Gillibrand Introduces Federal Legisla...

Gillibrand Introduces Federal Legislation To Protect Voting Rights

There are 114 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Sep 21, 2012, titled Gillibrand Introduces Federal Legislation To Protect Voting Rights. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

Two LGBT allies, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative John Lewis have teamed up to strengthen federal law regarding voting rights.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#43 Sep 22, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not going to convince that dope. He refuses to face the reality that there is no federal right to vote.
His screen name certainly fits.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#44 Sep 22, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
His screen name certainly fits.
I told him to read Bush v. Gore where SCOTUS specifically says that there is no federal right to vote. I don't know how much clearer nor recent I can be.

But libs are always inventing constitutional "rights" out of nothing more than their imagination.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Sep 22, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not going to convince that dope. He refuses to face the reality that there is no federal right to vote.
So then get a law passed denying gays or left-handed people the right (oops, I guess that's a privilege according to you) to vote.

See how quickly it is ruled unconstitutional.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#46 Sep 22, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
I told him to read Bush v. Gore where SCOTUS specifically says that there is no federal right to vote. I don't know how much clearer nor recent I can be.
But libs are always inventing constitutional "rights" out of nothing more than their imagination.
I did read Bush v Gore, and the SCOTUS specifically said their is no right to vote for ELECTORS; not that there is no right to vote at all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#47 Sep 22, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are not federal elections. States conduct elections to determine their senators, representatives and electoral college votes. States are left to their own discretion as to how elections are administered. The references cited so far only dictate that states can not disciminate in granting voting rights. Elections remain the domain of the states.
I can't help but notice that noone has cited a passage in he constitution that grants a federal right to vote.
They are elections for federal offices, therefor they are federal elections.

So according to you if it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the consitution, then it's not a right?

So then there's no right to marry, no right to have a child, no right to have sex, no right to breath air, no right to say the word "cow", no right for left-handed people to assemble in protest, etc, etc, etc.

NOWHERE are ANY of those things specifically mentioned in the constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#48 Sep 22, 2012
You two morons are the very reason many of the drafters of the constitution didn't want to start listing specific rights.

They knew it was only a matter of time before some idiot would claim something isn't a right because it's not specifically on of the enumerated rights.

Just proves how smart they were; too bad they caved in to the morons of their time.

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#49 Sep 22, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
They are elections for federal offices, therefor they are federal elections.
So according to you if it's not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the consitution, then it's not a right?
So then there's no right to marry, no right to have a child, no right to have sex, no right to breath air, no right to say the word "cow", no right for left-handed people to assemble in protest, etc, etc, etc.
NOWHERE are ANY of those things specifically mentioned in the constitution.
No, sheep. They are state elections. State elections to determine the state's senators and representatives. Does the state or federal government determine representative disctricts?
If they were federal elections, the federal government would dictate things such as early voting and absentee ballot deadlines. The states make these determinations and they vary from state to state.
Your desperate references have no bearing on the absence of a federal right to vote.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#50 Sep 22, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
And the 'right to vote' is not among them.
Better reread the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. The "Right to Vote" is mentioned explicitly in ALL of them.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...

Note: XIV sec. 2; XV sec. 1; XVII par.1; XIX; XXIV sec. 1; and, XXIV sec. 1

The "Right to Vote" is PRESUMED in ALL OF THEM.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#51 Sep 22, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, sheep. They are state elections. State elections to determine the state's senators and representatives. Does the state or federal government determine representative disctricts?
If they were federal elections, the federal government would dictate things such as early voting and absentee ballot deadlines. The states make these determinations and they vary from state to state.
Your desperate references have no bearing on the absence of a federal right to vote.
Voting is a federally guaranteed right, but one which like many other rights is primarily administered by the states. State laws regarding voting must still meet federal constitutional muster. That's why the FEDERAL govt has blocked many state voter laws.

If there were no federal right to vote, then the federal Voting Rights Act would be unconstitutional.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#52 Sep 22, 2012
*XXVI sec.1

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#53 Sep 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Better reread the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments. The "Right to Vote" is mentioned explicitly in ALL of them.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/con...
Note: XIV sec. 2; XV sec. 1; XVII par.1; XIX; XXIV sec. 1; and, XXIV sec. 1
The "Right to Vote" is PRESUMED in ALL OF THEM.
No, it's not. The states have granted the right to vote to certain groups of people over time as they see fit.

At one time:

Some states allowed black Americans to vote and others did not.

Some states allowed women to vote and others did not.

Some states allowed non-citizens to vote and others did not.

Even today, some states allow Americnas under the age of 18 years old to vote, and others do not.

You have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of voting in the U.S.

Try taking a jr. high school class in the subject so you can discuss the matter intelligently.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE". ONLY THE STATES CAN GRANT A "RIGHT TO VOTE".

“KONA, baby!”

Since: Jul 08

Jacksonville, FL

#54 Sep 22, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. The states have granted the right to vote to certain groups of people over time as they see fit.
At one time:
Some states allowed black Americans to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed women to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed non-citizens to vote and others did not.
Even today, some states allow Americnas under the age of 18 years old to vote, and others do not.
You have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of voting in the U.S.
Try taking a jr. high school class in the subject so you can discuss the matter intelligently.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE". ONLY THE STATES CAN GRANT A "RIGHT TO VOTE".
Finally, another adult has entered the room.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Sep 22, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. The states have granted the right to vote to certain groups of people over time as they see fit.
At one time:
Some states allowed black Americans to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed women to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed non-citizens to vote and others did not.
Even today, some states allow Americnas under the age of 18 years old to vote, and others do not.
You have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of voting in the U.S.
Try taking a jr. high school class in the subject so you can discuss the matter intelligently.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE". ONLY THE STATES CAN GRANT A "RIGHT TO VOTE".
Governments of ANY level don't "grant" Rights.

Rights are innate.

The CURRENT form of the U.S. Constitution, as cited above, presumes the "Right to Vote", protects it, and restricts itself and the States from abridging it along certain lines.

Underage voting is merely advisory, and not counted among those exercising the Sovereign Franchise.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#56 Sep 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Governments of ANY level don't "grant" Rights.
Rights are innate.
The CURRENT form of the U.S. Constitution, as cited above, presumes the "Right to Vote", protects it, and restricts itself and the States from abridging it along certain lines.
Underage voting is merely advisory, and not counted among those exercising the Sovereign Franchise.
You're WRONG. Consult an attorney, judge, or other licensed leagl professional. Better yet, write SCOTUS and ask them.

THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE".
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#58 Sep 23, 2012
Sei wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, both Amendment 15 and Amendment 19 pretty much say that there is a Federal right to vote.
Thank you for correcting me.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#59 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Read Bush v. Gore where SCOTUS specifically says there is no federal "right to vote".
Here
s a link to the written decsion in Bush V. Gore, where SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY STATES: "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote"; Bush v. Gore (00-949) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, December 12, 2000, II, B.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949....
If you cannot accept that explicit statement from SCOTUS about there being NO federal constitutional "right to vote", then I suggest you research the matter yourself, and\or consult a qualified legal professional such as a lawyer or a judge.
Actually, no. This is near-literal *horse shit*.

The United States SUPREME COURT consists of NINE JUDGES who cannot themselves even agree on most matters of law; they disagree viciously and act as if their "opposition" on the court *knows nothing whatsoever*; it is pointless to consult *any* attorney on these matters, as the COURT ITSELF cannot agree and consists of nine people who interpret the law *DIFFERENTLY*.

Try again.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#60 Sep 23, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the 19th amendment only prohibits states from discriminating in their granting of voting rights. It's not that hard of a concept. Here it is again. There are no federal elections, ergo, there is not a federal right to vote. Read it twice if you need to.
Yeah, ya know what? I'm reading this entire thread and I am *watching and witnessing you* play with words and semantics. In fact, it's like you're trying to *FORCE* your own meaning of the words on other people here because you're so aggravated that they *clearly refuse* to agree with you after consulting THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

My guess is you *will not* gain any converts in this thread, but hey, please keep working your ass off. The country's very, very goddamn fat and a lot of people in it need to burn calories and lose weight, so there's that.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#61 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
I told him to read Bush v. Gore where SCOTUS specifically says that there is no federal right to vote. I don't know how much clearer nor recent I can be.
But libs are always inventing constitutional "rights" out of nothing more than their imagination.
Perhaps progressives see you as full of crap for reasons beyond your control ... reasons for which you can thank *your fellow conservatives*, the part that is actually funny.

I mean, this is coming from the party who attempts to claim *gay people don't have a right to exist as anyone else does*, and I couldn't begin to tell you how insurmountable will be the challenge of *YOUR* pretending *YOU* personally know something they don't, since you were foolish enough to go and slander *every last one of them* when you couldn't get your way,

champ.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#62 Sep 23, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's not. The states have granted the right to vote to certain groups of people over time as they see fit.
At one time:
Some states allowed black Americans to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed women to vote and others did not.
Some states allowed non-citizens to vote and others did not.
Even today, some states allow Americnas under the age of 18 years old to vote, and others do not.
You have NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL of voting in the U.S.
Try taking a jr. high school class in the subject so you can discuss the matter intelligently.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL "RIGHT TO VOTE". ONLY THE STATES CAN GRANT A "RIGHT TO VOTE".
I rubbed my eyes and sat here for approximately 30 seconds.

A conservative on these boards has just *openly enumerated rights of citizens* by referring to previous eras in which rights for disenfranchised groups of citizens *DID NOT EXIST*,

as if there is legitimacy to those past eras,

my spine just got a chill.

This is how they argue.

They argue that *without stating the direct effect of its lack of legitimacy* on the voting process today.

As if this person is making the argument of the progressives *FOR* them.

With "arguments" like this, who needs to do work?
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#63 Sep 23, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, another adult has entered the room.
Translation: "I look to someone else to give me backbone."

You both goofed when you referenced the SUPREME COURT, since a goddamn moron on crack knows they don't issue decisions which are:

9-0,

9-0,

9-0,

etc.

Tell me another one about how ALL THE JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS in the world are in FULL AGREEMENT on interpretation of the law. Oh, that's right, every court case *consists of two attorneys who are in direct opposition* concerning the law, the facts, and everything else about *EVERY CASE* they ever try.

Yeah, I've got a bridge to sell you two. Stunning. You're both worse than the self-professed *ATTORNEY* on here who tried the same horse shit and ended up throwing fits like a minion of satan.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News James Dobson Calls Obama's Transgender Guidelin... 2 hr TerriB1 3
News Pope: Gays and others marginalized deserve an a... 7 hr Wondering 5
News Frank Ocean on Orlando massacre: 'Many hate us' 12 hr Fa-Foxy 12
Massage in jeddah 14 hr Ziaya_04 1
Hot Shemale looking for top non Arab (Feb '15) 22 hr oz77alan 15
I need a sexy massage in jeddah Mon Ziaya_04 2
Bottom in khobar Mon 21top 3
More from around the web