Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[Liability]

Federal law trumps state law, sorry that's just how it works. If the people vote on a law that's unconstitutional it's still unconstitutional and should be removed.

But the people did not vote on an unconstitutional law.

The law already prohibits (as it damn well should) aliens from voting in OUR elections.

The Federal law provided SOME guidelines. But this ridiculous Court decision now claims (absurdly) that the additional protection of requiring proof of citizenship somehow comes "at odds" with Federal preemption.

That's laughable.

There is every good, valid and legitimate reason to INSIST that only actual American citizens vote. And that being the case, requiring proof of citizenship should offend nobody who cares about "one man one vote" and our own actual national sovereignty.


And the TIMING of this bullshit decision is also partisan political crap. This court decision is an affront to all of us. But libs embrace it. We know why they embrace it, too. Tawdry cheap partisan hackery.

 

[sangha]

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

Suddenly, this wingnut is no longer concerned about voter intimidation. Quite a change from when he was all in a lather over the Black Panthers.

How is proving one of citizenship somehow equated to voter initimidation?

It's not, which is why I never made such an equivalence. You'd realize this if you weren't so illiterate.

 

[loosecannon]

Like I said, the right hates the constitution and the amendments which grant us our freedoms.

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

So which parts of the Constitution do you hate?

none of them. I just wish the SC would uphold the document occasionally. Corporations are not people and the 9th and 10th amendment really do exist! So does the original 13th!

 

[Meister]

Suddenly, this wingnut is no longer concerned about voter intimidation. Quite a change from when he was all in a lather over the Black Panthers.

How is proving one of citizenship somehow equated to voter initimidation?

It's not, which is why I never made such an equivalence. You'd realize this if you weren't so illiterate.

Then what the hell is it with your GOP intimidation mantra?...trying to hijack the thread or just being stupid?

 

[ConHog]

Your a lawyer, Jillian...do you think that they made the right decision in this matter?

"Voting in US elections is a basic human right that applies to everybody, regardless of citizenship.

"Well, except for the US military, obviously.

"I'm sangha, and I approve this message."

I'm just wondering how long he will carry on this deflection attempt of crying that the GOP intimidates voters sometime in its past. What exactly does that have to do with voter ID?


And does NO one find it odd that in this country I have to produce ID to buy a beer, but not to vote?

How does an illegal alien buy beer, if he has no ID? Does he need to even show one, or does he just have to say, "I'm illegal"?

Well, around here they don't actually ask for ID ... Oops better not say that too loud..

but seriously, it just seems odd to me that you have to prove that your legally able to drink,drive,smoke,rent a hotel room, etc etc, but voting?

 

[sangha]

apparently the left loves amendments that can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship.

So which parts of the Constitution do you hate?

none of them. I just wish the SC would uphold the document occasionally. Corporations are not people and the 9th and 10th amendment really do exist! So does the original 13th!

So you love the amendments that "can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship"?

That's pretty stupid

 

[sangha]

How is proving one of citizenship somehow equated to voter initimidation?

It's not, which is why I never made such an equivalence. You'd realize this if you weren't so illiterate.

Then what the hell is it with your GOP intimidation mantra?...trying to hijack the thread or just being stupid?

Another poster brought up the mythical voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. If you think that voter intimidation is a hijack, complain to your wingnut buddy who brought the subject up.

 

[loosecannon]

So which parts of the Constitution do you hate?

none of them. I just wish the SC would uphold the document occasionally. Corporations are not people and the 9th and 10th amendment really do exist! So does the original 13th!

So you love the amendments that "can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship"?

That's pretty stupid

there is nothing wrong with those amendments, logically challenged one, it is their abuse that rubs me wrong.

 

[sangha]

none of them. I just wish the SC would uphold the document occasionally. Corporations are not people and the 9th and 10th amendment really do exist! So does the original 13th!

So you love the amendments that "can be abused to destroy the integrity of our citizenship"?

That's pretty stupid

there is nothing wrong with those amendments, logically challenged one, it is their abuse that rubs me wrong.

But, but, but you said they can be used to destroy the integrity of our citizenship. I guess there is "nothing wrong" with that in wingnut world

 

[ConHog]

It's not, which is why I never made such an equivalence. You'd realize this if you weren't so illiterate.

Then what the hell is it with your GOP intimidation mantra?...trying to hijack the thread or just being stupid?

