- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A list of the 54 Texas Democrats who shot down citizen-only voting rights
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:16 am to shinerfan
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:16 am to shinerfan
quote:Please explain the “authoritarianism” in asserting that the Constitution limits the scope of federal authority. This should be interesting.
I just wanted to see you contort yourself in defense of yet another laughably false, authoritarian position. Thanks.
The truth is that you LIKE unconstitutional overreach by the central government, where you like the result. That view is completely lacking any support in the principles of federalism.
Let’s take a look at your example. A right against self-incrimination is good policy. But the constitution does not grant the federal government authority to impose every “good policy“ upon the constituent states (though it often ignores this Constitutional limitation). I would hope that each of the constituent states would indeed implement “good policy,“ but forcing them to do so it’s just not how federalism works.
You MAY be a “conservative,” but you are clearly NOT a “federalist.”
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 10:27 am
2
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
00% wrong. The states DO set their own voting standards, limited only by a handful of Constitutional limits (age (18), sex, race)
What?? Your response is completely laughable. You state that it’s “100% wrong” and then you make an argument that it’s correct. At the same time never responding to the initial assertion that States cannot form a sub-classification of citizenship
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Again, why?
Legal local residents pay property and sales tax. They use the streets and their (often-citizen) kids attend the schools. Why should a local jurisdiction by state dictate be precluded from letting them vote on local matters?
Do you hate local government?
Translation: "I want attention"
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:25 am to Marshhen
quote:I ignored this part bc it was stupid. No one is proposing any such thing.
sub-classification of citizenship
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:26 am to AggieHank86
Citizenship is required to vote. You want to come3 be a legal resident, fine, but you don't get to vote. You should know that before you come over.
Jesus fricking Christ you are loathesome.
Jesus fricking Christ you are loathesome.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:26 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Please explain the “authoritarianism” in asserting that the Constitution limits the scope of federal authority.
It most certainly does limit the scope of federal authority. But it also limits the scope of state and local authority as shown by the afore mentioned Miranda decision where tSCOTUS held that the Phoenix Police Dept. had violated the defendant's rights under the 5th and 6th amendments. Your claim that the Bill of Rights is limited strictly to the federal government is pure authoritarianism.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:31 am to 19
Voting should be a privilege that should only be extended to people who have an interest in this country's founding principles now and generations moving forward.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:36 am to shinerfan
quote:JFC. Miranda was decided by the Warren court, arguably the most-liberal SCOTUS in history. It’s entire basis is the paternalistic notion that government is REQUIRED to REMIND people of their rights.
shinerfan
Your statements re the Bill of Rights just show how utterly uninformed you are re the Constitution. The entire Incorporation Doctrine is based NOT upon the BoR itself, but upon the Civil War Amendments. No one even ARGUED that the BoR limited State government until the turn of the 20th century … more than 100 years AFTER the BoR was ratified.
When you are THIS uninformed, you should steer clear of the debate.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:37 am to AggieHank86
Leaving childish insults aside is not possible when you're intellectually a twelve year old.
Get ready Hank lol.
Get ready Hank lol.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 10:48 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:37 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Advocatingvfor local control of local elections makes one a “Leftist?” Please tell me more.
Including non-citizens in the voting process is not a conservative stance. Wrapping it up in the "local election control" umbrella doesn't make it so.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:41 am to AggieHank86
Because local regulations have a history of shaping federal level policy.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:42 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:This is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a “Federalism vs Centralism” issue.
Including non-citizens in the voting process is not a conservative stance. Wrapping it up in the "local election control" umbrella doesn't make it so.
You are clearly not a federalist. Nothing wrong with that. Just do not pretend to support the US Constitution, which is very much a federalist document … though the Left has been chipping away at federalism since (at least) Lincoln.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 10:47 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:43 am to AggieHank86
quote:
This is not a conservative/liberal issue.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Your statements re the Bill of Rights just show how utterly uninformed you are re the Constitution. The entire Incorporation Doctrine is based NOT upon the BoR itself, but upon the Civil War Amendments. No one even ARGUED that the BoR limited State government until the turn of the 20th century … more than 100 years AFTER the BoR was ratified.
The question wasn't about pre-14th Amendment thinking. It was about today. And there have been many, many decisions finding state and local government in violation of the BofRs in regard to due process, guns, free speech, etc. And those decisions reflect the current law of the land. But your smug desperation makes your contortions even more entertaining.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 10:59 am to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:07 am to shinerfan
quote:Good Lord, I had assumed that you read English. I SAID:
The question wasn't about pre-14th Amendment thinking. It was about today
quote:From the beginning, I was discussing INTENT, not later (mis)interpretation.
the BoR were not INTENDED to apply to the States, only to the Feds. (emphasis in original)
The Incorporation Doctrine has less textual basis than Roe had. It was a blatant Centralist power grab. If anyone other than I were explaining this axiom, most of you would be agreeing. It is laughable.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 11:10 am
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:11 am to shinerfan
quote:It would be desirable for more of you to have a better understanding of Constitutional history, but you ignorance hardly makes me “desperate.”. More “saddened.”
smug desperation
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:13 am to AggieHank86
Hank... please show me the other countries where non citizens get to vote
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:15 am to AggieHank86
Can we vote local segregation?
Posted on 5/25/23 at 11:16 am to dafif
quote:New Zealand and Switzerland jump to mind.
please show me the other countries where non citizens get to vote
Page 3 of 10
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News