News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[CAC1001]

Nope; isn't that what the 14th Amendment says?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[Al68]

If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?

Partially, yes. The state's federal representation would be reduced proportionally.

For example, the number of congressmen and electoral votes a state has would be reduced by 25% if they denied the right to vote to all Libras, Virgos, and Scorpios.

 

[WhoWee]

One more thing for the Tea Party to be angry about.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-27/justice/arizona.immigration.law_1_immigration-laws-immigration-status-federal-court?_s=PM:CRIME

""The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a simple, common sense protection approved by Arizona voters requiring that all individuals provide evidence of U.S. citizenship prior to registering to vote. This decision is an outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections," the statement said."

 

[Char. Limit]

What. The. Hell.

Under what rationale exactly could they do that? Don't you have to be a citizen to vote anyway?

I mean, come on!

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

 

[talk2glenn]

Yes, but even after those amendments, it's perfectly constitutional for a state to deny people the right to vote because of their height, weight, length of hair, baldness, shoe size, vegetarianism, lopsided breasts, funny walk, visual acuteness, sharpness of teeth, cavities, fingernail length, or astrological sign. (Not an all-inclusive list)

Excuse me? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

No court in the country would find voting restrictions on the basis of "height, weight, length of hair.." etcetera constitutional under the 14th amendment, let alone federal election law.

The only disenfranchisement found consistently legal by the courts has been felony disenfranchisement, largely because it is explicitly mentioned in the text of said Amendment.

 

[turbo]

What. The. Hell.

Under what rationale exactly could they do that? Don't you have to be a citizen to vote anyway?

I mean, come on!

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

 

[Evo]

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

I must've missed something in that article.

 

[WhoWee]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

Please support your post turbo.

 

[turbo]

Please support your post turbo.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/10/27/20101027voters1027.html

In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that Arizona's requirement conflicts with the federal act, which requires states to make registration opportunities "widely available" and remove obstacles to voter registration. Arizona native and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the panel.

The ruling does not affect next week's general election because voter registration ended earlier this month. Prop. 200 also requires voters to show proper identification at polls. Judges did not rule on that provision.

Plaintiffs in the case said the judges' ruling removes unnecessary barriers to voter registration, especially for newly naturalized citizens who may have to go through extra steps to prove their citizenship.

There are lots more articles available without the inflammatory voter-fraud statements that the right-wing blogs carry.

Edit: I'm not going to link to Michelle Malkin's blog for obvious reasons, but she claims that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. You'll easily find other nut-case examples out there. The 9th Court's opinion was narrowly-framed on the subject of access to registration and is not likely to be overturned.

 

[talk2glenn]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

The National Voter Registration Act is itself codified federal restrictions on the voter registration process. What a special 3-man panel (including retired SC Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, but isn't even an appointed member of the court) of the 9th circuit found was that the federal process was explicit, and that Arizona could not make it more complicated. Lower federal and state courts made the opposite finding - that the addition of proof-of-eligibility requirements to the registration form did not constitute interference with federal statute.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

The court made no such finding; this is your own idle speculation. In fact, by de facto (it ignored minority impact in its opinion), the court rejected plaintiffs claim of disparate minority impacts or discrimination of any kind, a usful precedent when defending future election law against 14th amendment suits (the opposite of what you would want, turbo). The ruling is purely statutory, and not constitutional - assuming its not overturned by the full 9th (less than 50/50 odds of this) or the Supreme court (also unlikely), it could be easily changed by Congress amending the Act.

 

[mheslep]

Ninth circuit judges voting on the Az voting case:
Majority:
Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan appointment, who should have remained retired.
Sandra Ikuta, Bush W appointee

Dissent:
Alex Kozinski, Reagan appointee. Thanks this one Dutch.

Kozinski ripped into the majority. There was precedent in this case in favor of Arizona, decided by the Ninth itself. Precedent requires one heck of overwhelming argument to reverse; certainly judges can't pretend it doesn't exist.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/10/26/08-17094.pdf

As the majority belatedly acknowledges 47 pages into its opinion, we don’t come to this case with a blank slate. A prior panel has already held in a published opinion that Proposition 200 isn’t preempted because the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) “plainly allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona.[...] That is law of the circuit and therefore binding on us. See, e.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Even if it weren’t, it’s law of the case and can’t be lightly disregarded for that reason. See, e.g., Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1991). The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. First, it evades law of the circuit by creating an exception that is squarely foreclosed by a recent unanimous en banc opinion. The majority then weakens our rules governing law of the case by declaring that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the NVRA is “clearly erroneous” when it’s clearly not. Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s voter registration requirement.

The fundamental rule of circuit law is that once a panel decides a legal issue in a published opinion, that ruling binds subsequent three-judge panels. The only instance when a three-judge panel may depart from a prior published opinion is if there has been “intervening” higher authority that is “clearly irreconcilable with our prior circuit authority.” Miller, 335 F.3d at 900. And this instance is not truly an exception to the rule because it’s the intervening higher authority, not the three-judge panel, that overrules the earlier opinion. There are in fact no exceptions to law of the circuit, or at least there weren’t until today.

The rest dismantles the silly majority opinion holding that since the 1993 federal 'Motor Voter' (NVRA) act didn't specify Arizona's specific supplemental requirements, then Arizona can't have any of its own.

1. The majority claims that “allowing states to impose their own requirements for federal voter registration . . . would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input, and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of the lines of authority prescribed by Section 7.[...] If anything, this indicates that Congress
didn’t want to aggrandize the Commission’s power over the states. It certainly doesn’t “demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role.”

For the same reason, the majority’s claims that states shouldn’t be able to make an “end-run around the [Election Assistance Commission]’s consultative process,” [...] beg the question of whether the Commission can bind the states. Congress may have intended to grant states the power to supplement federal
rules despite the Commission’s objection. (states can enforce state fair-lending laws that OCC tried to preempt). If Congress intended to give states this power to disagree, then Arizona hasn’t made an end-run at all.

Relatedly, the majority claims that because the NVRA prohibits requiring “notarization or other formal authentication,” [...] Congress must have intended to prohibit states from imposing any supplemental requirements. [...] But Congress doesn’t disguise general proscriptions of everything as specific proscriptions of one narrow thing. See [...](“Congress . . . [doesn’t] hide elephants in mouseholes.”). Nor would permitting Arizona to require proof of citizenship free it to violate the NVRA’s ban on requiring formal notarization. [...] Refusing to enforce an unwritten ban hardly weakens the force of an express prohibition.[...]
But the majority’s lengthy disquisition on history and purpose only highlights the absence of any textual support for its conclusion that Congress meant to increase voter registration by prohibiting state-imposed supplemental requirements. To the extent we rely on purpose at all, we should focus on the purposes codified in the statute rather than our guesses based on reading the tea leaves of history and context.

 

[mheslep]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

You must know that states have the ability to establish their own voting restrictions and procedures. Then what exactly do you claim Arizona over rode in federal law? I submit there were none.

 

[turbo]

The court made no such finding; this is your own idle speculation. In fact, by de facto (it ignored minority impact in its opinion), the court rejected plaintiffs claim of disparate minority impacts or discrimination of any kind, a usful precedent when defending future election law against 14th amendment suits (the opposite of what you would want, turbo). The ruling is purely statutory, and not constitutional - assuming its not overturned by the full 9th (less than 50/50 odds of this) or the Supreme court (also unlikely), it could be easily changed by Congress amending the Act.

The claim that poorer people were denied the right to vote by having to provide expensive documentation was the the basis for the arguments of several advocates groups. Not idle speculation. A bipartisan lawyers' group (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) established to expand and protect the rights of minorities to vote (among other things) claims that since the AZ law has been in effect, 30,000 Arizonans have been denied the right to vote.

The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register. They left in place the requirement that voters have to supply a state photo ID or two non-photo IDs at the polling place before being allowed to vote.

 

[turbo]

You must know that states have the ability to establish their own voting restrictions and procedures. Then what exactly do you claim Arizona over rode in federal law? I submit there were none.

Please read the ruling, or at least a non-partisan analysis of the ruling. The court held that the states do not have the right to apply voter-registration guidelines more restrictive than those set forth in the NVRA. It's a very narrow ruling, but it forbids restrictions that amount to voter-suppression.

 

[drankin]

The claim that poorer people were denied the right to vote by having to provide expensive documentation was the the basis for the arguments of several advocates groups. Not idle speculation. A bipartisan lawyers' group (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) established to expand and protect the rights of minorities to vote (among other things) claims that since the AZ law has been in effect, 30,000 Arizonans have been denied the right to vote.

The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register. They left in place the requirement that voters have to supply a state photo ID or two non-photo IDs at the polling place before being allowed to vote.

