicans have made it so that tens of thousands of Pennsylvanians will need "a dose of persistence and a little outside help" to go to the polls.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

She didn't have to do more; she had to do the same amount. They don't just hand out drivers' licenses.

If you think she didn't have to do more than you would then you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Really? Could we stop with the attacks? Please, enlighten me on what the process is for one of these "disenfrancised democrats" and how it differs from how my wife, who also does not drive, got her id.

1. The woman's drivers license was so out of date she needed a birth certificate to back it up.
2. The birth certificate was difficult to get because it was from another state and old.
3. She had to have help in order to put together the necessary materials for an ID (which, according to the law she still didn't have, but they gave her an ID anyway).

I see that as much more than most people have to do to get a license.

When I got my first driver's license, I also had to provide that documentation. Again, no difference. We can't accept excuses. It was not impossible to get ID, and anyone of any race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or political affiliation is going to encounter these kinds of problems. I'm guessing she must have lived here a very long time to avoid the law that required presenting photo ID the first time you vote! We already have that law, and I'm surprised the leftists allowed it.

You really don't get it. She is old. Her ID was long expired. Really, at least try to understand what was happening.

I do get it; you just continually ignore what I am saying to set up a straw man you can defeat. In two requests, you have not explained how this woman was discriminated against. Anyone who does not bother to keep a copy of their birth certificate-- you know, DOCUMENTATION-- is going to have a difficult time getting a photo ID. However, it is not impossible.

But why should people who did not keep their birth certificate have to go through much more to be able to vote? They are discriminated against because certain sections of the public (the poor and the elderly) are much more likely to have this happen to them. The extra effort required is a form of discrimination.

I believe equal access to voting would be the best way to put it, since you seem to be misunderstanding what I write.

I know nothing about Stewart Greenleaf please ask him this question. I am all for term limits. I will not serve more than 3 terms; furthermore, I am against borrowing money to pay elected officials' salaries If they vote for deficit spending, then they should have their salaries reduced by that same percentage. (ie we now borrow $.40 of every federal dollar spent, elected officials who vote for such a budget should only receive 60% of their salary.) JR
PS Ms Schwartz has been feeding from the public trough for nearly her whole adult life.

Stop trying to label everything as Republicans are saints who care about law and Democrats are sinners who don't. There are the same things that go on in both camps about different issues. The rule of law is the rule of law, but the law and the Supreme Court are often wrong and overturned with time.

What everyone should do is abide by law, but those that disagree with it should not be mocked by trying (through legal means) to overturn it.

The problem with the law isn't the practicality of security, but the differing effects it has on certain populations. Even if someone can get an ID, why should they have to go through so much more work to be able to receive it than any other citizen? If the state wanted to do this the right way (which I still don't agree with, but would have less of a problem with) it would be to have a longer roll out period and actively find the people who would be likely dropped from the rolls, come to them, and give them an ID. To do anything with less equality would be unfair to everyone who has to do the extra work, therefore showing an internal bias in the law (which it currently has).

I'll assume that you also oppose the AHCA because it infringes on the people's rights to liberty and property, and directly violates the Constitution by giving Congress rights it doesn't have therein. Good for you!

Stephen, assuming you mean the ACA, I disagree completely. Actually people who do not have insurance cost hospitals crazy amounts of money which then drives up my insurance costs because hospitals have to charge more (not to mention those people don't get preventative care so they have to keep frequenting the ER after they are stabilized). In reality, my right to property was being taken by those without health care. The ACA does not violate the Constitution (in my opinion) either, but I at least concede that this point could be debated.

I'm sorry, Stephen, I couldn't hear you over the rhetoric.

People who don't have insurance drive up costs for hospitals because of-- you guessed-- government regulation. The federal government has an unfunded mandate that they accept people who may not be able to pay. Taking patients without question is the moral thing to do, but the fact is that socialists like to impose regulation, and when that regulation causes problems, the answer is always more regulation.

So you're problem with the fact that hospitals are forced to take patients who are sick is that it is a regulation... but it is something they should be doing anyway? So you want them to be able to pick and choose who they let die?

Apparently, the federal government thought it was OK to let hospitals make this decision before 1986.

Just making sure you're completely okay with hospitals getting to choose whether or not people live... because, you know, people don't have the right to life.

I didn't say that, but since you asked, no... the government does not have the right to TAKE property from one person to save the lives of others. We are supposed to voluntarily HELP those people in need. You don't have a right to other people's stuff... but it is immoral to do otherwise. This is the difference between charity and socialism.

Well, you have really done a great job trying to say that it somehow takes away from your rights to make hospitals save lives.

What if someone shows up to an ER without insurance but they have gunshot wounds? Let them bleed to death in the lobby because the hospital isn't feeling charitable that day? Too bad for that guy.

How about someone having a heart attack? Better check to see if he has insurance before treating him because he might be taking your property!

I'm sure all hospitals would give back enough to people without healthcare, just like real estate developers just give houses to the homeless who walk into their cul-de-sacs.

So then, Joseph, I take it that you believe developers should give homes to the homeless? Why not, if hospitals are to care for the sick for free? How about you? If a homeless person comes to your door, should the state force you to house them for free?

I stated it would be charitable of the developer to give the houses (not that it should be demanded of them) to demonstrate that hospitals need to be forced to care for the sick (even those without healthcare) because people do have the right to life.

The right to swing your fist ends at my face. Ideally, no one's rights trump anyone else's-- such is tyranny.

Never said I wanted to punch you but thanks for letting me know about the status of my right to do so (actually I don't have that right, it is assault). I said people have the right to life. Yes, ideally everyone can have their rights and never have them be trumped by anything else ever. Then again, we live in the real world.

On an extremely technical level, it does affects everyone. On a practical level it affects certain groups more than others. With no need problems associated with in person voting (almost all documented cases of individual fraud is carried out on the registration or absentee ballot level) than why bother creating a law that costs millions?

Technically, since there are many many many times more documented cases of absentee ballot fraud there should be a law that deals with that by making all who want to use the absentee ballot demonstrate the legitimacy of their vote by having them go to a notary... oh... but that would hurt Republicans more than Democrats so that can't happen... (just to make sure everyone understands the sarcasm, I would not be for that measure either, I was just illustrating a point).