Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MrRodgers -> Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 10:41:49 AM)

Tell me this is just much ado about nothing. The idea of voter restrictions has nothing to do with race...right ?

Tell me the courts didn't make a very racist ruling here. So much for strict adherence of the constitution...in this case, Virginia's. How about Kentucky...Maryland ?

Lowlites:

White political leaders who amended the state Constitution for this purpose in 1902 made no bones about that, saying that the goal was to “eliminate the darkey as a political factor in this state in less than five years, so that in no single county in the commonwealth will there be the least concern felt for the complete supremacy of the white race in government affairs.”

Another leading politician said that the laws would ensure “the elimination of every Negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.”


The state Supreme Court — one of only two in the nation to be elected by legislators — sided with the Republicans. In a 4-3 decision, it ignored language in the Constitution that gives the governor expansive power, and employed a strained rationale to limit the use of that power to just one case at a time.

This interpretation contradicts the view, as noted in a legal brief, of a noted scholar who led the commission that drafted the 1971 Constitution of Virginia.


HERE

HERE




CreativeDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 11:14:54 AM)

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 11:20:03 AM)

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.




MrRodgers -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 11:57:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Whore Mods ?

Thus the governor has the power to restore voting rights to all EX-cons who have served their time and are off probation. The 'racist' repubs sued and the 'racist' court agreed...only one at a time. [sic]




MrRodgers -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 12:05:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.


ln the past, I reg. to vote with a soc. sec. card and dr. license...without photos. Now I think all of the recent restrictions requires a photo.

The SCOTUS has shot those down. Voter fraud is simply not the real issue here...racism is.




PeonForHer -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 12:23:35 PM)

quote:

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.


My overwhelming feeling is that given the astronomical amounts the USA spends on elections, how much it claims to value democracy, and how much trouble this issue has already caused ... it beggars belief that somehow a solution involving either a) free, universal and easily available means of identity, or b) just forgetting about the whole thing because there are so few cases of the fraud that people are going on about, has not been found.




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 12:47:13 PM)

> You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.
Yes, of course I do.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 12:47:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Whore Mods ?

Thus the governor has the power to restore voting rights to all EX-cons who have served their time and are off probation. The 'racist' repubs sued and the 'racist' court agreed...only one at a time. [sic]
Sorry about calling you Whore Mods.

Being an EX-convict does not change the crime that sent you to prison and removed your rights in the first place. Do we need to go into figures for how many of those EX-convicts will have that EX erased from their description sooner rather than later?

Now then...since it was a change to allow ex-CONVICTS to vote and all of those ex-CONVICTS are of different colors, including white...how exactly are the Republicans and the courts being 'racist'?




Lucylastic -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 1:00:39 PM)

Being an ex-felon, means he has "paid" his debt to society, thats why they call it EX... WHy shouldnt they get their rights back?
like your EX spouse, you have to live with the fact that you made a mistake, but they are not your spouse.

Btw, Recidivism rates are what?????? It still leaves most of those convicts without a vote because "someone else might repeat their crime".
Why is there recidivism???
Obviously some people will commit crime no matter their social standing, or economic status, or even their mental status, otherwise only poor people would be in jailOh and not all EX felons are violent.





SunDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 1:07:17 PM)

It is a reasonable requirement to prove identity when a person votes. I do not see why ex-cons cannot vote. They paid the price for their crime (i.e., served their time with their rights suspended) and their rights should be fully restored.




mnottertail -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 1:53:33 PM)

it is reasonable to do a backround check for every gun sale, that doesnt happen.




BamaD -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:42:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Let me be sure I have this right.
Mr Rogers is claiming that a provision in a state constitution which has since been replaced (the whole stste constitution, not just the provision) proves that todays rules are racist?




WhoreMods -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:47:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Let me be sure I have this right.
Mr Rogers is claiming that a provision in a state constitution which has since been replaced (the whole stste constitution, not just the provision) proves that todays rules are racist?

Why not? Apparently something that happened in the 1860s is proof that the Republicans aren't at all racist as a party a century and a half later.




BamaD -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:47:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.


Same here, but fighting it and blaming it on racism is a vote getter.




BamaD -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:49:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.


Whore Mods ?

Thus the governor has the power to restore voting rights to all EX-cons who have served their time and are off probation. The 'racist' repubs sued and the 'racist' court agreed...only one at a time. [sic]

You mean you want a blanket approval of rapists and murderers having a say into who judges are?




BamaD -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:53:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Let me be sure I have this right.
Mr Rogers is claiming that a provision in a state constitution which has since been replaced (the whole stste constitution, not just the provision) proves that todays rules are racist?

Why not? Apparently something that happened in the 1860s is proof that the Republicans aren't at all racist as a party a century and a half later.

Throw that garbage at someone else, I never said that.




OsideGirl -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:54:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.


I don't have any problem with it either. You have to show ID for pretty much everything in this country.




mnottertail -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 2:56:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Personally I don't see the issue with voter ID laws, we have to show ID here in Canada, and there is a whole bunch of acceptable ways of doing so. In fact one would have to try pretty hard to not be able to meet the requirements.


Same here, but fighting it and blaming it on racism is a vote getter.

As a constitutionalist I have a problem with it, dragging it around, and proving it would be ineffectual at every turn, as nutsuckers have, has turned out to be a vote getter for them.




bounty44 -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 4:12:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
As a constitutionalist...


quote:

A constitutionalist is often known by other names such as a constitutional conservative or a strict constructionalist. While the latter term typically refers to judges and justices, it is also used to describe any person that believes in a strict reading of the US Constitution. This person typically favors limited government, as prescribed by the Constitution, and one that is small not only in size but also in scope and in power.

There are different principles espoused by various constitutionalist organizations as well as individuals. Two of the main schools of thought are those of the textualist and originalist. While the two share some beliefs, their view of how the Constitution should be interpreted differs to some degree. No one who would use this term for himself believes in judicial activism, for example, even it would benefit his or her cause.

It has long been held that the Constitution, as well as laws and other legally binding documents, should be interpreted by the definitions of the terms used at the time they are written. The constitutionalist embraces this principle, which is found in both textualism and originalism.

Texualists believe in as literal an interpretation as possible, although it is not always feasible to construe each precept in a completely literal manner. To do so would allow no limits against such things as “arms,” which are protected by the Second Amendment. This would then allow the average citizen to legally own and use nearly any weapon known to man, including weapons of mass destruction.

Many people believe that there should be some reasonable limits even on rights that are deemed inalienable. The right itself, the right to defend oneself, is what is inalienable. Many people don’t accept it to mean that the methods used should have no limits, however. The same can be said of free speech and other rights, although some who hold strictly to this philosophy disagree.

Originalists also hold that textualism is important, although they place more reliance on the framers’ original intent, which is said to be more important than the precise words used. This intent is often learned by reading the Constitution along with other writings by the framers at the time. The Federalist Papers are but one of the favored sources of the originalist. To avoid extrapolations often based in semantics, as has been the case too often where judicial activists are able to provide their own interpretations, originalism demands that the Constitution be interpreted according to what the Founders sought.


I trust youre the only one who sees yourself as that...

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-a-constitutionalist.htm




SunDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 4:47:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

it is reasonable to do a backround check for every gun sale, that doesnt happen.


*yawn*




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875