Statute?
See anything off about this pic?
What does this question mean?
No hologram.
Then I guess I will miss you.
At what point does a restriction become unacceptable? I pointed out that my neighbor lives closer to a polling station than I do; you correctly regard my equal treatment under the law complaint about that fact as ludicrous. Now you complain that everyone must have an ID even though it’s harder to get for some than others, and I correctly regard that as ludicrous.
So there must be (in your mind) some kind of method or system to evaluate our positions and render a verdict. What is that system? So far, it seems like the system you want me to accept is that you get to decide all conflicts.
The system I want to use is the one we have: the legislature, followed by the courts.
Folks, its time for another installment of What the Hell is Bricker Trying to Say, Here, Anyway?
I “complain that everyone must have an ID”? Since when, where, how did I do this? I accept that voter id is a valid thing, mostly because I don’t think that the validity of voter id is the real crux of the biscuit. Is that “complaining”? As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.
And of course I agree that the decision is up to the legislature and the courts, though I commend your courage in defying the totalitarian 'luc conspiracy. But if electing that legislature is tilted in favor of one party over another, that legitimacy vanishes like a smoke ring in a windstorm. Pretty sure you know that.
But every legislature that has has made the decision is, by definition, a legislature NOT elected as a result of the Voter ID laws – right?
Yes, they were elected, more’s the pity, and at that point in time, their legitimacy was still more or less intact. Until they made the effort to tilt the electoral playing field in their favor by hindering the voting rights of undesirable voters. At which point their legitimacy vanished.
Going to answer my question, or is it time to change the subject again?
Bricker,
Related question. Say the Dems make a sweep of the elections and want to permanently ban picture ID as a requirement for voting. A bill passed by Congress would only be good for federal elections, no? State elections would still be free to require voter ID, right? To make a law for both fed and state elections, a constitutional amendment would be needed, wouldn’t it?
OK, same problem. I say their legitimacy has not vanished. You say it has. Who decides?
Shorthand for your more nuanced complaint. Sorry. You’re obviously not happy with the Voter ID laws, and I used that as a brief summary of your position.
Yes.
Of course, every state that passed such a law could repeal the law. That is, if the “sweep” extended to state legislatures.
Again with the semantic parsing tweezers! The legitimate power of the legislature depends entirely on the legitimate power of the electorate. Duh.
If the power of the legislature is brought to bear so that any segment of the electorate is unfairly hindered, the legitimacy of that legislature is compromised, at the very least. I say it has vanished, that they have surrendered their legitimacy for partisan gain, you say it has not, based on the certain fact that I am the one who said it had.
Well, all right then, Master of the Tiresome Nitpick, what word would you like to substitute? Compromised? Betrayed? Corrupted? Arguing with you when you are losing is like being nibbled to death by ducks.
I was talking about retaining the senate and WH and picking up the house. For the purposes of this question, lets say the R’s sweeped the state elections. So we have an entirely Dem run federal government and an entirely Repub run state governments.
Naturally, the states would probably be pretty hostile to federal Dems butting into their elections. If congress passed a law baring ID requirements, the states could require ID for all state elections, but federal elections would not have that requirement, right?
Or is each states’ elections governed by state rules? Does the federal government even get to tell them how to run the federal election?
I’m just wondering what it would take if the Dems wanted to completely prohibit the practice. Would a congressional law with penalties (such as highway funds for the drinking age) work? Or would it take a full constitutional amendment?
So, my position is Rachel Maddow, which you summarize as Ann Coulter. You’re not very good at this whole “summarizing” thing. Best leave it alone.
I’m pretty sure anybody is. There are no residential apartments there. (Unless you count the bunker underneath it.)
EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!!!
Jeez, this isn’t fucking rocket science, Bricker.
I’m asking you to cite statute.
I assume you’re familiar with the Sorites paradox? It manifests in many different forms. Type one errors (overstating a case, slippery slope) and type two (ignoring homology). It comes up in law in marginal cases (hard cases make bad law). You alluded to that fact in the other thread about statutory rape laws being draconian. Personally I think the n/2+7 formula would be a better guideline for law, with 14 being the minimum and 18 being the max where it applies.
nm
Who evaluates the evidence and determines what conclusion the evidence compels?
We do. It’s a message board. But you knew that.
None of us are in positions of power where we can directly control the weighty matters of our time. (Or at least, if any of us are, we don’t here allege to have that power, for fear of being laughed off these boards in disbelief.) So we claim and declaim, we argue and debate (to each their own). Some may learn from these exchanges, even reach new understandings of certain issues. Occasionally minds may be changed, or not, ignorance might be fought, and entertainment is commonly provided.
Evidence has been presented that the intention of voter ID laws (as presently constituted) is to reduce voter participation, or the effect will be to reduce voter participation, or both. And that reduction will almost certainly favor the party most strongly working for those laws. In such a context some of us declare the actions of “ID demanding GOP vote suppressors” to be wrong, counter to democratic (small ‘d’) principles, abhorrent, or worse.
It appears that the evidence compels you to a conclusion, too.
We (many of us, the pinko-hippie contingent at least) condemn this. We understand how the system works, we know that legislatures have passed these laws, and we are <sadly> cognizant of the rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction. And so we express our ire against those legislatures, and our disappointment in those court rulings. Because we believe that the result is to undermine the very foundation of our democratic process by providing an unfair advantage to one party over another, an advantage that by its very design could be a permanent distortion of the political fabric of this country. And we believe that this should be apparent, and equally disturbing, to any person who holds this country dear.
But you knew that too.
And knowing all of this, your best response is “The laws were passed and the courts upheld them. Neener neener!!”. Golf clap for you, buddy.
You want me to cite the statute that forbids me from sleeping in the East Wing and appointing my own Secretary of State?
Really?
OK.
Sleeping in the East Wing: 18 USC § 1752
Appointing my own Secretary of State: US Constitution, Art II Sec 2.