Another poster brought up the mythical voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. If you think that voter intimidation is a hijack, complain to your wingnut buddy who brought the subject up.

Mythical? I know you're an idiotic loon, but even YOU must admit that a black guy dressed in camo swinging a billy club around in front of a polling place is likely to intimidate. Oh and for your knowledge the law doesn't require that anyone actually WAS intimidated, only that the actions COULD have intimidated someone.

 

[sangha]

Then what the hell is it with your GOP intimidation mantra?...trying to hijack the thread or just being stupid?

Another poster brought up the mythical voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. If you think that voter intimidation is a hijack, complain to your wingnut buddy who brought the subject up.

Mythical? I know you're an idiotic loon, but even YOU must admit that a black guy dressed in camo swinging a billy club around in front of a polling place is likely to intimidate. Oh and for your knowledge the law doesn't require that anyone actually WAS intimidated, only that the actions COULD have intimidated someone.

Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.

The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

two words

Black Panthers

WHen you're done pretending to care about voter intimidation, I'm sure you'll get around to criticizing the GOP for being the only party that a court has decided engaged in voter intimidation on a systematic basis

Now that was a really bad spin. Holder wouldn't allow the case to go forward when it was clear that the Black Panthers were intimidating, it was a slam dunk by most lawyers. Hmmmm

Here is an interesting juxtaposition: the Supreme Court allows, the Obama Administration denies...

1. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

2. Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
News Room | Press Release


How much more evidence do the USMB leftists need?????

 

[Sarah G]

Another poster brought up the mythical voter intimidation by the Black Panthers. If you think that voter intimidation is a hijack, complain to your wingnut buddy who brought the subject up.

Mythical? I know you're an idiotic loon, but even YOU must admit that a black guy dressed in camo swinging a billy club around in front of a polling place is likely to intimidate. Oh and for your knowledge the law doesn't require that anyone actually WAS intimidated, only that the actions COULD have intimidated someone.

Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.

The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.

You are correct and the Black man was not swinging a billy club. He was just standing there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Looks like someone's got their panties in wad. You're so emotional you can't even think of something relevant to the topic to say. A delicate flower such as yourself would be better off visiting a crochet discussion board.

I guess you missed the substantive posts I made showing how Illinois and NY law disenfranchise felons and those in jail, and how Cook County Jail inmates are being given registrations and ballots in violation of the law.

You wanna go back and look at them, or would you rather continue pretending they aren't there?

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:

“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Meister]

WHen you're done pretending to care about voter intimidation, I'm sure you'll get around to criticizing the GOP for being the only party that a court has decided engaged in voter intimidation on a systematic basis

Now that was a really bad spin. Holder wouldn't allow the case to go forward when it was clear that the Black Panthers were intimidating, it was a slam dunk by most lawyers. Hmmmm

Here is an interesting juxtaposition: the Supreme Court allows, the Obama Administration denies...

1. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html

2. Atlanta - “The decision by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to deny preclearance of Georgia’s already implemented citizenship verification process shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of our elections. With this decision, DOJ has now barred Georgia from continuing the citizenship verification program that DOJ lawyers helped to craft. DOJ’s decision also nullifies the orders of two federal courts directing Georgia to implement the procedure for the 2008 general election. The decision comes seven months after Georgia requested an expedited review of the preclearance submission.
News Room | Press Release


How much more evidence do the USMB leftists need?????

I guess Holder has no dog in the fight, huh?

 

[sangha]

I guess you missed the substantive posts I made showing how Illinois and NY law disenfranchise felons and those in jail, and how Cook County Jail inmates are being given registrations and ballots in violation of the law.

You wanna go back and look at them, or would you rather continue pretending they aren't there?

I suppose you missed the post about how the GOP is THE ONLY PARTY that court of law has found to have engaged in voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP went to court arguing that they had a constitutional right to intimidate voters.

You wanna go back and look at it, or would you rather continue pretending it didnt happen?

Although liberal media support the old wives tale of GOP voter suppression by requiring identification, careful analysis shows a quite different reality:

“The findings of this analysis suggest that voter identification requirements, such as requiring non-photo and photo identification, have virtually no suppressive effect on reported voter turnout.

Controlling for factors that influence voter turn¬out, states with stricter voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout when compared to states with more lenient voter identification laws.

