Appeals court strikes down 'discriminatory' Texas voter ID law

[InTheLight]

"Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers,...

But a few months later the Obama DOJ quietly dropped the charges and it all disappeared like a bad dream. Judicial Watch investigated and after suing the DOJ, obtained explosive documents that show Obama political appointees were intimately involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers. The documents directly contradict sworn testimony by Obama’s Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez, that no political leadership was involved in the decision."
LINK

Thanks, Lewis.

 

[InTheLight]

In fact, the only establishment of a right to vote found in the Constitution is found for the first time in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that states shall lose congressional representation "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime."

So, according to you only men 21 or over have a right to vote and then they only have a right to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof?

Duh!

For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least four times in the past year.

15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

So there it is again, the phrase, "the right of the citizens....to vote." Any citizen of any race, any sex, anyone over 18 may vote. (Not felons, though.)

 

[Revmitchell]

For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least four times in the past year.

When you are being rude maybe you should avoid invoking heaven.

 

[Lewis]

Thanks, Lewis.

You are welcome.

 

[TCassidy]

Let me explain this real slow for you. If I didn't type it, you can save the ridiculous extrapolations.

If I said the GOP, then I didn't say Mandela.

Now I can draw pictures too if that helps your delayed comprehension.

ZOOOOOMMMMMM! Right over your head! LOL! ROFLOL!

 

[Zaac]

Nope. I placed my comment where even the goats could get it. If I need to dumb it down some more so that you don't fool yourself into thinking your lil "Mandela scenario" matters when it's not what I typed, lemme know.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

For heaven's sake, I've posted this at least four times in the past year.

15th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

So there it is again, the phrase, "the right of the citizens....to vote." Any citizen of any race, any sex, anyone over 18 may vote. (Not felons, though.)

Once again you have proven your total lack of reading comprehension.

Here, I will try to help you out just a bit. I wrote

[T]he only establishment of a right to vote found in the Constitution is found for the first time in the Fourteenth Amendment . . .

Got that? No enumerated right to vote. Such is not even mentioned until the 14th amendment.

Then, as I said (and you seem to have missed) voting cannot be denied due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Then the 19th adds "on account of sex."

Then the 24th "adds by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

And finally the 26th adds "who are eighteen years of age or older."

Yet none of these establish the initial right to vote which was supposedly being amended by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments.

The Constitution doe NOT contain a "right to vote."

Matt Yglesias wrote a good article on this.

When the constitution was enacted it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn’t think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But over the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished, and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise, by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.

But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or dye it blue, or say “pretty please let me vote,” all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.

The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution’s protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this “leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials.”

Now do you understand? Has it sunk in yet? The US Constitution does NOT include a "right to vote" but leaves all such details to the states. Period. End of discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

When you are being rude maybe you should avoid invoking heaven.

I don't mind him being rude. I mind him being stupid! Being rude is the only real argument he can muster.

 

[Zaac]

Once again you have proven your total lack of reading comprehension.

look who is talking about somebody's reading comprehension after you have spent your last few posts trying to make a point about something not mentioned. :laugh:

 

[TCassidy]

Steve Benen of MSNBC wrote an interesting article which included:

For some in Congress, this isn’t just an academic exercise. TPM had this report back in May.

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.

“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”

The Pocan/Ellison proposal would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.”

The proposed amendment did not exactly catch fire on Capitol Hill: after its introduction, the proposal picked up 25 Democratic co-sponsors; en route to being entirely ignored by the political establishment and the House Republican leadership. There’s still no companion bill in the Senate.

 

[carpro]

It will be overturned by SCOTUS.

 

[TCassidy]

look who is talking about somebody's reading comprehension after you have spent your last few posts trying to make a point about something not mentioned.

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand the parallel between claiming that voter ID laws are racist and Nelson Mandela's support of voter ID laws.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Sorry.

 

[TCassidy]

It will be overturned by SCOTUS.

It shouldn't be, but with the present makeup of SCOTUS it probably would be.

Maybe after some of the present Justices are replaced SCOTUS will start making decisions that are constitutional and in the best interest of "we the people." But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Zaac]

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand the parallel between claiming that voter ID laws are racist and Nelson Mandela's support of voter ID laws.

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. Sorry.

Stupid has nothing to do with it unless you're referring to your stupidity of trying to make a point about something that wasn't mentioned.

Po' thang.

Get some help.

 

[carpro]

It shouldn't be, but with the present makeup of SCOTUS it probably would be.

Maybe after some of the present Justices are replaced SCOTUS will start making decisions that are constitutional and in the best interest of "we the people." But I'm not holding my breath.

There is ample precedent. It's a lay down to be overturned.

 

[TCassidy]

Stupid has nothing to do with it unless you're referring to your stupidity of trying to make a point about something that wasn't mentioned.

Look. We all know you are a bit slow. But the IRL I posted contained a picture of Nelson Mandela wearing a T-shirt that says "Get an ID. Register. Vote."

Here it is again. All you have to do is put your cursor (that little arrow thing) on the URL and click it. http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2...-id-shirt-1998

So, yes, Nelson Mandela was mentioned. He was mentioned in the URL that proves your thesis that Voter ID = Racism is wrong.

Now, if you still don't understand there is not much more than I can do to help. You might want to steer clear of any political issues that require more than just a little thought. Maybe try basket weaving or something else fairly simple.

 

[Zaac]

Look. We all know you are a bit slow. But the IRL I posted contained a picture of Nelson Mandela wearing a T-shirt that says "Get an ID. Register. Vote."

Here it is again. All you have to do is put your cursor (that little arrow thing) on the URL and click it. http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2...-id-shirt-1998

So, yes, Nelson Mandela was mentioned. He was mentioned in the URL that proves your thesis that Voter ID = Racism is wrong.

Now, if you still don't understand there is not much more than I can do to help. You might want to steer clear of any political issues that require more than just a little thought. Maybe try basket weaving or something else fairly simple.

Ain't anybody coming across as slow but you in your continued efforts to try to pull Mandela into a conversation that he had nothing to do with.

There there now.

 

[TCassidy]

There is ample precedent. It's a lay down to be overturned.

There is some precedent. In June of 2013 part of the Voting Rights Act was overturned on the basis that it lacked constitutional support and that such voting laws were left, by the Constitution, in the hands of the states.

Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas’ voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act but also ruled voter ID law was not a poll tax.

So we are seeing a swing in both directions.

 

[TCassidy]

Ain't anybody coming across as slow but you in your continued efforts to try to pull Mandela into a conversation that he had nothing to do with.

Fine. You are too stupid to understand that Nelson Mandela is not a racist because he supports voting ID laws.

1 Corinthians 14:38 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

 

[Crabtownboy]

Look. We all know you are a bit slow. But the IRL I posted contained a picture of Nelson Mandela wearing a T-shirt that says "Get an ID. Register. Vote."

Here it is again. All you have to do is put your cursor (that little arrow thing) on the URL and click it. http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2...-id-shirt-1998

So, yes, Nelson Mandela was mentioned. He was mentioned in the URL that proves your thesis that Voter ID = Racism is wrong.

Now, if you still don't understand there is not much more than I can do to help. You might want to steer clear of any political issues that require more than just a little thought. Maybe try basket weaving or something else fairly simple.

Are you suggesting we use South Africa as a model?