Since Congress only specified that states “may require only” some information, and gave them explicit permission to find ways to verify eligibility, Arizona has argued that the two mandates can exist side by side....
Alito... sought to drive home a worry about states’ ability to ensure voter eligibility by outlining a hypothetical. A boy, the Justice suggested, who looks to be thirteen years old rides up to a registration office on his bicycle, wearing a T-shirt from a middle school, and seeks to register. Alito then asked: “Can the state require him to show some proof of age?"
१८ मार्च, २०१३
"Anyone entering the Supreme Court’s chamber Monday morning expecting constitutional drama over the right to vote had to come away quite disappointed."
"It took all of fifty minutes of a one-hour argument to get to any constitutional issue, most of the Justices wanted to focus on what 'may only' means in a federal law...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Yes. Hell yes.
Dare we presume this is how the meaning of "is" came about?
If you're a democrat, the very requesting of some sort of id would be the equivalent of gestapo tactics, and RACIST to boot. (Aasuming this guy is not white).Make every vote count.
May only vs. shall only? cf. "Modal verbs in Germanic languages"
It's difficult for me to imagine a good faith argument that requiring proof of eligibility to vote acts as an impermiissible barrier to the exercise of the right vote. The only reason this is an issue is that it strikes at the Democrat's favorite form of voter fraud.
Isn't an understanding of what the federal requirements mean a precondition to any constitutional decision? How can the Court determine whether the purported federal power is constitutional if they do not have a clear understanding of what the government considers its power to be?
I'm afraid Mr. Maguire is right. I had to show two forms of ID to get a pass to my village's "public" parks last week.
Considering how hard Democrats push back on voter ID laws, I really wonder what the real margin of fraud is.
Mark
It's pretty huge judging by the ridiculous lengths they go to make us believe a voting barrier exists by virtue of asking for ID.
Straining at a gnat comes to mind.
It's so obvious it barely needs stating, but anyone who is against requiring ID to ensure "one person, one vote" is clearly worried about its detrimental effect on "one person, many votes".
Is it big enough to wonder how Obama got re-elected?
I await a Supreme Court decision which hammers home the fact that the very exact Founding Fathers meant their "shall not infringe" in the Second Amendment.
Wow!!
Someone, somewhere must be serving free beer. I figured this would have 200 comments by now.
Wow!!
Someone, somewhere must be serving free beer. I figured this would have 200 comments by now.
"The right of citizens of the United States..." are the opening words of the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments that all involve voting rights.
So it seems to me that before any anything else takes place, each amendment has an imperative that the citizenship of the would-be voter be established.
I didn't notice any clauses that allows non-citizens to vote.
Democrats will register all the kids if that's what they need to do. Then they will scream racism if you try and stop them.
If you're a democrat, the very requesting of some sort of id would be the equivalent of gestapo tactics, and RACIST to boot
It doesn't have to be racist. It's all just a cold hard calculation down to the household level about ways how to minimize votes in Democratic districts. ID identification requirements are just one part of it. Can you name one proposed law by Democrats making it harder to vote in red districts? No.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites. Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, according to Charles Stewart III, the political science professor who conducted the analysis. Link.
Can you name one proposed law by Democrats making it harder to vote in red districts? No.
Of course not. They are caught in a Catch-22. If they continue to pretend that requiring voter ID = "making it harder to vote", then "making it harder to vote", as least that way, in a Red district, will do nothing to lessen the Red vote, but will devastate the 'total' of whatever Blue was there.
Astro:
The implication of "We the People of the United States" is that only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of The Constitution. Other people are subject to the jurisdiction of lesser laws. For example, when an alien betrays America, they are not tried for treason, but for espionage (or a similar crime committed by a foreign agent) against the United State of America and her people.
Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia,
Mixed state, blue district, blue state, red state and mixed state.
Out of the top five, you have one red state. Kinda blows your point. But hey, showing an id takes so long that it would interrupt that woman in Ohio from voting six, seven maybe eight times. And someone's got to vote for the dead.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites. Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes, followed by the District of Columbia, Maryland, South Carolina and Virginia, according to Charles Stewart III, the political science professor who conducted the analysis. Link.
3/18/13, 9:51 PM
So what. Besides most of those precincts happen to be democrat precincts in democrat counties with democrat elections supervisors. it's republican's fault democrats are incompetent?
n.n said...
Astro: The implication of "We the People of the United States"...
Hmm.
I'm trying to decide whether to file this under non sequitur, or irrelevant, to my comment. Maybe I'll use the Arizona argument that the two can exist side by side.
Can you name one proposed law by Democrats making it harder to vote in red districts? No.
Presumably if voter ID makes it harder for people in blue districts it makes it harder for people in red districts as well.
Astro:
My point is that the jurisdiction of The Constitution is established as a rule rather than an exception (e.g. clause). The rights and privileges, and responsibilities, recorded in The Constitution are accorded to citizens. This implies that citizenship must be established in order to comply with the first requirement of jurisdiction.
As for your second comment, I will ignore it.
No intellectual feast today.
You need picture ID in order to receive welfare benifits. It does not appear to be an undo burden among the poorest and most "opressed" among us, so why should it be a burden for citizens wishing to vote?
Presumably if voter ID makes it harder for people in blue districts it makes it harder for people in red districts as well.
It doesn't work out that way in the real world when gobs of people need to vote all at the same time. Early voting was a democratic response to that logistical problem.
