Stand Up For Disenfranchised Voters!

[Ernie S.]

The University is not bound by the same laws as our elections

Your disingenuous attitude is not surprising. What about the ethics of it? Or do ethics not matter?

Only Liberal ethics, and I use the word "ethics" hesitantly.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The University is not bound by the same laws as our elections

So you are OK with people breaking thier word?

Would you say the same if the vote went the other way and they still had the prayer?

 

[Ernie S.]

Stand Up For Disenfranchised Voters!


Thats the tread title.

Im standing up for real disenfranchised voters.

Why do you not care about real voters?

So were the voters in the piece you quoted real voters? If their mail was undeliverable, then it's likely that they were not eligible to vote where they were registered. Why do you not care about real voters?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Another cut to freedom. And the left doesn't give a damn.

Am I surprised?

Of course not.

 

[bodecea]

I know our liberal colleagues will leap at the opportunity to stand up for voters whose wishes were ignored...

The nurses graduating from West Virginia University at Parkersburg were offered the opportunity to vote on whether or not an invocation and benediction would be offered, as was traditional at the ceremony.

"Students voted after being told that the majority would decide the issue,..."

"When WVU-Parkersburg nursing students voted 40 to 4 to include prayer in Thursday's pinning ceremony, university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.

The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony.

Groups protest lack of prayer in ceremony - NewsandSentinel.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?

Do we not see this as a regular occurrence in America today?

Religion by vote now? Isn't that an interesting idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know our liberal colleagues will leap at the opportunity to stand up for voters whose wishes were ignored...

The nurses graduating from West Virginia University at Parkersburg were offered the opportunity to vote on whether or not an invocation and benediction would be offered, as was traditional at the ceremony.

"Students voted after being told that the majority would decide the issue,..."

"When WVU-Parkersburg nursing students voted 40 to 4 to include prayer in Thursday's pinning ceremony, university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.

The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony.

Groups protest lack of prayer in ceremony - NewsandSentinel.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?

Do we not see this as a regular occurrence in America today?

Religion by vote now? Isn't that an interesting idea.

Actually, what struck me about the situation was how it mirrored the way the left uses the courts to thwart the will of the people...

Case in point...pun not intended...was the Arizona law requiring prospective voters to document citizenship, and the law ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit:

1. "Proposition 200 requires prospective voters in Arizona to present documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 16-152, 16-166, and requires registered voters to present proof of identification in order to cast a ballot at the polls, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-159. This appeal raises the questions whether Proposition 200 violates the Voting Rights Act § 2, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth or Twenty-fourth Amendments of the Constitution, or is void as inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg et seq. We hold that the NVRA supersedes Proposition 200’s voter registration procedures, and that Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship requirement for registration is therefore invalid."
Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Arizona Voter Identification Law Unconstitutional as Preempted by National Voter Registration Act

2. Or Proposition 8 in California. In his ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, Judge Walker criticized the moral reasoning behind Proposition 8, by which voters tried to prevent the institution of marriage from being legally redefined from what it has been for the whole of human history.

3. The following is by Justice William Rehnquist, informing that judges have no right nor ability to make law, or abrogate the will of the people outside of specific constitutional language:

"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely
there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal
government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.

b. ..the members of a third
branch of the federal legislature at least ought to be elected by
and responsible to constituencies, just as in the case of the other
two branches of Congress. If there is going to be a council of
revision, it ought to have at least some connection with popular
feeling. Its members either ought to stand for reelection on occasion,
or their terms should expire and they should be allowed
to continue serving only if reappointed by a popularly
elected Chief Executive and confirmed by a popularly elected
Senate."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Yet this is a daily occurrence in America, with some body or other deciding they know better than the majority.

 

[DaGoose]

......university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.......

I'm trying to figure out how the university officials were going to "ban prayer completely"? Were they going to hand out little cards telling everyone that? Have crowd watchers try and indenify any fiends bowing their head in silent prayer?

 

[goldcatt]

What I don't understand is why this was posted in Law and Legal System when the OP clearly neither knows nor cares about the legal distinction between the copy and paste BS she offers and disenfranchisement of voters?

One of these things is nothing whatsoever like the other. Unless Polly is interested in a discussion of Establishment law, which she clearly is not, this should really be in Religion and Ethics.

But to answer the question begged, considering the splintered and unsettled nature of Establishment law the university is certainly within its rights to want to avoid any possible liability or costly legal proceedings by avoiding organized, university-sanctioned and led prayer when there are people who have made it clear they object. Which may or may not be "right" depending on your POV, that being a question of religion and ethics rather than law, but considering the forum this was placed in - it's the answer.

 

[Truthmatters]

I just wish the people in this thread cared about thois countries elections as much as they care for this universities poll of students.

How does anyone defend the law breaking the republicans have done for decades now in our REAL elections

 

[PoliticalChic]

......university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.......

I'm trying to figure out how the university officials were going to "ban prayer completely"? Were they going to hand out little cards telling everyone that? Have crowd watchers try and indenify any fiends bowing their head in silent prayer?

Have you ever been to a ceremony which featured a prayer and benediction?
It would be delivered by someone who read or spoke to the assembled.

 

[jillian]

I know our liberal colleagues will leap at the opportunity to stand up for voters whose wishes were ignored...

The nurses graduating from West Virginia University at Parkersburg were offered the opportunity to vote on whether or not an invocation and benediction would be offered, as was traditional at the ceremony.

"Students voted after being told that the majority would decide the issue,..."

"When WVU-Parkersburg nursing students voted 40 to 4 to include prayer in Thursday's pinning ceremony, university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.

The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony.

Groups protest lack of prayer in ceremony - NewsandSentinel.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?

Do we not see this as a regular occurrence in America today?

tissue?

does UWV accept government money?

if they need to pray so badly, they shouldn't be in a public school.

i hear they can learn these's no such thing as evolution at Bob Jones...

 

[PoliticalChic]

What I don't understand is why this was posted in Law and Legal System when the OP clearly neither knows nor cares about the legal distinction between the copy and paste BS she offers and disenfranchisement of voters?

One of these things is nothing whatsoever like the other. Unless Polly is interested in a discussion of Establishment law, which she clearly is not, this should really be in Religion and Ethics.

But to answer the question begged, considering the splintered and unsettled nature of Establishment law the university is certainly within its rights to want to avoid any possible liability or costly legal proceedings by avoiding organized, university-sanctioned and led prayer when there are people who have made it clear they object. Which may or may not be "right" depending on your POV, that being a question of religion and ethics rather than law, but considering the forum this was placed in - it's the answer.

The only thing established by your post is what an obnoxious twit you are.
In trying to demonstrate some sort of legal bona fides, you have done nothing of the sort.
Instead, you have made yourself look foolish.

1."What I don't understand is why this was posted in Law and Legal System..."

Clean off your specs, and see the following from the OP:
" The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony."

The case is being handled by a law firm.

2. As for "But to answer the question begged,..." try to use language that you actually understand. To beg the question means to assume the point being argued.
The OP merely takes a situation from the news and asks what folks think of it.

3. As with so many alleged experts, such as yourself, you have tried to restrict the view of the situation, i.e. "...a discussion of Establishment law,..." whereas the actual question being asked is "Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?"

Again, directly from the OP. Specs again? Or merely in a hurry to spit your ususal venom?

4. Here is suggestion that might stand you well in your dealings with folks: try to instill a bit of civility into your conversations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know our liberal colleagues will leap at the opportunity to stand up for voters whose wishes were ignored...

The nurses graduating from West Virginia University at Parkersburg were offered the opportunity to vote on whether or not an invocation and benediction would be offered, as was traditional at the ceremony.

"Students voted after being told that the majority would decide the issue,..."

"When WVU-Parkersburg nursing students voted 40 to 4 to include prayer in Thursday's pinning ceremony, university officials responded by banning prayer completely because the vote was not unanimous," the alliance said.

The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony.

Groups protest lack of prayer in ceremony - NewsandSentinel.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Information - Parkersburg News and Sentinel

Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?

Do we not see this as a regular occurrence in America today?

tissue?

does UWV accept government money?

if they need to pray so badly, they shouldn't be in a public school.

i hear they can learn these's no such thing as evolution at Bob Jones...

Get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Again???

What an illiberal post. I mean that in the dictionary sense of narrow-minded and bigoted, and in the broader sense...you know, how liberals are noted for caring about other people's feelings.

1. "tissue?" Meaning, I guess, 'I couldn't care less about your most cherished feelings.'
Or does it echo the line from "Hap' by Thomas Hardy:
"Thou suffering thing,
Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,
That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!"

What a considerate liberal perspective.

2. "does UWV accept government money?"
What difference does that make, as the OP makes clear that the agreement was one between the administration and the student who were asked to vote on the issue.

3."if they need to pray so badly, they shouldn't be in a public school."
Kind of, 'it's my way or the highway' attitude. Just tell them that 'we don't want folks like you around here.'

Illiberal.

But I do like the 'e.e.cummings' kind of no-capitals thing. Makes you seem almost literate


4. "i hear they can learn these's no such thing as evolution at Bob Jones..."
I just love the way libs show how unbiased they are.

