The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Al68]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=7m01s

PS: I thought this was already covered here, but it seems I'm remembering a discussion that happened in the other thread. See here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2942011#post2942011

OK, thanks for the reference. I haven't been keeping up with that thread, since I'm not from Delaware, but I can now see how her question "That's in the first amendment?" might be construed as her using the word "that" to refer to the establishment clause. It doesn't appear that way to me, since her opponent referred to "separation of church and state" immediately prior to mention of the establishment clause, and her question followed both.

It appears to me that she meant "separation of church and state" by "that", partly because that's in line with the historical view of many Republicans.

But since her opponent mixed them both together, technically it's possible that she could have been referring to either or both, so perhaps we'll never know for sure.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...

 

[mheslep]

Correct. The first amendment (1791) states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." ("establishment" clause + "free exercise" clause). Jefferson interpreted the combination of these two clauses as erecting "a wall of separation between church and state" (1800-ish, in a letter to a Baptist group), and a number of subsequent court decisions have used the same interpretation (e.g., the discussion in Everson v. Board of Education).

That may have indeed been Jefferson's wish, a "separation", as he was hostile to most forms of organized religion. His wish is also, it seems to me, irrelevant. The words ratified by the colonies were "no ... establishment"; the two phrases are not equivalent, nor did Jefferson's particular turn of phrase see pre-signing debate as did other issues in the Federalist / Anti Federalist debates - an area where the courts frequently go for intent. The ratifiers wanted no repeat of a government coupled Church of England (or of Rome) in America; the establishment clause is an imminently clear and straightforward statement of that desire. The same ratifiers almost certainly would not have gone along with words leading to no prayer to open public meetings (such as in Congress or schools), or no chaplains in the Army, and it seems to me from the differences in Jefferson's semi-private letters and his public writings / pronouncements that Jefferson knew it.

 

[Jasongreat]

IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...

Couldnt one say that the 14th ammendment was null and void, just on the basis that federal troops kept voters that didnt agree with their views out of the voting booth(by force of arms) during the time it was added? And as far as that goes, couldn't it go for all laws passed between 1860 and 1870(atleast, maybe longer). If the founders were so worried about taxation without representation, wouldn't they feel the same way about lawmaking without representation?

 

[BobG]

You would have to show that the government was trying to promote or encourage membership in a particular religion; or to alienate non-members of a particular religion.

Perhaps this is why people want President Obama to distance himself from Muslim issues?

What specific "Muslim issues" are you referring to?

The Ground Zero area Mosque debate is one.

"This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable," Mr. Obama said. "The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our founders must endure."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013655-503544.html

Saying religious freedom applies to all religions (including the Muslim religion) is promoting the Muslim religion? Or is it alienating the religions that despise the Muslim religion?

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013655-503544.html

Saying religious freedom applies to all religions (including the Muslim religion) is promoting the Muslim religion? Or is it alienating the religions that despise the Muslim religion?

Why does Obama ned to be involved in a local building permit issue...perhaps his intent was to act as Chief Religion Policeman?

 

[BobG]

Why does Obama ned to be involved in a local building permit issue...perhaps his intent was to act as Chief Religion Policeman?

Perhaps you were sleeping while the story was brewing (as most sane people probably were, considering this should have never received national attention at all).

How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began

Followed, of course, by the infamous tweet of Sarah Palin which invented the new word "refudiate":
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010892-503544.html

The issue had become hard to ignore by time Obama commented on it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An ugly scene took place outside the Kentucky Senatorial debate Monday night as what appeared to be a supporter of Republican candidate Rand Paul was captured by a local news affiliate literally stomping the head of a member of the progressive-activist organization MoveOn.org...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhjg2W7vlMc

Big men, eh?

 

[mheslep]

Paul's a great candidate in my opinion, leads Conway by http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate"

 

[WhoWee]

Paul's a great candidate in my opinion, leads Conway by http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/kentucky/election_2010_kentucky_senate"

Does the poll include non-citizens who will be allowed to vote...opps wrong state.

 

[Al68]

Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim...that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment)...

I hate to point this out, being a big fan of voting, but the 14th amendment contains no protection of the right to vote. It in fact acknowledges that a state may prohibit people from voting. It only requires that the state's federal representation be reduced in the same proportion as the proportion of adult males not allowed to vote.

This provides a huge incentive for each state to allow everyone to vote that they possibly can, but it does not actually guarantee the right to vote.

 

[BobG]

IMO, all the political parties/groups claim to "love the Constitution," that is, until it says something they don't like or prevents something they want. Libertarians (of the Libertarian party) will claim the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and that there is no protection of the right to vote in the Constitution (apparently they never checked the 14th Amendment), leftists claim the 2nd Amendment is a collective right and that the commerce clause allows the government to force people to purchase health insurance, conservatives claim there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, etc...

I hate to point this out, being a big fan of voting, but the 14th amendment contains no protection of the right to vote. It in fact acknowledges that a state may prohibit people from voting. It only requires that the state's federal representation be reduced in the same proportion as the proportion of adult males not allowed to vote.

This provides a huge incentive for each state to allow everyone to vote that they possibly can, but it does not actually guarantee the right to vote.

AI's right about this. In fact, that's why blacks had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (15th Amendment). And why women had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url ). And why 18-year-olds had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (26th Amendment).

 

[Al68]

AI's right about this. In fact, that's why blacks had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (15th Amendment). And why women had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url ). And why 18-year-olds had to be given the right to vote in a separate amendment (26th Amendment).

Yes, but even after those amendments, it's perfectly constitutional for a state to deny people the right to vote because of their height, weight, length of hair, baldness, shoe size, vegetarianism, lopsided breasts, funny walk, visual acuteness, sharpness of teeth, cavities, fingernail length, or astrological sign. (Not an all-inclusive list)

 

[CAC1001]

If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?

 

[CRGreathouse]

If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?

No. (Was that a trick question?)

 

[CAC1001]

Nope; isn't that what the 14th Amendment says?

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

[Al68]

If a state denies people their right to vote however, then aren't they are denied the ability to send representatives to the federal government...?

Partially, yes. The state's federal representation would be reduced proportionally.

For example, the number of congressmen and electoral votes a state has would be reduced by 25% if they denied the right to vote to all Libras, Virgos, and Scorpios.

 

[WhoWee]

One more thing for the Tea Party to be angry about.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-27/justice/arizona.immigration.law_1_immigration-laws-immigration-status-federal-court?_s=PM:CRIME

""The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a simple, common sense protection approved by Arizona voters requiring that all individuals provide evidence of U.S. citizenship prior to registering to vote. This decision is an outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections," the statement said."

 

[Char. Limit]

What. The. Hell.

Under what rationale exactly could they do that? Don't you have to be a citizen to vote anyway?

I mean, come on!

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

 

[talk2glenn]

Yes, but even after those amendments, it's perfectly constitutional for a state to deny people the right to vote because of their height, weight, length of hair, baldness, shoe size, vegetarianism, lopsided breasts, funny walk, visual acuteness, sharpness of teeth, cavities, fingernail length, or astrological sign. (Not an all-inclusive list)

Excuse me? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

No court in the country would find voting restrictions on the basis of "height, weight, length of hair.." etcetera constitutional under the 14th amendment, let alone federal election law.

The only disenfranchisement found consistently legal by the courts has been felony disenfranchisement, largely because it is explicitly mentioned in the text of said Amendment.

 

[turbo]

What. The. Hell.

Under what rationale exactly could they do that? Don't you have to be a citizen to vote anyway?

I mean, come on!

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

 

[Evo]

I'm definitely not voting Democrat next time.

I must've missed something in that article.

 

[WhoWee]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

Please support your post turbo.

 

[turbo]

Please support your post turbo.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/10/27/20101027voters1027.html

In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that Arizona's requirement conflicts with the federal act, which requires states to make registration opportunities "widely available" and remove obstacles to voter registration. Arizona native and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the panel.

The ruling does not affect next week's general election because voter registration ended earlier this month. Prop. 200 also requires voters to show proper identification at polls. Judges did not rule on that provision.

Plaintiffs in the case said the judges' ruling removes unnecessary barriers to voter registration, especially for newly naturalized citizens who may have to go through extra steps to prove their citizenship.

There are lots more articles available without the inflammatory voter-fraud statements that the right-wing blogs carry.

Edit: I'm not going to link to Michelle Malkin's blog for obvious reasons, but she claims that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. You'll easily find other nut-case examples out there. The 9th Court's opinion was narrowly-framed on the subject of access to registration and is not likely to be overturned.

 

[talk2glenn]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

The National Voter Registration Act is itself codified federal restrictions on the voter registration process. What a special 3-man panel (including retired SC Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, but isn't even an appointed member of the court) of the 9th circuit found was that the federal process was explicit, and that Arizona could not make it more complicated. Lower federal and state courts made the opposite finding - that the addition of proof-of-eligibility requirements to the registration form did not constitute interference with federal statute.

Many poorer people do not have drivers' licenses or passports, and many recently naturalized citizens' citizenship status is incorrect in the files of state agencies, making it difficult for real citizens to register to vote.

The court made no such finding; this is your own idle speculation. In fact, by de facto (it ignored minority impact in its opinion), the court rejected plaintiffs claim of disparate minority impacts or discrimination of any kind, a usful precedent when defending future election law against 14th amendment suits (the opposite of what you would want, turbo). The ruling is purely statutory, and not constitutional - assuming its not overturned by the full 9th (less than 50/50 odds of this) or the Supreme court (also unlikely), it could be easily changed by Congress amending the Act.

 

[mheslep]

Ninth circuit judges voting on the Az voting case:
Majority:
Sandra Day O'Connor. Reagan appointment, who should have remained retired.
Sandra Ikuta, Bush W appointee

Dissent:
Alex Kozinski, Reagan appointee. Thanks this one Dutch.

Kozinski ripped into the majority. There was precedent in this case in favor of Arizona, decided by the Ninth itself. Precedent requires one heck of overwhelming argument to reverse; certainly judges can't pretend it doesn't exist.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/10/26/08-17094.pdf

As the majority belatedly acknowledges 47 pages into its opinion, we don’t come to this case with a blank slate. A prior panel has already held in a published opinion that Proposition 200 isn’t preempted because the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) “plainly allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona.[...] That is law of the circuit and therefore binding on us. See, e.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Even if it weren’t, it’s law of the case and can’t be lightly disregarded for that reason. See, e.g., Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1991). The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. First, it evades law of the circuit by creating an exception that is squarely foreclosed by a recent unanimous en banc opinion. The majority then weakens our rules governing law of the case by declaring that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the NVRA is “clearly erroneous” when it’s clearly not. Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s voter registration requirement.

The fundamental rule of circuit law is that once a panel decides a legal issue in a published opinion, that ruling binds subsequent three-judge panels. The only instance when a three-judge panel may depart from a prior published opinion is if there has been “intervening” higher authority that is “clearly irreconcilable with our prior circuit authority.” Miller, 335 F.3d at 900. And this instance is not truly an exception to the rule because it’s the intervening higher authority, not the three-judge panel, that overrules the earlier opinion. There are in fact no exceptions to law of the circuit, or at least there weren’t until today.

The rest dismantles the silly majority opinion holding that since the 1993 federal 'Motor Voter' (NVRA) act didn't specify Arizona's specific supplemental requirements, then Arizona can't have any of its own.

1. The majority claims that “allowing states to impose their own requirements for federal voter registration . . . would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input, and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of the lines of authority prescribed by Section 7.[...] If anything, this indicates that Congress
didn’t want to aggrandize the Commission’s power over the states. It certainly doesn’t “demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role.”

For the same reason, the majority’s claims that states shouldn’t be able to make an “end-run around the [Election Assistance Commission]’s consultative process,” [...] beg the question of whether the Commission can bind the states. Congress may have intended to grant states the power to supplement federal
rules despite the Commission’s objection. (states can enforce state fair-lending laws that OCC tried to preempt). If Congress intended to give states this power to disagree, then Arizona hasn’t made an end-run at all.

Relatedly, the majority claims that because the NVRA prohibits requiring “notarization or other formal authentication,” [...] Congress must have intended to prohibit states from imposing any supplemental requirements. [...] But Congress doesn’t disguise general proscriptions of everything as specific proscriptions of one narrow thing. See [...](“Congress . . . [doesn’t] hide elephants in mouseholes.”). Nor would permitting Arizona to require proof of citizenship free it to violate the NVRA’s ban on requiring formal notarization. [...] Refusing to enforce an unwritten ban hardly weakens the force of an express prohibition.[...]
But the majority’s lengthy disquisition on history and purpose only highlights the absence of any textual support for its conclusion that Congress meant to increase voter registration by prohibiting state-imposed supplemental requirements. To the extent we rely on purpose at all, we should focus on the purposes codified in the statute rather than our guesses based on reading the tea leaves of history and context.

 

[mheslep]

The court ruled that AZ laid additional restrictions on the national voter registration act, and that the state did not have the authority to do so. The less-informed wing of the GOP is flooding the internet with statements insinuating that the court wants to open up AZ to rampant voter-registration fraud. No proof, just the scary claim. The case was decided on the basis of whether a state can over-ride Federal law regarding voter eligibility.

You must know that states have the ability to establish their own voting restrictions and procedures. Then what exactly do you claim Arizona over rode in federal law? I submit there were none.

 

[turbo]

The court made no such finding; this is your own idle speculation. In fact, by de facto (it ignored minority impact in its opinion), the court rejected plaintiffs claim of disparate minority impacts or discrimination of any kind, a usful precedent when defending future election law against 14th amendment suits (the opposite of what you would want, turbo). The ruling is purely statutory, and not constitutional - assuming its not overturned by the full 9th (less than 50/50 odds of this) or the Supreme court (also unlikely), it could be easily changed by Congress amending the Act.

The claim that poorer people were denied the right to vote by having to provide expensive documentation was the the basis for the arguments of several advocates groups. Not idle speculation. A bipartisan lawyers' group (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) established to expand and protect the rights of minorities to vote (among other things) claims that since the AZ law has been in effect, 30,000 Arizonans have been denied the right to vote.

The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register. They left in place the requirement that voters have to supply a state photo ID or two non-photo IDs at the polling place before being allowed to vote.

 

[turbo]

You must know that states have the ability to establish their own voting restrictions and procedures. Then what exactly do you claim Arizona over rode in federal law? I submit there were none.

Please read the ruling, or at least a non-partisan analysis of the ruling. The court held that the states do not have the right to apply voter-registration guidelines more restrictive than those set forth in the NVRA. It's a very narrow ruling, but it forbids restrictions that amount to voter-suppression.

 

[drankin]

The claim that poorer people were denied the right to vote by having to provide expensive documentation was the the basis for the arguments of several advocates groups. Not idle speculation. A bipartisan lawyers' group (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) established to expand and protect the rights of minorities to vote (among other things) claims that since the AZ law has been in effect, 30,000 Arizonans have been denied the right to vote.

The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register. They left in place the requirement that voters have to supply a state photo ID or two non-photo IDs at the polling place before being allowed to vote.

I guess the way around that would be to have the state to issue residency documentation for free. Then one can't use the excuse, "I'm too poor to be identified as an American". Why don't these advocacy groups use their money to help people get required documentation if that's the case? They would rather use their resources to protect a few alleged poor people who can't prove they are American. I suspect it's because their agenda is to protect illegals and even get them to vote.

 

[CAC1001]

Edit: I'm not going to link to Michelle Malkin's blog for obvious reasons, but she claims that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. You'll easily find other nut-case examples out there.

I wouldn't say it is necessarilly a "nut-case" claim that progressives want illegal aliens to vote. That is why the Left want to grant them amnesty. If it was guaranteed that if/when granted amnesty, 90% of illegals would vote Republican, I think the Democrats would have a whole different view on the subject of illegal immigrants.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What a special 3-man panel (including retired SC Justice O'Connor, who voted with the majority, but isn't even an appointed member of the court) of the 9th circuit found was that the federal process was explicit, and that Arizona could not make it more complicated. Lower federal and state courts made the opposite finding - that the addition of proof-of-eligibility requirements to the registration form did not constitute interference with federal statute.

She's a senior judge of the US Supreme Court (out of respect for the body, this is usually referred to as "retired" rather than "senior" as it is for other courts), which means that she can be sent to any circuit court. I'm not sure what your issue is with that -- it's the usual process.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, this (court decision) is just more kindling for the (Tea Party) fire.

 

[mheslep]

[...]The 9th Court of Appeals struck down the more onerous AZ requirements, such as demanding a passport to prove citizenship before you can register.

Didn't that sound at least a little bit off when you wrote it - that therefore everyone in AZ must have passport to register to vote? No, the AZ law requires "satisfactory evidence of US citizenship", of which a passport is only one satisfactory type.

[The statute, Proposition 200] defined satisfactory evidence of citizenship to include a driver’s license or similar identification license issued by a motor vehicle agency, a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documents or other specified immigration documents, or specified cards relating to Native American tribal status. [...]

 

[mheslep]

She's a senior judge of the US Supreme Court (out of respect for the body, this is usually referred to as "retired" rather than "senior" as it is for other courts), which means that she can be sent to any circuit court. I'm not sure what your issue is with that -- it's the usual process.

O'connor was born 1930. Not sure how usual it is at that age.