Letter to the Editor: Pleased With the Voter ID Ruling

Republican candidate Joe Rooney, who is seeking a seat in the 13th Congressional District, chimes in on Wednesday's Voter ID ruling.

Joe Rooney, who is running for a seat in the 13th Congressional District, issued the following statement on Thursday after Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson ruled to uphold the law that requires every Pennsylvania voter to show a valid photo ID before being allowed to vote. 

"I applaud the decision of Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson to uphold Pennsylvania’s voter identification law. Judge Simpson concluded in a thoughtful, nonpartisan 70 page decision that the law did not violate the Pennsylvania State Constitution. PA voters now have almost three months to ensure that they possess the necessary identification to vote. Additionally, the law allows voters to cast a provisional ballot which will be counted once the proper ID is presented.

On a personal basis, as an airline pilot I witness thousands of people who successfully navigate the security procedures now in place to fly. As you all know, this includes checking every person’s identification prior to boarding. I support this law as a reasonable accommodation needed to protect every Pennsylvanians’ vote. 

I hope that everyone will take the time now to ensure they are eligible to vote on November 6th."

Joe Rooney 

Joseph Finnick August 20, 2012 at 09:34 PM
If you think she didn't have to do more than you would then you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
David Sotak August 20, 2012 at 09:35 PM
Somehow I didn't see it written anywhere that the new law only affected one party or that a "constitutional right" didn't have any rules associated with it.
Joseph Finnick August 20, 2012 at 09:44 PM
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).
Joseph Finnick August 20, 2012 at 09:50 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 20, 2012 at 09:55 PM
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.
Marc Lombardi August 21, 2012 at 12:48 AM
I'm sorry, Stephen, I couldn't hear you over the rhetoric.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 03:43 AM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 03:45 AM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 03:48 AM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM
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?
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Necessary and proper clause and any and all references to the "general welfare" of our country (I believe it is in the preamble).
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 02:34 PM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 02:36 PM
Apparently, the federal government thought it was OK to let hospitals make this decision before 1986.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 02:42 PM
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".
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 02:45 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 02:47 PM
You really don't get it. She is old. Her ID was long expired. Really, at least try to understand what was happening.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 02:50 PM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 02:52 PM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 02:55 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 02:57 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 02:59 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 03:01 PM
I believe equal access to voting would be the best way to put it, since you seem to be misunderstanding what I write.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 03:23 PM
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?
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 03:25 PM
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?
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 03:28 PM
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.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 03:32 PM
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.
Stephen Eickhoff August 21, 2012 at 06:50 PM
The right to swing your fist ends at my face. Ideally, no one's rights trump anyone else's-- such is tyranny.
Joseph Finnick August 21, 2012 at 07:13 PM
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.
S September 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM
The premise of the Voter ID law is to reduce the chance of "voter fraud". This is a big load of steaming crap. Since 2000 there have been 10 cases brought for PA courts for voter fraud, 4 have been convicted. PA voter have gone to the pole over 600 million times since then. The only fraud perpetrated here is by the Republican party of PA. Furthermore Mike Turzai, Speaker of the House of PA (R) has flat out omitted that this was a critical step to get Romney elected. Thanks GOP for stepping on a basic right as an American citizen!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something