Based on the Eagleton Institute's findings, some members of the media have claimed that voter identification law suppress voter turnout, especially among minorities.[80] Their conclusion is unfounded. When statistically significant and negative relationships are found in our analysis, the effects are so small that the findings offer little policy significance.

More important, minority respondents in states that required photo identification are just as likely to report voting as are minority respondents from states that only required voters to say their name.”
For a thorough statistical analysis of the effect of voter identification requirements:
New Analysis Shows Voter Identification Laws Do Not Reduce Turnout | The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Those idiots think that tobacco is non-addicitve

 

[Meister]

Mythical? I know you're an idiotic loon, but even YOU must admit that a black guy dressed in camo swinging a billy club around in front of a polling place is likely to intimidate. Oh and for your knowledge the law doesn't require that anyone actually WAS intimidated, only that the actions COULD have intimidated someone.

Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.

The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.

You are correct and the Black man was not swinging a billy club. He was just standing there.

Sarah?????? Oh man...you don't really believe that do you? Or, are you just showing sarcasm? I'm hoping for the latter.
With your anology, it could have been a 30-06 rifle, because both a rifle and a billy club are deadly weapons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's unconstitutional. Unlike the fascist wingnuts, liberals respect the Constitution, even when they disagree with a courts ruling.

It is rare that an individual reveal how truly inept they are in the areas of knowledge and debate as quickly as you have.

The very basis of modern liberalism is the denial of the Constitution...

1.The Progressives view of the direction that America should take began to gain prominence in the late 19th century-early 20th century. It was very different from America’s political traditions up to that point. Ms. Clinton described herself as a ‘modern progressive, of the beginning of the 20th century.

2. Progressives, i.e. John Dewey, co-opted the term liberal, but it was big government liberalism as opposed to the original (classical) meaning of liberalism.

3. These Progressives differed dramatically from earlier incarnations of this viewpoint in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution. This separation from earliest traditions was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

4. Frank Goodnow, “The American Conception of Liberty and Government,” a president of Johns Hopkins University, and pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government. [p.101]

a. Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America.


Does the flashing light 'Idiot' on your forehead keep you awake at night?

Do you ever get tired of posting these fallacious 'all liberals are evil' lists?

Hey, if the shoe fits...

But, do you ever get tired of bloviating, you wind-bag?

How about an actual post that includes counter evidence, links, or more than typing practice.

Beyond your ability?

 

[sangha]

Voter intimidation is a crime. The GOP is under a court ordered consent decree because the courts found that the GOP engaged in widespread voter intimidation as a matter of policy. The GOP even argued that they have a constitutional right to intimidate voter.

The BP's are not under any such consent decree because they have never engaged in voter intimidation.

You are correct and the Black man was not swinging a billy club. He was just standing there.

Sarah?????? Oh man...you don't really believe that do you? Or, are you just showing sarcasm? I'm hoping for the latter.
With your anology, it could have been a 30-06 rifle, because both a rifle and a billy club are deadly weapons.

Wingnuts have to make up stories about voter intimidation by the BP's because if they didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

 

[sangha]

It is rare that an individual reveal how truly inept they are in the areas of knowledge and debate as quickly as you have.

The very basis of modern liberalism is the denial of the Constitution...

1.The Progressives view of the direction that America should take began to gain prominence in the late 19th century-early 20th century. It was very different from America’s political traditions up to that point. Ms. Clinton described herself as a ‘modern progressive, of the beginning of the 20th century.

2. Progressives, i.e. John Dewey, co-opted the term liberal, but it was big government liberalism as opposed to the original (classical) meaning of liberalism.

3. These Progressives differed dramatically from earlier incarnations of this viewpoint in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution. This separation from earliest traditions was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

4. Frank Goodnow, “The American Conception of Liberty and Government,” a president of Johns Hopkins University, and pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government. [p.101]

a. Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”

This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America.


Does the flashing light 'Idiot' on your forehead keep you awake at night?

Do you ever get tired of posting these fallacious 'all liberals are evil' lists?

Hey, if the shoe fits...

But, do you ever get tired of bloviating, you wind-bag?

How about an actual post that includes counter evidence, links, or more than typing practice.

Beyond your ability?

No. We know that you'll just pretend it wasn't posted, the way you ignore the fact that the GOP is the only one who has been proven in a court of law to have engaged in voter intimidation on a systematic basis.

How about an actual post about how the GOP believes it has a constitutional right to intimidate voters? This time, try using your own words instead of cut and paste jobs from wacky wingnut websites