<p>The funny thing about ALEC is that although they marketed themselves to corporate donors as writing business-friendly legislation, a lot of the legislation they champion is not what we’d think of (or, what, say, Coca-Cola would think of) as business-friendly. Presumably large corporations were hoping for laws getting rid of burdensome regulations and lowering taxes-- not laws making it easier to carry guns and harder to register to vote.</p>
<p>Now that ALEC is coming out of the shadows, some corporations are finding that they don’t want to be associated with their full agenda. Even if some members of the management of Coca-Cola privately favor ALEC’s agenda, why would the corporation want to take a side on the Stand Your Ground (aka Kill at Will) law?</p>
<p>I have a strong presumption of “innocent until proven guilty.” The issue here is different: the case may never go before a jury because the police didn’t even do a full investigation at first, until there was a media outcry. They didn’t interview all the witnesses, they didn’t (apparently) investigate the scene fully, they didn’t impound evidence.</p>
<p>Zimmerman may have a legitimate case for self-defense, but he might escape legal punishment not because he’s innocent, but because of police incompetence and, perhaps, bias.</p>
I agree with that, certainly. But I continue to think that the actual facts will be uncomfortably murky for anybody who thinks they understand what really happened. That’s usually the case.</p>
<p>Re post #1060. Hunt, I disagree. While there may be some on this board who presume guilt, that is not at all what most of us are arguing. The definition of “innocent until proven guilty” has to do with the prosecutor’s obligation to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is:</p>
<p>A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.</p>
<p>We don’t have a defendant here, and that is the entire point. We are asking for an arrest so that there is the possibility of finding out the truth, and to have justice served. He may or may not be guilty in the eyes of the court, but we need to get him IN COURT in order to find out. This SYG law is being improperly applied in this case, in the opinions of the writers of the law and many of us here.</p>
<p>If a person wants to have the SYG and expanded Castle laws subject to major scrutiny and possible repeal, a decision to not charge Z will help do that.</p>
<p>Perhaps a hoodie with “Z goes Free–repeal SYG!” I still suggest not to wear it at night while walking with the hood up in a way that covers your features. </p>
<p>There is a reason that having this case be viewed as a race case is not productive. It keeps this from being an example of “see, this could happen to everyone’s kid.” Now it is a hate crime or racial bias instead of “cowboy mentality” and a law that can provide it a pass.</p>
<p>07DAD, I read through the article in your post 1058. Thanks so much for sharing that. The article is very informative and fascinating in dealing with all the issues from a legal, not a racial or political viewpoint. </p>
<p>It was clearly written before the Trayvon Martin shooting, so it is not shaded by those developments.</p>
<p>That was the same argument for land ownership, poll taxes and/or literacy tests for the right to vote. Just buy land, pay money for a tax or get an education, no biggie.</p>
<p>Should the government require you to prove your identity and carry a photo document? What’s next? Registering all weapons?</p>
<p>hayden–there actually are lots of things pre-Trayvon that found these changes problematic. The several killings to protect property in Texas (with there being no threat to the shooter’s person) got a lot of play when the shooters were not charged.</p>
<p>If you were born in the early-mid part of the 20th century at home in many parts of the US…especially in poor rural areas…you may not have had an official birth certificate filed at a hospital. </p>
<p>There have been several googlable stories about seniors and middle-aged US citizens who are now having trouble getting passports or other forms of current photo ID as a result. </p>
<p>Also…while official photo ID fees may not feel like much to some here on CC…it can be quite burdensome to those who are less privileged economically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Never had to show ID to pay my taxes or register for selective service. With the former, just mail-in/drop off tax forms to the local office…with the latter…get a registration form…fill it out…and mail it.</p>
<p>With Federal/mandated NY State efiling for those using tax software…it’s even easier. Efile everything and then mail out the check(s) if necessary.</p>
<p>No, hops, I don’t believe that. There are other groups which assist in writing legislation, like the National Conference of State Legislatures. The difference is that these other groups are non-partisan (as they are required to be in order to keep their tax-exempt status). ALEC is anything but non-partisan.</p>
<p>The other thing that makes ALEC different is that it exists to do the bidding of mega-corporations and industry groups.</p>
<p>My mother lost many of her documents including her passport, and it took forever to get another one. She needed a copy of her birth certificate, which took 4 months for the state to send her; then she needed a copy of her marriage certificate to legall connect her birth name with her married name, which took many weeks to arrive. And it cost money - I don’t remember exactly, but something like $60 for the birth certificate, and another $50 or so for the marriage certificate. So that’s 4 months and $110. And that’s for someone who had help from family who know how to deal with the various agencies. For someone who needs all that to be able to vote, they would need several months and a lot of money. All to be able to excercise their rights under the Constitution.</p>
<p>You can’t use an expired driver’s license in some states unless the license expired after 2010. So the elderly who keep an expired license for identification purposes can apply for a mortgage or a credit card with an expired license, but can’t use it to vote.</p>
<p>In most parts of the country, you have to pay to get a photo ID. You have to go to a government office that might not be open outside of your work hours, so you might have to take time off from work. If you’re elderly, you might not have easy transportation to a government building that provides photo ID, and you might not have the paperwork required. Hospital records from the 1920s are maybe not so easy to get.</p>
<p>Since when do we require people to pay and jump through ridiculous hoops to vote? It’s not extremely difficult to get a photo ID, but why would we make voting even the slightest bit of difficult? </p>
<p>The majority of adults in the US have photo ID. The majority. Not all. All adult citizens have the right to vote.* Not just the ones in the upper middle class, not just the people who have drivers licenses, not just privileged people on CC. Everybody.</p>
<p>I didn’t have a drivers license until I was well into my 30s. I usually didn’t have a photo ID. Nevertheless, I had no trouble voting. </p>
<ul>
<li>(unless their right to the franchise was taken away because of felony convictions)</li>
</ul>
<p>It can be. People who can’t just jump in the car and run down to DMV may have problems. And remember, getting an ID will also entail producing a birth certificate, which may involve two trips to the bank. The whole endeavor could easily take half a day. </p>
<p>If a birth certificate is lost, it costs money to get a replacement. It also takes time. And as noted above, some people do not have birth certificates. </p>
<p>The people for whom this could be a burden include low-income voters, elderly voters, rural voters, young voters, and voters who can’t take a half-day off work to tend to all of this. </p>
<p>It’s not that it’s impossible. It’s that it’s a barrier to exercising the right to vote. The point of Voter ID is to suppress voting among certain groups who have the constitutional right to vote, but not the means to easily meet all these new requirements.</p>
<p>I work in a federal office building. I can’t even go to work without showing photo id. Messengers and food delivery people can’t get in without showing it, either. I have no sympathy for the difficulty argument. Just as there are costs of doing business, there are costs of citizenship. We all have to pay them.</p>
<p>Yes Zooser, but for some folks it as not as easy as you may believe. In fact, it’s quite burdensome since 9/11.</p>
<p>Cobrat’s comments in #1072 reminded me of my days fresh out of college helping seniors navigate federal/local bureaucracy. On one ocassion the director of senior center called to ask for help getting a resident a birth certificate. The poor [client] fellow had no papers and wasn’t quite positive about the date of his birth in rural South Carolina in the 1920s or so. As more than one senior can attest, registered births and paperwork for many African Americans in the Jim Crow south in that era was often not documented in the countryside, particularly in a place like South Carolina, where some historians said the poverty and lack of civic infrastructure resembled a 3rd World country in the mid
20th century.</p>