Of course the undecided might be swayed, but there is media on both sides of the debate. You can't have a negative campaign unless you have some negatives to work with
|
Of course the undecided might be swayed, but there is media on both sides of the debate. You can't have a negative campaign unless you have some negatives to work with
SCOTUS just decided that States cannot require voters to be citizens
SCOTUS Strikes Down AZ Voter-ID Law - The Daily Beast
No one has to prove they are citizens to register and vote. Scalia ,writing for the majority said that Arizona's law was preempted by the federal National Voter Registration Act.
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidently that law doesn't require citizenship to be eligible to vote.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Hello again, tom:
I'll have to read it.. It sounds like the RIGHT decision based on the WRONG reasoning. Kind of like Obamacare, huh? Those Supremes... Got to love 'em.
excon
I can see where the right would want to eliminate minorities and poor people from voting. Loss of total social, and economic domination is a humbling experience.
Don't be ridiculous . All we ever asked was for someone voting to prove they were eligible .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Well do it constitutionally. Ain't you guys tired of losing in court over this?
So in other words, states can set requirements but can't determine if they're satisfied.
Yeah that makes sense.
Hello Steve:
If you don't have to be a citizen to vote, what possible requirement could you come up with?
excon
I'm waiting to download and find the time to read his majority opinion. But if the Motor voter law does not require proof of citizenship then there is something REALLY wrong with it .
Makes sense that your requirements meet constitutional ones right?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .Quote:
Has to be something that requires something a minority doesn't have... like a house in the burbs or something.
Arizona has had this requirement since 1912, it took 101 years to say it wasn't constitutional?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
This is the level of discourse here?Quote:
or something a liberal doesn't have... like brains .
Apparently so.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It's as legit a comment as Tal's barb about us not wanting minorities to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Even the respondents in the case acknowledged the requirements to be eligible to vote, you just can't enforce it. As long as you pinkie swear you're a citizen that's good enough for the left, although if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.
You'd be an American, maybe with dual citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:
Not me. I WANT Ted Cruz to run.Quote:
if you're a Republican born to American parents in Canada you should be disqualified to run for president.
Excon
You don't and the ruling that struck down the Arizona law was 7-2. Okay I know you guys here may not be the ones my "barbs" are aimed at, but you have to admit republican activities haven't done that well in the courts. This one though if you read the 93 federal law is pretty explicit about registration without citizenship papers, because citizenship is required for most federal programs and benefits already.
Arizona can and has challenged registrations 88% of whom failed to be thrown out and only 19 cases of fraud out of two million were found.
Justices strike down citizenship provision in Arizona voter law - CNN.com
The burden of proof lies with the state to prove a person is not a citizen, and not on the citizen to prove he IS.Quote:
But in a nod to state authority, Scalia said the federal law "does not prevent states from denying registration based on any information in their possession establishing the applicant's eligibility."
As I said, Arizona has had that requirement for 101 years. Can you please explain to me the logic in having requirements while banning any mechanism to ensure those requirements are satisfied?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And some states have outdated laws banning interracial marriages still, so what? The issue is now that it was challenged in court after the feds made a law for all the states to abide by in 1993.
A form which can be changed, but I'm sure your side would not tolerate that. The question was, can you please explain to me the logic in having requirements while banning any mechanism to ensure those requirements are satisfied?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The state can question the registration and have it disqualified. What else do you need?
I get it, your side isn't much for making sure anyone is qualified for anything. Just look at their approach to home loans and electing presidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
There is nothing that says the state can't make the requirement for state and local elections... right ? I bet if Arizona rewrote their law so that it only applies to state and local elections ,the constitutionality of that would be challenged too.
You see... the left wants all types of proof for gun ownership ;which is at least as much a constitutional right as voting . But for voting ;all that's needed is swearing that you are a citizen... no id of any kind except perhaps a utility bill or a Costco club card.
So if there is national voter ID requirement, then a national gun registry is okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In Illinois, we have to prove who we are and our signature has to match what is on file when we vote.
I did not say I was in favor ,or opposed to a national voter id. The real point is that the Constitution provides for the States creating voting standards . Although I sort of agree with Scalia's logic in the 'primacy clause' ;at the same token ,I could dispute the constitutionality of the motor voter law of which this decision was based .
The left wants it both ways in Arizona . Here they say Federal Law is primary regarding a law that has at best slight differences to Federal Law... but when it came to immigration enforcement ;and Arizona re-wrote its laws to comply and enforce Federal Immigration law ,it was the same fickle SCOTUS that ruled Arizona's law was unconstitutional because enforcing immigration law undermined federal law.
Don't holler about what the left wants Tom, not with a 7-2 ruling.
Scalia and Kennedy are wrong. Scalia in particular knows d@mn well that the constitution would not have been ratified if there were provisions that took vote eligibility powers away from the states. But it is clear to me that if you support this decision then you don't care if a voter is a citizen.
It seems to me, Tom, that you are far from being the United States your title suggests. Why is there no uniformity in legislation and approach if, as you suggest, you are united. The rugged individualist approach gets you only so far. Have you forgotten that in unity there is strength
We have a great country ! You can vote without proving eligibility ! Even a conservative like Scalia thinks that's a good idea ! You see ,it's such an unreasonable burden to have to show proof of citizenship . Works great with the Democrat "vote early ,vote often " scheme to turn this into a single party nation. I'm going to advise all my legal green card employees to apply for a motor voter registration and "swear " they are eligible . They are here legally . Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the illegals ? It's the honor system . Proof is not required .
And yes ,the OBOTS do approve of voter ids... in Kenya (you can't make it up )
FACT SHEET: U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan AfricaFACT SHEET: U.S. Support for Strengthening Democratic Institutions, Rule of Law, and Human Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa | The White HouseQuote:
In Kenya, the $53 million Yes Youth Can program empowers nearly one million Kenyan youth to use their voices for advocacy in national and local policy-making, while also creating economic opportunities. In advance of Kenya's March 2013 general elections, Yes Youth Can's “My ID My Life” campaign helped 500,000 youth obtain National identification cards, a prerequisite to voter registration, and carried out a successful nationwide campaign with Kenyan civic organizations to elicit peace pledges from all presidential aspirants.
Yes Youth Can??
I would look closely at there implementation process, and compare it to the republicans process. How much were you guys willing to spend in the last election cycle on programs and policies to make sure people got registered and had ID"s.
Wonder how long we have to wait in line with those ID's after repubs cancel early voting?
Lines will be shorter... all the illegals won't have ID's to vote.
You don't get it... there was long lines BECAUSE there was early voting .
Who wants to cancel early voting? Vote early, vote often.
You have to get smarter about this, in an electronic age why are there queues? Why can't you have dedicated web sites or even twitter voting? #votefor?? ; Voting could become all the rage among the young on Facebook everyone has a cell phone so send them a free ap, one that can only be used once
There is nothing smart about using the internet to vote unless you want to invite massive fraud. This generation that is coming forward only can pay attention to the last minute of tweets anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes , Perhaps clete can link to the online voting system that the Aussies employ so he can demonstrate it's efficacy. There is already enough voter fraud with the motor votor application process.Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Out voting system is efficient. However, no system is free of fraud. Are you taking fraud in comparative terms?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:20 PM. |