You're one of my favorite commenters here. Even if you weren't, I would never in a million years wish to make your vote harder to cast. That's where I'm at.
Can you name one proposed law by Democrats making it harder to vote in red districts? No.
However, I can name one big law already passed by Democrats that makes it harder to to vote legally in certain Red States.
You might have heard of it. It is being discussed in the Supreme Court right now.
On the other hand, can you name one law proposed or passed by Democrats that lessens the chance of voter fraud?
Of course not.
Fen's Law, again: Democrats always lecture us about "one person, one vote". That means they don't believe in that principle at all, they just use it to forestall discussion of common-sense vote fraud prevention.
An "and" not "or" thing, plus an "or" not "and" thang; could it be?
If you could prove that you are an illegal (undocumented) alien... you could probably vote.
ID gets in the way of the undocumented vote.
Its clearly unconstitutional.
Garage, stats are wonderful tools, much like hammers. How many of those districts serving those demographics were administered by Democrats.
Dig, dig, dig. I suspect that it's just easier for the Democratic Machine to make the ballot box look plausible than it is to actually count the vote. Hence, long lines, poor service.
Prove me wrong. Statistically.
OTOH, guys in paramilitary outfits brandishing billy clubs are nothing to be concerned about. 'Cause that's how it rolls in Obama's America.
Lem said...
No intellectual feast today.
I set the table, but everybody prefers using fingers and sign language.
Or in other words, when "Red" districts that can swing a state start voting in the high 90s for "Red" candidates then I'll start worrying about conservative conspiracies. Until then, I give you Madison and Philadelphia.
It doesn't work out that way in the real world when gobs of people need to vote all at the same time. Early voting was a democratic response to that logistical problem.
I don't know 'bout y'all fancy city folk, but out heah, when we have that problem, we just create more polling places.....
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis determined that blacks and Hispanics waited nearly twice as long in line to vote on average than whites.
which is two segments of the population where the mean IQ is lower. Which is the real explanation for longer-time voting patterns - and everyone knows it and is afraid to face up to it. Do we really want to go there?
If the court chooses not to define "natural born citizen," what difference does it make if you are not one and never claimed to be in 50 states during two election cycles. What proof is required other than an internet-constructed COLB?
And therefore, what difference can it possibly make whether or not lowly voters are qualified to cast ballots? Ohio poll workers are casting multiple ballots anyway.
How hard was it to get standing before the court to even question voter laws? And why is it OK to require voter IDs in Indiana but not Texas or Arizona?
I am getting a headache!
Can you name one proposed law by Democrats making it harder to vote in red districts?
The failed "stimulus", Obamacare, cap & trade, cash for clunkers, massive, job-killing tax increases....It's harder to drive out of your way on the trip home from work to vote, when Obama's making gas more expensive, making cars more expensive, and making jobs more scarce.
Not that I think Democrats specifically wanted to make it harder to vote in red states. Their main goal is to impoverish the country.
The Democratic assertion that there is no widespread voter fraud is absurd. Twenty years ago a professor at Cal State Long Beach had his students look into the legal status of people with Hispanic surnames on the voter registration lists. I'm giving a number from memory now but as I recall no proof of citizenship could be found for something like 30% of the names.
Nowadays of course that kind of survey would be impossible to conduct in a public institution. It's considered racist to ask if fraud could even exist.
If you think that oral argument is the place to tell the court what the case is all about, you can be disappointed.
If you think of oral argument as the place to address the questions that the justices have after reading at least three well written briefs, then your expectations will be better aligned with reality.
There is a reason Chicago hasn't had a republican mayor in over sixty years,(I should say republican in name only). It's also why the votes in Chicago are counted last in any state or federal election.
"How many people voted?"
"How many ya need?"
"Florida had the nation’s longest lines, at 45 minutes"
Nope...much, much longer than that in Orlando...
But hey, if voter suppression is all ya got.....
machine said...
Nope...much, much longer than that in Orlando...
You try filling out a ballot with those big Mickey Mouse gloves on...
But hey, if claims of voter suppression is all ya got.....
Long lines?
- some of these were because of the push for EARLY voting that overwhelmed the reduced capacity before election day.
- Likely not throughout the day, just at key peaks. You can't always have enough check out lines in a store so the lines are short. A rush in business happens.
- some of the longest lines were in states or counties where democrats control the funding for voting operations.
machine: "Nope...much, much longer than that in Orlando..."
I guess we're just supposed to take your word for that......
> I would never in a million years wish to make your vote harder to cast. That's where I'm at.
That's because Garage's favorite method of voter fraud makes your vote irrelevant.
Casting multiple votes has exactly the same effect as stopping people from voting, yet Dems only complain about one of those things.
Either they're dishonest or they're stupid. Does it matter which one?
garage mahal said...
... I would never in a million years wish to make your vote harder to cast. That's where I'm at.
And we would never in a million years wish to make your first vote in any given election harder to cast.
But we are willing to make your first vote slightly harder to cast, to insure that you are unable to cast your second and subsequent votes. That's where we're at.
Yes Garage, Democrats' unwillingness to insure the franchise is exercised honestly does -- as Andy Freeman indicated -- have the effect of suppressing my vote. Because every fake "blue" vote cancels out the very real "red" vote that some other person cast in good faith. Democrats shit on our good faith and call us racists to boot. Fuck 'em!
Showing ID to vote is as inevitable as gay marriage, and should be achieved first, in my opinion.
What is the difference between a democracy and a republican form of government?
It's a question that I ask from time to time. Regularly.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा