Once Again, Courts Invalidate Voters Wishes

[Intense]

Anarchists are not liberals or even leftists. Leftists believe the govt has a strong role to play. Anarchists don't believe in any govt

I know who and what Anarchist's are, where they hang (at least I used to), and who they feed off of, from personal experience. My point could be best illustrated in the movie "Battle For Seattle". See the movie if you haven't already, and then tell me what you think.

If you know that anarchists are not leftists, why mention them as an example violence from the left?

And I haven't seen the movie, but my politics are not based on movies

Watch the movie and then we'll talk.

 

[sangha]

I know who and what Anarchist's are, where they hang (at least I used to), and who they feed off of, from personal experience. My point could be best illustrated in the movie "Battle For Seattle". See the movie if you haven't already, and then tell me what you think.

If you know that anarchists are not leftists, why mention them as an example violence from the left?

And I haven't seen the movie, but my politics are not based on movies

Watch the movie and then we'll talk.

Since you can't communicate without pictorial aids, so be it

 

[Intense]

If you know that anarchists are not leftists, why mention them as an example violence from the left?

And I haven't seen the movie, but my politics are not based on movies

Watch the movie and then we'll talk.

Since you can't communicate without pictorial aids, so be it

Sangha, the problem is not me being able to communicate, it is your lack of experience on the matter.

 

[sangha]

Watch the movie and then we'll talk.

Since you can't communicate without pictorial aids, so be it

Sangha, the problem is not me being able to communicate, it is your lack of experience on the matter.

I have enough experience to know that movies are not a good source to base one political opinions on.

And if the only way you can communicate an idea is by pointing to a movie, then you most certainly do have a problem communicating. Children are taught to "use you words"

Maybe you should give it a try

 

[Ozmar]

Since you can't communicate without pictorial aids, so be it

Sangha, the problem is not me being able to communicate, it is your lack of experience on the matter.

I have enough experience to know that movies are not a good source to base one political opinions on.

And if the only way you can communicate an idea is by pointing to a movie, then you most certainly do have a problem communicating. Children are taught to "use you words"

Maybe you should give it a try

They're also taught grammar. And if they go to college, they are taught about critical thinking.

Back to the drawing board for you then, hey?

 

[sangha]

Sangha, the problem is not me being able to communicate, it is your lack of experience on the matter.

I have enough experience to know that movies are not a good source to base one political opinions on.

And if the only way you can communicate an idea is by pointing to a movie, then you most certainly do have a problem communicating. Children are taught to "use you words"

Maybe you should give it a try

They're also taught grammar. And if they go to college, they are taught about critical thinking.

Back to the drawing board for you then, hey?

Ozmars' pissed because at just pwned his ass in another thread where he proposed having the Nanny State govt regulate and censor religion. He doesn't like it when his Big Govt statist tendencies are revealed

 

[Ozmar]

I have enough experience to know that movies are not a good source to base one political opinions on.

And if the only way you can communicate an idea is by pointing to a movie, then you most certainly do have a problem communicating. Children are taught to "use you words"

Maybe you should give it a try

They're also taught grammar. And if they go to college, they are taught about critical thinking.

Back to the drawing board for you then, hey?

Ozmars' pissed because at just pwned his ass in another thread where he proposed having the Nanny State govt regulate and censor religion. He doesn't like it when his Big Govt statist tendencies are revealed

Duhh....

 

[Liability]

I have enough experience to know that movies are not a good source to base one political opinions on.

And if the only way you can communicate an idea is by pointing to a movie, then you most certainly do have a problem communicating. Children are taught to "use you words"

Maybe you should give it a try

They're also taught grammar. And if they go to college, they are taught about critical thinking.

Back to the drawing board for you then, hey?

Ozmars' pissed because at just pwned his ass in another thread where he proposed having the Nanny State govt regulate and censor religion. He doesn't like it when his Big Govt statist tendencies are revealed

Link it. Not that anybody would ever doubt YOU sangha but if you say it, it's probably untrue.

 

[sangha]

They're also taught grammar. And if they go to college, they are taught about critical thinking.

Back to the drawing board for you then, hey?

Ozmars' pissed because at just pwned his ass in another thread where he proposed having the Nanny State govt regulate and censor religion. He doesn't like it when his Big Govt statist tendencies are revealed

Duhh....

We know you're pissed. You didn't have to post a picture of yourself to prove it

 

[beowolfe]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

 

[Ozmar]

Ozmars' pissed because at just pwned his ass in another thread where he proposed having the Nanny State govt regulate and censor religion. He doesn't like it when his Big Govt statist tendencies are revealed

Duhh....

We know you're pissed. You didn't have to post a picture of yourself to prove it

You're not the shiniest ornament on the Christmas tree, are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

No, my problem with the current system is that, of the three branches, the judicial has the least ability to be 'checked,' and control of this branch has allowed a certain political philosophy to push an agenda that does not support the will of the people.

 

[beowolfe]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

No, my problem with the current system is that, of the three branches, the judicial has the least ability to be 'checked,' and control of this branch has allowed a certain political philosophy to push an agenda that does not support the will of the people.

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

 

[Liability]

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

No, my problem with the current system is that, of the three branches, the judicial has the least ability to be 'checked,' and control of this branch has allowed a certain political philosophy to push an agenda that does not support the will of the people.

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

 

[Intense]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

Very well said.... now how about finishing the thought. Sometimes the Law is against the Republic.

 

[beowolfe]

No, my problem with the current system is that, of the three branches, the judicial has the least ability to be 'checked,' and control of this branch has allowed a certain political philosophy to push an agenda that does not support the will of the people.

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

No. I meant to say 'Like I said'. Also, if you believe that my description of the judiciary's role under the constutioin is my opinion. Maybe you should read this more often:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

 

[sangha]

No, my problem with the current system is that, of the three branches, the judicial has the least ability to be 'checked,' and control of this branch has allowed a certain political philosophy to push an agenda that does not support the will of the people.

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

You meant to say "which you express as a fact"

 

[beowolfe]

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration


"The state of Arizona cannot require documents proving citizenship for new voter registration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today. The court ruled that a 2004 law created by Proposition 200 that made voters show a birth certificate, driver’s license or passport before registering to vote violated federal law. The National Voter Registration Act allows voters to register without documentation, but designates lying about citizenship as perjury. Election experts say non-citizen voting is infrequent enough that it has no effect on election results."

Court Rules Arizona Can’t Demand Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration The Washington Independent

Once again, non-elected judges have obviated a legitimate mandate that the people voted for...



The latest variation of totalitarianism is neither religious, nor even political: it is cultural. “Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

Very well said.... now how about finishing the thought. Sometimes the Law is against the Republic.

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

 

[Intense]

So, is it your desire that we have a tyranny of the majority or a republic? If you want a republic, you must accept that sometimes what the majority want is against the law.

Very well said.... now how about finishing the thought. Sometimes the Law is against the Republic.

No. It isn't. Sometimes the law is against the people who hold political positions in this republic, but not against the republic itself. By that I mean, the SCOTUS may rule a law as unconstitutional, but that doesn't place the congress in jeopardy for enacting it, nor the POTUS for signing it. Just like the SCOTUS isn't held responsible for a bone head decision i.e. Citizens United.

Sometimes the Law is against the Republic. The Law is not infallible. You Idolize the structure forgetting what it was built to serve. Coulda-woulda-shoulda has expired, you can't use it anymore. Take a nice deep breath of fresh air... No more bullshit in the fresh air, did you notice?

 

[Liability]

Like I said, you must be an anti constitutionalist. Because the design of the constitution calls for the judiciary to be the least checked branch of government. They only way their rulings can be checked is that congress pass a law that the judiciary deems is in accord with the constitution. That's the design. That's what the saying "We're a nation of laws, not men," means.

You meant to say "AS I said ...."

And no. You are quite wrong in any event.

You have an opinion which you express as fact, but beyond pointing to yourself , you have no ability to support what you just said.

You meant to say "which you express as a fact"

Nope. I said it correctly the first time.

You can't even offer an editorial suggestion accurately.