Pelosi tries to tie contemp vote to voter supression claims

[Wry Catcher]

No. It is a State matter. Again for the slow and stupid. If you get purged you have remedies if you are a legal voter. If the illegal voters vote there is no remedy.

Federal elections are not a state matter. There are no remedies if a voter is purged and is disenfranchised.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU or anyone else the right to vote in a Federal election?

That is a very good question. Article IX may answer your question, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

When framed by Article XIV, section 1, a pretty good case can be made that my right and your right to vote is protected by this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Voter suppression is not a new issue, other amendments to the Constitution have expanded the rights to vote for persons of color, women and 18 year olds, much to the dissatisfaction of those who believe democracy should be limited to certain populations.

What the party of Norquist is currently engaged in is voter suppression. The issue is not that the R's are anti democratic, which they appear to be, the issue for discussion ought to be why they have no ideas which would convince the citizenry of their merit.

 

[bripat9643]

do you guys approve of Holders decision to stop the voter purge in FL?

The only possible reason for opposing the purge would be the fact that you approve of voter fraud.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speaker Pelosi (yes, much like the Newt she will always have that title) explained a political reality which those on the right chose to scorn but fail to refute.

If they both have the title, why did you refer to Nutjob Nancy as 'Speaker Pelosi' and to Nutjob Newt as 'Newt'. Hack.

Good question. I suppose because whenever Speaker Gingrich is addressed he is given the title, Speaker and in my post "Speaker Gingrich" was implied.

 

[The T]

Federal elections are not a state matter. There are no remedies if a voter is purged and is disenfranchised.

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU or anyone else the right to vote in a Federal election?

That is a very good question. Article IX may answer your question, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

When framed by Article XIV, section 1, a pretty good case can be made that my right and your right to vote is protected by this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Voter suppression is not a new issue, other amendments to the Constitution have expanded the rights to vote for persons of color, women and 18 year olds, much to the dissatisfaction of those who believe democracy should be limited to certain populations.

What the party of Norquist is currently engaged in is voter suppression. The issue is not that the R's are anti democratic, which they appear to be, the issue for discussion ought to be why they have no ideas which would convince the citizenry of their merit.

The answer is the STATES allow you to vote. Period.

 

[The T]

Pelosi: Holder Contempt Vote is Part of Republican Voter Suppression Scheme

Pelosi...New Queen of 'Planet Stupider'

(Image: EIB Network)​

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENFA8PC-wQ8&feature=player_embedded"]Pelosi: GOP is attacking Eric Holder because of his efforts on voter fraud - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Wry Catcher]

Where in the Constitution does it give YOU or anyone else the right to vote in a Federal election?

That is a very good question. Article IX may answer your question, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

When framed by Article XIV, section 1, a pretty good case can be made that my right and your right to vote is protected by this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Voter suppression is not a new issue, other amendments to the Constitution have expanded the rights to vote for persons of color, women and 18 year olds, much to the dissatisfaction of those who believe democracy should be limited to certain populations.

What the party of Norquist is currently engaged in is voter suppression. The issue is not that the R's are anti democratic, which they appear to be, the issue for discussion ought to be why they have no ideas which would convince the citizenry of their merit.

The answer is the STATES allow you to vote. Period.

Of course the Supreme Court affirmed your point in Bush v. Gore which is why an amendment to the Constitution is necessary if we are to continue the advance of democracy throughout the world.

But to my point, the Republican/Conservative movement is opposed to such an idea because they do not have the ideas which would merit their election to office.

And of course such an amendment would never be proposed should the right prevail in their quest to obtain a continuing majority in the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. There is nothing democratic or republican in this plan, nor is there anything American. That you and other on the right wrap yourselves in the American flag is disgusting; that you hold up the cross of Christianity and defile its basic principles is equally noxious!

 

[The T]

That is a very good question. Article IX may answer your question, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

When framed by Article XIV, section 1, a pretty good case can be made that my right and your right to vote is protected by this phrase: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Voter suppression is not a new issue, other amendments to the Constitution have expanded the rights to vote for persons of color, women and 18 year olds, much to the dissatisfaction of those who believe democracy should be limited to certain populations.

What the party of Norquist is currently engaged in is voter suppression. The issue is not that the R's are anti democratic, which they appear to be, the issue for discussion ought to be why they have no ideas which would convince the citizenry of their merit.

The answer is the STATES allow you to vote. Period.

Of course the Supreme Court affirmed your point in Bush v. Gore which is why an amendment to the Constitution is necessary if we are to continue the advance of democracy throughout the world.

But to my point, the Republican/Conservative movement is opposed to such an idea because they do not have the ideas which would merit their election to office.

And of course such an amendment would never be proposed should the right prevail in their quest to obtain a continuing majority in the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. There is nothing democratic or republican in this plan, nor is there anything American. That you and other on the right wrap yourselves in the American flag is disgusting; that you hold up the cross of Christianity and defile its basic principles is equally noxious!

They did?

Really? 'Democracy across the world Gracie?

 

[Lovebears65]

Why is that far fetched? Bush/Cheney/Rove never turned over documents until they absolutely had to and then everything was always so blacked out, it didn't make sense. Holder turned over a lot. This Republican congress is corrupt to the core.

Holder STILL hasn't complied...and he has the ability to avert a full vote of the House by getting out from behind Obama's trousers with the EP claim.

And by the way> Republican Congress Gracie?

Try Republican HOUSE. The Democrats have the SENATE the other half of the Congress.

Don't you know your own system of governance?

Holder has more than complied.

Btw, nice diversion regarding the Republicans in congress. You really do pick apart every sentence trying to get your lame point across. Not working just like the Republicans in congress.

How is giving 8K worth of papers when there is 80K papers to go through, Holder will give up 10 percent of the evidence .. Sorry you are wrong..