|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 22, 2014 16:04:07 GMT
The Jim Crow voting laws never mentioned "race" as a criteria but instead imposed criteria that adversely affected African-Americans (and other minorities) exactly like the current Jim Crow voter ID laws being passed by Republicans.
There are numerous forms of election fraud but voter impersonation at the polls is statistically non-existant in the United States. Voter ID laws only address voter impersonation at the polls which is statistically a non-existant criminal act so voter ID laws do not prevent election fraud in the United States.
There were 49,000 African-American Citizens that are registered voters and that voted in the 2012 election that cannot vote in 2014. These 49,000 US Citizens, all African-Americans, have had their Right to Vote stripped from them by a nefarious law that does not address any issue of election fraud.
Voter impersonation is very easy to identify. When a person walks into their polling place they give their name. The poll worker looks them up on the registered voter list and the person signs below their name. If two people use the identical name then the first one has already signed and the second cannot sign. One of only a few possible things could have happened: 1) The first person to sign accidently signed on the wrong like but then their signature wouldn't match the name (an unlikely event because poll workers ensure people sign on the correct line); 2) There are two people with the same exact name and address (perhaps a possibility); 3) a case of voter impersonation has either already happened or the second person is attempting to commit voter impersonation. In any case it would indicate a possible case of voter impersonation and it would be up to law enforcement to investigate but the evidence of possible voter impersonation would be clearly evident whenever two people attempt to vote using the same name.
The fact is that this isn't happening at all statistically. Of the possible cases the odds against it happening on in the tens of millions to one. There have been numerous elections challanged in the United States over the last few decades but never once has voter impersonation been cited as a possible cause of a discrepancy of the election results because it doesn't happen and doesn't affect any elections.
The voter ID laws reek of Jim Crow and are identical in all respects to the Jim Crow voting laws of the past. The sole purpose is to prevent minorities, predominately African-Americans, from voting because they do not address any identified issue of election fraud occuring in the United States.
Whereas it is certainly true that the poll taxes and so-called "grandfather clauses" of the Reconstruction Era--almost a century-and-a-half ago--"never mentioned 'race'" specifically, the Jim Crow laws of a slightly later era (say, the first half of the twentieth century, roughly) did precisely that. Restrooms and drinking foundtains were typically festooned with signs that declared, "White Only"; or "Colored Only." It was "separate but equal" (to extrapolate from Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). And let us be clear: Your fundamental objection to voter-ID laws is not rooted in the matter of their usefulness; rather, it is all about the fact that many "minorities, predominantly African-Americans"--I am quoting you here--might decline to acquire the requisite identification, thereby enhancing Republicans' electoral chances. And that appears to be an outcome that you simply cannot stomach. And your claim that "49,000 African-American Citizens...had their Right to Vote stripped from them" by voter-ID laws is not quite accurate. More precisely, they had that privilege suspended until they choose to obtain proper identification. And that is certainly not tantamount to being "stripped" of anything.
Plessy v. Ferguson was fundamentally overturned by Brown v Board of Education but we're not addressing all Jim Crow laws but only Jim Crow voting laws that never mentioned race, ever, as it would have directly violated 15th Amendment.
This is very much like the "fetal homicide" laws today that don't establish the "preborn" as persons (which would violate Roe v Wade) while only the "person" has a Right to Life protected by the US Constitution. Constitutionally murder cannot really occur related to a non-person (i.e. the preborn). The actual criminal act in the death of a fetus is the violation of the Rights of the Woman because she's a person.
My primary objection to the Republican Voter ID laws is that they are not addressing a problem of criminal election fraud because voter impersonation is statistically all but non-existant in the United States. The sole purpose of these laws is to prevent voting by those that don't have government issued ID, noting the fact that there are no laws in the United States that require a person to have government issued ID, which disproportionally results in African-Americans that are US Citizens being denied their right to vote. They could vote in 2012 but can't vote today in Wisconsin and that is a fact. Not one case of election fraud is being prevented in Wisconsin but an estimated 49,000 African-American voters have been effectively stripped of their Right to Vote in 2014.
I object because these voting laws being passed by Republicans are Jim Crow voting laws identical in all respects to the Jim Crow voting laws prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The purpose is not to prevent election fraud because they're not addressing cases of election fraud. The Republican voting laws of today are about disenfranchising black voters that vote for Democrats and are identical in nature to the Dixi-crat Jim Crow voting laws that were about preventing blacks from voting for Republicans prior to 1965. Racism remains alive and well in America although it changed party hats from Democrat to Republican in about 1980. If you want an example of this "changing of political hats" then just look up the history of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and his change from being a Southern Democrat to a Southern Republican in around 1980.
Once again you can't claim that the voter ID laws are addressing any election fraud because voter impersonation at the polls is so insignificant that not a single election in our lifetime has ever been contested based upon a claim of voter impersonation at the polls. Not a single friggin' case.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 22, 2014 19:57:51 GMT
." Whereas it is certainly true that the poll taxes and so-called "grandfather clauses" of the Reconstruction Era--almost a century-and-a-half ago--"never mentioned 'race'" specifically, the Jim Crow laws of a slightly later era (say, the first half of the twentieth century, roughly) did precisely that. Restrooms and drinking foundtains were typically festooned with signs that declared, "White Only"; or "Colored Only." It was "separate but equal" (to extrapolate from Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). And let us be clear: Your fundamental objection to voter-ID laws is not rooted in the matter of their usefulness; rather, it is all about the fact that many "minorities, predominantly African-Americans"--I am quoting you here--might decline to acquire the requisite identification, thereby enhancing Republicans' electoral chances. And that appears to be an outcome that you simply cannot stomach. And your claim that "49,000 African-American Citizens...had their Right to Vote stripped from them" by voter-ID laws is not quite accurate. More precisely, they had that privilege suspended until they choose to obtain proper identification. And that is certainly not tantamount to being "stripped" of anything.
Plessy v. Ferguson was fundamentally overturned by Brown v Board of Education but we're not addressing all Jim Crow laws but only Jim Crow voting laws that never mentioned race, ever, as it would have directly violated 15th Amendment.
This is very much like the "fetal homicide" laws today that don't establish the "preborn" as persons (which would violate Roe v Wade) while only the "person" has a Right to Life protected by the US Constitution. Constitutionally murder cannot really occur related to a non-person (i.e. the preborn). The actual criminal act in the death of a fetus is the violation of the Rights of the Woman because she's a person.
My primary objection to the Republican Voter ID laws is that they are not addressing a problem of criminal election fraud because voter impersonation is statistically all but non-existant in the United States. The sole purpose of these laws is to prevent voting by those that don't have government issued ID, noting the fact that there are no laws in the United States that require a person to have government issued ID, which disproportionally results in African-Americans that are US Citizens being denied their right to vote. They could vote in 2012 but can't vote today in Wisconsin and that is a fact. Not one case of election fraud is being prevented in Wisconsin but an estimated 49,000 African-American voters have been effectively stripped of their Right to Vote in 2014.
I object because these voting laws being passed by Republicans are Jim Crow voting laws identical in all respects to the Jim Crow voting laws prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The purpose is not to prevent election fraud because they're not addressing cases of election fraud. The Republican voting laws of today are about disenfranchising black voters that vote for Democrats and are identical in nature to the Dixi-crat Jim Crow voting laws that were about preventing blacks from voting for Republicans prior to 1965. Racism remains alive and well in America although it changed party hats from Democrat to Republican in about 1980. If you want an example of this "changing of political hats" then just look up the history of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and his change from being a Southern Democrat to a Southern Republican in around 1980.
Once again you can't claim that the voter ID laws are addressing any election fraud because voter impersonation at the polls is so insignificant that not a single election in our lifetime has ever been contested based upon a claim of voter impersonation at the polls. Not a single friggin' case.
Yes, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [Kansas] did effectively overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. And for that, I am grateful.
I thoroughly disagree, however, with your view that the preborn amount to "non-person." At least, not if they are sufficiently advanced to be recognizably human. (Again, we are not speaking of mere zygotes here.)
Yes David Duke--for whom I have about the same regard as you (presumably) do--indeed changed from being "a Southern Democrat to a Southern Republican." So what? Do you extrapolate from this that all (or even most) Republicans residing in the South are KKK sympathizers?
Let me reiterate: Those 49,000 African-American Wisconsinites (for whon you appear to have enormous sympathy) were stripped of nothing. Their voting privileges were merely suspended until they obtain the obligatory identification. If they care so little about voting that they are unwilling to endure "the hassle" of doing so, then they really must not wish to vote very much. It appears that Democrats are much more upset about this--as it could bode poorly for Democratic electoral prospects--than those directly affected are.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 23, 2014 11:48:08 GMT
It is entirely irrelevant whether "a single election" has ever been disputed because of voter impersonation. If Joe Blow defeats Jane Doe by a margin of 100,000 votes, and only six votes--no, make that only one vote--was fraudulent, then I will be upset, if I voted in that election, as that one fraudulent vote effectively nullified my own vote. Yes, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [Kansas] did effectively overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. And for that, I am grateful. I thoroughly disagree, however, with your view that the preborn amount to "non-person." At least, not if they are sufficiently advanced to be recognizably human. (Again, we are not speaking of mere zygotes here.) Yes David Duke--for whom I have about the same regard as you (presumably) do--indeed changed from being "a Southern Democrat to a Southern Republican." So what? Do you extrapolate from this that all (or even most) Republicans residing in the South are KKK sympathizers? Let me reiterate: Those 49,000 African-American Wisconsinites (for whon you appear to have enormous sympathy) were stripped of nothing. Their voting privileges were merely suspended until they obtain the obligatory identification. If they care so little about voting that they are unwilling to endure "the hassle" of doing so, then they really must not wish to vote very much. It appears that Democrats are much more upset about this--as it could bode poorly for Democratic electoral prospects--than those directly affected are.
There may indeed be six fraudulant votes in the election of Joe Blow over Jane Doe but you can safely "bet the farm" that the fraudulent votes were because of voter impersonation. There are different types of election fraud and, simply stated, voter impersonation isn't one of concern for Americans. Far more common is duplicate voting (i.e. one voter casting multiple votes) and Republican voting laws haven't addressed that problem at all.
The reference to "person" is in the Constitutional (legal) context. The attorneys on both sides of the abortion issue agreed in Roe v Wade there was no historical legal foundation for personhood prior to birth. I merely mentioned that the "fetal homicide laws" from a Constitutional perspective relate to the violations of the Constitutional protected rights of the woman because as a "non-person" (Constitutionally) the fetus has no rights. The woman's rights are violated if an attack on her person results in the death of her unborn child.
I used David Duke to exemplify the change from Democratic Party to the Republican Party of the "social conservatives" that harbor racial prejudice in the South. After the Civil War they became Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil Rights Movement they became Republicans because Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. It was a logical change because as "social conservatives" they wanted to maintain the status quo that had been changed due to "progressive" thinking.
If a person voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014 because of a change in the law they had their voting rights stripped from them. How many of the 49,000 African Americans will be unable to make it to the DOL office in Wisconsin in time to vote in the 2014 elections? They don't own a car, they don't even have money for bus fare in most cases (or may not even have a bus to use), and walking maybe out of the question. We can probably assume most will be able to get the ID card but perhaps 10% won't be able to and that's 4,900 people denied their Right to Vote based upon a law that doesn't prevent a single case of voter impersonation because voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin!!!
You still fail to provide any argument that would support the Voter ID Law. Voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin so it is not preventing voter impersonation. There is no logical foundation for a voting law that doesn't address any known cases of election fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 24, 2014 0:39:51 GMT
It is entirely irrelevant whether "a single election" has ever been disputed because of voter impersonation. If Joe Blow defeats Jane Doe by a margin of 100,000 votes, and only six votes--no, make that only one vote--was fraudulent, then I will be upset, if I voted in that election, as that one fraudulent vote effectively nullified my own vote. Yes, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka [Kansas] did effectively overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. And for that, I am grateful. I thoroughly disagree, however, with your view that the preborn amount to "non-person." At least, not if they are sufficiently advanced to be recognizably human. (Again, we are not speaking of mere zygotes here.) Yes David Duke--for whom I have about the same regard as you (presumably) do--indeed changed from being "a Southern Democrat to a Southern Republican." So what? Do you extrapolate from this that all (or even most) Republicans residing in the South are KKK sympathizers? Let me reiterate: Those 49,000 African-American Wisconsinites (for whon you appear to have enormous sympathy) were stripped of nothing. Their voting privileges were merely suspended until they obtain the obligatory identification. If they care so little about voting that they are unwilling to endure "the hassle" of doing so, then they really must not wish to vote very much. It appears that Democrats are much more upset about this--as it could bode poorly for Democratic electoral prospects--than those directly affected are.
There may indeed be six fraudulant votes in the election of Joe Blow over Jane Doe but you can safely "bet the farm" that the fraudulent votes were because of voter impersonation. There are different types of election fraud and, simply stated, voter impersonation isn't one of concern for Americans. Far more common is duplicate voting (i.e. one voter casting multiple votes) and Republican voting laws haven't addressed that problem at all.
The reference to "person" is in the Constitutional (legal) context. The attorneys on both sides of the abortion issue agreed in Roe v Wade there was no historical legal foundation for personhood prior to birth. I merely mentioned that the "fetal homicide laws" from a Constitutional perspective relate to the violations of the Constitutional protected rights of the woman because as a "non-person" (Constitutionally) the fetus has no rights. The woman's rights are violated if an attack on her person results in the death of her unborn child.
I used David Duke to exemplify the change from Democratic Party to the Republican Party of the "social conservatives" that harbor racial prejudice in the South. After the Civil War they became Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil Rights Movement they became Republicans because Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. It was a logical change because as "social conservatives" they wanted to maintain the status quo that had been changed due to "progressive" thinking.
If a person voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014 because of a change in the law they had their voting rights stripped from them. How many of the 49,000 African Americans will be unable to make it to the DOL office in Wisconsin in time to vote in the 2014 elections? They don't own a car, they don't even have money for bus fare in most cases (or may not even have a bus to use), and walking maybe out of the question. We can probably assume most will be able to get the ID card but perhaps 10% won't be able to and that's 4,900 people denied their Right to Vote based upon a law that doesn't prevent a single case of voter impersonation because voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin!!!
You still fail to provide any argument that would support the Voter ID Law. Voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin so it is not preventing voter impersonation. There is no logical foundation for a voting law that doesn't address any known cases of election fraud.
If you will check my prior post, the antecedent of "fraudulent [voting]" is "voter impersonation." So I am saying, effectively, that if Joe Blow defeats Jane Doe by 100,000 votes, and only one vote was cast as the result of voter impersonation, I will be quite upset, if I voted in that election, as my own vote will have been nullified. There may be no legal precedent ("foundation" is probably the wrong word for it) to establish that an unborn child is a real person. But I really am not all that enthusiastic about stare decisis, anyway. Are you suggesting that social conservatives in the South "harbor racial prejudice"? I certainly am a social conservative; and I reside in the South. You have now moved from 49,000 Wisconsinites to a mere 4,900-- a reduction of 90 percent!--who "voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014." And these 4,900 people--who, you claim, "don't own a car" and "don't even have maoney for bus fare in most cases"--are probably not likely Republican voters. Is this merely coincidental to your concern for the fact that they are no longer able to vote, until (and unless) they acquire proper ID? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 24, 2014 14:05:52 GMT
There may indeed be six fraudulant votes in the election of Joe Blow over Jane Doe but you can safely "bet the farm" that the fraudulent votes were because of voter impersonation. There are different types of election fraud and, simply stated, voter impersonation isn't one of concern for Americans. Far more common is duplicate voting (i.e. one voter casting multiple votes) and Republican voting laws haven't addressed that problem at all.
The reference to "person" is in the Constitutional (legal) context. The attorneys on both sides of the abortion issue agreed in Roe v Wade there was no historical legal foundation for personhood prior to birth. I merely mentioned that the "fetal homicide laws" from a Constitutional perspective relate to the violations of the Constitutional protected rights of the woman because as a "non-person" (Constitutionally) the fetus has no rights. The woman's rights are violated if an attack on her person results in the death of her unborn child.
I used David Duke to exemplify the change from Democratic Party to the Republican Party of the "social conservatives" that harbor racial prejudice in the South. After the Civil War they became Democrats because Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil Rights Movement they became Republicans because Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats. It was a logical change because as "social conservatives" they wanted to maintain the status quo that had been changed due to "progressive" thinking.
If a person voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014 because of a change in the law they had their voting rights stripped from them. How many of the 49,000 African Americans will be unable to make it to the DOL office in Wisconsin in time to vote in the 2014 elections? They don't own a car, they don't even have money for bus fare in most cases (or may not even have a bus to use), and walking maybe out of the question. We can probably assume most will be able to get the ID card but perhaps 10% won't be able to and that's 4,900 people denied their Right to Vote based upon a law that doesn't prevent a single case of voter impersonation because voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin!!!
You still fail to provide any argument that would support the Voter ID Law. Voter impersonation doesn't happen in Wisconsin so it is not preventing voter impersonation. There is no logical foundation for a voting law that doesn't address any known cases of election fraud.
If you will check my prior post, the antecedent of "fraudulent [voting]" is "voter impersonation." So I am saying, effectively, that if Joe Blow defeats Jane Doe by 100,000 votes, and only one vote was cast as the result of voter impersonation, I will be quite upset, if I voted in that election, as my own vote will have been nullified. There may be no legal precedent ("foundation" is probably the wrong word for it) to establish that an unborn child is a real person. But I really am not all that enthusiastic about stare decisis, anyway. Are you suggesting that social conservatives in the South "harbor racial prejudice"? I certainly am a social conservative; and I reside in the South. You have now moved from 49,000 Wisconsinites to a mere 4,900-- a reduction of 90 percent!--who "voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014." And these 4,900 people--who, you claim, "don't own a car" and "don't even have maoney for bus fare in most cases"--are probably not likely Republican voters. Is this merely coincidental to your concern for the fact that they are no longer able to vote, until (and unless) they acquire proper ID? The problem with your hypothetical fraudlent vote is three-fold. First of all if the election for Joe Blow or Jane Doe occurred in Wisconsin then there wasn't a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation. Next is that if you even attempt to claim it was a hypothetical a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation there is a 50-50 chance it would have been for your candidate. Finally we do know that duplicate voting occurs in Wisconsin but apparently someone voting multiple times in an election, that isn't prevented by the voter ID law, is not a concern of your even though it is far more prevalent in the United States. One of the primary roles of the Supreme Court is to inteprete the US Constitution so that it can render decisions based upon it. In doing so it often has to resort to stare decisis in establishing what the states were ratifying either in the original Constitution or Amendments to it. Words can certainly change meaning over time and the Court must resort back to the meanings of words at the time they are included in the US Constitution and Amendments to it. This is referred to as "original intent" in addressing issues of Constitutionality. Two exemplary cases exist where you seem to take exception to the "original intent" doctrine of Constitutional definitions being applied. Roe v Wade addressed the original intent of the word "person" as used in the US Constitution where it used stare decisis that established that personhood always began at birth. US v Kim Wong Ark addressed the original intent of "natural born citizen" (also natural born subject under a monarchy) where it used stare decisis that established that natural born citizenship was established by jus soli alone (i.e. not jus sanguinis that is established by statutory law). Not everyone in the South is a racist but the South historically has the highest percentage of racists from all the sources I've read. In the past, prior to the Civil Rights movement, they were associated with the Dixi-crats and today they're associated with the Republican Party. As you've previously stated, as I recall, you don't associate yourself with the "social conservatives" that want to return to the "past" where racism and racial oppression was far more open and prevalent. This is a general statistical analysis of racism and racial prejudice and is not an indictment of any specific person. Yes, I made a hypothetical assumptiong that perhaps 90% of the estimated 49,000 African-Americans that had their Right to Vote revoked by the Wisconsin voter ID law would be able to reinstated their Right to Vote by obtaining a voter identification card (also acknowledging that there is no other requirement anywhere in the United States to possess a government issued ID card to exercise any Constitutionally protected Right of the Person) leaving only perhaps 4,900 African-American US Citizens being denied their Right to Vote in 2014. It is interesting to note that you would be upset if you learned that someone cast a fraudlent vote (even if they voted for the same candidate as you) but are apparently unphased by the fact that thousands of African-American citizens are denied their Constitutionally Protected Right to Vote based upon a hypothetican criminal act that statistically doesn't exist in reality. Do you consider your one vote to be more important than the votes of thousands (or millions nationwide) of African-American citizens? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 24, 2014 20:49:49 GMT
If you will check my prior post, the antecedent of "fraudulent [voting]" is "voter impersonation." So I am saying, effectively, that if Joe Blow defeats Jane Doe by 100,000 votes, and only one vote was cast as the result of voter impersonation, I will be quite upset, if I voted in that election, as my own vote will have been nullified. There may be no legal precedent ("foundation" is probably the wrong word for it) to establish that an unborn child is a real person. But I really am not all that enthusiastic about stare decisis, anyway. Are you suggesting that social conservatives in the South "harbor racial prejudice"? I certainly am a social conservative; and I reside in the South. You have now moved from 49,000 Wisconsinites to a mere 4,900-- a reduction of 90 percent!--who "voted in 2012 but can't vote in 2014." And these 4,900 people--who, you claim, "don't own a car" and "don't even have maoney for bus fare in most cases"--are probably not likely Republican voters. Is this merely coincidental to your concern for the fact that they are no longer able to vote, until (and unless) they acquire proper ID? The problem with your hypothetical fraudlent vote is three-fold. First of all if the election for Joe Blow or Jane Doe occurred in Wisconsin then there wasn't a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation. Next is that if you even attempt to claim it was a hypothetical a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation there is a 50-50 chance it would have been for your candidate. Finally we do know that duplicate voting occurs in Wisconsin but apparently someone voting multiple times in an election, that isn't prevented by the voter ID law, is not a concern of your even though it is far more prevalent in the United States. One of the primary roles of the Supreme Court is to inteprete the US Constitution so that it can render decisions based upon it. In doing so it often has to resort to stare decisis in establishing what the states were ratifying either in the original Constitution or Amendments to it. Words can certainly change meaning over time and the Court must resort back to the meanings of words at the time they are included in the US Constitution and Amendments to it. This is referred to as "original intent" in addressing issues of Constitutionality. Two exemplary cases exist where you seem to take exception to the "original intent" doctrine of Constitutional definitions being applied. Roe v Wade addressed the original intent of the word "person" as used in the US Constitution where it used stare decisis that established that personhood always began at birth. US v Kim Wong Ark addressed the original intent of "natural born citizen" (also natural born subject under a monarchy) where it used stare decisis that established that natural born citizenship was established by jus soli alone (i.e. not jus sanguinis that is established by statutory law). Not everyone in the South is a racist but the South historically has the highest percentage of racists from all the sources I've read. In the past, prior to the Civil Rights movement, they were associated with the Dixi-crats and today they're associated with the Republican Party. As you've previously stated, as I recall, you don't associate yourself with the "social conservatives" that want to return to the "past" where racism and racial oppression was far more open and prevalent. This is a general statistical analysis of racism and racial prejudice and is not an indictment of any specific person. Yes, I made a hypothetical assumptiong that perhaps 90% of the estimated 49,000 African-Americans that had their Right to Vote revoked by the Wisconsin voter ID law would be able to reinstated their Right to Vote by obtaining a voter identification card (also acknowledging that there is no other requirement anywhere in the United States to possess a government issued ID card to exercise any Constitutionally protected Right of the Person) leaving only perhaps 4,900 African-American US Citizens being denied their Right to Vote in 2014. It is interesting to note that you would be upset if you learned that someone cast a fraudlent vote (even if they voted for the same candidate as you) but are apparently unphased by the fact that thousands of African-American citizens are denied their Constitutionally Protected Right to Vote based upon a hypothetican criminal act that statistically doesn't exist in reality. Do you consider your one vote to be more important than the votes of thousands (or millions nationwide) of African-American citizens? I consider any one real vote to be "more important" than "thousands (or millions nationwide)" of hypothetical votes. Yes, there is about an equal chance that the fraudulent vote could have been cast in favor of the same candidate for whom I voted; in which case, it would not have carried with it the effect of nullifying my own vote. But I would still find it troubling; albeit perhaps just a bit less so. I am very much in favor of the Constitution's being interpreted according to the original intent of either the Framers or (wherever applicable) the authors of the pertinent amendments. But that is far different from a fealty to stare decisis, which relies merely upon a fealty to court precedent.
You are certainly correct that I have no desire to "return to the 'past' where racism ard racial oppression was far more open and prevelant." But to assert that "the South historically has the highest percentage of racists" is entirely misleading. In an earlier era, perhaps. But no more. That is doubtless why the SCOTUS, a little over a year ago, struck down that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had required many Southern states to obtain federal permission before altering their voting laws. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 25, 2014 11:46:15 GMT
The problem with your hypothetical fraudlent vote is three-fold. First of all if the election for Joe Blow or Jane Doe occurred in Wisconsin then there wasn't a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation. Next is that if you even attempt to claim it was a hypothetical a fraudlent vote based upon voter impersonation there is a 50-50 chance it would have been for your candidate. Finally we do know that duplicate voting occurs in Wisconsin but apparently someone voting multiple times in an election, that isn't prevented by the voter ID law, is not a concern of your even though it is far more prevalent in the United States. One of the primary roles of the Supreme Court is to inteprete the US Constitution so that it can render decisions based upon it. In doing so it often has to resort to stare decisis in establishing what the states were ratifying either in the original Constitution or Amendments to it. Words can certainly change meaning over time and the Court must resort back to the meanings of words at the time they are included in the US Constitution and Amendments to it. This is referred to as "original intent" in addressing issues of Constitutionality. Two exemplary cases exist where you seem to take exception to the "original intent" doctrine of Constitutional definitions being applied. Roe v Wade addressed the original intent of the word "person" as used in the US Constitution where it used stare decisis that established that personhood always began at birth. US v Kim Wong Ark addressed the original intent of "natural born citizen" (also natural born subject under a monarchy) where it used stare decisis that established that natural born citizenship was established by jus soli alone (i.e. not jus sanguinis that is established by statutory law). Not everyone in the South is a racist but the South historically has the highest percentage of racists from all the sources I've read. In the past, prior to the Civil Rights movement, they were associated with the Dixi-crats and today they're associated with the Republican Party. As you've previously stated, as I recall, you don't associate yourself with the "social conservatives" that want to return to the "past" where racism and racial oppression was far more open and prevalent. This is a general statistical analysis of racism and racial prejudice and is not an indictment of any specific person. Yes, I made a hypothetical assumptiong that perhaps 90% of the estimated 49,000 African-Americans that had their Right to Vote revoked by the Wisconsin voter ID law would be able to reinstated their Right to Vote by obtaining a voter identification card (also acknowledging that there is no other requirement anywhere in the United States to possess a government issued ID card to exercise any Constitutionally protected Right of the Person) leaving only perhaps 4,900 African-American US Citizens being denied their Right to Vote in 2014. It is interesting to note that you would be upset if you learned that someone cast a fraudlent vote (even if they voted for the same candidate as you) but are apparently unphased by the fact that thousands of African-American citizens are denied their Constitutionally Protected Right to Vote based upon a hypothetican criminal act that statistically doesn't exist in reality. Do you consider your one vote to be more important than the votes of thousands (or millions nationwide) of African-American citizens? I consider any one real vote to be "more important" than "thousands (or millions nationwide)" of hypothetical votes. Yes, there is about an equal chance that the fraudulent vote could have been cast in favor of the same candidate for whom I voted; in which case, it would not have carried with it the effect of nullifying my own vote. But I would still find it troubling; albeit perhaps just a bit less so. I am very much in favor of the Constitution's being interpreted according to the original intent of either the Framers or (wherever applicable) the authors of the pertinent amendments. But that is far different from a fealty to stare decisis, which relies merely upon a fealty to court precedent.
You are certainly correct that I have no desire to "return to the 'past' where racism ard racial oppression was far more open and prevelant." But to assert that "the South historically has the highest percentage of racists" is entirely misleading. In an earlier era, perhaps. But no more. That is doubtless why the SCOTUS, a little over a year ago, struck down that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had required many Southern states to obtain federal permission before altering their voting laws.
The rougly 40,000 African-American citiznes that actually voted in Wisconsin in 2012 that lost their right to vote in 2014 are not hypothetical people. The only hypothetical is how many of them will be able to obtain a voter ID card to re-instate their right to vote but we know that it won't be 100%. The other hypothetical is that someone might impersonate another voter in Wisconsin because there's no evidence of that ever happening in recent history. Real US citizens are losing their right to vote over a hypothetical criminal act being committed.
While stare decisis was used in both Roe v Wade and US v Kim Wong Ark in neither case was it based solely upon court precedent. In both cases it was based upon historical precedent going back throughout recorded history that the founders and authors of the Constitution and Amendments were very much aware of. In Roe v Wade the defence acknowledged that "personhood" always began at birth based upon the entire written history of mankind. In the US v Kim Wong Ark it was very evident that the authors of the US Constitution and the authors of the 14th Amendment both understood that "natural born" citizenship was the same in the United States as it had been in England and other European monarchies that recognized "natural born" subjects historically. Both cases referred to historical, not court, precedent.
While you have expressed no intent to "return to the past" you've also acknowledged that there are social-conservatives that do want to return to the past.
We also know that since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act there have been GOP controlled states passing voting laws that statistically disproportionately deny African-Americans and Hispanics their ability to exercise their Right to Vote. These are the "Jim Crow" laws that the Voting Rights Act attempted to prevent from being imposed. We know from several GOP staffers that created the laws in Florida that the sole purpose of these laws was to disenfranchise minority voters. The most nefarious of these Jim Crow voting laws are the "voter ID laws" because they address a criminal act that statistically doesn't exist in the United States.
If the states really wanted to address an issue of Constitutional intent related to voting they'd be addressing the gerrymandering of Congressional districts that is extremely widespread in the US. We know that is a very serious problem in states like Texas where the Republicans elected to the House are greatly disproportionate to the overall vote for Republicans v Democrats in the state.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 25, 2014 23:32:22 GMT
I consider any one real vote to be "more important" than "thousands (or millions nationwide)" of hypothetical votes. Yes, there is about an equal chance that the fraudulent vote could have been cast in favor of the same candidate for whom I voted; in which case, it would not have carried with it the effect of nullifying my own vote. But I would still find it troubling; albeit perhaps just a bit less so. I am very much in favor of the Constitution's being interpreted according to the original intent of either the Framers or (wherever applicable) the authors of the pertinent amendments. But that is far different from a fealty to stare decisis, which relies merely upon a fealty to court precedent.
You are certainly correct that I have no desire to "return to the 'past' where racism ard racial oppression was far more open and prevelant." But to assert that "the South historically has the highest percentage of racists" is entirely misleading. In an earlier era, perhaps. But no more. That is doubtless why the SCOTUS, a little over a year ago, struck down that portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which had required many Southern states to obtain federal permission before altering their voting laws.
The rougly 40,000 African-American citiznes that actually voted in Wisconsin in 2012 that lost their right to vote in 2014 are not hypothetical people. The only hypothetical is how many of them will be able to obtain a voter ID card to re-instate their right to vote but we know that it won't be 100%. The other hypothetical is that someone might impersonate another voter in Wisconsin because there's no evidence of that ever happening in recent history. Real US citizens are losing their right to vote over a hypothetical criminal act being committed.
While stare decisis was used in both Roe v Wade and US v Kim Wong Ark in neither case was it based solely upon court precedent. In both cases it was based upon historical precedent going back throughout recorded history that the founders and authors of the Constitution and Amendments were very much aware of. In Roe v Wade the defence acknowledged that "personhood" always began at birth based upon the entire written history of mankind. In the US v Kim Wong Ark it was very evident that the authors of the US Constitution and the authors of the 14th Amendment both understood that "natural born" citizenship was the same in the United States as it had been in England and other European monarchies that recognized "natural born" subjects historically. Both cases referred to historical, not court, precedent.
While you have expressed no intent to "return to the past" you've also acknowledged that there are social-conservatives that do want to return to the past.
We also know that since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act there have been GOP controlled states passing voting laws that statistically disproportionately deny African-Americans and Hispanics their ability to exercise their Right to Vote. These are the "Jim Crow" laws that the Voting Rights Act attempted to prevent from being imposed. We know from several GOP staffers that created the laws in Florida that the sole purpose of these laws was to disenfranchise minority voters. The most nefarious of these Jim Crow voting laws are the "voter ID laws" because they address a criminal act that statistically doesn't exist in the United States.
If the states really wanted to address an issue of Constitutional intent related to voting they'd be addressing the gerrymandering of Congressional districts that is extremely widespread in the US. We know that is a very serious problem in states like Texas where the Republicans elected to the House are greatly disproportionate to the overall vote for Republicans v Democrats in the state.
Certainly, gerrymandering does exist. Whenever Republicans are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Republican candidates. And whenever Democrats are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Democratic candndates. Let us not pretend that either major party is pure in this regard. Your insistence that voter-ID laws amount to "Jim Crow" laws is downright ludicrous. In most ways, I have no desire to "return to the past." A good example of this is the treatment of African-Americans (and non-WASPs in general) in the mid-twentieth century. On the other hand, I agree with much of the social conservatism of an earlier era, including an opposition to the doctrine of abortion on demand (in contradistinction to abortion in the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, or the life of the mother), and an opposition to the freshly minted institution (in some states) of "gay marriage." Actually, I spoke of hypothetical "votes"-- not hypothetical "people," as you have suggested. And those very real people may indeed vote again, simply by obtaining proper ID. To claim that they just cannot do so is to make them into victims of society. And I do not find that characterization of human beings to be at all appealing. If "historical precedent going back throughout recorded history" has it that actual "personhood" begins at birth, perhaps that should be changed. At one time, after all, "historical precedent"--or, at least, the common wisdom dating back thousands of years--had it that the Earth is flat. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 26, 2014 12:19:26 GMT
Certainly, gerrymandering does exist. Whenever Republicans are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Republican candidates. And whenever Democrats are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Democratic candndates. Let us not pretend that either major party is pure in this regard. Your insistence that voter-ID laws amount to "Jim Crow" laws is downright ludicrous. In most ways, I have no desire to "return to the past." A good example of this is the treatment of African-Americans (and non-WASPs in general) in the mid-twentieth century. On the other hand, I agree with much of the social conservatism of an earlier era, including an opposition to the doctrine of abortion on demand (in contradistinction to abortion in the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, or the life of the mother), and an opposition to the freshly minted institution (in some states) of "gay marriage." Actually, I spoke of hypothetical "votes"-- not hypothetical "people," as you have suggested. And those very real people may indeed vote again, simply by obtaining proper ID. To claim that they just cannot do so is to make them into victims of society. And I do not find that characterization of human beings to be at all appealing. If "historical precedent going back throughout recorded history" has it that actual "personhood" begins at birth, perhaps that should be changed. At one time, after all, "historical precedent"--or, at least, the common wisdom dating back thousands of years--had it that the Earth is flat.
Yes, we know that both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander political districts and we also know that Republicans are much better at it. There are ways to dramatically reduce gerrrymanders and first among those is to take the establishment of Congressional districts out of the hands of the politicians.
What you cannot deny is that an estimated 49,000 African-American voters had their Right to Vote stripped from them in Wisconsin based upon a rationalization against a crime that doesn't exist in Wisconsin. You can certainly claim that they have the ability to re-instate what the US Supreme Court has ruled to be a protected Right of All Citizens but you also know that thousands of them will not do this and will not be able to vote this November. Those are real people and those are real votes that won't be cast in November all to prevent a theoretical, not actual, criminal act that is already against the law in Wisconsin.
You can also ignore the fact that there isn't a single other case of where a person in the United States is required to have government issued ID to exercise a fundamental Right such as the Right of a Citizen to Vote. If we can impose a requirement for government issued ID to vote then why not impose a requirement for a government issued ID to be able to post on a public forum? Why not impose a requirement for a government issued ID to simply walk down the street or to cross the border of a state or even a town? What about requiring a government issued ID to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home? Why not require a government issued ID just to attend a church service? If we're going to impose a requirement for a government issued ID to exercise a fundamental Right of the Person then why not impose a requirement to have a government issued ID to exercise any fundamental Right?
Voter impersonation is already a felony under the laws of all the states and there is no necessity to revoke the Right to Vote of any US citizen by requiring a government issued ID card.
The fact that the Republicans knew in advance that the voter ID laws that are completely unnecessary were going to disproportionately disenfranchise African-American voters makes them Jim Crow voting laws.
Interesting that you're assuming my very progressive position that the historical precedent for personhood being established at birth should be revisited and possible changed. This can be done and can only be done by a Constitutional Amendment that over-rides any historical precedent in the United States. This does face some challenges from an inalienable Rights standpoint of course because of the paradox of the pre-born and the woman as inalienable Rights cannot exist if they conflict with another person's inalienable Rights. How is the paradox of the Woman's Right of Self (i.e. Right of Independent Sovereignty) and the Pre-born's Right to Life going to be resolved? The Pre-born's Right to Life cannot infringe upon the Right of Self of the Woman.
Why would you oppose marriage equality in the United States is a question I don't think you can answer. There is literally no difference between prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage than there was for prohibiting inter-racial or inter-religious or other marriages between consenting adults when it comes to the law. From a legal perspective it's exclusively about partnerships established between consenting adults that merge their financial assets.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 26, 2014 21:59:36 GMT
Certainly, gerrymandering does exist. Whenever Republicans are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Republican candidates. And whenever Democrats are in control of the statehouses, they gerrymander in a way that helps Democratic candndates. Let us not pretend that either major party is pure in this regard. Your insistence that voter-ID laws amount to "Jim Crow" laws is downright ludicrous. In most ways, I have no desire to "return to the past." A good example of this is the treatment of African-Americans (and non-WASPs in general) in the mid-twentieth century. On the other hand, I agree with much of the social conservatism of an earlier era, including an opposition to the doctrine of abortion on demand (in contradistinction to abortion in the so-called "hard cases" of rape, incest, or the life of the mother), and an opposition to the freshly minted institution (in some states) of "gay marriage." Actually, I spoke of hypothetical "votes"-- not hypothetical "people," as you have suggested. And those very real people may indeed vote again, simply by obtaining proper ID. To claim that they just cannot do so is to make them into victims of society. And I do not find that characterization of human beings to be at all appealing. If "historical precedent going back throughout recorded history" has it that actual "personhood" begins at birth, perhaps that should be changed. At one time, after all, "historical precedent"--or, at least, the common wisdom dating back thousands of years--had it that the Earth is flat.
Yes, we know that both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander political districts and we also know that Republicans are much better at it. There are ways to dramatically reduce gerrrymanders and first among those is to take the establishment of Congressional districts out of the hands of the politicians.
What you cannot deny is that an estimated 49,000 African-American voters had their Right to Vote stripped from them in Wisconsin based upon a rationalization against a crime that doesn't exist in Wisconsin. You can certainly claim that they have the ability to re-instate what the US Supreme Court has ruled to be a protected Right of All Citizens but you also know that thousands of them will not do this and will not be able to vote this November. Those are real people and those are real votes that won't be cast in November all to prevent a theoretical, not actual, criminal act that is already against the law in Wisconsin.
You can also ignore the fact that there isn't a single other case of where a person in the United States is required to have government issued ID to exercise a fundamental Right such as the Right of a Citizen to Vote. If we can impose a requirement for government issued ID to vote then why not impose a requirement for a government issued ID to be able to post on a public forum? Why not impose a requirement for a government issued ID to simply walk down the street or to cross the border of a state or even a town? What about requiring a government issued ID to possess a firearm for self-defense in the home? Why not require a government issued ID just to attend a church service? If we're going to impose a requirement for a government issued ID to exercise a fundamental Right of the Person then why not impose a requirement to have a government issued ID to exercise any fundamental Right?
Voter impersonation is already a felony under the laws of all the states and there is no necessity to revoke the Right to Vote of any US citizen by requiring a government issued ID card.
The fact that the Republicans knew in advance that the voter ID laws that are completely unnecessary were going to disproportionately disenfranchise African-American voters makes them Jim Crow voting laws.
Interesting that you're assuming my very progressive position that the historical precedent for personhood being established at birth should be revisited and possible changed. This can be done and can only be done by a Constitutional Amendment that over-rides any historical precedent in the United States. This does face some challenges from an inalienable Rights standpoint of course because of the paradox of the pre-born and the woman as inalienable Rights cannot exist if they conflict with another person's inalienable Rights. How is the paradox of the Woman's Right of Self (i.e. Right of Independent Sovereignty) and the Pre-born's Right to Life going to be resolved? The Pre-born's Right to Life cannot infringe upon the Right of Self of the Woman.
Why would you oppose marriage equality in the United States is a question I don't think you can answer. There is literally no difference between prohibiting same-sex couples from marriage than there was for prohibiting inter-racial or inter-religious or other marriages between consenting adults when it comes to the law. From a legal perspective it's exclusively about partnerships established between consenting adults that merge their financial assets.
First, I doubt that Republicans are any "better" at gerrymandering--let alone "much" better at it--than Democrats are. Republicans are now just in a position to gerrymander congressional districts in more states than Democrats are. The mere fact that "thousands" of Wisconsinites will not trouble themselves to obtain the necessary documentation (and will therefore be unable to vote) really does not upset me. If they especially wanted to vote, they would obtain that identification. Those who truly are troubled by this development, it would appear, are those who care only about the fact that this is likely to harm Democrats' electoral chances; and this prospect offends their political philosophy. Oh, and I have no regard whatsoever for the concept of "fundamental rights." I have no "fundamental rights." You have no "fundamental rights". No American has any "fundamental rights." Rather, we have constitutional rights. Period. Actually, voter-ID laws have their greatest impact upon low-information voters; a "disproportionate" percentage of whom reside in black ghettos. By claiming that voter-ID laws, because of this impact, amount to "Jim Crow" laws, you are confusing mere correlation with causation. And the mere fact that voter fraud in Wisconsin (or anywhere else, for that matter) "is already a felony" has not prevented it from happening. There is an old saying: It is pointless to will an end, unless one is willing also to will the means to that end. And a voter-ID law would, indeed, be that means to the end of stopping voter fraud. The tendentious term, "marriage equality," attempts to frame the debate in a manner that should ensure its outcome. After all, what fair-minded person could oppose "equality"? But what proponents of "gay marriage" are actually attempting to do is to overturn millennia of human understanding as concerning the fundamental structure of the family unit: one man and one woman. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 27, 2014 11:59:22 GMT
First, I doubt that Republicans are any "better" at gerrymandering--let alone "much" better at it--than Democrats are. Republicans are now just in a position to gerrymander congressional districts in more states than Democrats are. The mere fact that "thousands" of Wisconsinites will not trouble themselves to obtain the necessary documentation (and will therefore be unable to vote) really does not upset me. If they especially wanted to vote, they would obtain that identification. Those who truly are troubled by this development, it would appear, are those who care only about the fact that this is likely to harm Democrats' electoral chances; and this prospect offends their political philosophy. Oh, and I have no regard whatsoever for the concept of "fundamental rights." I have no "fundamental rights." You have no "fundamental rights". No American has any "fundamental rights." Rather, we have constitutional rights. Period. Actually, voter-ID laws have their greatest impact upon low-information voters; a "disproportionate" percentage of whom reside in black ghettos. By claiming that voter-ID laws, because of this impact, amount to "Jim Crow" laws, you are confusing mere correlation with causation. And the mere fact that voter fraud in Wisconsin (or anywhere else, for that matter) "is already a felony" has not prevented it from happening. There is an old saying: It is pointless to will an end, unless one is willing also to will the means to that end. And a voter-ID law would, indeed, be that means to the end of stopping voter fraud. The tendentious term, "marriage equality," attempts to frame the debate in a manner that should ensure its outcome. After all, what fair-minded person could oppose "equality"? But what proponents of "gay marriage" are actually attempting to do is to overturn millennia of human understanding as concerning the fundamental structure of the family unit: one man and one woman.
The fact that voter impersonation is already a felony seems to provide an ample deterent to the crime as it doesn't exist in Wisconsin.
The Constitution establishes that we have fundamental rights (9th Amendment) so if you believe in the US Constitution then you believe in fundamental rights.
I'm aghast at your statement were you equate African-Americans that have had their Voting Rights stripped in Wisconsin as being "low information" (i.e. stupid) people. Seems like a rather racist opinion.
How does allowing joint bankruptcy protection for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
How does allowing joint tax-filing for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
How does allowing inheritance for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit? How does allowing SSI benefits for a same-sex couple that pay taxes on their merged income change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
At the federal level of government alone there were over 1,100 laws that affected the financial assets of a "married" couple based upon their merged income, assets, and liabilities that were denied to same-sex couples. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "fundamental family unit" but instead has everything to do with the financial partnership established by the legal partnership of marriage. There is and will never be any change to the fundamental family unit based upon same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is statistically insignificant when it comes to the social institution of marriage but is highly significant when it comes to equality for ALL people under the law.
I would suggest that many "low information voters" confuse the social institution of marriage with the legal institution of marriage and the two are not the same and do not serve the identical purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 27, 2014 21:00:55 GMT
First, I doubt that Republicans are any "better" at gerrymandering--let alone "much" better at it--than Democrats are. Republicans are now just in a position to gerrymander congressional districts in more states than Democrats are. The mere fact that "thousands" of Wisconsinites will not trouble themselves to obtain the necessary documentation (and will therefore be unable to vote) really does not upset me. If they especially wanted to vote, they would obtain that identification. Those who truly are troubled by this development, it would appear, are those who care only about the fact that this is likely to harm Democrats' electoral chances; and this prospect offends their political philosophy. Oh, and I have no regard whatsoever for the concept of "fundamental rights." I have no "fundamental rights." You have no "fundamental rights". No American has any "fundamental rights." Rather, we have constitutional rights. Period. Actually, voter-ID laws have their greatest impact upon low-information voters; a "disproportionate" percentage of whom reside in black ghettos. By claiming that voter-ID laws, because of this impact, amount to "Jim Crow" laws, you are confusing mere correlation with causation. And the mere fact that voter fraud in Wisconsin (or anywhere else, for that matter) "is already a felony" has not prevented it from happening. There is an old saying: It is pointless to will an end, unless one is willing also to will the means to that end. And a voter-ID law would, indeed, be that means to the end of stopping voter fraud. The tendentious term, "marriage equality," attempts to frame the debate in a manner that should ensure its outcome. After all, what fair-minded person could oppose "equality"? But what proponents of "gay marriage" are actually attempting to do is to overturn millennia of human understanding as concerning the fundamental structure of the family unit: one man and one woman.
The fact that voter impersonation is already a felony seems to provide an ample deterent to the crime as it doesn't exist in Wisconsin.
The Constitution establishes that we have fundamental rights (9th Amendment) so if you believe in the US Constitution then you believe in fundamental rights.
I'm aghast at your statement were you equate African-Americans that have had their Voting Rights stripped in Wisconsin as being "low information" (i.e. stupid) people. Seems like a rather racist opinion.
How does allowing joint bankruptcy protection for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
How does allowing joint tax-filing for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
How does allowing inheritance for a same-sex couple that merge their assets change the understanding of the fundamental family unit? How does allowing SSI benefits for a same-sex couple that pay taxes on their merged income change the understanding of the fundamental family unit?
At the federal level of government alone there were over 1,100 laws that affected the financial assets of a "married" couple based upon their merged income, assets, and liabilities that were denied to same-sex couples. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "fundamental family unit" but instead has everything to do with the financial partnership established by the legal partnership of marriage. There is and will never be any change to the fundamental family unit based upon same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is statistically insignificant when it comes to the social institution of marriage but is highly significant when it comes to equality for ALL people under the law.
I would suggest that many "low information voters" confuse the social institution of marriage with the legal institution of marriage and the two are not the same and do not serve the identical purposes.
For openers, I should probably note that the Ninth Amendment states the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I fail to find the term, "fundamental rights," anywhere in that text. No, "low-information" does not equate to "stupid," as you have suggested. There is a vast difference between mere ignorance and stupidity. And I rather doubt that most residents of the ghetto are immersed in CNN, Fox News, or even MSNBC, day in and day out. I have no problem with civil unions for same-sex partners. If the federal government wishes to treat these unions as identical to traditional marriages, for tax purposes, I am fine with that. But I am not fine with our re-defining the meaning of the term, "marriage," to refer to any two people--even people of the same gender--who merely wish to "merge their assets." Marriage-- real marriage--is about much more than a mere financial arrangement. And I will reiterate what I have stated previously--but which you have (rather conveniently) sidestepped: Those who seem most enraged about the prospect of some people's not being able to vote in the near future are not those directly affected, but those who simply cannot stand the thought of Democrats' chances being harmed. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 28, 2014 14:50:50 GMT
For openers, I should probably note that the Ninth Amendment states the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I fail to find the term, "fundamental rights," anywhere in that text. No, "low-information" does not equate to "stupid," as you have suggested. There is a vast difference between mere ignorance and stupidity. And I rather doubt that most residents of the ghetto are immersed in CNN, Fox News, or even MSNBC, day in and day out. I have no problem with civil unions for same-sex partners. If the federal government wishes to treat these unions as identical to traditional marriages, for tax purposes, I am fine with that. But I am not fine with our re-defining the meaning of the term, "marriage," to refer to any two people--even people of the same gender--who merely wish to "merge their assets." Marriage-- real marriage--is about much more than a mere financial arrangement. And I will reiterate what I have stated previously--but which you have (rather conveniently) sidestepped: Those who seem most enraged about the prospect of some people's not being able to vote in the near future are not those directly affected, but those who simply cannot stand the thought of Democrats' chances being harmed.
All "Inalienable" Rights, whether enumerated or not, are fundamental rights. An Inalienable (natural) Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not violate the Rights of another Person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person. Nothing is more funamental than that. It is the fundamental foundation of government in the United States as the purpose of our government is to protect the fundamental Inalienable Rights as a Person regardless of whether they're enumerated or not.
Your disparaging statements of "low information voter" remind me of the arguments for literacy tests that were imposed in the Southern States to disenfranchise African-American voters between the 1890's and the 1960's that were finally abolished by the Voting Rights Act. These were clearly Jim Crow voting laws that were also held to be technically "Constitutional" by the Supreme Court just like the Wisconsin voter ID law is likely to be declared Constitutional (although the Appeals Court refused the hear the case related to Wisconsin voter ID law this week). So the question for me is whether you support Jim Crow laws just because they might be crafted so that they are Constitutional? You've debated with me over the voter ID laws and I don't give a damn about who the African-Americans decide to vote for. They should vote for who they believe best represents their political interests. The claim that those that will be denied their Right to Vote because they don't have (and don't need for any other purpose) any form of government issued ID don't care about losing their Right to Vote is the most absurd belief I've ever read. They cared enough to vote in 2012 and to believe they don't want to vote in the future is beyond being believeable.
The truth is that the only informed people that support the voter ID laws are those that don't want African-Americans to vote because they vote for the opposing (Democratic) party and your very statements reflect that. Your only concern is that they will vote for the Democrats because you know for a fact that not a single case of "voter impersonation" will be prevented in Wisconsin because there are no recently reported cases of voter impersonation in Wisconsin. You're not preventing a crime because the crime does not exist.
The "legal institution of marriage" is a "civil union" under the law. You make the disingenuous statement that equal rights can be achieved for same-sex couples by changing the thousands of laws that use the word "marriage" thoughout the United States knowing damn well that this would never happen. You know that Republicans would oppose changing these thousands of laws and would fight tooth and nail in opposing granting equality to same-sex couples and would oppose changing any law that used "marriage" as a criteria for the protections or benefits provided for under the law. We know, for example, that Republicans opposed granting "spousal" Social Security benefits to same-sex couples and would never have voted to remove the criteria of "marriage" from that law.
Your dishonesty in addressing this issue is very apparent because your statement that equality could be granted by changing thousands of laws that hinge on the criteria of "marriage" would never happen and you know it.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Sept 28, 2014 23:33:45 GMT
For openers, I should probably note that the Ninth Amendment states the following: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I fail to find the term, "fundamental rights," anywhere in that text. No, "low-information" does not equate to "stupid," as you have suggested. There is a vast difference between mere ignorance and stupidity. And I rather doubt that most residents of the ghetto are immersed in CNN, Fox News, or even MSNBC, day in and day out. I have no problem with civil unions for same-sex partners. If the federal government wishes to treat these unions as identical to traditional marriages, for tax purposes, I am fine with that. But I am not fine with our re-defining the meaning of the term, "marriage," to refer to any two people--even people of the same gender--who merely wish to "merge their assets." Marriage-- real marriage--is about much more than a mere financial arrangement. And I will reiterate what I have stated previously--but which you have (rather conveniently) sidestepped: Those who seem most enraged about the prospect of some people's not being able to vote in the near future are not those directly affected, but those who simply cannot stand the thought of Democrats' chances being harmed.
All "Inalienable" Rights, whether enumerated or not, are fundamental rights. An Inalienable (natural) Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not violate the Rights of another Person, nor does it impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person. Nothing is more funamental than that. It is the fundamental foundation of government in the United States as the purpose of our government is to protect the fundamental Inalienable Rights as a Person regardless of whether they're enumerated or not.
Your disparaging statements of "low information voter" remind me of the arguments for literacy tests that were imposed in the Southern States to disenfranchise African-American voters between the 1890's and the 1960's that were finally abolished by the Voting Rights Act. These were clearly Jim Crow voting laws that were also held to be technically "Constitutional" by the Supreme Court just like the Wisconsin voter ID law is likely to be declared Constitutional (although the Appeals Court refused the hear the case related to Wisconsin voter ID law this week). So the question for me is whether you support Jim Crow laws just because they might be crafted so that they are Constitutional? You've debated with me over the voter ID laws and I don't give a damn about who the African-Americans decide to vote for. They should vote for who they believe best represents their political interests. The claim that those that will be denied their Right to Vote because they don't have (and don't need for any other purpose) any form of government issued ID don't care about losing their Right to Vote is the most absurd belief I've ever read. They cared enough to vote in 2012 and to believe they don't want to vote in the future is beyond being believeable.
The truth is that the only informed people that support the voter ID laws are those that don't want African-Americans to vote because they vote for the opposing (Democratic) party and your very statements reflect that. Your only concern is that they will vote for the Democrats because you know for a fact that not a single case of "voter impersonation" will be prevented in Wisconsin because there are no recently reported cases of voter impersonation in Wisconsin. You're not preventing a crime because the crime does not exist.
The "legal institution of marriage" is a "civil union" under the law. You make the disingenuous statement that equal rights can be achieved for same-sex couples by changing the thousands of laws that use the word "marriage" thoughout the United States knowing damn well that this would never happen. You know that Republicans would oppose changing these thousands of laws and would fight tooth and nail in opposing granting equality to same-sex couples and would oppose changing any law that used "marriage" as a criteria for the protections or benefits provided for under the law. We know, for example, that Republicans opposed granting "spousal" Social Security benefits to same-sex couples and would never have voted to remove the criteria of "marriage" from that law.
Your dishonesty in addressing this issue is very apparent because your statement that equality could be granted by changing thousands of laws that hinge on the criteria of "marriage" would never happen and you know it.
.
I regret that you consider me "dishonest." There is no good reason to suppose that Republicans would reflexively oppose the government's granting of the same benefits to same-sex couples, as long as these people were not officially categorized as being "married," thus altering the fundamental meaning of the term. If you believe that inalienable rights are the same as "fundamental" rights, why not just use the former term, in order to eliminate any potential problem with phraseology? The "literacy tests" that were once imposed, in many states, in the post-Civil War era, were clearly intended to prevent African-Americans from voting (as were the so-called "grandfather clauses" of the same era). And it strikes me as being fundamentally unfair, since African-Americans were not allowed to become literate--or even semi-literate--during the days of slavery. But those laws, a very long time ago, bear no resemblence whatsoever to the voter-ID laws of the twenty-first century. You are beginning to sound very much like Eric Holder. You have asserted that you "don't give a damn" how African-Americans might vote. That is very easy to say, when you know precisely how African-Americans tend to vote, as a bloc (to the tune of about 90-to-95 percent). |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 29, 2014 11:52:00 GMT
I regret that you consider me "dishonest." There is no good reason to suppose that Republicans would reflexively oppose the government's granting of the same benefits to same-sex couples, as long as these people were not officially categorized as being "married," thus altering the fundamental meaning of the term. If you believe that inalienable rights are the same as "fundamental" rights, why not just use the former term, in order to eliminate any potential problem with phraseology? The "literacy tests" that were once imposed, in many states, in the post-Civil War era, were clearly intended to prevent African-Americans from voting (as were the so-called "grandfather clauses" of the same era). And it strikes me as being fundamentally unfair, since African-Americans were not allowed to become literate--or even semi-literate--during the days of slavery. But those laws, a very long time ago, bear no resemblence whatsoever to the voter-ID laws of the twenty-first century. You are beginning to sound very much like Eric Holder. You have asserted that you "don't give a damn" how African-Americans might vote. That is very easy to say, when you know precisely how African-Americans tend to vote, as a bloc (to the tune of about 90-to-95 percent).
While there maybe "no good reason" for Republicans to oppose granting the same benefits and privileges to same-sex couples there is no question that they have. They've opposed adoption by same-sex couples in civil unions. They've opposed granting joint bankruptcy protections to same-sex couples in civil unions. They've opposed allowing joint tax filing status to same-sex couples in civil unions. The House Republicans even opposed granting equality to same-sex couples that were legally married under state laws in opposing the over-turning of DOMA Section 3 when everyone knew it was unconstitutional.
Of course it's not enough to simply "not oppose" denial of equality in America. A person and a party must proactively support and seek to impose equality under the law but the Republican Party doesn't do that. Not today anyway. In the 1960's it was instrumental in tearing down codified racism but that was the 1960's and not today. Today's Republicans no longer believe in equality for minorities and don't proactively seek to reduce racism and oppression of minorities.
There is no difference between the literacy tests imposed between the 1890's (over 20 years after the Civil War ended when the prohibitions against Blacks going to school ended) and the voter ID laws of today. Both prevented US citizens from voting and neither of them had any rational basis except to prevent African-Americans from voting. Not even you can claim that we have any problem with voter impersonation at the polls in the United States because it's a crime that is virtually non-existant in the United States. It is used as a rationalization for racial oppression used exclusively to prevent African-American citizens from voting because African-Americans are opposed to the racism of the Republican Party.
Your constant reminders that African-Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats reveals the true reason for your support of the voter ID laws. In Wisconsin that has no record of voter impersonation it will prevent up to about 49,000 African-Americans from voting in 2014 and you know that they would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats. It's not going to prevent even one case of voter impersonation based upon the voting records of Wisconsin but it will prevent African-Americans that previously voted in 2012 for Democrats from voting for Democrats in 2014 and that's the only reason there is for anyone to support the law.
I have a better suggestion for you and the Republican Party. Instead of denying African-Americans the Right to Vote why not change the Republican Party so that Blacks have a reason to support Republicans instead? Do you really believe that African-Americans don't recognize the voter ID laws as being Jim Crow voting laws? Do you seriously believe that African-Americans are going to support Jim Crow at the polls?
|
|
