- 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 12:30 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I think birthright citizenship is atrocious policy.
hey - we may be getting somewhere here =.
quote:
But no Textualist could argue with a straight face that it is not what the Constitution SAYS.
Fair enough =
but would a fair intellect think that is what they MEANT??
HOWEVER - as you know - at that time the entire population of USA 'persons' were about to become "citizens" just because they were here.
Time changes things, right?
Yep - then they started making rules for how to become a citizen if you were not born here.
presumably, it is logical to assume that from that point forward, you would have to fullful ALL the requirements of citizenship to be able to claim those rights.
Of course = all the 250 year old folks that were here then, are still eligible to vote if they show up at the polls.
(it has been found that most at that age always vote Democrat.)
1
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:cause they are not citizens genius. the are citizens of other countries where they can vote. if they want to vote, become a citizen or go back to where you are a citizen. voting whether in federal, state, or local elections is for citizens, thats fricking basic
Why should legal, permanent residents be banned from voting in local elections by some “higher” governmental unit, if the majority of the local jurisdiction wants to let them do so?
Do you disagree with the founding premise that the government which governs best is that which is closest to the people?
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:39 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:Textualists do not try to guess what a draftsman “meant,” when he used a word as clear and unambiguous as “person.”. In fact, it would be IMPOSSIBLE in this case, because the very CONCEPT of “illegal immigration” (in the modern sense) did not even EXIST in the 1860s. The draftsman would be boggled at your concerns, bc back then you just moved here and announced your intent to stay. A few years later you swore an oath. Even citizenship TESTS did not arise until well-into the 20th century.
But no Textualist could argue with a straight face that it is not what the Constitution SAYS.quote:
Fair enough = but would a fair intellect think that is what they MEANT??
My most-recent immigrant ancestors came from Czechia in the 1880s and were Austrian citizens. I assure you that they did not travel to the US embassy in Vienna and ask permission to come here. NO ONE did. They just climbed on a boat in Slovenia and climbed off in Galveston.
This post was edited on 5/25/23 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:41 pm to AggieHank86
AggieHank is a total imbecile.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:44 pm to LSUvet72
No, I am simply presenting concepts that you lack the tools to understand, so they sound like gibberish TO YOU. Much as if I were discussing particle physics.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Why should legal, permanent residents be banned from voting in local elections by some “higher” governmental unit, if the majority of the local jurisdiction wants to let them do so?
They vote in elections they can't run in themselves.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 12:48 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
You have got to be the dumbest son of a bitch on the site.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Y’all continue to make arguments applicable only to ILLEGAL residents. Not remotely the question that I presented.
Illegal residents voting is the logical outcome to your argument that requiring citizenship to vote is unreasonable. On the opposite side of the spectrum, would you be in favor of allowing someone to vote in your local elections who is just on vacation? They are there legally, would be impacted by local taxis and ordinances, and in some states would qualify as residents.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:09 pm to double d
quote:
Because only legal citizens should be allowed to vote in ANY election in ANY country.
And only property owners should vote on things that raise property taxes. Why let those who have no skin in the game raise property owners tax burden.
When I was a landlord, I always passed the cost of property taxes on to my tenants. You don't think tenants have "skin in the game"?
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Textualists do not try to guess what a draftsman “meant,” when he used a word as clear and unambiguous as “person.”.
The drivel you just wrote is laughable. Words mean only what the person saying or writing them intended them to mean. Few words are unambiguous. Most words have multiple meanings and also meanings change over time.
Besides Canada, the United States is the only 1st-world country on Earth to offer unrestricted birthright citizenship. There is no way the founders meant for that to be the case.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:31 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
You have got to be the dumbest son of a bitch on the site.
Egotistical too.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:33 pm to AggieHank86
Hey you POS, how about change your name and remove the aTm logo from your handle. We don’t claim dumbasses like you.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:34 pm to Marshhen
quote:Where have I argued that? I have said that the Constitution does not prohibit states from allowing legal residents to vote, and I have asked for a logical argument as to why states should not be allowed to do so. Do you understand the difference?
your argument that requiring citizenship to vote is unreasonable.
quote:This is not complicated.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, would you be in favor of allowing someone to vote in your local elections who is just on vacation? They are there legally, would be impacted by local taxis and ordinances, and in some states would qualify as residents.
Legally, a community certainly COULD do that. The Constitution would not prevent them.
From a policy perspective, I would oppose my local jurisdiction doing so. But I would NOT support a move by the state or feds to take that option AWAY from localities that might want to do so for themselves.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:35 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:CONLAW101 my friend.
Bjorn Cyborg
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:36 pm to Phil Wenneck
quote:(airkiss)
Phil Wenneck
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:39 pm to shinerfan
quote:
You never did explain why state and local law enforcement are required to give Miranda warnings since, as you say, "the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government".
14th Amendment.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Why should legal, permanent residents be banned from voting in local elections by some “higher” governmental unit, if the majority of the local jurisdiction wants to let them do so?
Do you disagree with the founding premise that the government which governs best is that which is closest to the people?
As a supposedly educated individual I wouldn’t think that the whole idea of “citizen” being rather important. However, if you think it shouldn’t be important maybe you should go try and vote is Mexico’s, Canada’s, Japan’s, India’s UK’s etc…etc…etc…elections and see if your ballot gets counted.
And yes that was a nice way of calling you a moron.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:45 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
There is no way the founders meant for that to be the case.
I'm of the opinion that they couldn't even conceptualize what that would mean in the modern context.
But it says what it says. It would be great if our government actually governed instead of relying on the oscillating opinions of courts.
Like every other problem currently facing the United States, Congress is completely capable of resolving the issue and refuses to do so.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
CONLAW101 my friend.
This isn't an answer.
Posted on 5/25/23 at 1:59 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I do too. We should.
So if you own property somewhere you think you should get to vote? So under your system are votes based on number of properties, size of property, or what? Can only individuals owning property vote? If it’s a company, do all interests get a vote or is it just the one? What about foreign interests? Voting is a privilege. That privilege can be taken away or refused. Just because the constitution refers to “the right to vote” does not mean that it is unconditional. The only inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everything else has stipulations. “Shall have the right…” was the parlance of the times and in legal terms comes with an “if”. Citizenship should absolutely be a requirement to vote. Gaining citizenship is a huge milestone and source of pride for many immigrants, as it should be. Allowing non-citizens to vote devalues citizenship and their achievement. It’s also a slippery slope that ends in world governance.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News