Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.You saying No to my quote implies that you believe that people should be forced to vote, If you don't believe so, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.
But that is wrong because not everyone is allowed to vote.
Convicted felons are routinely denied their right to vote, and yet are still taxed.
That is illegal taxation without representation.
But then again they made a choice. All rights have limits.
Bouncing a check for over $100 is technically a felony, so it is not always a choice, and in fact about 10% of those convicted are actually innocent.
Rights have limits when they impact the rights of someone else.
There is no need to prevent ex-felons from voting.
If you expect them to pay taxes, you legally have to let them vote.
Voting is a right, and there is no legal way to remove a right.
That would violate the 14th amendment.
Well, that's a problem with the US system. That it's very easy to become a criminal.
However taking voting rights away from those who have been convicted isn't a bad thing, the bad things are something else.
Rights can be infringed upon. No right is absolute. So you can't say limiting criminals from voting goes against the Constitution.
Wrong.
Governments can NEVER infringe upon rights on their own, ever.
The ONLY justification for infringement of rights is when it is necessary in order to defend the rights of some other person.
And that is NOT the case with voting rights.
Denying an ex-felon the vote serves no one, but instead puts everyone at risk because then a corrupt government just has to blanket label the opposition as felons.
I am saying that taxation without representation is a vastly more heinous crime than anything any individual could commit.
The constitution is NOT the source of rights.
They have to pre-exist.
Obviously taxation without representation is an abuse of rights that precede the constitution.
It was considered a valid reason for armed rebellion.
That is still true and will always be true.
A government that taxes without representation is totally invalid.
I have federal rights to speak freely and to assemble (with reasonable exceptions). I have no such federal right to vote and neither do you. Wake up.
Read the thread. All has been revealed, though compulsory voting is a very different but interesting subject.
Total nonsense.
First Amendment: Treason laws go against Congress making laws prohibiting the free exercise of freedom of speech.
They can stop people peacefully assembling all over the place. You CANNOT peacefully protest inside the White House, you cannot do it on military bases and the like.
Second Amendment: They can prevent you from having arms. In fact they prevent children under the age of 18 from owning or having a handgun or ammo. They prevent people from having nukes ALL THE TIME. You're literally not allowed one.
For example.
I'll ask again. It is not clear.
You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not?
Every one has a right to vote if they chose. Where's your evidence they don't?
Because, believe it or not, some people here don't want other people being able to vote.
It doesn't matter who doesn't want it, it not their entitlement to stop you.
Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by those people. Good a time as any to try again, no?
That makes no sense. It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Who are these people you are talking about? Name them or shut up.
Treason laws are to protect the rights of the population, not congress.
Not sure they actually can legally stop peaceful assembly anywhere, but if they can, it is so that the majority do not get their essential government functionality taken from them by a vocal minority,
The federal government has no authority to do anything with arms.
States can regulate firearm age, but not the feds.
No government can prevent private nukes.
All government can do is heavily regulate to ensure the safety of others.
As a matter of fact, private fusion experiments are being done right now with privately owned and ignited nukes.
You make this mixed-up quote mess then demand stuff and what? This is why I still ignore you. We may well agree far more than not, but you don't communicate well enough to even have that discussion. You need to slow down, STFU, and really try to comprehend stuff before jumping in all cocky. There's style in writing. I'm not apologizing for trying to introduce subjects in somewhat abstract, humorous ways. Read on.. all is made plain..I'll ask again. It is not clear.
You may think you already have such a right, but alas, no.. you don't. Why not?
Every one has a right to vote if they chose. Where's your evidence they don't?
Because, believe it or not, some people here don't want other people being able to vote.
It doesn't matter who doesn't want it, it not their entitlement to stop you.
Making it the law has actually been tried before and killed by those people. Good a time as any to try again, no?
That makes no sense. It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Who are these people you are talking about? Name them or shut up.
Then you should of quoted me saying that (if I did).No, you said the way thing are now is that everyone can vote but are not required to vote.
But that is wrong because not everyone is allowed to vote.
Convicted felons are routinely denied their right to vote, and yet are still taxed.
That is illegal taxation without representation.
Obvious is that any presumed federal "right of privacy" will be subject to interpretation and therefore require a broad legal definition.. much like any federal "right to vote" would..Rights have to precede laws.
Laws do not and can not create rights.
If not so, then government would be creating rights arbitrarily, and then there would be no way for the SCOTUS to strike down any law,
But the way it has to work is a right has to be recognized first, that then that inherent right authorizes the law that then enshrines and protect the pre-existing right.
Then the SCOTUS can evaluate the law based on the inherent right that authorized it.
Like the way the right of privacy authorized abortion rights.
Privacy legislation does not exist.
It is an obvious and well recognized,. pre-existing basic and inherent individual right.
No you do not, and lots of people are denied the right to vote.
You have to have proof of residence and a place to receive mail, like the voter registration card.
You make this mixed-up quote mess then demand stuff and what? This is why I still ignore you. We may well agree far more than not, but you don't communicate well enough to even have that discussion. You need to slow down, STFU, and really try to comprehend stuff before jumping in all cocky. There's style in writing. I'm not apologizing for trying to introduce subjects in somewhat abstract, humorous ways. Read on.. all is made plain..
Here's a huge clue. Stop demanding shit from others. That's how determined assholes reveal their desire to be ignored. Do your own homework. If you can't find the answers you seek on your own, what are you going to do.. take my word for it? GTFOOH!
Rights have to precede laws.
Laws do not and can not create rights.
If not so, then government would be creating rights arbitrarily, and then there would be no way for the SCOTUS to strike down any law,
But the way it has to work is a right has to be recognized first, that then that inherent right authorizes the law that then enshrines and protect the pre-existing right.
Then the SCOTUS can evaluate the law based on the inherent right that authorized it.
Like the way the right of privacy authorized abortion rights.
Privacy legislation does not exist.
It is an obvious and well recognized,. pre-existing basic and inherent individual right.
Treason laws are made by who? Oh, by Congress. The First Amendment says they can't make laws that go against free speech, but they did. Why? Because free speech is limited. Everyone who knows anything about rights knows they're limited.
They can legally stop protesting in many places. They do, all the time.
The feds stop under 18 year olds from having handguns. It's a federal law.
No government can prevent private nukes, and yet ALL governments do. Hmmm.....
So, basically, you're wrong. Rights are limited. Simples.
Oh, you mean like:Here's a clue for you. Don't come here belching lies you know are untrue.
This is my topic, poopy pants. So here's the word you keep lying about via omission:It is law you have a right to vote. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Who are these people you are talking about? Name them or shut up.
All laws are authorized by the inherent right of the people, not congress.
Congress violates the first amendment because they are corrupt and full of criminals.
The fact speech is limited is true, but nothing to do with congress, but the conflict with the rights of others.
All federal firearm laws are clearly illegal.
Again, congress and the executive are just full of criminals.
All nukes are owned and created by private companies at one time.
So obviously government can not and does not prevent private nukes.
All they can do is apply safeguards for the rights of others.
Please tell us who does not have “ the right to vote”People should also have the right not to vote, which is the way things are now.
Why are you asking me and not the opening poster?Please tell us who does not have “ the right to vote”
