Gillibrand Introduces Federal Legislation To Protect Voting Rights

Sep 21, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 114

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

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#104 Sep 24, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I like this quiz better-
Which personality got busted for soliciting sex from an underage boy on topix?
A. TucksunJack
B. Fred ABQ
C. Frank from upstate New York
D. Daniel P from Long Island
E. All the above
(Hint- it's E.)
That's probably why he moved out of New York to Arizona.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#105 Sep 24, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
And since I have state-issued photo ID's from 3 states, each with a different name on them, how hard can it be to get a photo ID ?!
the Democrats' arguments against this saying it's TOO hard, or TOO much of a burden for people to get a state-issued pohto ID are ludicrous on their face and are simply LIES. ANYONE can get a state-issued photo ID very easily.
And in some places in Suffolk County, New York (population approx. 1.4 million people, obviously NOT the "back woods hillbilly country"), the STATE WILL COME TO YOU TO TAKE YOUR PHOTO AND ISSUE YOU THE STATE ID. HOW MUCH EASIER CAN THEY MAKE IT ???!!!
No, it's CLEAR the Democrats want to continue their MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD RINGS that have operated for decades and more.
What voter fraud?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#106 Sep 24, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>

No, it's CLEAR the Democrats want to continue their MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD RINGS that have operated for decades and more.
Can you cite the cases you call "massive", that would be prevented by these voter laws? I haven't seen anyone able to do so. And I have tried to find such cases on the internet, without much success. In my humble opinion, they are not only attempting to use these laws to get Romney elected, but also to prevent a crime that is not occurring, at least in numbers that would swing an election. And why wait until just before a crucial election to enact them, when they have had many years to enact them? I don't object to photo ID, but it is my feeling that it should be phased in, requiring them of each new voter as they register, and then only with very proper notice, i.e. passing the law in a non election year in say July, and having it go into effect as of January of the following year. And the state, not the voter, should shoulder the cost of any paperwork necessary, like the charge for a copy of the various documents.

Since: Jan 09

Central NJ

#107 Sep 24, 2012
Boo Hoo! You make me feel so bad! Just think, Voting is Not guaranteed in the Constitution and all were askingh is that you flash some ID before you voted. You always had to state your name and were checked off the rolls by a challenger. I know I was a challenger. All they are saying is now you have to verify that you are who you say you are. Contrast that with purchasing a gun, which is protected by the Constitution. You must have a ID card, in the case of pistols, you must have a permit. Then you must submit to a NCIS check and then fill out a BATF form. All in violation of the Constitution's right that shall not be infringed.
Hah! Voter ID is a long time in coming but think god it's finally here!
Regards, Terri
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you cite the cases you call "massive", that would be prevented by these voter laws? I haven't seen anyone able to do so. And I have tried to find such cases on the internet, without much success. In my humble opinion, they are not only attempting to use these laws to get Romney elected, but also to prevent a crime that is not occurring, at least in numbers that would swing an election. And why wait until just before a crucial election to enact them, when they have had many years to enact them? I don't object to photo ID, but it is my feeling that it should be phased in, requiring them of each new voter as they register, and then only with very proper notice, i.e. passing the law in a non election year in say July, and having it go into effect as of January of the following year. And the state, not the voter, should shoulder the cost of any paperwork necessary, like the charge for a copy of the various documents.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#108 Sep 25, 2012
Pappa wrote:
<quoted text>
Citing passages that prohibit discrimination in the states' granting of voting rights does not equate to citing passages that grant a federal right to vote. This is not a difficult concept. Why are you and your brethren struggling with it?
You make a bad mistake when, in an online point of contention, you attempt to *characterize an "opposition" you cannot see or hear*. You don't get to unilaterally others what they're doing; this opens the door for *THEM* to tell *YOU* what you are doing.

I'm only suspicious of you for one reason, and I have cited it more than once here: semantics. I have *watched* semantics create huge arguments online; you don't get to "force" me to agree with you because you are hell-bent on being "proud" and "right."

I'm not interested in your goddamn pride and I have *zero* investment in your being right. What is so difficult for *YOU* about those concepts? Any dolt on the internet could have grasped them from Exchange #1. Instead, you try to implicate me in your sorry bullshit -- not the point you're making, but the way in which I am *witnessing* you make it.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

#109 Sep 25, 2012
See? I'm reading the thread and reading posts and the people arguing for a right to vote *are having to correct SEMANTICALLY what is being said* by the others. It's right here in the thread *in black and white*, before me, in English.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#110 Sep 25, 2012
TerryE wrote:
Boo Hoo! You make me feel so bad! Just think, Voting is Not guaranteed in the Constitution and all were askingh is that you flash some ID before you voted. You always had to state your name and were checked off the rolls by a challenger. I know I was a challenger. All they are saying is now you have to verify that you are who you say you are. Contrast that with purchasing a gun, which is protected by the Constitution. You must have a ID card, in the case of pistols, you must have a permit. Then you must submit to a NCIS check and then fill out a BATF form. All in violation of the Constitution's right that shall not be infringed.
Hah! Voter ID is a long time in coming but think god it's finally here!
Regards, Terri
<quoted text>
Yes, gun ownership is another federally guaranteed right, but just like voting it is administered primarily by the states. That's why states have different laws regarding who can buy a gun, when, where, & how.

Just as voting is a federally guaranteed right, but administered by the states which determine who, when, where, & how people can vote.

The federal govt doesn't sell guns, yet gun ownership is a federally guaranteed right.
The federal govt doesn't run elections, yet voting is a federally guaranteed right.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#111 Sep 25, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, gun ownership is another federally guaranteed right, but just like voting it is administered primarily by the states. That's why states have different laws regarding who can buy a gun, when, where, & how.
Just as voting is a federally guaranteed right, but administered by the states which determine who, when, where, & how people can vote.
The federal govt doesn't sell guns, yet gun ownership is a federally guaranteed right.
The federal govt doesn't run elections, yet voting is a federally guaranteed right.
Voting is NOT A FEDERAL RIGHT !

STOP SAYING THAT !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#112 Sep 25, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
Voting is NOT A FEDERAL RIGHT !
STOP SAYING THAT !
Nope, I won't stop saying it. Mostly because it's true, but also because just like voting rights, free speech is a federally guaranteed right as well.

Voting
Gun ownership
Marriage
Procreation

ALL federally guaranteed fundamental rights which are adminstered primarily by the states.

Don't like it, then don't read my posts.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

#113 Sep 25, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I won't stop saying it. Mostly because it's true, but also because just like voting rights, free speech is a federally guaranteed right as well.
Voting
Gun ownership
Marriage
Procreation
ALL federally guaranteed fundamental rights which are adminstered primarily by the states.
Don't like it, then don't read my posts.
EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG !

Why don't you call teh ACLU asnd ask them ? Or ask a licensed legal professinal such as a laywer or a judge ? Or simply write SCOTUS and ask them ? Why don't you do one of those things instead of constantly displaying your ignorance on teh subject so proudly ?

And read Gore v. Bush, btw where SCOTUS EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#114 Sep 25, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG !
Why don't you call teh ACLU asnd ask them ? Or ask a licensed legal professinal such as a laywer or a judge ? Or simply write SCOTUS and ask them ? Why don't you do one of those things instead of constantly displaying your ignorance on teh subject so proudly ?
And read Gore v. Bush, btw where SCOTUS EXPLICITLY SAYS THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL RIGHT TO VOTE.
Because unlike you, I can read & comprehend basic English!

The SCOTUS said there isn't a right to vote FOR ELECTORS for the President, UNLESS the state decides to select their electors by popular vote, in which case all standard voting rights apply.

You keep leaving off that important little qualifier.

If there wasn't a federal right to vote, then the federal Voting Rights Act would have been ruled unconstitutional. In addition, the federal courts would simply dismiss any voting discimination cases for lack of a federal question. All voting rights cases- including the recent voter ID cases- would be handled by the state courts and the state courts ONLY.

Well let's see, a FEDERAL court ruled the Texas voter ID law unconstitutional; the FEDERAL court is about to rule on the South Carolina voter ID law; the FEDERAL ruled on the Indiana voter ID law; oh yeah, and the FEDERAL court ruled on Bush v Gore.

Hmmmmmmm, now if there isn't a federal right to vote, then why oh why would the FEDERAL courts be constantly ruling on voting rights cases?......

Obviously there IS a federally guaranteed right to vote; it's just administered primarily by the states, just like gun rights, marriage rights, intrastate travel rights, procreation rights, etc, etc, etc.

Yes Virginia, there IS a federal right to vote. Just try banning all gay people or all left-handed people from voting and see what happens. There needs to be a very substantial reason to remove a fundamental right such as voting, which is why voting rights cases almost always fall under strict scrutiny.

Now throw another hissy fit, just like you always do when you are WRONG WRONG WRONG..........

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#115 Sep 25, 2012
Very good, Sheeps!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#116 Sep 25, 2012
snyper wrote:
Very good, Sheeps!
Thanks.

I'm sure he'll be back stomping his little feet once he changes his underwear.

“I beleave in reason not god”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#117 Sep 25, 2012
TucksunJack wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there isn't, and never has been. Don't you know ANYTHING about the U.S. Constitution and American history ?
If you think there is a FEDERAL "right to vote", then please point it out.
us Constitution amendment 26 read it

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Senators to FEMA: Investigate insurers who may ... Nov 15 TimGolden 9
Iowa's Joni Ernst: I was sexually harassed in m... Oct '14 Eron 17
Hillary Clinton Blames Republicans for 'Egregio... Sep '14 Far Away 1
Hillary Clinton Discusses 9/11 Health Act at La... Sep '14 Obama Bad 13
NBC's Lauer Asks Dem Senator Why She Didn't 'Ca... Sep '14 Go Blue Forever 1
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Male colleague called ... Sep '14 DC Cop 4
Iowa GOP Senate candidate takes on military sex... Aug '14 Captain Yesterday 6

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE