GOP Moving the Goal Posts Just in Time For the 2012 Election

[RetiredGySgt]

Also, Souls to the Polls is also unconstitutional because it violates the wall of separation between church and state so those votes need to be purged

That's idiotic.

So organized religion openly interfering in Government business is fine so long as the left is who they support?

Or are you as outraged that black churches PREACH politics from the pulpit in support of Democrats? I mean the left is OUTRAGED when a Conservative has the support of a purely religious figure or group.

 

[Inthemiddle]

According to the argument provided somehow 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public then the new 7 days. Of course no proof has been provided.

Really? Who provided such an argument? Because I know I never said such a thing. Show me where I said that 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public? I never said that. I asked was public benefit is served by shortening the early voter period? You still have yet to provide an explanation of what public benefit is served. Which shows to me that you can do nothing but concede that the Florida state legislature wasn't enacting a measure of public benefit and was instead concerned with manipulating the outcome of the next election. And that you're too much of a partisan hack to tell the truth.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So organized religion openly interfering in Government business is fine so long as the left is who they support?

And how is that happening? A vast majority of Americans go to church of some kind or another. There is no evidence to suggest that there was anything special about one religious group or another.

Or are you as outraged that black churches PREACH politics from the pulpit in support of Democrats? I mean the left is OUTRAGED when a Conservative has the support of a purely religious figure or group.

You're going to have to take up your complaints with the left with the left. I have nothing to do with them. But it's funny (and by "funny" I mean pathetic) that you're showing here that you're argument about those votes being unconstitutional is clearly counter to what your personal views are. Instead, you're simply making the hypocritical claim for partisan reasons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to the argument provided somehow 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public then the new 7 days. Of course no proof has been provided.

Really? Who provided such an argument? Because I know I never said such a thing. Show me where I said that 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public? I never said that. I asked was public benefit is served by shortening the early voter period? You still have yet to provide an explanation of what public benefit is served. Which shows to me that you can do nothing but concede that the Florida state legislature wasn't enacting a measure of public benefit and was instead concerned with manipulating the outcome of the next election. And that you're too much of a partisan hack to tell the truth.

Actual you MADE THE CLAIM as to a need for showing public benefit. Before anyone needs to answer you, you would need to provide us with the evidence that 2 weeks was A) in the Public benefit, B) shortening it by a week violates that benefit.

 

[kwc57]

So organized religion openly interfering in Government business is fine so long as the left is who they support?

And how is that happening? A vast majority of Americans go to church of some kind or another. There is no evidence to suggest that there was anything special about one religious group or another.

Or are you as outraged that black churches PREACH politics from the pulpit in support of Democrats? I mean the left is OUTRAGED when a Conservative has the support of a purely religious figure or group.

You're going to have to take up your complaints with the left with the left. I have nothing to do with them. But it's funny (and by "funny" I mean pathetic) that you're showing here that you're argument about those votes being unconstitutional is clearly counter to what your personal views are. Instead, you're simply making the hypocritical claim for partisan reasons.

If it quacks like a duck.......

 

[Inthemiddle]

[Actual you MADE THE CLAIM as to a need for showing public benefit.

I asked what the public benefit is that is being served. What is wrong with asking such a question? In case you didn't know, the purpose of government is to serve the people. So here government has undertaken an action and I ask what is the public benefit being served. You make it sound as if this is somehow irrational.

In any event, the fact still remains that your allegation that I argued that such and such amount of time is of more benefit than another is proven as nonsense. You've just conceded that I never made such a claim.

Before anyone needs to answer you, you would need to provide us with the evidence that 2 weeks was A) in the Public benefit, B) shortening it by a week violates that benefit.

No, I don't need to provide any such evidence. Because I'm not here arguing that there needs to be a 2 week period. That was established well into the past already. I'm not here debating the merits of the legislature enacting the two week period. I'm debating the act of the legislature REDUCING the period, and specifically eliminating Sunday. What is the public benefit?

You are committing the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium. You are suggesting that there is a public benefit simply because nobody has proven that a 2 week proven otherwise.

 

[Defiant1]

According to the argument provided somehow 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public then the new 7 days. Of course no proof has been provided.

Really? Who provided such an argument? Because I know I never said such a thing. Show me where I said that 2 weeks was somehow more beneficial to the public? I never said that. I asked was public benefit is served by shortening the early voter period? You still have yet to provide an explanation of what public benefit is served. Which shows to me that you can do nothing but concede that the Florida state legislature wasn't enacting a measure of public benefit and was instead concerned with manipulating the outcome of the next election. And that you're too much of a partisan hack to tell the truth.

The public good is it saves tax dollars. In Florida the Supervisor of Elections budget is paid with county taxes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If it quacks like a duck.......

*PRO strong immigration laws and enforcement
*PRO English as a national language
*PRO minimizing government intrusion into personal lives
*PRO more governance at state level than federal level
*PRO individual rights to bear arms
*PRO President Cain or Romney (still undecided between the two)

*ANTI Obama health care bill
*ANTI corporate bailouts
*ANTI affirmative action measures

So tell me, what does this "quack" like? Be careful your answer, because ranting like an extremist terrorist will land you on my ignore list.

 

[Defiant1]

If it quacks like a duck.......

*PRO strong immigration laws and enforcement
*PRO English as a national language
*PRO minimizing government intrusion into personal lives
*PRO more governance at state level than federal level
*PRO individual rights to bear arms
*PRO President Cain or Romney (still undecided between the two)

*ANTI Obama health care bill
*ANTI corporate bailouts
*ANTI affirmative action measures

So tell me, what does this "quack" like? Be careful your answer, because ranting like an extremist terrorist will land you on my ignore list.

There are two things in the middle of the road, lines and dead armadillos.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The public good is it saves tax dollars. In Florida the Supervisor of Elections budget is paid with county taxes.

Thank you for actually addressing my arguments. In furtherance of the discussion I'd challenge you on two points:

1) Demonstrate how it saves tax dollars

2) Explain how specifically eliminating Sunday creates any meaningful (if any) savings in tax dollars.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There are two things in the middle of the road, lines and dead armadillos.

Actually, don't bother responding to my other post. That kind of extremist BS lands you on my ignore list.

 

[kwc57]

If it quacks like a duck.......

*PRO strong immigration laws and enforcement
*PRO English as a national language
*PRO minimizing government intrusion into personal lives
*PRO more governance at state level than federal level
*PRO individual rights to bear arms
*PRO President Cain or Romney (still undecided between the two)

*ANTI Obama health care bill
*ANTI corporate bailouts
*ANTI affirmative action measures

So tell me, what does this "quack" like? Be careful your answer, because ranting like an extremist terrorist will land you on my ignore list.

Yet every post of yours I read is in defense of liberal issues rather than those listed. Quack, quack. Hell you don't even know that the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yet every post of yours I read is in defense of liberal issues rather than those listed.

What "liberal" issues would those be? My political stances range from both "liberal" and "conservative" issues. I, however, and neither liberal nor conservative. I am a centrist, supporting issues on both sides of the spectrum, and especially moderate solutions of compromise.

Quack, quack.

I'm giving you one free pass. You need to realize that a person supporting one given issue does not make them a liberal or conservative, or that a person disagreeing with you does not make them instantly liberal. That kind of extremist thinking is only suitable for terrorists and the like.

Hell you don't even know that the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote.

Actually, the constitution does speak the right to vote. Maybe you should go read it.

 

[Seawytch]

Voter fraud that isnt occurring.

We know that is a line of BS.

you are so concerned about disenfranchisement never stopping to consider that a single fraudulent vote is disenfranchisement.

As stated, in recent weeks there have been two documented incidents of elderly voters having difficulties getting the required photo IDs. Name two recent incidents of convicted voter fraud where IDs would have kept the fraud from occurring.

Links???

And they would also have 'problems' getting a passport... opening a bank account... DRIVING... cashing a check... etc....

And if the difficulties you are speaking of is about transportation or whatever... nobody has a right to transportation... but ESPECIALLY with the elderly, you have groups, churches, (let alone family) etc, that offer to take the elderly to voting places, malls, parks, etc...

http://mobile.newschannel5.com/wap/...96-year-old-chattanooga-woman-denied-voter-id

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111021/NEWS02/111021018/1969/NEWS

http://www.dnj.com/article/20111026/NEWS05/110260320/Veteran-had-pay-voter-photo-ID?odyssey=nav|head

Now will someone please provide cases of individuals convicted of fraud that these laws would have prevented.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Why limit it to one day? why not have election year?

Elections are state issues. We have a different culture than you do in NYC. We also have a large elderly population, which does make it more difficult to vote.

Now I don't think shortening it to 1 week is bad. But the bottom line is this: if you don't live in Florida-quite frankly your opinion doesn't mean shit, and it's really none of NY's business, or any other state, on how we run our elections.

 

[kwc57]

Yet every post of yours I read is in defense of liberal issues rather than those listed.

What "liberal" issues would those be? My political stances range from both "liberal" and "conservative" issues. I, however, and neither liberal nor conservative. I am a centrist, supporting issues on both sides of the spectrum, and especially moderate solutions of compromise.

Quack, quack.

I'm giving you one free pass. You need to realize that a person supporting one given issue does not make them a liberal or conservative, or that a person disagreeing with you does not make them instantly liberal. That kind of extremist thinking is only suitable for terrorists and the like.

Hell you don't even know that the constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to vote.

Actually, the constitution does speak the right to vote. Maybe you should go read it.

I have read it. Obviously you have no desire to educate yourself. I provided links that would help you understand voting rights that you apparently did not read. You do not have a constitutional right to vote. Never have. There have been amendments to the constitution regarding items like age and gender that say you can not be denied the ability to vote based on those items, but nothing that states who CAN vote.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I have read it. Obviously you have no desire to educate yourself. I provided links that would help you understand voting rights that you apparently did not read. You do not have a constitutional right to vote. Never have. There have been amendments to the constitution regarding items like age and gender that say you can not be denied the ability to vote based on those items, but nothing that states who CAN vote.

That does not mean that a right to vote does not exist. Clearly the constitution understands that a right to vote does exist. It demands that Representatives and Senators be chosen by the people. It demands that the right to vote not be denied based on certain things. While the states do have general power to set their own requirements to become a voter, the constitution does indeed guarantee you the right to vote, inasmuch as it guarantees that your right to vote won't be compromised based on a variety of factors. Is this the same degree of protection the constitution affords other rights, say the right to freedom of religion? No, obviously not. But the constitution does lend itself to guarantee, to a certain degree, the right to vote.

 

[Navy1960]

BUSH V. GORE

This might help with the voting quesiton;

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated&#8221 (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

BUSH v. GORE

 

[kwc57]

I have read it. Obviously you have no desire to educate yourself. I provided links that would help you understand voting rights that you apparently did not read. You do not have a constitutional right to vote. Never have. There have been amendments to the constitution regarding items like age and gender that say you can not be denied the ability to vote based on those items, but nothing that states who CAN vote.

That does not mean that a right to vote does not exist. Clearly the constitution understands that a right to vote does exist. It demands that Representatives and Senators be chosen by the people. It demands that the right to vote not be denied based on certain things. While the states do have general power to set their own requirements to become a voter, the constitution does indeed guarantee you the right to vote, inasmuch as it guarantees that your right to vote won't be compromised based on a variety of factors. Is this the same degree of protection the constitution affords other rights, say the right to freedom of religion? No, obviously not. But the constitution does lend itself to guarantee, to a certain degree, the right to vote.

Not really. The Constitution speaks to the electoral process for electing the president. Amendments to the Constitution said that the "right to vote" couldn't be denied based on certain factors. But it never addresses who has the "right to vote" beyond addressing factors that can't be used for denial. In fact, after the Constitution was written, the only people who could vote were white male land owners. Even poor white men didn't have a vote. Voting qualifications are a states rights issue and are only limited by the restrictions placed on them by the amendments to the Constitution. Don't believe me, go to a copy of the Constitution online, go to Edit, go to Find and type the word "vote" in. You should get 42 hits. You will not find a guaranteed right to vote.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Amendments to the constitution ARE the constitution. And I know the history about suffrage in the US. And I already pointed out that the states have the power to set voting laws, generally speaking. But the constitution does protect the right to vote inasmuch as it prevents that right from being limited based on certain criteria. Again, this is not the same degree of protection the constitution affords other things, like freedom of religion. But so say that the constitution does not address the right to vote is factually untrue.