Many Criticize Voting Rights Ruling; Partisan Splits on Gay Marriage Continue

Jul 4, 2013 Full story: WTMA-AM North Charleston 23

Americans across racial groups are critical of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act, with disapproval of the decision exceeding approval by 15 percentage points among whites as well as by a vast 45-point margin among African-Americans.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jul 4, 2013
There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote".(See Bush v. Gore (2000)).

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#2 Jul 4, 2013
I just THANK GOD that the hated Voting Rights Act as found UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court and was struck down so blacks are no longer allowed to vote !

:)

They're the MOST homophobic segment of society in the U.S.!

WOO-HOO ! "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN !"

RUN, OBAMMY, RUN !

:)

<s>

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#3 Jul 4, 2013
I would expect racists and reactionaries to approve the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
Fortunately, a majority of Americans DISAPPROVE and,not surprisingly, 71% of Black Americans disapprove.
Now it is time to strategize and organize RESISTANCE to DISFRANCHISEMENT.

A blade in the throat of opppression.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#5 Jul 4, 2013
There is no U.S. Constitutional "RIGHT TO VOTE".

“Some people are gay - get over”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#6 Jul 4, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
There is no U.S. Constitutional "RIGHT TO VOTE".
Technically you are correct - there is no right to vote like there is a right free speech or a right to assemble, etc.

However, over the years we have written laws and amended the Constitution in ways that grant the right to vote to group after group encompassing more and more people.

Today, virtually any citizen has a right to vote, the biggest pool from whom the right is removed is prisoners and some former prisoners.

The recent VRA ruling is concerning since it seems the GOP is trying hard to restrict the right of African Americans to vote not because of race but because they tend to vote Democratic.

Like Gerrymandering that's just rigging the system and it's just not ethical.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#7 Jul 4, 2013
KirkW wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically you are correct - there is no right to vote like there is a right free speech or a right to assemble, etc.
However, over the years we have written laws and amended the Constitution in ways that grant the right to vote to group after group encompassing more and more people.
Today, virtually any citizen has a right to vote, the biggest pool from whom the right is removed is prisoners and some former prisoners.
The recent VRA ruling is concerning since it seems the GOP is trying hard to restrict the right of African Americans to vote not because of race but because they tend to vote Democratic.
Like Gerrymandering that's just rigging the system and it's just not ethical.
Firstly, I am ABSOLUTELY correct, NO "technically" correct.

Secondly, SCOTUS most recently SPECIFICALLY STATED & AFFIRMED that there is NO "right to vote" in Bush v. Gore,(2000). Some people MAY be surprised to learn that although South Caroline ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788, and participated in every POTUS election since the very first one in 1789, they did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS electors until 1836, nearly HALF A CENTURY after ratification.

The U.S. Constitutional Amendments concerning voting do NO confer a "right to vote", but rather simply state on what basis a state CANNOT deny a right to vote IF they grant a general right to vote. In other words, a state CANNOT deny someone the right to vote by virtue of them being a woman, or because one is between the ages of 18 & 21, but they COULD deny someone the right to vote if they were wearing a blue hat, if they decided to pass a state law saying that.

A state an constitutional deny the right to vote to ANYONE, on ANY basis their state law states EXCEPT on any basis SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

THERE IIS NO "RIGHT TO VOTE".

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#8 Jul 5, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I am ABSOLUTELY correct, NO "technically" correct.
Secondly, SCOTUS most recently SPECIFICALLY STATED & AFFIRMED that there is NO "right to vote" in Bush v. Gore,(2000). Some people MAY be surprised to learn that although South Caroline ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788, and participated in every POTUS election since the very first one in 1789, they did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS electors until 1836, nearly HALF A CENTURY after ratification.
The U.S. Constitutional Amendments concerning voting do NO confer a "right to vote", but rather simply state on what basis a state CANNOT deny a right to vote IF they grant a general right to vote. In other words, a state CANNOT deny someone the right to vote by virtue of them being a woman, or because one is between the ages of 18 & 21, but they COULD deny someone the right to vote if they were wearing a blue hat, if they decided to pass a state law saying that.
A state an constitutional deny the right to vote to ANYONE, on ANY basis their state law states EXCEPT on any basis SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
THERE IIS NO "RIGHT TO VOTE".
None of this effects anything, that's the point. The laws change, and the constitution does as well, we change it all the time, and there may one day be such an amendment.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#9 Jul 5, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
None of this effects anything, that's the point. The laws change, and the constitution does as well, we change it all the time, and there may one day be such an amendment.
We DON'T "change it all the time". The last time the U.S. constitution was amended was 20 years ago, and Congress figured out a way to ignore that amendment pretty easily.

And I just read that the Tea Partiers are mobilizing to SMASH The Obamaniac's immigration bill !:)

WOO-HOO ! TEA PARTIES FOREVA !:)

RUN, OBAMMY, RUN !

“Some people are gay - get over”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#10 Jul 5, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I am ABSOLUTELY correct, NO "technically" correct.
Secondly, SCOTUS most recently SPECIFICALLY STATED & AFFIRMED that there is NO "right to vote" in Bush v. Gore,(2000). Some people MAY be surprised to learn that although South Caroline ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788, and participated in every POTUS election since the very first one in 1789, they did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS electors until 1836, nearly HALF A CENTURY after ratification.
The U.S. Constitutional Amendments concerning voting do NO confer a "right to vote", but rather simply state on what basis a state CANNOT deny a right to vote IF they grant a general right to vote. In other words, a state CANNOT deny someone the right to vote by virtue of them being a woman, or because one is between the ages of 18 & 21, but they COULD deny someone the right to vote if they were wearing a blue hat, if they decided to pass a state law saying that.
A state an constitutional deny the right to vote to ANYONE, on ANY basis their state law states EXCEPT on any basis SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
THERE IIS NO "RIGHT TO VOTE".
It's not polite to yell. Especially when someone is, essentially, agreeing with you.

I suppose the state could deprive my of my vote if I wore a blue hat but I strongly doubt such a law would ever survive a legal challenge.

Now take your temper tantrum medication and go suck your thumb in the corner.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#11 Jul 5, 2013
KirkW wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not polite to yell. Especially when someone is, essentially, agreeing with you.
I suppose the state could deprive my of my vote if I wore a blue hat but I strongly doubt such a law would ever survive a legal challenge.
Now take your temper tantrum medication and go suck your thumb in the corner.
I didn't say a state would do it. My example was silly to illustrate the point that a state could constitutionally bar by law, ANYONE from voting for ANY reason at all, EXCEPT for the reasons that the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#12 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
There is no U.S. Constitutional "RIGHT TO VOTE".
So much the worst for the Constitution.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#13 Jul 7, 2013
Rightwingers (connedservatives) love to come up with excuses to deny freedom.“It's not a democracy; it's a Republic,” and so on. Yawn....

We all know what freedom is. Egyptians are fighting for it now.

We all know how things were in the South especially before the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.

There is not way to argue for rescinding any part of the Voting Rights Act, which is harming nobody but ensuring at least basic access to the polls.

Efforts against full voting rights are coming entirely from the right, and mostly from the South. That says it all, does it not?

We need to rigorously oppose also the other disenfranchisement tricks such as photo IDs for voting.

What's next,“literacy” tests?

You racists can't snow me. I was in the South when Jim Crow was in effect. It sucked. I was a kid and I was not black but I had my eyes open and I didn't like it. Still don't.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#14 Jul 7, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
Rightwingers (connedservatives) love to come up with excuses to deny freedom.“It's not a democracy; it's a Republic,” and so on. Yawn....
We all know what freedom is. Egyptians are fighting for it now.
We all know how things were in the South especially before the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act.
There is not way to argue for rescinding any part of the Voting Rights Act, which is harming nobody but ensuring at least basic access to the polls.
Efforts against full voting rights are coming entirely from the right, and mostly from the South. That says it all, does it not?
We need to rigorously oppose also the other disenfranchisement tricks such as photo IDs for voting.
What's next,“literacy” tests?
You racists can't snow me. I was in the South when Jim Crow was in effect. It sucked. I was a kid and I was not black but I had my eyes open and I didn't like it. Still don't.
I'm NOT a "rightwinger". I'm A Libertarian.

If you don't like the fact that there is no "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution, then why don't you put it in there ?

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#15 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm NOT a "rightwinger". I'm A Libertarian.
If you don't like the fact that there is no "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution, then why don't you put it in there ?
Libertarian, lol. That's rightwing in practice, boy. Libertarian claim to value personal freedom, but they still consider corporations to be people. It's the freedom to do anything if you have the power. Laissez-faire capitalism... another word for that is feudalism.

You're a traitor to humanity, boy.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#16 Jul 7, 2013
Sinajuavi wrote:
<quoted text>
Libertarian, lol. That's rightwing in practice, boy. Libertarian claim to value personal freedom, but they still consider corporations to be people. It's the freedom to do anything if you have the power. Laissez-faire capitalism... another word for that is feudalism.
You're a traitor to humanity, boy.
Corporations ARE people, and I believe in,and have ALWAYS believed in, Laissez-faire capitalism.

“Some people are gay - get over”

Since: Apr 08

Reading PA

#17 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations ARE people, and I believe in,and have ALWAYS believed in, Laissez-faire capitalism.
There are, like it or not, some similarities between the Libertarian policies and the GOP or Tea Party policies.

And, and excuse me for borrowing the question from Michael Lind, if libertarian policies are so good why isn't ANY country in the world running their government/society that way?

"Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?"

And corporations may have some similarities to people under the tax code but they are not people. That too was just a stupid ruling by the court.
Stag_R_Lee

Scottsdale, AZ

#18 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I am ABSOLUTELY correct, NO "technically" correct.
Secondly, SCOTUS most recently SPECIFICALLY STATED & AFFIRMED that there is NO "right to vote" in Bush v. Gore,(2000). Some people MAY be surprised to learn that although South Caroline ratified the U.S. Constitution in 1788, and participated in every POTUS election since the very first one in 1789, they did NOT allow their citizens to vote for POTUS electors until 1836, nearly HALF A CENTURY after ratification.
The U.S. Constitutional Amendments concerning voting do NO confer a "right to vote", but rather simply state on what basis a state CANNOT deny a right to vote IF they grant a general right to vote. In other words, a state CANNOT deny someone the right to vote by virtue of them being a woman, or because one is between the ages of 18 & 21, but they COULD deny someone the right to vote if they were wearing a blue hat, if they decided to pass a state law saying that.
A state an constitutional deny the right to vote to ANYONE, on ANY basis their state law states EXCEPT on any basis SPECIFICALLY prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
THERE IIS NO "RIGHT TO VOTE".
..
..
You miss the point, entirely. Beginning with the French Revolution men hve fought authoritarian rule and attempted, through a variety of means, to institute democratic governments and institutions. The fight was not limited, but shows up in various forms throughout history.
Today, for example, the United States goes around the world braying about it's democratic institutions. At the same time we see this nation doing all in its power to turn back the clock on one of the most sacred institutions we have--insofar as government of the people, by the people and for the people is concerned.
So, of course, Right wing--fascist leaning elements in this society and in most societies will be stressing legal, cultural and bureaucratic obstacles to popular representation. All that means is that the fight for liberty, justice and equality has not yet been won.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#19 Jul 7, 2013
KirkW wrote:
<quoted text>
There are, like it or not, some similarities between the Libertarian policies and the GOP or Tea Party policies.
And, and excuse me for borrowing the question from Michael Lind, if libertarian policies are so good why isn't ANY country in the world running their government/society that way?
"Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?"
And corporations may have some similarities to people under the tax code but they are not people. That too was just a stupid ruling by the court.
Because the very nature of any government is to RESTRICT FREEDOM, NOT PROMOTE IT.

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#20 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm NOT a "rightwinger". I'm A Libertarian.
If you don't like the fact that there is no "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution, then why don't you put it in there ?
I find that libertarians--unless you're speaking of Anarcists like Noam Chomsky--tend to be rightwingers.
Ron and Rand Paul both expressed opposiiton to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#21 Jul 7, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
There is no U.S. Constitutional "right to vote".(See Bush v. Gore (2000)).
Was this about all those Blacks in Florida whose votes didn't get counted?
At the time it was obvious Bush only cared about gaining power and not about democracy.
He behaved like Nigerian dictator, with no respect for the people, their votes or being democratically elected.
Was that really 13 years ago?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 25 min Dubya 5
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 26 min WelbyMD 684
The Worst Mass Murder Of Gay People In US History 30 min NE Jade 2
Allowing Blood Donations From Gay Men Could Hel... 34 min WelbyMD 296
Questions linger on gay Boy Scout leaders as Ga... 35 min NE Jade 3
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 53 min KiMare 50,060
Board member opposes teaching definition of gay 1 hr NorCal Native 129
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 1 hr eJohn 164
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 2 hr Reverend Alan 2,270
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 3 hr WeTheSheeple 1,030
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 8 hr Fundies R Mentall... 12

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE