[jlisenbe]

boundries set by a federal agency, not a corrupt state one

Yeah. There would be no chance of coming across a corrupt federal agency.

Documentation was on a variety of TV stations and can be found by googling for videos of long lines of voters who stood in line for many hours.

There have always been areas with long lines, and unless you can show they only existed in lower income areas, then you don't have a case.

And as I've said before, there wasn't mass mail-outs of ballots (to everyone between 2 and 89?). Signatures on those ballots were verified with signatures on file. Many states sent out applications first to registered voters.

If I can show otherwise, will you agree to condemn it?

[tomder55]

Clete ,you clearly don't get what federalism means . That being said Congress has the authority to make rules that fall within their constitutional boundaries (art 2 sec 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.. ). Congress could use that authority to set some basic rules for the states to operate under . As an example . Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution. If Congress wanted an extended election they could write it into the law .They could restrict the use of mail in ballots .
The Constitution mandates a census and reapportionment . It leaves the states to decide how that gets done.

NY State has been corrupt since the days of the Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel . They were dueling over local NY politics not national politics . And of course Tammany Hall machine politics in the 19th century was infamous .

[jlisenbe]

Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution.

Agree completely.

All states are corrupt. It unsurprisingly seems to goes along with the concept of being managed by human beings. Just a matter of degree. True here. True in Australia. True everywhere. That's why they bear watching. What we really lack in that respect is an unbiased, honest, and diligent news media.

[tomder55]

Anthony Blinken Quid's pick for Sec State met privately with Hunter Biden twice in 2015 . Did they not discuss Burisma and Hunter's dealings in China ,and Russia and the possible conflicts of interests that created for Quid and JFKerry ? Or is Blinken's appointment the pay back for his silence?

[talaniman]

You wingers are in good conspiracy form today, and as usual lacking evidence to support such theories. I get you guys don't trust the system, I have my own doubts, but we disagree on the facts or degree of the accuracy of the facts, and that's a shame. Granted this is a stressful time for everybody given the economy, covid, elections and the usual political antics and spin, and the general words not matching the actions BS that started centuries ago when the founders wrote about all men being equal, but it only applied to a few.

Two and half centuries later we still ain't got it right. So what we're really arguing about is our own failures as a nation. That's not saying much for us, or the rest of the world, but until Scotty beams me up like I been begging for decades now, looks like we're stuck in our own crap.

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers. Fingers crossed on the next batch of drivers.

[paraclete]

Clete ,you clearly don't get what federalism means . That being said Congress has the authority to make rules that fall within their constitutional boundaries (art 2 sec 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.. ). Congress could use that authority to set some basic rules for the states to operate under . As an example . Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution. If Congress wanted an extended election they could write it into the law .They could restrict the use of mail in ballots .
The Constitution mandates a census and reapportionment . It leaves the states to decide how that gets done.

NY State has been corrupt since the days of the Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel . They were dueling over local NY politics not national politics . And of course Tammany Hall machine politics in the 19th century was infamous .

Oh I know what federalism means and have had the opportunity to observe a different implementation of it which appears to work in a fairer way

[tomder55]

Tal ,looking to hitch a ride on the big mother wheel ?

“All men are created equal” in the declaration of independence was not talking about individual equality. That is a utopian concept that can never be achieved . What was really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self government as other peoples, and could declare independence, and create new governments and assume their "equal station” among other nations.

After the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that phrase another way. It became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim . With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is the striving for equality that has always defined our constitutional creed.....'in order to form a more perfect union' ..... not to form a perfect one.

[paraclete]

Tal ,looking to hitch a ride on the big mother wheel ?

“All men are created equal” in the declaration of independence was not talking about individual equality. That is a utopian concept that can never be achieved . What was really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self government as other peoples, and could declare independence, and create new governments and assume their "equal station” among other nations.

After the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that phrase another way. It became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim . With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is the striving for equality that has always defined our constitutional creed.....'in order to form a more perfect union' ..... not to form a perfect one.

I think it means we come into this world with nothing and we leave the same way, this is the only equality. We have no ineniable rights, only the rights we confer upon ourselves and we have no right to impose these upon others.

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers. Fingers crossed on the next batch of drivers.

yes and cross your toes too and your legs because you are about to get screwed

[jlisenbe]

I think it means all people are of equal worth before God. It's the great danger of atheism. If humans were not created, then they could not have been created equal. If that is so, then I can claim that my life is of more worth than yours. And if we have no inalienable rights, then our rights can be given or taken away by the government, and we would not be able to mount a moral protest about it.

Two and half centuries later we still ain't got it right.

I think we are closer than you think.

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers.

We've just traded one dufus for a super dufus, and put in place a larger group of sycophant butt kissers which will, sadly, include most of the media.

[tomder55]

We have no ineniable rights,

Wow very European of you . God does grant us rights . Certainly life and liberty and the founders argue for property (later changed to pursuit of happiness. ) No they are not endowed by the state and the state has no right to take them away . The state may have the power . But not the right .

[paraclete]

Wow very European of you . God does grant us rights . Certainly life and liberty and the founders argue for property (later changed to pursuit of happiness. ) No they are not endowed by the state and the state has no right to take them away . The state may have the power . But not the right .

Yes, I am a European, an Australian of Irish decent, and I live in a place where we don't have to insist we have rights, since magna carta limited the powers of monarchs and governments

[tomder55]

The Magna Carta was a nice start . Still is is a royal carter of rights granted by a king. What a king gives a king can take away. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by any human.

[talaniman]

The Magna Carta was a nice start . Still is is a royal carter of rights granted by a king. What a king gives a king can take away. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by any human.

Sure they can, have and will be taken away again. Part of man's imperfection...or devious intent for his own purpose?

[jlisenbe]

Sure they can, have and will be taken away again. Part of man's imperfection...or devious intent for his own purpose?

That is certainly true. I think the point, however, is that they cannot be rightly and morally taken away.

[talaniman]

It may not be right or moral, but done all the time, and the point really is rights are taken away. The debate is does it serve the individual, or collective? The old argument of the needs of the few before the needs of the many. Where is the line drawn?

[jlisenbe]

The Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, are there largely to guarantee individual liberties and to protect both the individual and the states from an oppressive, overly large fed govt.

[talaniman]

It can also be said that the Constitution also limits the rights of states to oppress/suppress the rights of individuals which is more an historic fact than the federal government doing so. Indeed it would seem the federal government must in fact be large enough to protect all the people regardless of the states rights.

E Pluribus Unum..."out of many ONE".

[jlisenbe]

It can also be said that the Constitution also limits the rights of states to oppress/suppress the rights of individuals which is more an historic fact than the federal government doing so. Indeed it would seem the federal government must in fact be large enough to protect all the people regardless of the states rights.

The fed govt. needs to be in line with the Constitution.

[talaniman]

How is it not?

[tomder55]

I'll give you one example of the many I can site just in the unconstitutional Federal Government over reach and expansion due to the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause(Art 1 Sec 8 .....“to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” ) .

In its original meaning, the clause functioned primarily as a constraint upon state interference in interstate commerce. The original meaning “To regulate” is to “make regular,” that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The framers were looking to keep states from practicing protectionism inside the country . The sole purpose was to prevent trade wars between states . It was that practice in particular that killed the Articles of Confederation that governed the country before the constitution .

That was the way the courts interpreted the clause for 150 years until United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) . I've mentioned Filburn before . He was growing wheat to feed his own livestock .But Congress had put limits on wheat production in an attempt to manipulate the price . Filburn argued that he was not selling his wheat so it did not come under the law . Heck ;he wasn't even trying to sell it within the state let alone interstate . But SCOTUS decided :Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect."

So in other words even if his wheat is not to be sold the government can prevent him from growing it because if he had not grown it ;he would've had to purchase it ;and that impacted the price in some bizarre way .That was twisted logic at best and a complete misread of the meaning of the clause .

There have been several court cases misinterpreting the government powers granted in this clause ;almost all the cases resulted in the Federal Government expanding it's powers and the states and individuals losing power .

So when a law was proposed that forced people to purchase healthcare insurance ;Dianne FrankenFeinstein was asked what power does the Federal Government have to do this .Her reply was “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”
This restriction on the states has been turned into a grant of broad unlimited Congressional authority.