Politics

[Da6onet]

Less capslock, more concise arguing please. I'll do it for you.

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

Fine, it's not an affirmed right, but denying someone the right to vote based on a tax is unconstitutional.

Forgive me for using "the right to vote," language stated many times in our constitution, as a construed affirmative right. No, if our state governments wanted to, they could prohibit us from doing so.

Just remember the 10th amendment language.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Further, remember what a government is supposed to be, a way for a group of people to self-govern. If we really wanted to, we could disband the entire government, federal and state, and start over. You may have heard of this concept before.

[Broin]

I love the 10th amendment language...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This ensures that the privledge of voting is done so at the decision of each individual State.... followed by the people of the state.  

Meaning that the State is the higher power in making the decision but that the people have the authority to remove those in power and replace them with others who will make decisions based in a manner the people want.

[Da6onet]

Meaning that the State is the higher power in making the decision but that the people have the authority to remove those in power and replace them with others who will make decisions based in a manner the people want.

Exactly :-)

I yield the remainder of my time to Teddy.

[Sared]

[Longboard]

The Politics Forum is the BEST forum in FA!

[NoCry]

I deleted your post van. It serves no purpose at all

[Broin]

Hate to stir it back up but I found this quite funny.  As I watched I had some many thoughts about the irony of it all...

What is one of the biggest complaints of the Dems/Libs, and the one big thing they claim the Reps always do?   Voter disenfranchisment!!!

I feel sorry for Mayor Villaraigosa he was like WTH do I do... LOL.  The woman walking up behind basically says push it through and let them do what they want... CLASSIC.







The second version shows some audience reaction...




I just wish the Dems/Libs would just admit the facts of the matter... Their party ideology is one that hates the founding basis of our country and despises those friends of freedom around the world

[Tbone]

I agree that they shouldn't have changed the platform if that's what a majority of the party agrees on. I believe it was actually Obama who insisted it be changed to reflect his only views/policies on the matter. I reject the conclusion that drafting a position that could include all faiths/religions and concentrating on compromise rather than absolutes equates to "hating the founding basis of our country and despising the friends of freedom".

[Sared]

GG Mitt.

[Da6onet]

If you are like the majority of Americans not in a swing state (meaning your vote doesn't matter anyway), I suggest voting for your ideological candidate.



Favorite moment:
NPR Interviewer: If you're on the torture rack, and they're going to kill you, who are you going to vote for, Mitt Romney or Barak Obama?

Johnson: Look I've climbed Mount Everest, I know what it is to hunker down and do what it takes. Take this to the bank, I would die.

[Tbone]

GG Mitt.

Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.

[Phienyx]

Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.

Politicians?!  I hate when the people that vote our politicians into office can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat the media's talking points.

[Tbone]

Whoa, he looks like he's being punched in the stomach. I hate it when politicians can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat their talking point.

Politicians?!  I hate when the people that vote our politicians into office can't engage in actual conversation and just repeat the media's talking points.

I Hope we can Change that, since We Build That. I think the best thing to remember is A Dollar Makes Me Hollar.

[Broin]

GG Mitt.

I'd just like to point out how the guy/vet asking the question is another example of someone who is ignorant of the facts of the constitution and what rights are or are not enumerated within.

Time Stamp 1:14 he brings up constitutional rights.  Someone want to find for me the right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.  Or what the heck how about we just make it easy on everyone.... JUST FIND ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED

Also I dont' know where the hell you are getting it looked like he got punched or he was spouting talking points.  I think he pretty much answered the fools question and even kept a cool head when the hack started getting shitty with him.


Lastly in regards to this....

....I reject the conclusion that drafting a position that could include all faiths/religions and concentrating on compromise rather than absolutes equates to "hating the founding basis of our country and despising the friends of freedom".

They were not, I repeat not drafting, nor had they drafted a position that included all faiths/religions.  That is a specious argument as it is furthest from what they were doing.

What the failing of so many people are nowadays it to not recognize that our country was founded on the most original proposition ever to be put forth.

That TRUE RIGHTS do not come from King, or Country, from Czar or Ruler but come from a higher power.  That true RIGHTS can not be taken away or even given by man made positions of power or goverments.  

That in holding the belief that RIGHTS are given to all men/women by a higher power (at that time of founding God) that they are inalienable.  Meaning just what I have said that they can not be taken or given by any man or position of power.  

So many have the false notion that RIGHTS are given by goverment and that is so furthest of thinkings you could have completeley 180 degrees from the truth.

And the problem with the Dems/Libs is that they have become so bound in the notion that Goverment is the answer that any mention of God as the provider of True Rights is basically hate speech for them.  Why, because if Rights come from God then you can't go to God and say.... "Hey we need to change these a bit"  Where if they come from goverment then they can, and that is what the Dems/Libs truley want... Control over the rights of everyone.

[Tbone]

JUST FIND ME THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO GET MARRIED

Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
-source

That TRUE RIGHTS do not come from King, or Country, from Czar or Ruler but come from a higher power.  That true RIGHTS can not be taken away or even given by man made positions of power or goverments.  

That in holding the belief that RIGHTS are given to all men/women by a higher power (at that time of founding God) that they are inalienable.  Meaning just what I have said that they can not be taken or given by any man or position of power.  

So many have the false notion that RIGHTS are given by goverment and that is so furthest of thinkings you could have completeley 180 degrees from the truth.

And the problem with the Dems/Libs is that they have become so bound in the notion that Goverment is the answer that any mention of God as the provider of True Rights is basically hate speech for them.  Why, because if Rights come from God then you can't go to God and say.... "Hey we need to change these a bit"  Where if they come from goverment then they can, and that is what the Dems/Libs truley want... Control over the rights of everyone.

If only that were the truth. The truth of the matter is that the inclusion of God and religion allows politicians to control a population (specifically those of faith) by combining religious doctrine with policy. These policies don't come from a higher power - it's just suggested that they do. By tying your political party to a religion, you can make yourself appear infallible. "God is punishing New Orleans for their sins". "Traditional marriage in the bible is between a man and a woman". These aren't truths. It's making your argument appear to be God's argument so that no mortal can argue with it. Religions has been used in this way for CENTURIES. And it's the main reason that the founding fathers did not want religion to be involved in politics:

John Adams: "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion--"

Thomas Jefferson: "That our civil RIGHTS have no dependence on our religious opinions"

The Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

To say that Liberals want to remove references to God so that they can control people's rights is a radical perspective. You could argue that they are trying to downplay Christianity in order to be respective of everyone's religion, which I'm sure could cause fear in the ultra-conservative, but to say it's a conspiracy to take our rights away is a pretty big leap.

As history has proven, the best way to control a population without being questioned is not to remove God from the equation, but to say that God is on your side. Then you can say whatever you want and who's going to question you and God. THAT'S the way to take those inalienable rights away. After all, God didn't seem to have a problem with slavery, right?