For “potentially adversely affect” read “almost certainly involve him in red-tape snafus that will go on for many months, and prevent him from receiving or cashing checks.”
But being unable to vote is really Randall/Randle’s own fault. If he got a nose job, wore a wig, and walked into the DMV draped in a Confederate flag and singing “♩ I sure hate dem ♬ ♩ bitches and Jews
I’m ♬ gonna vote for Teddie Cruu-uz ♬”
Bricker and his fellow Republiopaths would be wetting their pants in eagernesss to get him registered.
By the way, Googling to see what State Mr. Randall/Randle is trying to vote in I saw this headline
Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Could Block 300,000 Registered Voters From the Polls
Talk about biased coverage! Wouldn’t it fairer to write 300,000 Wisconsin Registered Voters are proud to be denied their vote:
“It’s the least we could do. Our sacrifice will prevent 3 or 4 fraudulent votes from being cast!”
Good for California. If the citizens of that state are happy with that devil-may-care method of changing names, they are welcome to enact it. I recommend Randall move to California and call himself Jonny Myrtin Randle3, with a silent ‘3.’
I didn’t miss it. Bricker missed it in a later post in the conversational chain and I commented on it. This isn’t some trivial nitpick; Bricker has repeatedly played the “if you criticize a law, it means you want to be dictator” card on people who see judicial review as a valid and necessary check on legislative power, and he claims he is serious and not exaggerating when he does this. I feel it is fair game, if getting a bit tiresome, to call him on it.
Not correct. I think you want t be a dictator if you eschew the legislative, judicial, and popular determinations of a social policy.
When all have spoken and you continue to demand a law’s removal, you’re working outside the framework of a democratic republic. I certainly don’t object to judicial review. It’s done, though, in Indiana. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld that measure as constitutional under the state constitution, and the Supreme Court upheld it under the federal constitution. So it’s not unconstitutional, in Indiana. It enjoys popular support, legislative enactment, and judicial review. All of which I favor.
Other states have stories that run the gamut from California’s show-up-and-say-you’re-Bond-James-Bond to Wisconsin’s law, which has survived state Supreme Court review as well.
What does having been born in 1942 have to do with anything? My father was born in 1942, and spent his early years in an orphanage. He still knows what his own name is.
What could you possibly mean when you say “he had no way of knowing, and no reason to know” his own name?
But society is not going to craft voting rules to be so lax as to cover the case of people not knowing their own name. The case of a person not knowing their name, not reading their birth certificate, and being unwilling to legally conform their name or legally change their name undoubtedly strikes you as perfectly reasoned, but this is the reason you are not trusted with making decisions of any topic of importance whatsoever.
They are not constitutionally invalid in each state in which the state supreme courts have upheld them; they are not invalid as a matter of federal constitutional law, because the US Supreme Court has upheld them.
What is his declaration, then, if not a willingness to substitute his decision for those courts?
…and what is his opinion on what should happen, consistent with his opinion on his understanding of the Constitution as he understands it?
Because I agree that not one person in this thread has explicitly said, “Therefore, I pledge my troth to the cause of armed rebellion against the duly constituted authority of government, towards the end of installing me myself as Supreme Leader.”
“*not knowing their own name *” indeed. What an insulting and despicable way to speak of a fellow American (albeit 3/5 of an American in your hyper-Constitutional view).
Hi, Bricker! How often do you examine your birth certificate? Not the souvenir that the hospital gave your Mom, but the official state birth certificate required by GOP-controlled states trying to suppress votes?
IIRC, I’ve obtained and used that certificate ONCE (1 time) in my entire life—when I needed it to apply for a passport. Being self-employed, I’ve never been asked for it as a condition of employment.
Here are some easy questions for you:
(1) Do all Americans have passports?
(2) How many times would I have needed to order or examine my own birth certificate if I’d never ordered a passport? (This is a word problem. If your grammar school isn’t up to word problems yet, try 1 - 1 = ?)
(3) If neither I nor my parents had ever examined my official birth certificate, how would we have known of a spelling error on it?
If you’re afraid you missed one of these easy questions, try (4) for extra credit:
(4) ***Do you have any idea what a pretentious and elitist asshole you come across as in your disgusting Blame-the-victim posts?
Hey, Trinopus, now that I hopefully have your attention, let me ask this: If SCOTUS or a state supreme court renders a decision you don’t like and/or you feel is incompatible with the principles of the relevant federal or state constitution as you understand them, is your preferred response (if possible) to abolish that court and substitute your judgement for theirs?
Please answer seriously, as I suspect Bricker’s hyperbole/sarcasm detectors have been conveniently disabled.
Has anyone explicitly said anything along similar lines in any thread, that you know of? What’s the closest anyone got? Could it be the case that nobody ever said anything (well, anything serious) along those lines but you feel vindicated by their aggregate subtexts?
Incidentally, starting on January 1, 1994, the Quebec government started issuing standardized birth certificates (replacing the former mishmash of baptismal and other religious documents, I expect). I got mine in early 1995 and though the name is correct (that is to say, the name matches the one I’d been using up to that time), the “place of birth” was a mild surprise. It says “Lachine”, which makes sense, but up to then I’d been routinely writing “Montreal” on various forms. Then in 2002, the city of Lachine along with all the other independent cities on the island on Montreal were merged into and became boroughs of the city of Montreal. It was not an easy transition and in 2006 a number of municipalities “demerged” to become independent again. Lachine did not, so while in 1969 it was an independent city, as of 2002 it isn’t.
I decided to play it safe and just write “Lachine” where applicable. In case of dispute, I’ll just show the certificate. It’s remotely possible that someone could come after me with some application form I filled out in the early 1990s that lists “Montreal” as my birthplace and try to make trouble for me. I sure hope it’s not someone who feels I’m likely to vote the “wrong” way.
But, of course. But the real reason I broach the question is uncertain memory. Seem to recall that some of the court decisions that** Bricker** so solemnly adores had elements of evidence in them, or, perhaps more importantly, the lack thereof. The lawyers opposing the Forces of Darkness could not offer evidence that these laws had the pernicious and partisan effect we expect of them. By the simple reason that they had not been effective, therefore no measurable result was possible,
But now there is at least one such study, as referenced previously. Our Foremost Authority promised that if the study were indeed a worthy effort, he might well be moved to change his opinion!
Might not the courts be subject to the same reconsideration, if the pernicious effect can be shown to be factual, rather than suggestive? Even Republicans can change their minds, given new information. Well, “some” Republicans…