Your argument fails in the face of reality. Your right to speech, congregation, etc are all subject to the whims of a state legislature. Just ask any felon. Or anybody who wants to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Or anybody who wants to incite a fight.
None of the amendments give political parties protections from disparate impact of election laws. If they did, then our entire two party system would be illegal.
Laughable and pathetic straw-grasping.
They want to strengthen and explicitly affirm/guarantee the right to vote – and I support those efforts. The right to vote needs more protections, as we can all see from these discussions.
They do not support your assertion that “the right to vote does not exist in the Constitution”. It obviously exists, in multiple amendments. And this right needs to be strengthened, protected, and even affirmed and positively guaranteed. And it obviously exists in the Constitution.
It’s time for you to get familiar with the terms “strict scrutiny” and “due process”.
It is a never ending source of anguish for me that liberals don’t know what rights are.
Eh, I don’t have time to waste. Keep on dissemblin’, Adaher!
That’s not what the guy writing this law says. And Politifact judged his claim as True. Not half true, not mostly true, but TRUE.
Now, I suppose one of us could back down, or instead of you getting all arrogant about it, you could just acknowledge that the reason for our disagreement is that we’re going off different definitions of what a “right” is. Which is really the whole problem and one of the reasons for the rise of the Tea Party.
I’m well aware that you consider learning about basic concepts like due process and strict scrutiny to be a waste of your time. It was obvious by your ridiculous post.
You said “the right to vote does not exist in the Constitution”. That is false. Your link does not support this statement. Your link supports the statement “the right to vote is not positively affirmed and guaranteed in the Constitution”. Those are different statements.
Yours is false.
Your definition of “right” is different from the usage of the Constitution. Otherwise, those amendments would not use the phrase “right of citizens to vote”.
Your refusal to back down is typical, and pathetic.
You said something false, and you’re just, for some reason, afraid to admit it.
So you admit that the right to vote is not absolute, that it can be regulated and denied people so long as it is not done in ways specifically forbidden by the Constitution?
Do you also admit that every other right in the Constitution does not carry that same latitude?
So therefore, the right to vote, even if I acknowledge it exists, is a lesser right than all the other rights, subject to all kinds of qualifications, and subject to the whims of state legislatures.
I never said it was absolute. More pathetic goalpost shifting. Just stop digging.
Obviously not – even Scalia has admitted that some regulation of the right to own firearms, for example, is allowed. More wrongness. Just stop digging.
Wrong again, though the right to vote should be explicitly strengthened, and I support such efforts.
You’re just wrong on everything here. Par for the course.
I think that’s half right. The difference between the establishment and the Tea Party is now over tactics, not positions. The establishment candidates won’t threaten the debt ceiling or shut down the government or regard compromise as treason. The Tea Party will.
What I’m worried about is that the establishment might try to undo things like earmark reform, or favor corporate bailouts.
There are some difference on positions, like immigration reform. The establishment is firmly pro and considers it a must for the survival of the party, while the tea party is on the amnesty over our dead bodies camp.
The Tea Party is also pro-impeachment, and the establishment is not, because it recognizes what a political boon that would be for the President.
In the least surprising news of the day, adaher is wrong yet again.
True, but while they are running for office, they are all anti-amnesty. I’m sure many of them will turn on a dime as soon as they are safely in office and corporations are lobbying them.
To me, Tea Party is a state of mind more than a collection of positions. It means saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and walking that walk. Tom Cotton is Tea Party to the core. He was the only farm state Republican to vote against the farm bill. That’s a principled guy. We need more Tom Cottons.
Earmarks are a miniscule part of the budget. If you’re worried about them, you’re wasting your time.
God save us from guys like Tom Cotton. Maybe we should have one Tea Party guy in the House, for comic relief. Michele Bachmann filled that role nicely. Two or more is a waste of furniture.
When they say they’re against amnesty, they’re really saying “We don’t want Mexicans here”. When they say they’re for impeachment, what they’re really saying is “We have no sense of reality”
Earmarks are the primary means by which politicians repay their campaign contributors and buy votes from other legislators. How can a campaign contribution be bribery, but one legislator giving another one an earmark not bribery? Sure, it’s a small part of the budget, but it’s a large portion of the corruption.
Bachmann jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon. She was an establishment Republican, albeit an extreme one.
That might have some merit when the Tea party brings a bill to the floor to ban Mexican immigration.
Look, the Democrats and the Republicans agreed on a certain level of immigration. They further agreed on enforcement measures to deal with those who broke our laws. One of those parties wants the agreed upon terms to be fulfilled. The other wants to renege and renegotiate a new deal, and promising that this time they mean it.
Sorry, but if Democrats supported 11 million more immigrants than the law allowed, they should have advocated for it. They should advocate for it now. They don’t, because the Democratic Party, unlike the Tea Party, has to hide their true beliefs from the public. So when you call the Tea Party extreme, keep in mind that the TEa Party candidates live and die based on meaning what they say. The Democrats simply lie and hide their equally extreme beliefs.
Most Democrats favor open borders. They have gone so far as to call deportation “un-American”. They need to put their money where their mouths are and draft a bill banning deportations.
Another factually wrong statement to add to the list. Or do you have a cite for “Most Democrats”?
Most Democrats don’t agree with the Senate Majority Leader?
The law requires deportations. The Senate Majority Leader wants to end deportations. The President has said that he can’t, but he has significantly not said that he doesn’t want to.
If you do not favor deportations, then you do not favor immigration enforcement. Which means you favor open borders.
Hell, I don’t know. You said “Most Democrats” – do you have a poll that shows most Democrats support open borders?
They want to “halt the deportation of young adults in the U.S. illegally who met certain criteria through prosecutorial prioritization”. That is not support of ending deportations, and it’s certainly not support of open borders.
Another giant (and typical) adaher fail. You are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Par for the course, sadly.