I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

For the record, I do not endorse this use of my little list of possible meanings. You seem to be implying “well, it matches 3 out of 4, that kind of makes it 75% unconstitutional”, which doesn’t make sense at all.

Now, let’s get back go arguing about the real point of this thread, namely, how many people signed the constitution, and whether Bricker knew that. That is the real point of this thread, right? I mean, there’s no possible reason we would have wasted that many electrons on it otherwise, right?

Hey, in a thread running 191 pages, we can spare one or two documenting Bricker’s trip to the burn ward.

I invoked the DoI and its 56 signers because I wanted to show a sample, example, hypothetical, wrong thing I could have said that would be similar to what he said about the number of justices dissenting.

He says, in effect, “Four justices agree with me, and that shows how much I know!”

I say: “That’s as silly as if I said, ‘56 signers of the Constitution agreed with me, and that shows how much I know!’” It highlighted the amusing confluence of his appeal to their authority while getting the number wrong.

He got the number of justices wrong. So to highlight that, I said IF I were to say I was right and in the same sentence invoke a wrong precise number, that would be analogous.

Emphasis added for emphasis.

Do you morons really not comprehend the subjunctive mood? I know you were absent for most of civics, but did you really skip English as well?

I get it. Since words mean whatever you want them to, “unconstitutional,” means “legally constitutional,” “if” means “unconditionally now,” and “whenever,” means “every time and all times without exception.”

That’s the issue! You’re so used to redefining words to your liking that there’s no stopping you!

No!!! It’s not troubling.

The governor has the power to restore civil rights following a felony conviction. He is using that power. That’s the end of it. Even if you could peer in his mind and determine that his intent was to help Democratic candidates gain office, and nothing else, that doesn’t weaken or eliminate his powers one iota.

Convenient for you that your preferred party benefits, though, right?

But see… that’s what I am saying. The governor has a valid, neutral justification for this action, and THAT ENDS THE INQUIRY.

But you didn’t just invoke a wrong number, you invoked a wrong document. I’m not buying your spin attempt. Even at the most generous possibly level, your attempt to prove whatever point you thought you were proving was clumsy (and, frankly, is built entirely on a strawman argument), and it doesn’t (and couldn’t) even serve to refute his actual point, which was about how members of SCOTUS disagreed on the issue, therefore the adjective “constitutional” does not follow as clear and unambiguous a standard as, say, a math problem. Further, if a Supreme Court justice can maintain that something is unconstitutional, even if outvoted on the issue, why can’t anyone?
You screwed up, is all. I will not be referencing this again, as it remains at the level of no importance whatsoever.

Tell you what he hasn’t done. He didn’t get presented with some academic evidence and pretend he was going to carefully examine it, and maybe change his mind. Didn’t pretend to be amenable to evidence and then hope that we would forget about it. Didn’t do that.

He didn’t argue vociferously and viciously for a hundred damned pages, losing and retreating every step of the way, and finally hunker down in a bunker and claim that his only argument point over that same hundred damn pages was the precise semantic and legal definition of “Constitutional”.

Puts him miles ahead of you, hoss.

I kinda understand, you hang with Republicans, so you are probably the smartest person in the room. They gasp with wonder at your sophistic arguments, clap you on the shoulders and tell you what a smart guy you are. But you get here and that shit don’t fly, so it must be that we are all prejudiced against you. Pobrecito!

We need honest conservatives, keeps us on our toes, keeps us from getting lazy. What a splendid thing it would be if you were him! Alas.

Uh-oh, Bricker’s capitalizing again! Hide the poor little liberal women and children!
That said, he is correct - this action, as best I can tell, is within the governor’s discretion. Since I oppose felon disenfranchisement (in the absence of any reason I should favour it), I’d be okay with the action even if ex-cons were believed likely to vote for a party I opposed.

Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done it. He would have weighed the advantages of more voters against the major talking point he would hand to his enemies, and he would not have done it.

Just sayin’, is all.

“If you were he.”

The nominative joins the subjunctive in the Room of Mystery, I see.

I apologize for invoking your list against your will…but it was a good list, and I agree with it.

I’m not using it as a “construction proof,” only as an “existence proof.” There are ways in which one (myself) can say that a law is (in one’s opinion) “unconstitutional” without denying that it is also the Law of the Land. You offered several of those ways. I thought it was a reasonable and valid list.

Let’s all watch Bricker descend to the most pathetic level of fascism - Grammar Nazism.

(Knock at the Pearly Gates…)

“Who’s there?”
“It is I.”
“Go to Hell, they deserve English majors!”

A development of interest to our conversation, from Missouri. Drawn from several news sources, all of which were googled with “Missouri voter id law”.

Be advised, forthwith and forthrightly, your correspondent makes no claims whatsoever regarding the constitutionality of these proceedings. Only that it presents an interesting option.

To ovesimplify, the Dems and Pubbies have been wrangling in Missouri for years about this issue of voter id, and appear to have come to a sort of compromise. The idea being to produce a voter id law that soothes the fears and bolsters voter confidence while avoiding the injustices of other such efforts.

The prospective voter may register and vote with a wide variety of identifications, including official mail and even utility bills. He must sign an affidavit that he attests and avers under penalty of perjury that he is who he says he is, and is legally entitled to register and vote (to the best of his knowledge, of course…). He is then a registered voter and voter id will be provided to him by the state. (There is mention that the registree may opt to have a picture taken and included in his registration records, this serving as proof in the future, should that be needed. What a brilliant idea, a pity none of us were smart enough to think of that…)

(A particular though perhaps minor note: the affidavit and the attached penalty for falsification. It has been suggested herein that the reason why there are so few cases of voter fraud to prosecute was due to the lack of any such laws. Well, that’s fixed. We may all breathe the easier…)

There is also mention of commitment on the part of the state to “go the extra mile” in order to provide documentation to whomsoever may request such aid. For the sake of the discussion, I am taking them at their word. That the Republicans of Missouri are so fraught with dread over voter confidence, they are willing to set aside those parts of a voter id law that Dems find objectionable.

If this is true, this is splendid news. One "“Hosanna!” and about half a “Hallelujah!”. Gives the Republican what they claim they want, and avoids the injustice. Not only does it not insult the less worthy voters of Missouri, it extends a welcoming and cooperative hand! Signs and wonders!

Those of you who follow my thought herein are both aware that I regard Republicans with a gimlet eye. But for the sake of our discussion, let us pretend that I can make that leap of faith, or fling myself off the edge of the world into the Void. Whatever.

Seems to me that this is exactly what we all should want. A little work, a bit of effort, a dash of mutual regard, and there you have it! Voter confidence is assured, and injustic avoided. If all of this is pretty much the truth, I will be first to applaud the honest conservatives who joined in sincere compromise with their betters. A ray of spring sunshine, that even among the Forces of Darkness there are sparks of light.

Now, there is some state consititutional wrinkle involved here, something about how the state consitution forbids voter id laws. But a poor old peckerwood from Waco is in no position to offer comment.

Just saw a pretty good summary of the situation here: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/05/3775525/missouri-voter-id-2/

(ThinkProgress is a known “hot zone” for liberal cooties, tighty rightys are advised to proceed with shields up…)

How can you have been participating in this thread for this long and still so utterly miss the point.

I said I found it troubling. Not illegal. Troubling. If someone started a pit thread saying “I pit Gov. McCaulliffe for using his powers for naked political advantage”, I certainly would not go on at great length about how his actions were perfectly legal.

Now, it’s hard to comment too much without knowing the justification for, and history of, the disenfranchisement-of-felons law; whether there’s any reason to believe that restoring a bunch of voting rights was consistent with McCaulliffe’s general philosophical positions; what McCaulliffe’s stated justifications for his actions were, etc.

Part of analyzing things objectively is recognizing when your side is in the right, and not automatically trying to be “balanced” just for balance’s sake.

Heck, I’m not sure how one can eliminate one iota of something. Wouldn’t eliminating something by definition wipe out all its iotae?

Heh, ‘iotae’ … mortal enemy of the oad-unner.

Hah, silly me. Certainly it is possible to eliminate one iota of something. It is rather less clear how to eliminate something one iota, as was my intended observation.

This is a more appropriate thread for this post by Steve MB.

Or maybe it’s just Scott Walker’s Wisconsin.

What we esteem too lightly etc., eh, Bricker? :rolleyes: