Absolutely...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"Act of April 4, 1818 - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state, signed by President Monroe."
|
Absolutely...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"Act of April 4, 1818 - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state, signed by President Monroe."
Hello again,
Flag, schwag... Let's get back to the question... The Supreme Court WILL have a chance to rule on voter suppression before the election... Which way do you think they'll vote?
excon
With the precedent, Voter ID will be ok'd again as it was in Indiana. From Steven's majority opinion:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You're fighting an uphill battle.Quote:
Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. In Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983), however, we confirmed the general rule that “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.
...
There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't know WHY you keep MISSING the issue.. Is it the Texas water? Nah, it can't be that... Tal seems to be OK...
The Constitutional issue the Supreme Court will decide, is NOT voter ID, but the METHOD of IMPLEMENTING voter ID. You DO know what I mean.. You MENTION the implementation all the time when you DENIGRATE people who you think are too LAZY to jump through the government hoops...
This isn't difficult.
excon
So you are fine with the Georgia ,Indiana ,and Rhode Island photo-id laws ? Cool ,I'm OK with them too .
Stevens, the liberal dude addressed that, you didn't read it?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What do you not get? The method may up for debate but It's been ok'd, it's coming and you can't stop it.Quote:
While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
And that other part you have that exactly backwards, I'm the one defending the voters while you and Tal are the ones denigrating them by implying they're too helpless or too stupid to find a way to vote. I believe in the American people, it's the left that coddles and condescends and wants them dependent on government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Both tal and I have said over and over, that it's NOT the ID law, it's the implementation of them...
I don't think you understand the word, "propriety", Steve. It means its FINE to do it. It DOESN'T address HOW it's done. My problem with it is HOW it's done, and HOW it's done is the issue the court will decide... Certainly, if they think they've ALREADY ruled on it, they don't have to take the case. Apparently you think that's what they'll do.. We'll see.
excon
No sir, it means proper, not "ok if you want to."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The court determined in that case that photo identification is not unconstitutional. That was the method in question, that was the method ruled constitutional. What is it YOU aren't getting here ex?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If you don't get it by now, you won't get it if I explain it again... But the court will, and when they rule AGAINST it, I'll tell you WHY it happened.
excon
I know, you want IDs passed out free and state-owned buses to pick everyone up, take them to the polling place, return them home and maybe pick up a few groceries for them on the way.
I've already addressed your roadblocks issue earlier:
The court agrees with me in the Indiana case:Quote:
Come on buddy, why would you think I wouldn't want every eligible voter to have the opportunity to vote? You apparently think voting is the only right that comes at a cost. The second amendment guarantees my right to bear arms but I'm sure you're OK with putting up roadblocks like registration, background checks, permits and such, no?
The first amendment guarantees my right to free speech so why should I have to endure roadblocks such as being forced to go to a "free speech zone."
I have the right to petition the government, so who's going to eliminate roadblocks for me like paying my phone bill, internet service, buying me a PC or stamps and envelopes?
Our rights come at a cost, voting is no different.
Again what are you missing? Which roadblocks to exercising my rights are OK and which aren't?Quote:
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”
I know homebound and nursing home residents who have no way of getting photo IDs. I know elderly people with no cars and no way of getting to a site that provides photo IDs. Will someone come to them with an ID-making setup? Will they have another recourse when they vote via an absentee ballot?
I don't know the specifics but the Indiana law we've been discussing makes provisions for people in nursing homes. I would imagine SCOTUS would have shot it down as it was written if it did not make such provisions. I would assume other states do as well.
Voter ID will be upheld again.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's not a matter of which ONE.. The Supreme Court will examine the totality of ALL the states efforts. The question will be, when taken as a whole, do these measures constitute voter suppression..
To me it's clear.. You? Not so much.
excon
Again you're missing the point, you are apparently OK with roadblocks to exercising SOME specifically enumerated constitutional rights but like Tal you think it's an abomination to have a minimal burden to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
SCOTUS has already said the MINIMAL burden of presenting ID is constitutional once, what makes you think it's going to do anything to reverse that from whatever viewpoint you think they're going to consider?
Ohio for one and other swing states tried to restrict them both until lawsuits were filed and jugements were rendered, and I didn't say polling place, I said a registration place.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't think so.
And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.
And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.
That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.
OK, but why? There is no need, you can typically register online or by mail, even in Indiana where ID is required.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What, seniors don't know how to use the postal service?Quote:
Is asking a senior to travel 70 miles with no car a minimal burden to exercise their rights, or spending all day on the bus line transferring from bus tobus minimal?
Makes no difference to me, it's my right and there are roadblocks - just as with free speech, the right to petition the government and I'm sure others. Freedom isn't free, dude.Quote:
And lets use some common sense here with YOUR rights to bear arms or free speech. YOUR rights stop where concerns for the public safety are concerned.
If I had said that a certain moderator here who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal.Quote:
And do you have papers that say YOU'RE NOT crazy?? You must be if...
That's like way over the top. We've addressed all of your concerns, you're just rehashing them over and over and over as if we haven't been paying attention.Quote:
you start a process that supposed to bring instant results but looks fishy to me, while you give nopause to even the effects on such a process on the rights of others.
Questioning my integrity? Again, that moderator who shall remain nameless would be all over my a$$ for making it personal... especially for questioning someone's integrity.Quote:
That's a lousy way to go about having integrity. That was your intent,to bring integrity to the process right.
SCOTUS addressed that and agrees with me that ensuring the integrity of the elections is proper - even if there is no actual evidence of voter fraud. Read it yourself.
I don't question YOUR integrity, just the republicans engaged in this rigging the votes.
An even-handed law is not vote rigging.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It can't be even handed if you can't READ it. I propose that we even handedly make sure EVERY voter can READ. That makes sense, as long as it's even handed, right?
excon
So ex let me get this straight, mandatory education is not against the constitution but mandatory voting is?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 AM. |