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.
Nope. You want to get busy about your lack of reading comprehension?
Freedom of speech is freedom to speak out against the government. It isn't freedom to threaten other citizens, or stay stupid things about private individuals without consequence.
The right to bear arms is absolute. HOWEVER, permit issue is not unconstitutional. The Second Amendment does not read "every citizen shall be issued a gun." It reads "shall not be infringed." Anything not included in the constitution is subject to the states. Gun permitting is done as such.
Voting has explicit text in the constitution that prohibits the government from infringing on the basis of color, sex, age, and poll tax. Voter ID requirements are a poll tax. Is there a gun tax Amendment?
Free voter ID does not constitute a poll tax no matter how many times you try to say it does. That was the key in the Crawford v. Marion County decision. If free Voter ID is provided, then the rest of the document gathering, going to the place to obtain the ID, etc are not considered a significant enough burden to throw out voter ID. That's what SCOTUS said and only SCOTUS can overturn themselves.
Also, that was quite some mental gymnastics there to arrive at those conclusions on free speech and right to bear arms. Look, don't believe me. Look at various SCOTUS decisions on our rights. You will see the phrase reasonable restrictions multiple times. It's something that is allowed even if you, personally, do not agree with it.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote or either didn't understand it.
ohh, he understood it, Urbanlife has a proclivity for switching gears.
I like the stop sign analogy. We certainly know that many more people go through stop signs than those that are ticketed, how many? Who knows. We also know voter fraud exists, how many? Who knows.
Without the ability to determine how many people are breaking the law we can never know how many.
"The right of the citizens of the United States to vote."
Stop trolling and move on.
I'm not trolling, you just dont like me pointing out how dam flat wrong you are..
The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, it doesnt say what people are allowed to do, only what the government cant do.
There isnt a dam segment of the Constitution which wouldnt allow a state to only allow standards established to vote.
For example, if a state said only tax payers can vote. That would be completely constitutional since it wouldnt limit ones ability to vote (i.e. you arent paying a tax to vote, you're paying taxes as a member of society), nor would it limit based upon sex, color of skin etc.
Not at all. Social Security number is easily verifiable.
The problem is the hoops Republicans are creating to tackle a problem that doesn't exist. It is an artificially created "concern" to mask their cheating agenda.
If voter fraud is truly such an issue, make it easier for people to vote honestly; not more difficult.
Wait, what if my 96 year old Grandma doesn't have a Social Security card. Now she has to get one and the cost of her to go get one (the ride down there, the gas, the whatever else you have tried to argue) now constitutes a poll tax. See how absurd your argument is?
ohh, he understood it, Urbanlife has a proclivity for switching gears.
I like the stop sign analogy. We certainly know that many more people go through stop signs than those that are ticketed, how many? Who knows. We also know voter fraud exists, how many? Who knows.
Without the ability to determine how many people are breaking the law we can never know how many.
Like we said.. the burden of proof is on the government, not the citizen. Citizen right to vote cannot be infringed.
Like we said.. the burden of proof is on the government, not the citizen. Citizen right to vote cannot be infringed.
Please cite for me what section of the Constitution would limit a state from passing a law which says only property owners can vote, or how about only married couples can vote.
If you can cite it for me, then I will agree that rights can not be infringed..
If you cant, then YOU ARE WRONG...
Dont babble on some nonsense, I want a QUOTE...
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.
