re: A list of the 54 Texas Democrats who shot down citizen-only voting rights

quote:

---

AggieHank86

---

Question. Lets assume all these non-citizens you want to be able to vote are 98% republican leaning migrants: you still as gung ho on them voting?

quote:

---

You have just said that you should get a vote in which people own property in multiple states that, in this case would be many states because you actually have a piece of land in Georgia but actually live in Texas to where you can cast a vote just because you have a residency in another state? Is that not voting twice or multiples of times?

---

I am going to TRY to translate this post to English

You seem to be implying that I think a person who owns land in five different jurisdictions should get to vote in the GENERAL election in each place. For instance, if all five are in one state, five votes for statewide offices (governor, etc.) or if all five are in DIFFERENT states, five votes for POTUS. That is NOT what I said. I THOUGHT it was implicit that I was talking about LOCAL elections for positions and/or propositions in the jurisdiction that would be spending the revenue generated by taxes on my property.

In other words, if I pay property taxes in five school districts of the same state, it is not unreasonable to think that I should have some say in selecting the members of the Board in each of those five Districts. No, I should not have five votes for governor of that state.

If I own property in both Louisiana and Texas (which I do), should I have a say in the statewide offices in both states (governor, AG, Senator, etc)? That is a different (and interesting) question. Candidly, I have never given the matter much thought. If I were paying some statewide tax in both states (state income tax, if they had one), perhaps "yes."

Again, there are logistical problems. I don't know about Louisiana, but Texas holds most local elections on a different day that national and statewide elections. Thus, the difficulty in allowing multiple local votes while preventing multiple statewide votes is lessened considerably. In a state where all elections are held on the same day, logistical problems multiply.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Like everyone else, you have shared your opinion without sharing its basis. “I think only blondes should vote.” OK. Why?

---

Because there's NOTHING in the CONSTITUTION that PROHIBITS them from ALLOWING only BLONDES to VOTE?

What do I win?

---

Nothing. As usual, you did not even understand the question.

The Bill of Right are the first ten amendments to our constitution and yes they apply to all citizens. By your reasoning a state could take away your right to free speech.

quote:

---

There is no Constitutional basis for requiring Miranda warnings. You either have the rights or you do not. Nothing in the Constitution requires government to treat you like a child and remind you.

---

Can't say I disagree.

If ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking it, shouldn't the same apply to your rights? Do you have to be told you can worship freely? Speak freely? Assemble freely? When's the last time you were told that the government cannot quarter soldiers in your home in peacetime?

quote:

---

The Bill of Right are the first ten amendments to our constitution and yes they apply to all citizens. By your reasoning a state could take away your right to free speech.

---

YES!! That is the way the Constitution was written.

By no means am I saying that the States SHOULD do so, but the BoR was written ONLY to prevent the FEDERAL government from doing so ... because LOTS of Revolution-era people liked and trusted their STATE governments but were VERY fearful of an over-reaching FEDERAL government. Rhode Island was worried about Viginia (with which it had little in common) controlling the central government, and North Carolina was worried about New York (with which it had little in common) doing so. The ENTIRE BoR was a compromise designed to allay fears about FEDERAL overreach.

If a State tried to take-away that right, the citizens of that State could (and certainly WOULD) prevent it. But under our (original) Constitutional scheme, it would NOT be the business of the federal government.

As just one example, there was a SCOTUS case (Barron v. Baltimore) in the early 1800s in which a city took some land (for its harbor maybe?). The state did not fully compensate the former owner, and SCOTUS ruled that the "taking clause" of the 5th Amendment did NOT apply to cities and states, only to the feds.

That was the law of the land from 1791 through the early 1900s, when some clever Centralists crafted the Incorporation Doctrine from the ether surrounding the 14th Amendment (because it is damned-sure not in the TEXT of the 14th).

If Abraham Lincoln landed the first blow in the death of true federalism in this country, court decisions recognizing the Incorporation Doctrine landed a series of body blows from which the old boy will never recover.

quote:

---

Thank you though for explaining it English. I do not know any other language

---

By all indications, you do not "know" English very well, either.

quote:

---

Why should you walk into a town to be able to afford it, and try to shut down what others that are not as wealthy as you and make a change?

---

I recognize all those words as English, but they are connected in a way that does NOT create a comprehensible sentence in that language.

If property taxes on my land provide (for example) 10% of the budget of the local school district, the notion of "no taxation without representation" would seem to dictate that I should have SOME say in how those funds are spent, REGARDLESS of where I happen to live.

You clearly believe otherwise.

quote:

---

Where does it become okay that you try to change something that people were okay with before you entered.

---

Are...are you suggesting that we, as a nation, should never cast another vote again to change something that is already in practice?

You aren't really suggesting that, are you?

quote:

---

So do tourists and anyone else traveling through. I should get voting rights in every place I've paid sales tax over the last year?

---

Good Lord, you are acting as if I argued that payment of property tax or sales tax would be some sort of qualifier for voting in local elections. I did not. I also mentioned the use of local roads and having children in local schools. Why are you not arguing that I insisted anyone with a car or children should get to vote? Because (obviously) I did not say that, either.

I simply used those as several indicators that legally-resident, non-citizens are contributing members of the local community and that it is not unreasonable (or "Leftist") to consider the possibility of allowing them to have a say in the RUNNING of that local community.

quote:

---

This thread is off the rails

---

Your mom is off the rails.