Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, since none of you are from Wisconsin I'm really not to concerned with your opinion of how we do things here. Believe me, you don't even WANT to know OUR opinion of how you do things down there in the South.
Well, since none of you are from Wisconsin I'm really not to concerned with your opinion of how we do things here. Believe me, you don't even WANT to know OUR opinion of how you do things down there in the South.
Yes the horrible south...oh wait our governor here vetoed voter ID. So on that issue Wisconsin is more regressive then North Carolina.
There is NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE of this happening in Wisconsin. In point of fact the ONLY instance of voting problem was at the counting level, not the voting level and voter ID has no impact on that issue. In point of fact our assembly is also under investigation for breaking the open meeting law in the way they did redistricting in an attempt to control election results and the redistricting they did may also soon be legally over turned.
One must wonder just how much confidence the Republicans have in their positions when they feel they must prevent the people from actually voting in order to win.
It's a Republican tradition and has served them well. It's always amusing to see armchair professors acting as if they're more qualified to interpret the Constitution than someone well-versed in its intricacies, who actually taught Constitutional Law. And of course, the usual suspects have piled-on the OP, as if sarcasm and condescension add weight to their opinions.
The Democrats got a schooling after the 2000 election, and God bless any judge that overrides legislation making it difficult for the most vulnerable to enjoy voting rights.
As I said state constitutions cannot violate the federal constitution, but they can be different and offer people more rights.
Take this hypothetical. Say I like to hunt foxes and the state legislature passes a law banning fox hunting. I can take the matter to the SCOTUS and may tell me that there is noting in the federal constitution that prevents states from banning fox hunting and uphold the law.
Now say my state has in its state constitution a right to hunt and fish. I can then try to get the fox hunting law struck down in my state by going to the state courts and saying that even though nothing in the federal constitution prevents the state from banning fox hunting the state constitution bars the state legislature from passing laws prohibiting me from hunting foxes and a judge very well could agree with me, that in my state specifically, the state legislature cannot ban fox hunting.
That is how it works generally, and that is how a state judge can overturn a law that the SCOTUS did not.
I don't see why my link is smackworthy. All i did was offer a link to case law where federal and state rights intersect or conflict, sans comment.
What this link does do is give some info on the Supremacy Clause which states:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
To wit: A state judge cannot overrule the SCOTUS. How can I make that any simpler?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.
Well, since none of you are from Wisconsin I'm really not to concerned with your opinion of how we do things here. Believe me, you don't even WANT to know OUR opinion of how you do things down there in the South.
That clearly explains why you started this thread here instead of starting it in the WI forum.
Face it, you oppose voter ID laws because they hurt your chances of winning elections by fraud. You claim that these laws aren't needed because there's no proof of voter fraud while anyone with an ounce of logic knows that without a voter ID law it's basically impossible to prove voter fraud.
You attempt to blame racism which is step one in the Democrat play book of ignorant defenses, nobody is really surprised.
I don't see why my link is smackworthy. All i did was offer a link to case law where federal and state rights intersect or conflict, sans comment.
What this link does do is give some info on the Supremacy Clause which states:
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
To wit: A state judge cannot overrule the SCOTUS. How can I make that any simpler?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Both of these are parts of the Federal Constitution that define the Federal Government's supremacy over the States regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. A difference between the two, however, is that whereas the Supremacy Clause deals with the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, the Fourteenth Amendment deals with the relationships among the Federal Government, the States, and the citizens of the United States.
You are just not understanding what I am saying. I don't know how to make it any more clear other then to say that just because a state law doesn't implicate the federal constitution doesn't mean it will also not implicate a state constitution. The supremacy clause is important but only in the context of a state law or state constitution conflicting with the federal constitution or other federal law. The SCOTUS is the judge of state laws only in regards to federal law or the federal constitution and just because the SCOTUS say this does not conflict with a protection under the US constitution doesn't mean it will not conflict with a provision of a state constitution.
Basically I think you are assuming that just because the SCOTUS says a state law is Constitutional under the federal Constitution therefore it must be constitutional under a state constitution. That is wrong. A good example of this is the death penalty. The SCOTUS has said the death penalty is Constitutional. With that said some places have written into their state Constitutions that in regards to their state the death penalty violates their state constitution. Thus while the SCOTUS may say you can implement the death penalty with respect to the federal constitution in X state, state judges in X state may prevent the death penalty from being applied in their state because of their state constitution.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-13-2012 at 04:10 PM..
You are just not understanding what I am saying. I don't know how to make it any more clear other then to say that just because a state law doesn't implicate the federal constitution doesn't mean it will also not implicate a state constitution. The supremacy clause is important but only in the context of a state law or state constitution conflicting with the federal constitution or other federal law. The SCOTUS is the judge of state laws only in regards to federal law or the federal constitution and just because the SCOTUS say this does not conflict with a protection under the US constitution doesn't mean it will not conflict with a provision of a state constitution.
Basically I think you are assuming that just because the SCOTUS says a state law is Constitutional under the federal Constitution therefore it must be constitutional under a state constitution. That is wrong. A good example of this is the death penalty. The SCOTUS has said the death penalty is Constitutional. With that said some places have written into their state Constitutions that in regards to their state the death penalty violates their state constitution. Thus while the SCOTUS may say you can implement the death penalty with respect to the federal constitution in X state, state judges in X state may prevent the death penalty from being applied in their state because of their state constitution.
Ok, I see the point you're making. So the SCOTUS ruled that Voter ID laws are constitutional but leaves the individual states open to decide their own constitutionality on a state by state basis without running afoul of the Supremacy Clause. But isn't Congress free to say that the states cannot trump federal law by invoking the Supremacy Clause? What's to stop the federal government from doing so in this case? How can the states trump SCOTUS on this and not, for example decide to try and overrule the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
My understanding is that once the Supreme Court sets a precedent that that coverage is irrevocable and that gets into the tangle (at least for me as someone is not a lawyer or Constitutional Scholar) with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Perfect! Allow unrestricted voting by students and union goons imported from out of state to recall a sitting governor so that the inmates can then run the asylum.
Why shouldn't students vote? They are of legal age. Oh, you don't agree with them, so supress their legal right to vote.
Out of state "goons" wouldn't appear on any voter registration rolls. In big capital letters: DUH
Ok, I see the point you're making. So the SCOTUS ruled that Voter ID laws are constitutional but leaves the individual states open to decide their own constitutionality on a state by state basis without running afoul of the Supremacy Clause. But isn't Congress free to say that the states cannot trump federal law by invoking the Supremacy Clause? What's to stop the federal government from doing so in this case? How can the states trump SCOTUS on this and not, for example decide to try and overrule the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
My understanding is that once the Supreme Court sets a precedent that that coverage is irrevocable and that gets into the tangle (at least for me as someone is not a lawyer or Constitutional Scholar) with the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Glad I'm a nurse and not a lawyer.
In theory the congress could try to do some sort of national voter ID law and if Congress could find some ground to justify it on the constitution the states would have to deal with it because of the surpremacy clause. It all depends if the states are are reaching into some sphere of federal power.
I also don't see any tangle with the 10th amendment. Either some power or sphere of influence is allowed the federal government under the constitution or it isn't. If it isn't there isn't anything the federal government can do (10th amendment). If it is the federal government is king (supremacy clause).
A radical judge bowing at the feet of big labor and Democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
