If you support the requirement for voters to show ID...?

It's already in the constiitution, the tenth amendment.

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States,are reserved to the States respectively,or to the people."

Unless it is prohibited by the constitution, it is legal. So there is no need to change the constitution. If federal passes a voter ID law for all the states, I would be against it. Each state should be in charge to govern themselves, you don't like it, move to another state, leave my state ALONE.

The Constitution doesn't tell you what the requirements are to vote in national elections, it instead leaves that up to the states to decide in Article 1, section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators."

It then reaffirms that stance in the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

While the 12th amendment sets up the electoral college system for presidential elections, it has nothing to say on the issue of how the electors are chosen, once again leaving that up to the states.

The only thing the Constitution has to say about elections is regarding what may NOT be done, such as disallowing voters on the basis of race (15th amendment), sex (19th amendment), or age (amendment 26). Since it does not bar having to show proof of identification that issue is left up to the states via the aforementioned sections, and that is where it currently is being played out. It's a state issue, not a federal one.

My state has demanded a picture ID to vote for years...since the Constitution does not state the need for an ID card the 10th amendment states it's up to each individual state to decide. Maybe you should read the whole document instead of picking and choosing which parts to use to make the case you have already decided on.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution doesn't say anything against requiring an ID either.

UPDATE: In fact, it doesn't say much about voting at all, except that we can't bar women and minorities from voting. But Voter ID laws aren't aimed at them, and do nothing to prohibit them from voting any more than anyone else.

As for Gay Marriage, although I see no useful purpose to society with gay marriage, I do believe the 14th Amendment requires it, equally protecting the rights and privileges of gay folks.

That's simply ridiculous. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote. It is mute regarding the rules individual states decide to impose regarding that right. Do you hold that the hours polling stations are open are also tacit support for the belief in an evolving Constitution? After all, it refers to "Election Day". It doesn't specifically state that there might be times during the 24 hour period during which the polls would be closed.

The constitution also doesn't say the the government can prevent citizens from owning nuclear weapons,

Does that mean that you want to change the Constitution, thus making you a judicial activist, or would you argue that if they had nukes back then it would be in the Constitution, thus making you a believer in an evolving and developing Constitution?

The constitution doesn't tell us to use voting machines, either.

In fact, I don't see anything specific there about the actual process, period.

So I don't see why requiring ID would indicate either judicial activism or an evolving constititution.

The Constitution doesn't have any requirement to show ID or go through a federal background check to own a gun either you want to remove those first then we can talk.

C'mon admit it you didn't think this one through very well did you.

Since you have to show a photo ID to get cigarettes and booze; I don't see what the problem is. Obviously, they show the ID. Obviously, and everyone sees it for what it is, an action plan to flood the polls with voters who intend to vote multiple times.

It's implied that if there is a law, there must be some way to ensure that the law is followed. If there is no way to enforce the law, the law become useless. The only way to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote are allowed to is to have some kind of verification of identity.