You’re feeding your chickens eggs, counselor. You purport to believe that a legislature can create legitimacy by the simple expedient of refusing to render something illegal. A rational argument, perhaps, but not a reasonable argument, it tortures logic into a confession.
If the method by which the legislators and executives of government is corrupted, then no legislation committed by that government is legitimate, it is an usurpation, and has no standing that any American is obliged to respect.
The government on any level cannot legitimately use government authority to favor one political party over another. Simply being elected will not change shit into gold.
This scheme doesn’t favor one party over the other.
Speed limits are race-neutral. But if a group of concerned citizens decided to document all the traffic in a predominently minority neighborhood and demanded that the government penalize the instances of speeding it found, the end result would be that more minorities were taregted for speeding.
But that wouldn’t make the laws against speeding unjust.
Its not a question of legality. Its a question of legitimacy. If a legitimate law is perverted in pursuit of illegitimate ends, it is a crime and a travesty. If that crime is not indictable, it does nothing to decrease its stench.
The legitimacy of the underlying voter laws are not the issue, as much as you might wish it so. The issue is the unequal and partisan application of those laws to ends which degrade and corrupt us all.
I remain puzzled by your embrace of such cynical legalisms.
In this single post (click the arrow for context), something has become clear to me: Bricker either:
-Does not understand how a democracy works or
-is the most morally repugnant person I have met online in a long time.
I’m going to assume ignorance, rather than malice, because I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. A democracy is ruled by the people. In our case, this happens by the people of a given region voting on who they would like to have represent their interests. The more the representative represents the will of the people, the better the system has worked, as the will of the people is that which rules. One start on this is to ensure that the majority actually gets their way. To ensure this 100%, you need a high voter turnout, to the extent where you can say that the remainder of the electorate simply does not care about the outcome (for whatever reason) without being facetious (of course, high voter apathy is another problem). For this reason, groups like ACORN and other voter registration groups do a very large service to democracy: they ensure that voices that otherwise would not be heard get heard by helping people to vote, bringing the true vote count closer to the actual breakdown of demographics. For similar reasons, organizations/actions that hamper a person’s ability to make their voice heard are actively tampering with and hampering the main goal of a democracy.
This is why making it harder for someone to vote legally and making it easier for someone to vote legally is not equivalent. Any questions?
Whatever your opinion, expressing that particular sentiment has no business in Great Debates.
Take it to the BBQ Pit if you must post it.
(And, as I have often noted, the use of a conditional does not mitigate an insult.)