I guess the way around that would be to have the state to issue residency documentation for free. Then one can't use the excuse, "I'm too poor to be identified as an American". Why don't these advocacy groups use their money to help people get required documentation if that's the case? They would rather use their resources to protect a few alleged poor people who can't prove they are American. I suspect it's because their agenda is to protect illegals and even get them to vote.

 

[CAC1001]

Edit: I'm not going to link to Michelle Malkin's blog for obvious reasons, but she claims that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. You'll easily find other nut-case examples out there.

I wouldn't say it is necessarilly a "nut-case" claim that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. That is why the Left want to grant them amnesty. If it was guaranteed that if/when granted amnesty, 90% of illegals would vote Republican, I think the Democrats would have a whole different view on the subject of illegal immigrants.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What a special 3-man panel (including retired SC Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, but isn't even an appointed member of the court) of the 9th circuit found was that the federal process was explicit, and that Arizona could not make it more complicated. Lower federal and state courts made the opposite finding - that the addition of proof-of-eligibility requirements to the registration form did not constitute interference with federal statute.

She's a senior judge of the US Supreme Court (out of respect for the body, this is usually referred to as "retired" rather than "senior" as it is for other courts), which means that she can be sent to any circuit court. I'm not sure what your issue is with that -- it's the usual process.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, this (court decision) is just more kindling for the (Tea Party) fire.

 

[mheslep]

[...]The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register.

Didn't that sound at least a little bit off when you wrote it - that therefore everyone in AZ must have passport to register to vote? No, the AZ law requires "satisfactory evidence of US citizenship", of which a passport is only one satisfactory type.

[The statute, Proposition 200] defined satisfactory evidence of citizenship to include a driver’s license or similar identification license issued by a motor vehicle agency, a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documents or other specified immigration documents, or specified cards relating to Native American tribal status. [...]

 

[mheslep]

She's a senior judge of the US Supreme Court (out of respect for the body, this is usually referred to as "retired" rather than "senior" as it is for other courts), which means that she can be sent to any circuit court. I'm not sure what your issue is with that -- it's the usual process.

O'connor was born 1930. Not sure how usual it is at that age.

 

[turbo]

Didn't that sound at least a little bit off when you wrote it - that therefore everyone in AZ must have passport to register to vote? No, the AZ law requires "satisfactory evidence of US citizenship", of which a passport is only one satisfactory type.

Not long after my wife and I moved here, I had to supply a copy of my birth certificate. Guess what. It got misplaced in the move, so I had to take time off, go to the clerk's office in the county seat, and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii). Due to environmental illness (inability to fly, for sure) I had already let my passport lapse. There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

 

[Al68]

Yes, but even after those amendments, it's perfectly constitutional for a state to deny people the right to vote because of their height, weight, length of hair, baldness, shoe size, vegetarianism, lopsided breasts, funny walk, visual acuteness, sharpness of teeth, cavities, fingernail length, or astrological sign. (Not an all-inclusive list)

Excuse me? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

LOL. Just made up a list of things that the constitution does not prohibit as a basis for denying voting rights. Basically, anything except race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, or age (if >18).

No court in the country would find voting restrictions on the basis of "height, weight, length of hair.." etcetera constitutional under the 14th amendment, let alone federal election law.

I won't argue about what a court will or won't do, but the constitution specifically says that states are free to deny people a right to vote for any reason except the ones I listed above. And they did so (upheld by the courts) for those reasons prior to the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments respectively. Why do you think those amendments were enacted?

The only disenfranchisement found consistently legal by the courts has been felony disenfranchisement, largely because it is explicitly mentioned in the text of said Amendment.

That's false. States were free to disenfranchise blacks prior to the 15th amendment, women prior to the 19th amendment, etc. Those amendments were enacted specifically because the constitution otherwise allows disenfranchisement.

But, if a state did choose to disenfranchise all scorpios, for example, any honest court would uphold it, then we would pass another constitutional amendment. You can say otherwise, but that's what happened for the cases of previous disenfranchisement based on race, gender, and age.

 

[Al68]

...and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii).

What? They sold you a fake birth certificate?

Seriously, states should do that free at least once every few years. And only charge a fee for habitual birth certificate misplacers.

 

[mheslep]

[...] There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

The hyperbole 'lose my right' because I'm 'poor' doesn't take the conversation anywhere. It attempts to end the discussion by denying there's any debatable question involved here. There is of course a large question, with hundreds of years of debate behind it, which is how do we draw the line between establishing a person is an eligible voter (i.e not a felon, dead, minor, alien, mentally incapacitated, attempting to vote 15 times, etc) and placing an undo burden on the citizen. Let us start by admitting that the voter must take at least some positive action to establish eligibility, regardless of impediment.

 

[turbo]

What? They sold you a fake birth certificate?

Seriously, states should do that free at least once every few years. And only charge a fee for habitual birth certificate misplacers.

Agreed. I needed mine for a SS/Medicare issue, and it shouldn't have cost me money for a notarized copy. We pay taxes that support the operation of the county offices. The copy was needed to help prevent Medicare fraud, which I whole-heartedly support, but getting that copy was a pain in the butt. It is, after all, a public record. If someone other than myself or my wife wanted to order that document, they should have to pay.

If I had been a day-laborer, or a regularly-employed low-wage laborer, and I had to take hours (and it took hours) off my job to prove that I was a US citizen, I'd have to carefully weigh the lost time, chances of losing my job, and the out-of-pocket expense to get that documentation. In my case that wasn't a big thing. In the case of Native Americans and Natural-Born and Naturalized Hispanics in Arizona, it could be a really big thing. Big enough to discourage them from even registering to vote, which is sad. US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

Disclosure: My father's family emigrated from Ireland during the 1800's, and my mother's family emigrated from Canada a little later. Both ethnic groups were primarily Roman Catholic and poor as church-mice and suffered from anti-immigrant pressures. Both groups relied substantially on church records (not municipal records) for marriage records, birth records, and other familial events (christenings, communion, confirmation) that tracked the children when municipal records did not. I have Native American blood on both sides of my family, and along with the anti-immigrant crap that happened here 100 years ago, I have a good bit of tolerance and understanding for others who want to live in the US and become citizens.

 

[Jasongreat]

US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

Non-citizens should, therefore it is not undue resistance, maybe a little annoying but not undue, imo.

 

[Char. Limit]

Solution: Make obtaining verification of citizenship free. Then people can't complain that they can't afford it.

And non-citizens won't be allowed to vote.

This will cost a little money, but then, Democrats are in office. They don't care about spending, do they?

 

[turbo]

This will cost a little money, but then, Democrats are in office. They don't care about spending, do they?

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

Now hold up just a minute... I never said that Republicans DID care about spending, did I?

 

[turbo]

Now hold up just a minute... I never said that Republicans DID care about spending, did I?

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

 

[Char. Limit]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

 

[turbo]

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

We have a horrible unemployment situation. Unfortunately for the Democrats, republicans across the country seem to want to join in the anti-Obama witch hunt. That is not going to serve them well, IMO. There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

 

[talk2glenn]

LOL. Just made up a list of things that the constitution does not prohibit as a basis for denying voting rights.

Yes it does.

Basically, anything except race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, or age (if >18).I won't argue about what a court will or won't do, but the constitution specifically says that states are free to deny people a right to vote for any reason except the ones I listed above. And they did so (upheld by the courts) for those reasons prior to the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments respectively. Why do you think those amendments were enacted?

Absurd. The Constitution reserves to the states the right to organize and conduct legal elections. The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination. Ergo, by definition, election law cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender, ever, and there must be a rational basis for other types of discrimination.

One would be hard pressed to convince even the wackiest appellate judge that a rational person would agree that there was a compelling public interest in denying someone the right to vote because of the length of their hair.

That's false. States were free to disenfranchise blacks prior to the 15th amendment, women prior to the 19th amendment, etc. Those amendments were enacted specifically because the constitution otherwise allows disenfranchisement.

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

But, if a state did choose to disenfranchise all scorpios, for example, any honest court would uphold it, then we would pass another constitutional amendment. You can say otherwise, but that's what happened for the cases of previous disenfranchisement based on race, gender, and age.

No, they would not. Please see Baker v Carr, Reynolds v Simms, or hell, even Bush v Gore.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

 

[WhoWee]

Not long after my wife and I moved here, I had to supply a copy of my birth certificate. Guess what. It got misplaced in the move, so I had to take time off, go to the clerk's office in the county seat, and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii). Due to environmental illness (inability to fly, for sure) I had already let my passport lapse. There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

In Ohio (specifically - may be other places), the county welfare departments send voter registration forms out with their benefits continuation forms.

By the way, have you tried to cross the Canadian border recently?

 

[CRGreathouse]

O'connor was born 1930. Not sure how usual it is at that age.

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

 

[Jasongreat]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

 

[CAC1001]

There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

And there is a blindness among Democrats in acknowledging that their party had been in control of Congress for two years when the financial crisis hit.

Also, the Democrats' argument to justify their big spending being to point out that Republicans spent a lot, IMO doesn't hold water, because they just spent years criticizing the Republicans' excessive spending and the American people elected Obama to move us away from what Bush and the Republicans had been doing; so why would they then engage in an agenda requiring even more spending after having been so critical of spending under the previous party?

Also I'd disagree that the GOP being anti-Obama will hurt them; if anything, I think that is what the American people want.

 

[CAC1001]

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

 

[Al68]

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination.

Illogical bunk. Were the 15th, and 19th amendments enacted for no reason whatsoever?

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

I made no claim regarding Supreme Court doctrine. My claim was about what the 14th amendment says. The actual text of the 14th amendment did not change between enactment and 1962.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

LOL. I'm not the one confusing what the constitution does or doesn't say with Supreme Court doctrine. And I'm not the one that thinks the 15th and 19th amendments were enacted because the 14th amendment already prohibited denying the right to vote based on race and gender.

And LOL at taking my list of "constitutional ways to deny voting" so seriously. Did you think it was a list of things I thought were reasonable?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

One of the Tea Party complaints (often ridiculed) is that nobody reads, let alone understands, the "packaged" legislation - 2,000 page Bills stuffed with items that have nothing to do with the core legislation. Both sides are guilty and both have an excuse for bad legislation - "teflon Congress". The solution is to require legislation have a clear purpose, have responsible spending/budget considerations, and most important - be required reading prior to voting. We should never hear that we'll find out what's in the legislation after it's enacted (health care). By the way, I agree, this would require Congress to work every day, not take extended fact finding gllbal trips, and stay off the campaign trail - tun on their voting record.

 

[BobG]

Agreed. I needed mine for a SS/Medicare issue, and it shouldn't have cost me money for a notarized copy. We pay taxes that support the operation of the county offices. The copy was needed to help prevent Medicare fraud, which I whole-heartedly support, but getting that copy was a pain in the butt. It is, after all, a public record. If someone other than myself or my wife wanted to order that document, they should have to pay.

If I had been a day-laborer, or a regularly-employed low-wage laborer, and I had to take hours (and it took hours) off my job to prove that I was a US citizen, I'd have to carefully weigh the lost time, chances of losing my job, and the out-of-pocket expense to get that documentation. In my case that wasn't a big thing. In the case of Native Americans and Natural-Born and Naturalized Hispanics in Arizona, it could be a really big thing. Big enough to discourage them from even registering to vote, which is sad. US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:

1.Order A Birth Certificate

Have the following on hand before you begin your order:

•The state or province (and in most areas of the US, the city and/or county) in which the birth took place.
•The certificate holder's name as it appears on the birth certificate. If adopted, please enter your adoptive information.
•The month, day and year of the birth (and in some cases, the name of the hospital).
•The legal name of the parents identified on the birth certificate (including the mother's maiden name before marriage).
•Your billing and shipping addresses (street address only - courier deliveries will not be shipped to PO boxes, APO or FPO military addresses). Note that some agencies will only ship to the verified credit card billing address.
•Your method of payment. We recommend having your valid credit card with number and expiration date in hand while you order.
Note: In most instances, you must be a member of the birth certificate holder's immediate family to receive the record.

Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

 

[mheslep]

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

Yes, but at 80?

 

[mheslep]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

 

[mheslep]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

That should be 'borrow and spend' for Republicans given the Bush tax cuts; and 'tax, borrow, and spend a hell of lot more' for Democrats.

 

[turbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

 

[mheslep]

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:


Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

Interesting. If the process is similarly easy in other states and the fee is minimal, then the legal objections to AZ's proof of citizenship requirement are specious.

 

[mheslep]

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

You make statements and everyone else is granted the pleasure of looking up the reference?

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, $950 billion greater than the shortfall recorded in 2008.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf
The 2010 deficit is also much larger than '08 at $1.17T

 

[turbo]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

 

[Gokul43201]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

That's the GDP, not the deficit.

 

[WhoWee]

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

Nothing will ever be Obama's fault - I say let's re-distribute the blame evenly amongst Congress - starting with Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd.