Jump to content

Another ACLU outrage


Guest 2smart4u

Recommended Posts

Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

Even if you were right, it doesn't matter. The right to vote is among the most basic rights we have. Government should seek to encourage voter participation, not limit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those of us old enough to remember Mayor Daly in Chicago, Cook County

  was reputed to be the most corrupt county in the U.S.  Why ?  Voter fraud.

  Poor people were paid 10 cents to vote using phony names, even names of

  dead people.  A photo I.D.  is vital to the integrity of our election process.

81695[/snapback]

What makes you think that another Mayor Daly wouldn't find another way to circumvent the system?

Are you equally as concerned about the ability to hack into modern voting machines and completely distort elections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

Are you really as istupid as you write. I hope that the Attorneys for the State of Indiana presented as ignorant an arguement as you did. We've seen what the educated republicans gave us in 2000 and 2004 and what a bang up job they've done.

At-least by your writings here, you've made it clear that it has nothing to do with terrorism or multiple voting. You only want people who vote your way. If that isn't

voter suppresion than I don't know what to tell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

Yeah, those stupid Darkies. Next thing you know one of 'em will git uppity and run for President.

Oh, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

So A**Hole........................ are you saying the poor and minotities shouldn't be allowed to vote?

It sounds like the kind of BS to be expected from some nitwit like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what rights do the people have under the Constitution that are not specified in the Constitution?

(A) None.

(B) Specify what rights we have under the Constitution that the Constitution does not enumerate.

Those are the only choices. Either we have no unspecified rights, or we have unspecified rights, but then what are they?

Which choice do you make? If you make choice (B), what Constitutionally unspecified rights do we have?

81681[/snapback]

The 14th Amendment guarantees the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" and "due process" and "equal protection". What that means in application is not enumerated nor specified. It's up to the Congress and the Supreme Court to do that. The 14th Amendment specifically empowers the Congress. 200+ years of judicial precedent empowers the Supreme Court.

Your simplistic reduction of A or B ignores the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution. Unless you want to go back to pre-14th Amendment America, then the right answer is ( C), how do we apply the 14th amendment's protections of privileges and immunities, equal protection and due process (applicable to ALL PERSONS by its express terms). The drafters of the 14th amendment left that task to Congress, the Court and the people. To shirk that responsibility is to render the 14th amendment and its protections meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith-Marhsall,Mo
Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

Congratulations! You've just described yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 14th Amendment guarantees the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" and "due process" and "equal protection".  What that means in application is not enumerated nor specified.  It's up to the Congress and the Supreme Court to do that. The 14th Amendment specifically empowers the Congress.  200+ years of judicial precedent empowers the Supreme Court.

Your simplistic reduction of A or B ignores the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution.  Unless you want to go back to pre-14th Amendment America, then the right answer is ( C), how do we apply the 14th amendment's protections of privileges and immunities, equal protection and due process (applicable to ALL PERSONS by its express terms).  The drafters of the 14th amendment left that task to Congress, the Court and the people.  To shirk that responsibility is to render the 14th amendment and its protections meaningless.

81748[/snapback]

Due process and equal protection are well understood. Like most concepts in law, there are always questions of interpretation, but there's no doubt that the Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection. Those are enumerated rights. And it's not up to Congress, which cannot override the Constitution. Congress may pass laws consistent with those rights, but Congress does not define what the Constitution means.

What the question really addresses is whether there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to something like privacy. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in holding that it does. [Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).] You won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution, but you will find the phrase "the blessings of liberty" in the Preamble. To me, the right not to be watched every minute is an essential blessing of liberty.

When the radical right accuses liberal judges of making up the law, they're really saying they don't like the result. Same thing with the decisions that finally declared segregation, denial of voting rights, and several other manifestations of Jim Crow unconstitutional. So-called conservatives were telling us not to move too fast giving rights to black people. What that really meant was "never." "Giving rights?!" Egads, can you believe they said that stuff? But they did. And now they're complaining because the Supreme Court finally did what was long overdue.

They would like to roll back the clock, and they're one vote or less from doing it. If it happens, it will set back the cause of justice in this country for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us old enough to remember Mayor Daly in Chicago, Cook County

  was reputed to be the most corrupt county in the U.S.  Why ?  Voter fraud.

  Poor people were paid 10 cents to vote using phony names, even names of

  dead people.  A photo I.D.  is vital to the integrity of our election process.

81695[/snapback]

And the thing stopping false photo I.D.'s is...oh, that's right, nothing. B)

How about we handle the real problem, instead of applying a band-aid that would not only fail, but screw over tons of legitimate voters?

Not to mention that there is no voter fraud precedent in Indiana that even begins to justify the system.

Can't let the cripples or the poor vote, can we? What do they know, right? Idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due process and equal protection are well understood. Like most concepts in law, there are always questions of interpretation, but there's no doubt that the Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection. Those are enumerated rights. And it's not up to Congress, which cannot override the Constitution. Congress may pass laws consistent with those rights, but Congress does not define what the Constitution means.

What the question really addresses is whether there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to something like privacy. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in holding that it does. [Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).] You won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution, but you will find the phrase "the blessings of liberty" in the Preamble. To me, the right not to be watched every minute is an essential blessing of liberty.

When the radical right accuses liberal judges of making up the law, they're really saying they don't like the result. Same thing with the decisions that finally declared segregation, denial of voting rights, and several other manifestations of Jim Crow unconstitutional. So-called conservatives were telling us not to move too fast giving rights to black people. What that really meant was "never." "Giving rights?!" Egads, can you believe they said that stuff? But they did. And now they're complaining because the Supreme Court finally did what was long overdue.

They would like to roll back the clock, and they're one vote or less from doing it. If it happens, it will set back the cause of justice in this country for a very long time.

81767[/snapback]

Who says "Egads" anymore? Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the reich wing nuts fail to mention the ACLU filed arguments on behalf of the Repub degenerates Larry Craig and Limbaugh

81811[/snapback]

Being unprincipled themselves, they cannot imagine that anyone is principled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your "No Spin" reality.

  The only reason the Loony Left  is so "concerned" about poor and minority

voting is the poor and minorities tend to vote democratic ( no coincidence

that the poor and minorities are less educated and therefore naive).

  So under the guise of caring about equal protection, the loony ACLU is suing

to keep the less educated people coming to the polls. After all, you don't want

to loose the vote of those who don't know any better. And who cares what their

name is or where they live, if they can reach the handle, fine.

81687[/snapback]

Not pnly is your assumption bigoted, it is also wrong. The most educated and affluent seem to tend towards Democrat, as well as the very poor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the reich wing nuts fail to mention the ACLU filed arguments on behalf of the Repub degenerates Larry Craig and Limbaugh

81811[/snapback]

That's a good one !! The ACLU representing Limbaugh !! You Loonys are good

for a laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Loki!  I'm still waiting for the new laws the Supreme Court has come up with.

81778[/snapback]

I'm sorry, was Roe v. Wade in the Constitution, or was it created by the Supreme Court. Remember, I'm not arguing the validity of abortion, only that it doesn't EXIST in the Constitution. Later!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
Due process and equal protection are well understood. Like most concepts in law, there are always questions of interpretation, but there's no doubt that the Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection. Those are enumerated rights. And it's not up to Congress, which cannot override the Constitution. Congress may pass laws consistent with those rights, but Congress does not define what the Constitution means.

What the question really addresses is whether there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to something like privacy. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in holding that it does. [Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).] You won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution, but you will find the phrase "the blessings of liberty" in the Preamble. To me, the right not to be watched every minute is an essential blessing of liberty.

When the radical right accuses liberal judges of making up the law, they're really saying they don't like the result. Same thing with the decisions that finally declared segregation, denial of voting rights, and several other manifestations of Jim Crow unconstitutional. So-called conservatives were telling us not to move too fast giving rights to black people. What that really meant was "never." "Giving rights?!" Egads, can you believe they said that stuff? But they did. And now they're complaining because the Supreme Court finally did what was long overdue.

They would like to roll back the clock, and they're one vote or less from doing it. If it happens, it will set back the cause of justice in this country for a very long time.

81767[/snapback]

I read the actual oral arguement, it's Williiam Crawford v The MarionBoard of Elections. But the Indiana Statute that triggered the case in the first place is so fright with inconsistancies in my opinion that, in fact, you don't need a voter ID card at all.

An acceptable form of identification would be a drivers license, student ID, passport or military ID.

Also, you don't need to producw identification if you are over 65 or disabled by illness or injury. Also, an individual living in a residential care facility can vote.

You may request to vote by absentee with minimal ID or cast a provisional ballot provided you appear before the circuit court within 10 days and sign an affadavit that you are who you say you are.

The problem is that since there hasn't been an election yet, no one is able to say with any certainty that individual voters will be affected and thats one of the reasons the Court ruled in the States favor. But what is interesting is that the law only applies to Federal Elections, not Local or State even though the change came about because of a tainted local primary and there appeared to be to many people on the registration rolls.

Whats going to be interesting is when they go to count the military absentee ballots. How are they going to verify that the person is really the person. Do you see a challenge coming? And since Indiana is a republian state it seems odd that this voter ID would only apply to a Federal election.

I sent this to you because you can make more sense of it than I can and you posess what 2dim and their ilk lack which is common sense. So if you get the chance, read it over and give me an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud amewrican
Once again, the American Communist Liberation Union has demonstrated

  their hatred for America. Indiana has passed a state law that mandates  that

  everyone have a state-issued photo I.D. to prove their identity and legal

  status to vote in Indiana elections. Good idea, right ? No one wants illegal

  aliens or terrorists voting, right ?  Wrong !!  The ACLU is suing Indiana to try to

  overturn the law. Their reasoning ??  It discriminates against poor people.

    Even though the I.D. cards are free, it will be a hardship for poor people to

  go to their local office to get it. Poor people go to the polls to vote without it

  being a hardship, but it's a hardship to pick up an I.D. card.  This is the kind of

  Loony Left thinking the ACLU is famous for. Paul/Rex/Guest is a card-carrying

  Loon, he'd agree with them.

80839[/snapback]

Are these the same commies who just filed a legal brief on behalf of Senator Larry Craig or are they only commies when they do things you disagree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due process and equal protection are well understood. Like most concepts in law, there are always questions of interpretation, but there's no doubt that the Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection. Those are enumerated rights. And it's not up to Congress, which cannot override the Constitution. Congress may pass laws consistent with those rights, but Congress does not define what the Constitution means.

What the question really addresses is whether there is a Constitutionally guaranteed right to something like privacy. I believe the Supreme Court was correct in holding that it does. [Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).] You won't find the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution, but you will find the phrase "the blessings of liberty" in the Preamble. To me, the right not to be watched every minute is an essential blessing of liberty.

When the radical right accuses liberal judges of making up the law, they're really saying they don't like the result. Same thing with the decisions that finally declared segregation, denial of voting rights, and several other manifestations of Jim Crow unconstitutional. So-called conservatives were telling us not to move too fast giving rights to black people. What that really meant was "never." "Giving rights?!" Egads, can you believe they said that stuff? But they did. And now they're complaining because the Supreme Court finally did what was long overdue.

They would like to roll back the clock, and they're one vote or less from doing it. If it happens, it will set back the cause of justice in this country for a very long time.

81767[/snapback]

Paul,

You're confusing other substantive rights in the Bill of Rights with those in the (Civil War) 14th Amendment, which expressly empowers Congress to pass laws enforcing the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What's covered by the privileges and immunities clause? or due process? or equal protection? They're deliberately not spelled out. Congress has as important a role as the Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 or the American Disabilities Act of 1990 were enacted pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has held that "Privacy" is a substantive due process right protected by the 14th amendment. Congress could try to challenge the Court's authority under Section 5, but has never mustered the votes.

I do agree that most criticism of 14th Amendment-based rights is motivated by a results-oriented bias and not the text of the Constitution. How activist of those right wing critics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, was Roe v. Wade in the Constitution, or was it created by the Supreme Court. Remember, I'm not arguing the validity of abortion, only that it doesn't EXIST in the Constitution. Later!!

The law forbidding abortion was overturned by the Supreme Court. It did not make a new law. The Supreme Court based their decision on the right to privacy. If you do not believe there is a right to privacy you would have to believe that the government has the right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom, to tell you that you can or cannot use birth control, and that your medical records and your dicussions with lawyers and clergy are not private. None of the rights I just mentioned are included in the Constitution explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law forbidding abortion was overturned by the Supreme Court. It did not make a new law. The Supreme Court based their decision on the right to privacy. If you do not believe there is a right to privacy you would have to believe that the government has the right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom, to tell you that you can or cannot use birth control, and that your medical records and your dicussions with lawyers and clergy are not private. None of the rights I just mentioned are included in the Constitution explicitly.

This is my point though. The Supreme Court "interprets" parts of the Constitiution, and the prevailing "wisdom" displayed by the Court will usually reflect the ideology of those that appointed them. The right to privacy is paramount, as is the right to bear arms; however, the individual issue of abortion is probably best decided by the people, and not 9 justices who never have to face the electorate. Perhaps, as you say they "did not make a new law", but they did establish a federal mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The law forbidding abortion was overturned by the Supreme Court. It did not make a new law. The Supreme Court based their decision on the right to privacy. If you do not believe there is a right to privacy you would have to believe that the government has the right to tell you what to do in your own bedroom, to tell you that you can or cannot use birth control, and that your medical records and your dicussions with lawyers and clergy are not private. None of the rights I just mentioned are included in the Constitution explicitly.

With the exception of Loony Lefties. The government needs to keep them on a short leash. The

Kool-Aid makes them highly subversive, just read some of Paul's posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...