The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

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.

Not long after my wife and I moved here, I had to supply a copy of my birth certificate. Guess what. It got misplaced in the move, so I had to take time off, go to the clerk's office in the county seat, and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii). Due to environmental illness (inability to fly, for sure) I had already let my passport lapse. There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

 

[Al68]

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?

LOL. Just made up a list of things that the constitution does not prohibit as a basis for denying voting rights. Basically, anything except race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, or age (if >18).

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.

I won't argue about what a court will or won't do, but the constitution specifically says that states are free to deny people a right to vote for any reason except the ones I listed above. And they did so (upheld by the courts) for those reasons prior to the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments respectively. Why do you think those amendments were enacted?

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.

That's false. States were free to disenfranchise blacks prior to the 15th amendment, women prior to the 19th amendment, etc. Those amendments were enacted specifically because the constitution otherwise allows disenfranchisement.

But, if a state did choose to disenfranchise all scorpios, for example, any honest court would uphold it, then we would pass another constitutional amendment. You can say otherwise, but that's what happened for the cases of previous disenfranchisement based on race, gender, and age.

 

[Al68]

...and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii).

What? They sold you a fake birth certificate?

Seriously, states should do that free at least once every few years. And only charge a fee for habitual birth certificate misplacers.

 

[mheslep]

[...] There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

The hyperbole 'lose my right' because I'm 'poor' doesn't take the conversation anywhere. It attempts to end the discussion by denying there's any debatable question involved here. There is of course a large question, with hundreds of years of debate behind it, which is how do we draw the line between establishing a person is an eligible voter (i.e not a felon, dead, minor, alien, mentally incapacitated, attempting to vote 15 times, etc) and placing an undo burden on the citizen. Let us start by admitting that the voter must take at least some positive action to establish eligibility, regardless of impediment.

 

[turbo]

What? They sold you a fake birth certificate?

Seriously, states should do that free at least once every few years. And only charge a fee for habitual birth certificate misplacers.

Agreed. I needed mine for a SS/Medicare issue, and it shouldn't have cost me money for a notarized copy. We pay taxes that support the operation of the county offices. The copy was needed to help prevent Medicare fraud, which I whole-heartedly support, but getting that copy was a pain in the butt. It is, after all, a public record. If someone other than myself or my wife wanted to order that document, they should have to pay.

If I had been a day-laborer, or a regularly-employed low-wage laborer, and I had to take hours (and it took hours) off my job to prove that I was a US citizen, I'd have to carefully weigh the lost time, chances of losing my job, and the out-of-pocket expense to get that documentation. In my case that wasn't a big thing. In the case of Native Americans and Natural-Born and Naturalized Hispanics in Arizona, it could be a really big thing. Big enough to discourage them from even registering to vote, which is sad. US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

Disclosure: My father's family emigrated from Ireland during the 1800's, and my mother's family emigrated from Canada a little later. Both ethnic groups were primarily Roman Catholic and poor as church-mice and suffered from anti-immigrant pressures. Both groups relied substantially on church records (not municipal records) for marriage records, birth records, and other familial events (christenings, communion, confirmation) that tracked the children when municipal records did not. I have Native American blood on both sides of my family, and along with the anti-immigrant crap that happened here 100 years ago, I have a good bit of tolerance and understanding for others who want to live in the US and become citizens.

 

[Jasongreat]

US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

Non-citizens should, therefore it is not undue resistance, maybe a little annoying but not undue, imo.

 

[Char. Limit]

Solution: Make obtaining verification of citizenship free. Then people can't complain that they can't afford it.

And non-citizens won't be allowed to vote.

This will cost a little money, but then, Democrats are in office. They don't care about spending, do they?

 

[turbo]

This will cost a little money, but then, Democrats are in office. They don't care about spending, do they?

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

 

[Char. Limit]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

Now hold up just a minute... I never said that Republicans DID care about spending, did I?

 

[turbo]

Now hold up just a minute... I never said that Republicans DID care about spending, did I?

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

 

[Char. Limit]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

 

[turbo]

Bah. Democrats aren't tax and spend. Neither of them are. They're both spend and spend. In fact, the taxing and spending is smarter than not taxing and spending.

We have a horrible unemployment situation. Unfortunately for the Democrats, republicans across the country seem to want to join in the anti-Obama witch hunt. That is not going to serve them well, IMO. There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

 

[talk2glenn]

LOL. Just made up a list of things that the constitution does not prohibit as a basis for denying voting rights.

Yes it does.

Basically, anything except race, color, previous condition of servitude, gender, or age (if >18).I won't argue about what a court will or won't do, but the constitution specifically says that states are free to deny people a right to vote for any reason except the ones I listed above. And they did so (upheld by the courts) for those reasons prior to the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments respectively. Why do you think those amendments were enacted?

Absurd. The Constitution reserves to the states the right to organize and conduct legal elections. The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination. Ergo, by definition, election law cannot discriminate on the basis of race or gender, ever, and there must be a rational basis for other types of discrimination.

One would be hard pressed to convince even the wackiest appellate judge that a rational person would agree that there was a compelling public interest in denying someone the right to vote because of the length of their hair.

That's false. States were free to disenfranchise blacks prior to the 15th amendment, women prior to the 19th amendment, etc. Those amendments were enacted specifically because the constitution otherwise allows disenfranchisement.

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

But, if a state did choose to disenfranchise all scorpios, for example, any honest court would uphold it, then we would pass another constitutional amendment. You can say otherwise, but that's what happened for the cases of previous disenfranchisement based on race, gender, and age.

No, they would not. Please see Baker v Carr, Reynolds v Simms, or hell, even Bush v Gore.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

 

[WhoWee]

Not long after my wife and I moved here, I had to supply a copy of my birth certificate. Guess what. It got misplaced in the move, so I had to take time off, go to the clerk's office in the county seat, and buy a new notarized, sealed copy of my birth certificate (very similar in appearance to the one that Obama supplied from Hawaii). Due to environmental illness (inability to fly, for sure) I had already let my passport lapse. There went two of the acceptable proofs of citizenship demanded by AZ. What if I were destitute, and needed that money to feed my family? Should I lose my right to vote because I am poor? This is the effect of highly-restrictive voter-registration requirements that can derail people who can't afford to comply.

In Ohio (specifically - may be other places), the county welfare departments send voter registration forms out with their benefits continuation forms.

By the way, have you tried to cross the Canadian border recently?

 

[CRGreathouse]

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

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

 

[Jasongreat]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit, the biggest unpaid-for-tax-cuts, and two foreign wars that were deliberately kept off-budget. I think Cheney is really happy about the last one.

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

 

[CAC1001]

There is a blindness on the part of the GOP faithful to acknowledging that our country's job-losses came under W.

And there is a blindness among Democrats in acknowledging that their party had been in control of Congress for two years when the financial crisis hit.

Also, the Democrats' argument to justify their big spending being to point out that Republicans spent a lot, IMO doesn't hold water, because they just spent years criticizing the Republicans' excessive spending and the American people elected Obama to move us away from what Bush and the Republicans had been doing; so why would they then engage in an agenda requiring even more spending after having been so critical of spending under the previous party?

Also I'd disagree that the GOP being anti-Obama will hurt them; if anything, I think that is what the American people want.

 

[CAC1001]

Thats the problem, we can't argue r's vs d's, we need to concentrate on progressive vs conservative. There are plenty of conservative d's, and plenty of progressive r's. Thats the beauty of the two party system, we get to hear hoover did it, so fdr can do it, or bush did it so obama can do it, when in actuallity they are of the same persuasion, and believe the same thing, big government is good. Cant we just concentrate on the policy, and if its bad policy, it doesn't matter which party they are from.

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

 

[Al68]

The 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and gender, and requires a rational basis for any other discrimination.

Illogical bunk. Were the 15th, and 19th amendments enacted for no reason whatsoever?

The 15th and 19th Amendments were established before the legal maturation of the 14th Amendment, which has grown in interpreted scope (and indeed, are largely redundent in modern legal precedent, which is why these sorts of things are always argued on 14th grounds). Beginning in 1962, the Supreme Court interpreted the doctrine of fundamental rights, including voting, which in order to be restricted must pass strict constitutional scrutiny.

I made no claim regarding Supreme Court doctrine. My claim was about what the 14th amendment says. The actual text of the 14th amendment did not change between enactment and 1962.

You'd do well to educate yourself on these sorts of things before posting.

LOL. I'm not the one confusing what the constitution does or doesn't say with Supreme Court doctrine. And I'm not the one that thinks the 15th and 19th amendments were enacted because the 14th amendment already prohibited denying the right to vote based on race and gender.

And LOL at taking my list of "constitutional ways to deny voting" so seriously. Did you think it was a list of things I thought were reasonable?

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think most people pay much attention to policy, they just look at party. Concentrating on policy would also confuse everything too much, because as you said, you'd end up with groups of people being mixtures from both parties. If people concentrated on policy, Bush might be beloved by quite a few Democrats in certain ways and Clinton disdained in quite a few ways.

One of the Tea Party complaints (often ridiculed) is that nobody reads, let alone understands, the "packaged" legislation - 2,000 page Bills stuffed with items that have nothing to do with the core legislation. Both sides are guilty and both have an excuse for bad legislation - "teflon Congress". The solution is to require legislation have a clear purpose, have responsible spending/budget considerations, and most important - be required reading prior to voting. We should never hear that we'll find out what's in the legislation after it's enacted (health care). By the way, I agree, this would require Congress to work every day, not take extended fact finding gllbal trips, and stay off the campaign trail - tun on their voting record.

 

[BobG]

Agreed. I needed mine for a SS/Medicare issue, and it shouldn't have cost me money for a notarized copy. We pay taxes that support the operation of the county offices. The copy was needed to help prevent Medicare fraud, which I whole-heartedly support, but getting that copy was a pain in the butt. It is, after all, a public record. If someone other than myself or my wife wanted to order that document, they should have to pay.

If I had been a day-laborer, or a regularly-employed low-wage laborer, and I had to take hours (and it took hours) off my job to prove that I was a US citizen, I'd have to carefully weigh the lost time, chances of losing my job, and the out-of-pocket expense to get that documentation. In my case that wasn't a big thing. In the case of Native Americans and Natural-Born and Naturalized Hispanics in Arizona, it could be a really big thing. Big enough to discourage them from even registering to vote, which is sad. US citizens should never face undue resistance from access to voting rights, especially citizens that are financially disadvantaged.

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:

1.Order A Birth Certificate

Have the following on hand before you begin your order:

•The state or province (and in most areas of the US, the city and/or county) in which the birth took place.
•The certificate holder's name as it appears on the birth certificate. If adopted, please enter your adoptive information.
•The month, day and year of the birth (and in some cases, the name of the hospital).
•The legal name of the parents identified on the birth certificate (including the mother's maiden name before marriage).
•Your billing and shipping addresses (street address only - courier deliveries will not be shipped to PO boxes, APO or FPO military addresses). Note that some agencies will only ship to the verified credit card billing address.
•Your method of payment. We recommend having your valid credit card with number and expiration date in hand while you order.
Note: In most instances, you must be a member of the birth certificate holder's immediate family to receive the record.

Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

 

[mheslep]

Pretty usual. Almost all Supreme Court justices who survive their terms do it.

Yes, but at 80?

 

[mheslep]

That's a little bit (OK a LOT) ridiculous, since W gave us the biggest deficit,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

 

[mheslep]

No, but you carefully avoided a suggestion that they will not tax-and-borrow like drunken sailors while accusing the Democrats of tax-and-spend.

That should be 'borrow and spend' for Republicans given the Bush tax cuts; and 'tax, borrow, and spend a hell of lot more' for Democrats.

 

[turbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png" . These posts are getting more sloppy of late - AZ 'demanding' passports, and now this. Opinion is one thing, but these are direct misstatement of the facts.

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

 

[mheslep]

It's not hard to get a birth certificate through the internet, even if you no longer live in your state of birth. For example, to get a birth certificate from Kansas:


Granted, a person would have to have a credit card. The alternative would be to order by mail with a check.

But you wouldn't actually have to be that person in order to get a birth certificate. You'd just have to know personal information about that person.

Interesting. If the process is similarly easy in other states and the fee is minimal, then the legal objections to AZ's proof of citizenship requirement are specious.

 

[mheslep]

2008 deficit was the largest of all for a complete calendar year. You can look it up

You make statements and everyone else is granted the pleasure of looking up the reference?

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was about $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, $950 billion greater than the shortfall recorded in 2008.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10640/10-2009-MBR.pdf
The 2010 deficit is also much larger than '08 at $1.17T

 

[turbo]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

 

[Gokul43201]

2008=$14441.4

See, that wasn't hard was it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

That's the GDP, not the deficit.

 

[WhoWee]

Since tax revenues are down due to the economic crash, I suppose Obama is responsible for the shortfall?

Nothing will ever be Obama's fault - I say let's re-distribute the blame evenly amongst Congress - starting with Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Dodd.

 

[Gokul43201]

Umm ... can we get back on topic please?

 

[turbo]

That's the GDP, not the deficit.

Oops, sorry.


http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-us-deficit-shrinks-still-tops-one-trillion

The US deficit shrank nine percent last fiscal year but still topped one trillion dollars, the government said Friday in a report seized on by Democrats' rivals weeks ahead of mid-term elections.For the 2010 fiscal year that ended on September 30, the government had a budget shortfall of 1.294 trillion dollars, down 122 billion dollars from the previous year's record-setting high.Revenue rose and spending fell amid recovery from recession and as President Barack Obama's Democratic administration wound down some of the emergency measures taken to restore growths.

Not much we can do about fiscal year 2009, which started under Bush during a crash and ended under Obama, also during the crash.

 

[WhoWee]

Did you read the entire "bullfax" article you linked?

 

[turbo]

And here is a spreadsheet regarding how much was added to or subtracted from the deficit per presidential term.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

 

[Jasongreat]

And here is a spreadsheet regarding how much was added to or subtracted from the deficit per presidential term.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

That is the kicker, per presidential term. Presidents don't spend money, congress does, Clinton spent less, during a republican controlled congress. Bush spent more, during a democratically controlled congress.