Write soon!

 

[goldcatt]

What I don't understand is why this was posted in Law and Legal System when the OP clearly neither knows nor cares about the legal distinction between the copy and paste BS she offers and disenfranchisement of voters?

One of these things is nothing whatsoever like the other. Unless Polly is interested in a discussion of Establishment law, which she clearly is not, this should really be in Religion and Ethics.

But to answer the question begged, considering the splintered and unsettled nature of Establishment law the university is certainly within its rights to want to avoid any possible liability or costly legal proceedings by avoiding organized, university-sanctioned and led prayer when there are people who have made it clear they object. Which may or may not be "right" depending on your POV, that being a question of religion and ethics rather than law, but considering the forum this was placed in - it's the answer.

The only thing established by your post is what an obnoxious twit you are.
In trying to demonstrate some sort of legal bona fides, you have done nothing of the sort.
Instead, you have made yourself look foolish.

1."What I don't understand is why this was posted in Law and Legal System..."

Clean off your specs, and see the following from the OP:
" The Alliance Defense Fund contends no laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony."

The case is being handled by a law firm.

2. As for "But to answer the question begged,..." try to use language that you actually understand. To beg the question means to assume the point being argued.
The OP merely takes a situation from the news and asks what folks think of it.

3. As with so many alleged experts, such as yourself, you have tried to restrict the view of the situation, i.e. "...a discussion of Establishment law,..." whereas the actual question being asked is "Does this situation fit your idea of fair play?"

Again, directly from the OP. Specs again? Or merely in a hurry to spit your ususal venom?

4. Here is suggestion that might stand you well in your dealings with folks: try to instill a bit of civility into your conversations.

With whom? People interested in having an actual conversation, or obnoxious trolls?

Surely even you see the difference between the absolute and utter dishonesty of your comparison of this situation, a common one with very common and well-known reasons for its occurrence that should not have to be explained even to you, and the disenfranchisement of voters.

Facts are facts and opinions are opinions. The fact that you copy and paste the opinions of others without regard for facts or honesty is not my problem.

If your blogs don't tell you to believe there's a distinction between facts and opinion, religious belief and law, or Establishment and suffrage, you have a problem bigger than anybody alluding to and correcting your passive aggressive bullshit.

My post stands. What do I think? I think the university had every right and reason to act as it did, and for the reason I specified. One that is common knowledge and based in fact and the actual status of law, not somebody else's copy and pasted opinion.

My opinion? It would be nice if the Courts came up with one clear rule for Establishment that would alleviate the uncertainty placed on public institutions, and that opinionated trolls would learn about their subject before misinforming and misleading people about serious topics so they can get their snide little licks in.

 

[editec]

People have the right to protest, don't they?

Of course they do.

I wouldn't call these people "voters" however.

Of course they voted, but their vote wasn't anything that legally mattered.

They expressed their desires and the school ignored their desires.

That sucks but that kind of thing often happens.

 

[Truthmatters]

Somehow they think its more important that real American elections.

 

[nraforlife]

.........................
You aren't endorsing treating voting adults as children, are you?

Appareent yes when they don't make the proper progressive aka communist choice.

 

[goldcatt]

Somehow they think its more important that real American elections.

That's why she's a troll, TM. Even she isn't ignorant enough to really believe it. It's bait to get you to react.

The fact that it's dishonest as fuck and misleading as hell doesn't matter to her. She's a troll.

But it needs to be corrected, and it has been.

 

[Intense]

The University is not bound by the same laws as our elections

Obviously they are not bound by their own word either. Next time get it in writing, huh.

"Students voted after being told that the majority would decide the issue, but campus officials reneged, citing legal concerns - particularly potential lawsuits that could be waged by anyone offended by the prayers."

The alliance contends no such laws exist preventing the college from having the prayers as part of its ceremony.

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page...test-lack-of-prayer-in-ceremony.html?nav=5061

Any good Lawyers in the house? Maybe we should Repeal the Health Care Bill because the Vote was not Unanimous? Consessus rules, right? There could be Law Suits over that as well.... Wait.... there already are....

 

[Truthmatters]

They will be given a time of slience to pray their own prayers.

It includes everyone so no one is being denied the right to pray that day.

But that isn't what 90% voted in favor of...nor what they were promised.


You aren't endorsing treating voting adults as children, are you?

It's yet another example of ignoring the Will of the People. When this fits with the agenda of the left, they'll support the Will of the People. When it does not, they'll justify why they ignore it. I despise political correctness. I believe it stifles freedom.

Note this post.