Within limits, surely. If some state decided to appoint a hereditary governor-for-life, I think the rest of the U.S. would have grounds to object.
ooohhh. So, if you just announce some shit you just made up, and I just announce some shit I made up, we’re even. But when I point out that the shit I’m announcing is actually the current state of the law in this country, my argument becomes eviscerated.
Right, gotcha. :rolleyes:
My own opinion is: the laws are just fine as is, in states that include a voter ID requirement.
And Stevens was the author of Crawford.
I think the point is that using “this is what the law says now” as support for your position in a debate over what the law should be, is meaningless.
Now saying, “this is what the law is now, and I would oppose any changes,” is meaningful in that it’s a position. You still need to support it with argument, of course, just like the rest of us need to.
Actually, the U.S. Constitution explicitly requires every state to have a “republican form of government.”
What does or does not qualify as such has never been tested in the courts.
Nor is this the first time in this thread that all this has been pointed out to you, Bricker. Your lawyer-mind is really not working this week.
I am imagining a nation where you could not otherwise function in society without that ID card. You wouldn’t be able to open a banking account, you wouldn’t be able to obtain government benefits, you wouldn’t be able to drive, you wouldn’t be able to get a job, you wouldn’t be able to buy a gun, you wouldn’t be able to vote.
So while it might not be “free” it would be universal so it would not impose an extra burden on voting.
As things stand, people who live in large cities are less likely to have ID in the form of a driver’s license. This is particularly true if you are old or poor. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of poor black folks who live in large cities, I wonder if anyone else has noticed that?
I think you’re missing the point. There is both discriminatory intent and discriminatory impact with these voter ID laws. Not necessarily racist but still discriminatory. There has been a lot of talk about gun rights and 4th amendment rights and which right is more important. Well, NONE of them are as important as the right to vote.
I believe in rule of law as much as the next guy and i believe that you can reasonably infringe on almost any right… almost. The right to vote is the one right that I consider sacred. None of this works if you compromise that right.
Supreme Court Justices are human beings like everyone else. Their decisions may be official but that doesn’t mean they’re perfect. They make mistakes just as Congressmen do and Presidents do. The fact that their arguments can be eviscerated demonstrates this.
I’m perfectly willing to argue for my opinions and explain why I think I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m even willing to argue why I think I’m right and a supreme court justice is wrong. So if you think declaring what a justice said will end the debate, you’re mistaken.
No. The proponent of a change has the burden of proof.
There is no such principle in debate.
The proponent of change doesn’t havea burden of proof, they must simply state their case, without a constitutional right to vote, racists, conservatives and partisans will conspire to suppress, dilute and undermine voting rights. They will use the excuse of trying to prevent hundreds of fraudulent votes to suppress millions of legitimate ones.
Then you must either undermine the assumptions or facts that support this position (perhaps you can argue that the numbers are actually reversed or that this sort of thing isn’t going on, or it is acceptable to suppress these votes along income and racial lines, etc) but you can’t stand there and say, you have to prove it harder, I’m not satisfied by your case because the supreme court is on my side. The supreme court is irrelevant in a discussion about whether we should have a constitutional amendment.
But, in that instance, “The law is the law and I like it how it is” is never a counterargument.
True.
Do you think the Constitution should be amended to remove the section about voting for state offices? It already says you get to vote for your governor and state legislators, and that if you don’t, the state doesn’t get to claim you when it comes time to be represented in Congress.
The right to vote in state elections is already in the Constitution. What’s lacking is a part allowing proportional enforcement. Right now the dial has two settings, zero and 1,000. A right to vote amendment that applied to the states would merely open up numbers 1-999. It wouldn’t be a new right, or something new that states are required to do. The Constitution already says (through the 14th, 19th, and 26th amendments) that if a state is holding an election for certain offices, it has to let every 18+ person vote unless they’ve been convicted of a crime.
So you’re saying nobody can propose any changes until after those changes have been made.
No. I’m saying that if you want a change, you have to make the case; people seeking to retain the status quo don’t have to defend the status quo first.
Bricker, that’s what the rest of us are doing here. And you’re the one who keeps saying we shouldn’t.
Maybe this will help. Imagine it’s 1900; after the Pollock decision and before the Sixteenth Amendment. And we’re debating whether there should be a constitutional amendment to authorize a national income tax.
We don’t need you to tell us what the current law is. We are all aware that the Supreme Court ruled income taxes are illegal. That’s the reason why we’re discussing the possibility of an amendment.
Saying that people can’t discuss a possible amendment because the court previously ruled on the subject is foolish.
How about a nice game of Calvinball? 
We’re already playing. The score is Q to 8.
In my favor.
Yeah, we noticed.