Stupidity Of Hillary.Claims That Republicans Are Blocking Democrats From Voting?,Well,Explain How?

[mudwhistle]

By now we have all heard one of her most recent rants regarding how Republicans are blocking/stopping dead people, Hispanics, the disabled, black and brown people, illegal aliens, trans-gendered, the terminally stupid, house pets, etc. etc. from either registering to vote or just attempting to vote in the primaries.

So how brain dead would anyone have to be to believe this?
Maybe Hillary needs to start naming the Republicans who are standing in front of precincts with baseball bats, and also explain how an individual is capable of preventing any legal American from either registering to vote, or just wait in line to vote?

Really, all that Hillary has is racism and sexism. She can't really run on her record.

Truth is, nobody likes the bitch. He's ugly, she's dishonest, and she's corrupt.

A perfect Democrat.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I'm confused.........Hillary gets Super Delegate Votes before voting starts and you kids are crying about "suppression"?

The Dem Party is disenfranchising it's own voters,

and now Republicans are stopping all disabled Americans from voting? really",,,what next,,,Republicans are stopping cows too?

cows would vote for Bernie.
Bernie looks like Colonel Sanders.
Colonel Sanders only cooks chickens

 

[Care4all]

yes there are MILLIONS of American citizens that do not have a gvt issued photo id....

I REPEAT, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS

How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor


Even though the Justice Department acted first in December in blocking a South Carolina voter-ID law, election law experts seem to agree that the Texas case is going to be the tip of the spear. Here's how the Justice Department responded when it reviewed Texas' new voter-ID law. Federal lawyers wrote:

[W]e conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically significant.

There's more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote:

Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends.

The article was dated four years ago.

And let's be honest here: If you told anyone of these supposed people with no ID to vote that there was a $800.00 check waiting for them across the state, and all they needed was a valid ID to accept the check and cash it, it would take them less than 24 hours to obtain one and find transportation to get there.

The truth of the matter is that a good percentage of Democrat voters don't really care about voting. It's not a serious thing for them. If it's convenient, sure, they might vote, but it's not a priority or major concern.

It's my opinion that the biggest problem with our elections is we have too many uninformed voters. We have people that don't know left from right, conservative from liberal, or taxes and no taxes, and it's those people that vote Democrat.

Democrats heavily rely on uninformed voters. Don't believe me? Just check out how all inner-city voters vote. These are low educated people, many with low or no income, most who couldn't tell you who the vice-President is yet alone Speaker of the House.

Because these people are typically Democrat, of course Voter-ID affects them more than informed voters who take voting seriously.

see, you WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE citizens of their vote...

thanks for agreeing with what I said was republican's GOAL with all of this and being honest...

How are you disenfranchising anybody if they are too lazy to comply with rules; if you don't make it overly convenient for them?

You see, disenfranchisement happens when you have two sets of rules. This is one set that everybody has to abide to regardless of age, gender, race or anything else.

THE ONLY people who have to go through hurdles to vote, are people who do not drive....all the rest of us, have to go through absolutely nothing, to register to vote, all easy peasy for us, compared to the elderly who do not drive, the poor who can not afford to own a car and drive, and the disabled who can not drive.

You've made two categories for voters...real easy for those that drive, and hurdles for those who don't...and to me, that is incredibly UNJUST.

 

[Care4all]

Karma has played out on the Republicans that won big time in 2014 due to the lowest voter turn out in 50 years....they cheated through redistricting, (yes Dem's have done this too) and through disenfranchisement through new voter laws...and then did nothing.

You rejected them all...thus Donald Trump winning this primary race....

so some good has come out of it I suppose....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year.

That's at an even lower rate than your fake trust.

What make you think they don't have ID?

How did they get ID?

most states allow illegals to get driver's licenses, and bank accounts and mortgages etc etc etc, and they can be renewed by mail on the driver's licenses... others have stolen identities....

NOTE! - out of all races, legal Hispanics registered and eligible to vote are least likely to vote... I doubt Hispanic illegals are voting when you can't even get legal Hispanics to vote in any high percentages....

plus, if caught, it guarantees deportation, it's a felony....crossing the border is a misdemeanor, unless it is their second time caught, after already deported.

I doubt Hispanic illegals are voting

That's reassuring.

plus, if caught, it guarantees deportation

You're joking, right?

no, i'm not joking... right now, with limited deportation money allotted by Congress, they have had to prioritize deportations to felons, gang members, drug dealers first. An illegal with no criminal history is unlikely to be deported....no money for the process.

And illegals need to be stopped IN THE VETTING PROCESS when they are applying to register to vote in the State....and not get issued voter registration cards in the first place....

That's why we see stories about felons who continue to commit crimes here, because they were all deported. Durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By now we have all heard one of her most recent rants regarding how Republicans are blocking/stopping dead people, Hispanics, the disabled, black and brown people, illegal aliens, trans-gendered, the terminally stupid, house pets, etc. etc. from either registering to vote or just attempting to vote in the primaries.

So how brain dead would anyone have to be to believe this?
Maybe Hillary needs to start naming the Republicans who are standing in front of precincts with baseball bats, and also explain how an individual is capable of preventing any legal American from either registering to vote, or just wait in line to vote?

Republicans admitted it.

Republicans Admit Voter-ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters

Of course. You stop illegals from voting, you're targeting illegal Democratic voters.

 

[Care4all]

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year.

That's at an even lower rate than your fake trust.

What make you think they don't have ID?

How did they get ID?

most states allow illegals to get driver's licenses, and bank accounts and mortgages etc etc etc, and they can be renewed by mail on the driver's licenses... others have stolen identities....

NOTE! - out of all races, legal Hispanics registered and eligible to vote are least likely to vote... I doubt Hispanic illegals are voting when you can't even get legal Hispanics to vote in any high percentages....

plus, if caught, it guarantees deportation, it's a felony....crossing the border is a misdemeanor, unless it is their second time caught, after already deported.

I doubt Hispanic illegals are voting

That's reassuring.

plus, if caught, it guarantees deportation

You're joking, right?

no, i'm not joking... right now, with limited deportation money allotted by Congress, they have had to prioritize deportations to felons, gang members, drug dealers first. An illegal with no criminal history is unlikely to be deported....no money for the process.

And illegals need to be stopped IN THE VETTING PROCESS when they are applying to register to vote in the State....and not get issued voter registration cards in the first place....

That's why we see stories about felons who continue to commit crimes here, because they were all deported. Durr.

sure, there could be a few.....certainly not most, and this doesn't negate the fact that they do not want to be caught committing a felony, like voter fraud...and take that chance.

Anyway, these illegals should be stopped from registering in the voter registration vetting process.... if they are at the polls voting, they already have govt issued photo id's...some legal id's through getting a driver's license in their State, and some through stealing another's citizen's identity. this gvt issued photo id only, at the polls has nothing to do with illegals.... it's all about disenfrancising, the elderly, who do not drive, the disabled who can not drive, and the poor who do not have the money to drive and own a car....primarily Democratic leaning voters.

 

[kaz]

There ya go.

Disenfranchisement of the dead and illegal aliens and allowing people to only vote for themselves and to vote only once, it's ...

... hmmm ...

... what's wrong with that again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

yes there are MILLIONS of American citizens that do not have a gvt issued photo id....

I REPEAT, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS

How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor


Even though the Justice Department acted first in December in blocking a South Carolina voter-ID law, election law experts seem to agree that the Texas case is going to be the tip of the spear. Here's how the Justice Department responded when it reviewed Texas' new voter-ID law. Federal lawyers wrote:

[W]e conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by DPS could range from 603,892 to 795,955. The disparity between the percentages of Hispanics and non-Hispanics who lack these forms of identification ranges from 46.5 to 120.0 percent. That is, according to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification. Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card issued by DPS, and that disparity is statistically significant.

There's more. As Brentin Mock wrote earlier this week at Colorlines, the practical reality of life in Texas makes it difficult, if not impossible, for people who want to comply with the new ID law to do so. Mock wrote:

Texas has no driver's license offices in almost a third of the state's counties. Meanwhile, close to 15 percent of Hispanic Texans living in counties without driver's license offices don't have ID. A little less than a quarter of driver's license offices have extended hours, which would make it tough for many working voters to find a place and time to acquire the IDs. Despite this, the Texas legislature struck an amendment that would have reimbursed low-income voters for travel expenses when going to apply for a voter ID, and killed another that would have required offices to remain open until 7:00 p.m. or later on just one weekday, and four or more hours at least two weekends.

The article was dated four years ago.

And let's be honest here: If you told anyone of these supposed people with no ID to vote that there was a $800.00 check waiting for them across the state, and all they needed was a valid ID to accept the check and cash it, it would take them less than 24 hours to obtain one and find transportation to get there.

The truth of the matter is that a good percentage of Democrat voters don't really care about voting. It's not a serious thing for them. If it's convenient, sure, they might vote, but it's not a priority or major concern.

It's my opinion that the biggest problem with our elections is we have too many uninformed voters. We have people that don't know left from right, conservative from liberal, or taxes and no taxes, and it's those people that vote Democrat.

Democrats heavily rely on uninformed voters. Don't believe me? Just check out how all inner-city voters vote. These are low educated people, many with low or no income, most who couldn't tell you who the vice-President is yet alone Speaker of the House.

Because these people are typically Democrat, of course Voter-ID affects them more than informed voters who take voting seriously.

see, you WANT TO DISENFRANCHISE citizens of their vote...

thanks for agreeing with what I said was republican's GOAL with all of this and being honest...

How are you disenfranchising anybody if they are too lazy to comply with rules; if you don't make it overly convenient for them?

You see, disenfranchisement happens when you have two sets of rules. This is one set that everybody has to abide to regardless of age, gender, race or anything else.

THE ONLY people who have to go through hurdles to vote, are people who do not drive....all the rest of us, have to go through absolutely nothing, to register to vote, all easy peasy for us, compared to the elderly who do not drive, the poor who can not afford to own a car and drive, and the disabled who can not drive.

You've made two categories for voters...real easy for those that drive, and hurdles for those who don't...and to me, that is incredibly UNJUST.

There is nothing unjust about one rule for all people. That's called fair.

And I'll say it again: if you took any one of those people you are talking about, told them there was a $800.00 check waiting for them to cash, and all they needed to do was provide proper photo ID, they would have it done in less than 24 hours.

Now, as for those millions of poor, elderly, or otherwise people that can't drive, how do they obtain food? How do they go to the doctor or hospital? How do they cash checks or get currency from the bank? How do they get to work and back?

These are all cheap excuses to hide the fact that Democrats don't want people to have proper ID so they can continue cheating elections; keep dragging homeless people off the train tracks, give them a cigarette, and tell them to go inside and vote for X.

My mother is one of those people you talk about. She never drove a car in her life. When she needs a ride, she'll go take a bus. If that's not an option, a cab. In most cases, a family member drives her to where she needs to go. She's lived that way her entire life, and at the age of 80, not going to change anytime soon.

 

[kaz]

Just following the Dem example...

maybe Hillary can show us some video evidence of a Republican stopping a democrat from voting?

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

No Democrat has ever disallowed the Senate from voting on a Supreme Court nominee.

Nice try.

Democrats are just all about fair play above all else, aren't you?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

maybe Hillary can show us some video evidence of a Republican stopping a democrat from voting?

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion

that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012

 

[Rexx Taylor]

I'm confused.........Hillary gets Super Delegate Votes before voting starts and you kids are crying about "suppression"?

The Dem Party is disenfranchising it's own voters,

and now Republicans are stopping all disabled Americans from voting? really",,,what next,,,Republicans are stopping cows too?

cows would vote for Bernie.
Bernie looks like Colonel Sanders.
Colonel Sanders only cooks chickens

if Hillary finds herself behind in Louisiana, she will go to that infamous graveyard and register all 200+ thousand corpses

 

[Grizz]

maybe Hillary can show us some video evidence of a Republican stopping a democrat from voting?

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion

that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012

Hey dumbass?

He was refuting Bush's claim that the Constitution REQUIRES he Senate to take up an appointment right away.

Lesson to you, try and think one to two steps ahead.

 

[eagle1462010]

And so it begins again..............same tactics used over and over again by the Dems................Their OK with having to have an I.D. for most things unless it's for voting..................and now the Propaganda machine will go to standard talking points to feed the people how they are being oppressed and not allowed to vote..........

It doesn't work on the informed............It only works on those not informed............and it is to be expected..............

On a lighter note.........expect their other points to be if you vote GOP old people will have to eat Dog Food.

Willful ignorance is not becoming!!! You are perpetually turning a blind eye to the goal of these "establishment Republican" law makers, at your own free will because it helps your side win....this isn't a SPORT, every individual citizen's lives and livelihood are at stake....everyone eligible has the RIGHT to vote for their own representation.... I'm sorry you have chosen to support voter suppression out of your own selfishness.

The only one with ''TACTICS'' are Republican law makers, Nation wide, who have gone ALL OUT to disenfranchise citizens of their vote....

We have been able to vote without a government issued photo ID since the beginning of our Nation. States have allowed all kinds of various ID's at the polls to identify citizens as 'themselves' and the person on the voter roll that has registered and been vetted by the State, or as my state, no ID's at all needed to vote, just identifying yourself by giving your name and address and Party affiliation, and then matching up your signature to your registration signature.

Not a single person committing voter fraud has been caught or charged, due to solely having a gvt issued photo ID since your side has instituted it in all the States Republican governors have been in control. Voter fraud takes place via absentee ballot, via insiders with voter lists, via dead people being kept on the voter rolls INTENTIONALLY, via people registering in several counties, via the registration process not vetting correctly and not keeping their records up to date, via voting in more than one State....you name it, but few, if any, are committing voter fraud by taking the chance and going to vote, in another person's name at the polls, while you smile and feel all gooey inside, by disenfranchising millions of citizens throughout the Nation, who simply don't drive or own a car because they are too poor, or too old, or too disabled.

Addressing voter fraud that doesn't exist or barely exists... a person taking the identity of another at the polling booth, is a guise...as phony as phony can be. IF YOU TRULY wanted to address voter fraud, then you would be focusing on the voter registration process and States vetting applicants BEFORE they send them their voter registration cards, and through absentee ballots where it is easier to cheat, and through keeping their voter registration rolls up to date by removing dead people from them.

Your party TACTICS, to DISENFRANCHISE VOTERS, is clear as the sunshine in daylight, stop being a nincompoop, and pretending otherwise.

I don't buy that snake oil..............We need I.d.'s for everything all the time.....and requiring an I.d. to vote isn't that big of a deal..........I've been showing a license to vote all my life...............

Stop making something out of nothing.................it's not that dang difficult to get an i.d. unless you want illegals to vote..............hmm............might be your motive anyway..............

1 citizen............1 vote........updated voters registrations so we don't see 150% voter turn out in a district anymore.

True The Vote

Attacked by the IRS and now a rolling machine across the nation forcing updated voter registration via legal action from districts that hadn't updated their records for decades.............

The IRS didn't stop these people from TRUTH THE VOTE...........

 

[eagle1462010]

True The Vote

The DOJ stood up for noncitizen voting…and failed

The fight to protect a state’s ability to require proof of citizenship took a twisted, frightening turn this week -- yet election integrity won the first battle in the courtroom. These types of fights are typically won and lost out in the weeds, so the following is a simple timeline of events.

January 29 – The U.S. Election Assistance Commission notifies the states of Kansas, Georgia and Alabama that their respective requests to require that voter applicants submit proof of citizenship when using the National Mail Voter Registration Form has been granted. Left-wing groups immediately threaten legal action and demand a reversal.

February 12 – League of Women Voters, ACORN’s Project Vote, NAACP and others file a 200+ page lawsuit against the EAC, seeking to block citizenship checks.

February 22 – Responsible for defending the EAC in any lawsuit, the Obama DOJ turns hostile against its client agency and tells the court to grant the plaintiffs’ wish to fully block citizenship checks.

February 23 – D.C. Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon (Bush 43 appointee) denies the request of the plaintiffs and DOJ for a temporary restraining order, citing timeliness concerns and a skepticism toward claimed injuries. Judge Leon also lays out his expectation of a “full, adversarial briefing,” for future matters in the case -- meaning that the DOJ must represent its client’s actual wishes, not abandon them for political gain.

March 9 – The parties will meet in court again for a preliminary injunction hearing.

TTV Founder Catherine Engelbrecht responded in a statement this week.

“What we are witnessing is the common thug ethic on unabashed display in Washington. Common thugs use fear and intimidation as a means to control. Common thugs take what they want, never mind the collateral damage. Common thugs walk out on their responsibilities for selfish convenience. But, these common thugs can be stopped if law-abiding citizens will stand their ground.”

 

[Grizz]

maybe Hillary can show us some video evidence of a Republican stopping a democrat from voting?

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion

that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012

"Adam J. White"
Adam J. White

Son you jus ain't ready for me.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta wonder why the majority of Black people apparently vote democrat when they must know that they have been ridiculed and played for suckers by racist democrats since FDR was in the White House. How in the world could the DNC get away with claiming that mostly Black people would be adversely impacted by having to show a photo I.D. in order to vote when a photo I.D. is a necessity of life in the 21st century? The only way democrats get away with blanket racism is with the full support of the bigoted left wing media.

 

[Clementine]

There ya go.

Are you suggesting that the new rules only apply to Dem voters?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You gotta wonder why the majority of Black people apparently vote democrat when they must know that they have been ridiculed and played for suckers by racist democrats since FDR was in the White House. How in the world could the DNC get away with claiming that mostly Black people would be adversely impacted by having to show a photo I.D. in order to vote when a photo I.D. is a necessity of life in the 21st century? The only way democrats get away with blanket racism is with the full support of the bigoted left wing media.

Understanding politics is almost a full time job in itself. Most blacks are not entertained or interested in politics, so they vote the way they are told.

If you ask a black man how he votes, he will tell you Democrat. If you ask why, he will tell you that Democrats are for the poor and the working man. Ask who told him that, and he will tell you the Democrats.

 

[rightwinger]

You gotta wonder why the majority of Black people apparently vote democrat when they must know that they have been ridiculed and played for suckers by racist democrats since FDR was in the White House. How in the world could the DNC get away with claiming that mostly Black people would be adversely impacted by having to show a photo I.D. in order to vote when a photo I.D. is a necessity of life in the 21st century? The only way democrats get away with blanket racism is with the full support of the bigoted left wing media.

Understanding politics is almost a full time job in itself. Most blacks are not entertained or interested in politics, so they vote the way they are told.

If you ask a black man how he votes, he will tell you Democrat. If you ask why, he will tell you that Democrats are for the poor and the working man. Ask who told him that, and he will tell you the Democrats.

More reason why blacks won't vote Republican