Voter ID

[Rudy Canoza]

Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
of people from voting. That claim is correct. The laws intend to
prevent from voting a class of people known as "those who are not
eligible to vote but might attempt to do so".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
> of people from voting.

The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.



The constitution requires that voters be citizens

"The right of *citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

That means there is a means of identifying and verifying themselves as
the citizens in question and that may be requested at the time they
vote.... At least that's what the constitution says.


--
*Rumination*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p58KzMMpILY
Clinton Explains why he launched attack on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
*A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER*

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/25/2015 6:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>> of people from voting.
>
>
> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.

Among others.

> The constitution requires that voters be citizens

No, it does not.


--

Your first duty is to th' country...is to th' flag, and then...and then
th' army,
and then to...and then to god. Flag, Army, God - F.A.G.

Mark Wieber
75th Rangers, 1971-1973

[benj]

On 03/25/2015 09:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>> of people from voting.
>
>
> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>
>
>
> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>
> "The right of *citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be
> denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
>
> That means there is a means of identifying and verifying themselves as
> the citizens in question and that may be requested at the time they
> vote.... At least that's what the constitution says.

And if we are to insure that no crimes of non-citizens voting occurs,
the FIRST thing we need to do is have universal background checks (I
mean serious ones that check not only citizenship, but felony
convictions and involuntary mental health admissions) for all voters.

We need to CLOSE THE ILLEGAL VOTER LOOPHOLE right now. I say universal
"background checks" for anyone attempting to vote! And if that works out
really well, then perhaps later we can THEN consider the same thing for
gun buyers. Maybe a tax would discourage illegal voting as well. Hey, we
tax machine guns and the right to own them, so why not a poll tax?

What's that? Do I hear Libs squealing?

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
> of people from voting.

The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.



The constitution requires that voters be citizens

"The right of *citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

That means there is a means of identifying and verifying themselves as
the citizens in question and that may be requested at the time they
vote.... At least that's what the constitution says.

To buy a gun you should be "one of the people" because the 2nd amendment
says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You don't need to be a U.S. citizen to buy a gun but you do need to be a
citizen to vote. So where is the government power to require an ID to
buy a gun?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/25/2015 9:08 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 6:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>>> of people from voting.
>>
>>
>> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>
> Among others.
>
>
>> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>
> No, it does not.
>
>

Article. [XIX.]
[Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920]

"The *right of citizens of the United States* to vote shall not be

denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

[Are you saying] NON citizens right to vote can be abridged on account
of sex? Because if you are right then that's what this constitutional
amendment is saying.

--
*Rumination*
#61.0.2 - Democrats have created a Matrix to convince you life is
good... you might call it the Liberal-Socialist "MACHINE" that has
created your Democrat Matrix. Neo... swallow the bitter RED pill in the
post above, and see reality.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/25/2015 9:18 PM, benj wrote:
> On 03/25/2015 09:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>>> of people from voting.
>>
>>
>> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>>
>>
>>
>> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>>
>> "The right of *citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be
>> denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
>> sex."
>>
>> That means there is a means of identifying and verifying themselves as
>> the citizens in question and that may be requested at the time they
>> vote.... At least that's what the constitution says.
>
> And if we are to insure that no crimes of non-citizens voting occurs,
> the FIRST thing we need to do is have universal background checks (I
> mean serious ones that check not only citizenship, but felony
> convictions and involuntary mental health admissions) for all voters.
>
> We need to CLOSE THE ILLEGAL VOTER LOOPHOLE right now. I say universal
> "background checks" for anyone attempting to vote! And if that works out
> really well, then perhaps later we can THEN consider the same thing for
> gun buyers. Maybe a tax would discourage illegal voting as well. Hey, we
> tax machine guns and the right to own them, so why not a poll tax?
>
> What's that? Do I hear Libs squealing?

I follow your point and I think we can force 3 or 7 day waiting periods
with background checks and enforce them at all voter Registration shows
and community events and at all actual voting precincts.

We might be able to ban the assault voting cards that are designed to
obfuscate the users actual identification due to camouflage or a use of
a photo ID suppressor.


--
*Rumination*
#81.0.1 - You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.
- Socialist Hive -

[MKTDR. ☮ M°i°g°h°t°y ☮ W°a°n°n°a°b°e ☮ .IZBDY]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote on 3/25/2015 9:33 PM:
> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>> of people from voting.
>
>
> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>
>
>
> The constitution requires that voters be citizens

Can you quote the part of the Constitution that supports your claim?

>
> "The right of *citizens* of the United States to vote shall not be
> denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Where did you learn your English or logic?

The sentence did not infer that only citizens can vote.

>
> That means there is a means of identifying and verifying themselves as
> the citizens in question and that may be requested at the time they
> vote.... At least that's what the constitution says.
>

The Constitution did not say only citizen can vote.

> To buy a gun you should be "one of the people" because the 2nd amendment
> says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

What has this got to do with voting rights?

>
> You don't need to be a U.S. citizen to buy a gun but you do need to be a
> citizen to vote. So where is the government power to require an ID to
> buy a gun?

You are full of shit.

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Background
*
//
The U.S. Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to
vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early
history of U.S., most states allowed only Caucasian males—who either
owned property or, had taxable incomes—to vote.
........................[follow link to read more]
//

[benj]

On 03/25/2015 09:38 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 9:08 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 6:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>>>> of people from voting.
>>>
>>>
>>> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>>
>> Among others.
>>
>>
>>> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>>
>> No, it does not.
>>
>>
> Article. [XIX.]
> [Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920]
>
> "The *right of citizens of the United States* to vote shall not be
> denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
>
> [Are you saying] NON citizens right to vote can be abridged on account
> of sex? Because if you are right then that's what this constitutional
> amendment is saying.

Well, this is interesting! I've looked the constitution over and find
NO requirement that only citizens are allowed to vote. Amendment XV says
the right of CITIZENS to vote can't be abridged on the basis of race,
color or previous servitude. and Amendment XIX says the right to vote
cannot be abridge for CITIZENS on the basis of sex, but this says
nothing about the right of non-citizens to vote (though they could be
denied on the basis of sex or color)

Oddly Article I section 2 states that representatives are chosen "by the
people of the several states". What does that mean? Does it mean anyone
living in the state at the time? There are various restrictions for
being elected to public office requiring citizenship, but not to vote.

Holy Crap! Obama and the Democrats are RIGHT! Anyone who just wanders
in over our border is automatically a voter! (Unless we pass laws
restricting them on the basis of race, color and sex!)

I'm Gob-smacked!

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/25/2015 6:38 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/25/2015 9:08 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 6:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>>>> of people from voting.
>>>
>>>
>>> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>>
>> Among others.
>>
>>
>>> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>>
>> No, it does not.
>>
>>
> Article. [XIX.]
> [Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920]
>
> "The *right of citizens of the United States* to vote

That does *NOT* say that the Constitution requires that voters be
citizens; it says that citizens must not be denied the right to vote,
although it conveniently neglects to mention that citizens - convicted
felons - whose voting rights have been suspended may not vote.

Shut the fuck up, shitworm. There is nothing in the Constitution that
says *only* citizens may vote. You are just spectacularly stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

Doubtful. You're a monumentally stupid fuckwit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/25/2015 8:40 PM, benj wrote:
> On 03/25/2015 09:38 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/25/2015 9:08 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2015 6:04 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2015 5:51 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Some people complain that the intent of voter ID is to prevent a class
>>>>> of people from voting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The class that aren't citizens... absolutely.
>>>
>>> Among others.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The constitution requires that voters be citizens
>>>
>>> No, it does not.
>>>
>>>
>> Article. [XIX.]
>> [Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920]
>>
>> "The *right of citizens of the United States* to vote shall not be
>> denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
>> sex."
>>
>> [Are you saying] NON citizens right to vote can be abridged on account
>> of sex? Because if you are right then that's what this constitutional
>> amendment is saying.
>
> Well, this is interesting! I've looked the constitution over and find
> NO requirement that only citizens are allowed to vote.

That's because there is no such requirement or condition. Beemer fucked
up, as usual. He always does.

> Amendment XV says
> the right of CITIZENS to vote can't be abridged on the basis of race,
> color or previous servitude. and Amendment XIX says the right to vote
> cannot be abridge for CITIZENS on the basis of sex, but this says
> nothing about the right of non-citizens to vote (though they could be
> denied on the basis of sex or color)

Exactly right. So, those amendments describe certain rights of citizens
with respect to voting, but they do *NOT*, in any way, restrict voting
to citizens only. This is the fundamental stupidity of Beemer in seeing
shit that isn't there.

> Oddly Article I section 2 states that representatives are chosen "by the
> people of the several states". What does that mean? Does it mean anyone
> living in the state at the time? There are various restrictions for
> being elected to public office requiring citizenship, but not to vote.
>
> Holy Crap! Obama and the Democrats are RIGHT! Anyone who just wanders
> in over our border is automatically a voter! (Unless we pass laws
> restricting them on the basis of race, color and sex!)

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to prevent states from
enacting laws that restrict voting to citizens. There *also* is nothing
in the U.S. Constitution that *requires* states to allow only citizens
to vote. It is up to the states. Under the Constitution, a state
could, if it wished, allow non-citizens to vote in their elections -
*including* elections for federal office.

It is my considered, informed and - *yes!* - correct view that
non-citizens should not be permitted to vote, but there is nothing in
the U.S. Constitution that forbids it. Beemer is a fuckwit for thinking
there is.

[benj]

And you are a drooling babbling lib. Nothing of value from you.

Don't like my lib thinking imitation?

[Rudy Canoza]

Not in the least. As I said, and as you missed due to your stupidity
and right-wing knuckledraggging mental defect, I think voting *ought* to
be restricted to citizens in good standing, i.e., those whose right to
participate in the electoral process has not been forfeited due to a
felony conviction or some other voting rights disability imposed under
due process. However, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that
*forbids* states from setting their own voting eligibility requirements,
apart from saying that the right to vote may not be denied to citizens
based on race, sex and a few other categorizations. If a state wants to
allow aliens to vote, it is within their power to do so. I think it's a
bad idea, but that doesn't change the states' powers under the Constitution.

[benj]

Here, it used to be illegal for the state to check if you were a citizen
when you registered to vote. (I'm not sure it's still that way) You just
had to show you were a resident for some time. Previously you had to
show citizenship.

When you vote they make a huge deal of cross checking you with the
records to make sure you were the person who registered, but the trick
is I could register my dog without them being allowed to check if he was
human. So when he went to vote, they'd double check his dog tags to make
sure he registered and then let him vote! (he always votes republican)

[Rudy Canoza]

I think you're completely full of shit. It has always been permitted
for states to require that people who register to vote are citizens, and
to require proof of citizenship.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

> When you vote they make a huge deal of cross checking you with the
> records to make sure you were the person who registered, but the trick
> is I could register my dog without them being allowed to check if he was
> human.

You have no proof of that, of course.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/25/2015 9:40 PM, benj wrote:

> When you vote they make a huge deal of cross checking you with the
> records to make sure you were the person who registered, but the trick
> is I could register my dog without them being allowed to check if he was
> human.

That's simply bullshit, of course. You can't register your dog; your
dog would have to register himself, you cunt, and that's impossible.

Shut the fuck up - now.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Or being NON citizens...


In short, citizens have a right to vote all others do NOT have that right.

What's more is that right can't be "abridged", so it's similar language
as with guns which means if you can't require a photo ID to vote
(because it abridges or infringes the right) you can't require a photo
ID to buy and keep and bear arms.

And in fact you don't have to be a citizen to have the RIGHT to keep and
bear arms. NON citizens can keep and bear arms. according the the 2nd
amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."



*infringe*
(redirected from infringed)
Also found in: Legal.
in·fringe
(ĭn-frĭnj′)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract;
infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.



*abridged*
Also found in: Legal, Acronyms, Wikipedia.
a·bridge
(ə-brĭj′)
tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es
1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense: The editor
abridged the manuscript by cutting out two chapters. See Synonyms at
shorten.
2. To limit; curtail: an unconstitutional law that abridged the rights
of citizens.

> Oddly Article I section 2 states that representatives are chosen "by the
> people of the several states". What does that mean? Does it mean anyone
> living in the state at the time? There are various restrictions for
> being elected to public office requiring citizenship, but not to vote.
>
> Holy Crap! Obama and the Democrats are RIGHT! Anyone who just wanders
> in over our border is automatically a voter! (Unless we pass laws
> restricting them on the basis of race, color and sex!)
>

Or citizenship.

> I'm Gob-smacked!

So if anyone can vote then anyone can buy a gun without any photo ID or
other ID with no waiting periods or background checks. NOT just
citizens.

They forced ID and citizenship on guns that don't constitutionally
require or allow that right to be infringed.

In fact they have no powers delegated on guns as they do on voting.

At best the congress can use the commerce clause to regulate interstate
sales. But they have no delegated power to regulate in State sales.


If you are only required by the constitution to be one of "the people"
and the present congress limits it to citizens only then they have
infringed on the right of "the people" and NOT the citizens.

That's the reverse of the "voting right" where the congress can only
abridge the citizens rights to vote because "the people" have no right
to vote.
--
*Rumination*
ObamaGruberCare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxZK0spa1yI#t=0m14s

[Rudy Canoza]

We might prohibit non-citizens from voting, but nothing in the
Constitution requires such a prohibition.

> In short, citizens have a right to vote all others do NOT have that right.

But the Constitution does not forbid extending the right to vote to non
citizens. You're just wrong about that, as you are wrong about so much
else.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Well how does that effect who buys a gun?



---------------------------------------------------

Article. [XIX.]
[Proposed 1919; Ratified 1920]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
---------------------------------------------------



I never believed that voting was a "right" until I saw this amendment
that called it a right. It says that only the citizen has a right to vote.

And any power NOT delegated to the Federal Government falls to the
states and/or the people.

The 2nd amendment says "the people" have a right to keep and bear arms
NOT just citizens.

When "citizens" are given a right it doesn't belong to "the people"
(check the 14th amendment) and just because congress was delegated a
power to regulate commerce doesn't mean that the rest of us can do it
also..... it was only delegated to congress so giving the right to one
group doesn't give it to all groups. And as I said the only people that
are "delegated as having the right to vote" are the citizens, they are
the voters all others are NON voters.

No where in the constitution does it say "the people" have a the ability
to vote and without it being in the constitution then they don't have
that ability until the constitution is amended to allow it.

["""""Section. 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of
two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
[Modified by Amendment XVII], for six Years; and each Senator shall have
one Vote. """""]


Does this mean they can pass a law to allow me to also vote in the
Senate....?

NO NO NO.

The same for citizens having the right to vote, the congress can't make
it OK for NON citizens to vote. But they can try to change the
constitution to allow it.

[Rudy Canoza]

Does not say that *only* citizens have the right to vote.

>
> I never believed that voting was a "right" until I saw this amendment
> that called it a right. It says that only the citizen has a right to vote.

No, it does not say that, you plodding knuckledragging stupid fuckwit.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The constitution doesn't allow anything that isn't delegated in the
constitution. SO if voting is a right recognized in the constitution
that is defined as it appears to be.... that of a citizen. then there is
no way to change that unless there is an amendment and I see no
amendment that makes NON citizens allowed to vote.

That means the 19th by plan or by accident says citizens have a right to
vote and no others. Meaning that the constitution doesn't allow others
to vote, just as the constitution allows Senators to vote and while it
doesn't specifically say NON Senators can NOT vote in the Senate it
would take an amendment to the constitution to allow NON Senators to
vote in the senate since there is no Constitutional power delegating
that NON Senators can vote.

In the absence of a delegated power the Federal Government does NOT
retain that power.

Since the 19th amendment modifies all constitutional text before it,
that means the 19th declares that only citizens can vote. And they can
be of either sex.

"The *right of citizens of the United States to vote* shall not be
denied or abridged..."

That doesn't allow for anyone else to vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

The Constitution contains no language prohibiting non citizens from
voting. You're wrong. It's that simple.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama hates the U.S. constitution because it is a document of
negatives... The government doesn't have the power to allow anything
unless the power is delegated to the U.s. Government/congress. Where
is the power delegated to allow congress to offer NON citizens the
opportunity to vote in U.S. elections?

>> I never believed that voting was a "right" until I saw this amendment
>> that called it a right. It says that only the citizen has a right to
>> vote.
>
> No, it does not say that, you plodding knuckledragging stupid fuckwit.

It doesn't allow others to vote, it only allows citizens to vote.

So where is the power to allow NON citizens to vote in U.S. Elections,
since this modifies all other previous only an amendment after this one
would modify this one to allow NON citizens to vote.

Article. [XXVI.]
[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.


Yet again the only delegated power is for the the citizen to vote.

Why become a citizen if anyone can buy a gun and anyone can vote and
anyone can have all the same benefits.

There it is you have to be 18 and a citizen to vote.

Like you have to be a Senator to cast a vote in the Senate.

The Congress can't pass a law making it OK for illegal aliens to vote in
the Senate. NOT unless there is an amendment to the constitution that
says illegal aliens can vote in the senate.


--
*Rumination*
#67 - The least government necessary is the best government possible.

[benj]

They don't have to pass a law allowing illegals to vote, Beemer. It is
obviously ALREADY legal for them to vote (but generally NOT to run for
elected office). However as amendments on race, sex and age only apply
to citizens, they CAN be discriminated against on that basis.
Furthermore, since all powers not delegated are reserved to the states
(Amendment X) it follows that the question of whether or not illegals
can vote is left up to the states. Hence the existence of laws where
states are forbidden to examine citizenship when registering people to
vote!

And I'd point out that up until recently non-citizens were allowed most
rights of citizens including owning guns. And since Obama I guess one no
longer needs to be a citizen to run for high office either...oh wait,
that is just a conpiracy theory,

[Rudy Canoza]

Fuck off. This isn't about Obama. It's about your stupidity,
specifically your stupid belief that the Constitution prohibits allowing
non citizens to vote, when it does not prohibit any such thing.

>>> I never believed that voting was a "right" until I saw this amendment
>>> that called it a right. It says that only the citizen has a right to
>>> vote.
>>
>> No, it does not say that, you plodding knuckledragging stupid fuckwit.
>
> It doesn't allow others to vote, it only allows citizens to vote.

It does not prohibit non citizens from voting - period. You're just
wrong about that. You are consistently wrong, and you are
breathtakingly stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

No, most states *do* require people to be citizens in order to vote.
Where this fuckwit beemer goes off the rails is in saying the
Constitution *prohibits* non citizens from voting, when it does nothing
of the kind.

States get to set their own election rules, except that they may not
deny or restrict the right to vote based on the usual protected classes:
race, sex, being a queer, etc. Nothing in the Constitution forbids
states from allowing non citizens to vote. I believe voting *should* be
limited only to citizens, and in fact most states do, but it would not
be unconstitutional for a state to allow aliens to vote.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

My question is where is the positive delegation of power that allows
congress to allow illegals the opportunity to vote? It a privledge of
citizenship and always has been. Early on they used land ownership as a
litmus test for voting.

> They don't have to pass a law allowing illegals to vote, Beemer. It is
> obviously ALREADY legal for them to vote

Everything points to voters being citizens and that's the point of
citizenship. You get to participate in the selection and running of
government. If anyone has all the benefits of citizenship there is NO
reason to become a citizen it's like being a citizen of the planet.

useless as a three legged race horse.

> (but generally NOT to run for
> elected office). However as amendments on race, sex and age only apply
> to citizens, they CAN be discriminated against on that basis.
> Furthermore, since all powers not delegated are reserved to the states
> (Amendment X) it follows that the question of whether or not illegals
> can vote is left up to the states. Hence the existence of laws where
> states are forbidden to examine citizenship when registering people to
> vote!
>

I would agree but Obama just sued Arizona to stop States from asking for
citizenship..... And he won. Which means an illegal alien is under
Federal regulation and there is NO federal power to allow them to vote.
It's a catch-22. And if you notice the only true Federally elected
person is the President/Vice President. The States elect their own
Senators and their own congressmen. It's NOT National or Federal other
than they go to serve in a Federal office.


Feds run the lives of people that are under immigration law and the feds
have no power to allow any of them to vote (since all references in the
amendments are to citizens voting) and the States can't check to see if
they have an immigration status unless there is a Federal limitation on
voting.

> And I'd point out that up until recently non-citizens were allowed most
> rights of citizens including owning guns.

Guns are clearly for "the people" and the people is a totally different
designation than citizen. The 2nd even says "the right of the *people*
to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed" It never says citizens.

But voter amendments say the right of the citizen to vote.

To be one of the people all you need to do is show up, to be a citizen
you need to be natural born or a naturalized person.

> And since Obama I guess one no
> longer needs to be a citizen to run for high office either...oh wait,
> that is just a conpiracy theory,

The constitution actually bans NON citizens from being President, it
never has to ban people from voting since it has given the citizens the
right to vote and it does that by creating citizenship and further
allowing citizens to vote with no allowance for NON citizens to vote.

Illegals are banned by omitting of any Federal power to allow it, and
the feds control immigrants, the power/right they have is specific for
citizens. If nothing else the amendments limit voting to citizens by
acknowledging their right to vote and acknowledging no other illegals
right or standing under the constitution to vote.

If it were so complete that everyone has an ability or right to vote,
how is it that they can ban felons from voting?




--
*Rumination*
We are, in short, down to the final myth that animates the blow-off
phase of most bubbles: that of the omnipotent government/central bank
which likes the status quo and has the power to maintain it. They don’t
have that power, of course, or else financial bubbles would never
burst and we’d still be living in the golden age of junk bonds, dot-coms
and subprime mortgages. -John Rubino-
http://dollarcollapse.com/the-economy/world-in-a-box/

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The constitution doesn't need to contain language to prevent things, it
works the other way....

Any things NOT delegated to the Federal government like allowing for
illegals to vote, is NOT a power that they have.

They can make them citizens (if they can get constitutional legislation
passed) and Lord knows Obama is trying to make them citizens by
fiat..... so he can get more Liberal voters.

But There doesn't need to be language written to stop the Federal
government, all there needs to be is a lack of delegated authority.

And they have no authority to tell the States who can vote in an
election for State government officials.



--
*Rumination*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=v4S5nM8BjwM&NR=1
JFK - Path to Prosperity

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Here you go.... try this one on for size.

Article. [XXVI.]
[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

OK that's the 26th amendment and it clearly says the right of citizens,
and goes on to say who are 18 years of age, have a right to vote.

Does this mean that the constitution expects all the illegal aliens to
wait till they're 21 before they vote or does the constitution NOT
recognize that any illegals can vote (and that only citizens vote) so
there was no reason to drop the illegal alien age to 18?

When you're done choking on that, let me know.




--
*Rumination*
#5 - You can't have Social Justice and Equal Justice at the same time,
they are 'mutually exclusive'.

[Rudy Canoza]

States set voting eligibility rules, apart from not being able to
discriminate on certain criteria.

>> They don't have to pass a law allowing illegals to vote, Beemer. It is
>> obviously ALREADY legal for them to vote
>
> Everything points to voters being citizens and

*Nothing* in the Constitution prohibits states from allowing non
citizens to vote.

>

>> (but generally NOT to run for
>> elected office). However as amendments on race, sex and age only apply
>> to citizens, they CAN be discriminated against on that basis.
>> Furthermore, since all powers not delegated are reserved to the states
>> (Amendment X) it follows that the question of whether or not illegals
>> can vote is left up to the states. Hence the existence of laws where
>> states are forbidden to examine citizenship when registering people to
>> vote!
>>
>
> I would agree but Obama just sued Arizona to stop States from asking for
> citizenship

Not for voting, he didn't.

>> And I'd point out that up until recently non-citizens were allowed most
>> rights of citizens including owning guns.
>
> Guns are clearly for "the people" and the people is a totally different
> designation than citizen. The 2nd even says "the right of the *people*
> to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed" It never says citizens.
>
> But voter amendments say the right of the citizen to vote.

The amendments do not limit voting *only* to citizens. It says that the
right of citizens to vote may not be infringed along certain criteria.

>
>> And since Obama I guess one no
>> longer needs to be a citizen to run for high office either...oh wait,
>> that is just a conpiracy theory,
>
> The constitution actually bans NON citizens from being President,

You'll notice the Constitution says nothing about citizenship
requirements for state and local offices, nor for appointments to the
federal courts.

[Rudy Canoza]

You are saying the Constitution forbids non citizens from voting, and it
does not.

> Any things NOT delegated

States set voting eligibility rules. Get over it.

[Rudy Canoza]

Says nothing that means non citizens can't vote.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Doesn't have to, the U.S. constitution has to say they can vote.

It created the Federal Government and any Federal power NOT delegated
"doesn't exist".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Article. [XXVI.]
[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of age.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

There is NO power in the constitution to allow non citizens to vote, and
without that delegated power the congress can't make a law that allows
NON citizens to vote. And immigration is a Federal jurisdiction and
since there is no Federal power to allow them to vote it's a catch-22
the people in charge don't have the delegated authority to make a law to
allow it.

That means there is no way but to change the constitution with an
amendment as I have said so many different ways.

Which is why in the above amendment on voting they say citizens can vote
at 18 rather than saying anyone that registers can vote at 18, they
limit voting to citizens.

Otherwise the illegal alien children would be able to vote wouldn't they
and only citizens would need to be 18 years old to vote.

Or is that the loophole Obama thought he was exploiting when he imported
over 50,000 central American illegal alien children into the United
States? Did Obama give them all absentee ballots to fill out?

--
*Rumination*
#1.0.2 - Socialists actions are easy to predict. They're those of a
Libertarian after you take away all reason and responsibility.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:20:57 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

Oh, Jesus, Scotty, you make my skin crawl, thinking that people like
you are allowed to vote.

Try to hold this in your head: Ball has it exactly right. The federal
government, and the Constitution, don't tell you who can vote. The
relevant amendments tell only who the states cannot *prevent* from
voting. As for who CAN vote, that's up to the states.

The states can allow anyone to vote that they want to. They just can't
*disallow* people from voting based on race, sex, etc. The 14th and
15th Amendments say that states can't withhold voting rights to
citizens; they don't say that only citizens are allowed to vote.
Whether to allow non-citizens to vote is up to the states.

>
>It created the Federal Government and any Federal power NOT delegated
>"doesn't exist".

It isn't a federal power you're talking about. It's a state power, and
they have a free hand to allow people to vote. They DON'T have a free
hand, however, in *restricting* who can vote.

That's all there is about it in the Constitution. Otherwise, under the
10th, it's in the hands of the states.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

No, it doesn't. Read the ninth amendment, you stupid shitworm.

Give it up. You're wrong, and you're stupid. You simply don't have
what it takes for this.

[Rudy Canoza]

You already lost on that. By saying something about the rights of
citizens, that in no way means that non citizens can't vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

> Try to hold this in your head: Canoza has it exactly right. The federal

> government, and the Constitution, don't tell you who can vote. The
> relevant amendments tell only who the states cannot *prevent* from
> voting. As for who CAN vote, that's up to the states.

Not entirely. I omitted to note that federal law prohibits non citizens
from voting for any federal office. States are free to allow aliens to
vote for any state or local office, but if an election is being held in
which both federal and state/local offices are being decided, procedures
have to be in place to ensure that only citizens are able to vote for
the federal offices. This is a matter of statute, not the Constitution.

>
> The states can allow anyone to vote that they want to. They just can't
> *disallow* people from voting based on race, sex, etc. The 14th and
> 15th Amendments say that states can't withhold voting rights to
> citizens; they don't say that only citizens are allowed to vote.
> Whether to allow non-citizens to vote is up to the states.
>
>>
>> It created the Federal Government and any Federal power NOT delegated
>> "doesn't exist".
>
> It isn't a federal power you're talking about. It's a state power, and
> they have a free hand to allow people to vote. They DON'T have a free
> hand, however, in *restricting* who can vote.
>
> That's all there is about it in the Constitution. Otherwise, under the
> 10th, it's in the hands of the states.
>


--

[Ed Huntress]

Yeah, I realize that, but I was trying to stick to Scotty's
Constitution issues. Now you've opened the door for him to declare the
federal statute unconstitutional. If he does that, he's all yours. <g>

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

I don't think he'll say it's unconstitutional, because it works in the
direction he wants: it says aliens can't vote (in federal elections.)
He might try to argue that it's unnecessary, as in his wrong view, the
Constitution prohibits aliens from voting.

This guy is simply breathtaking in his stupidity and illogic.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Immigration makes laws for illegal aliens.... Obama just proved that in
Arizona. SO a State can't allow illegals to do anything (and apparently
they can't deny them anything either except they do deny the illegals a
drivers license somehow), because the federal Government is in charge of
them, Arizona State police can't ask if they're citizens, how would the
State election board be able to ask if they are citizens?

It would be illegal in Arizona....

> That's all there is about it in the Constitution. Otherwise, under the
> 10th, it's in the hands of the states.

Article. [XXVI.]
[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of age.

*It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

This line allows the congress to *only enact legislation* to allow 18
year old *citizens* to vote"

It didn't allow any laws to permit any illegal aliens to vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

>> Try to hold this in your head: Mr. Canoza has it exactly right. The federal

>> government, and the Constitution, don't tell you who can vote. The
>> relevant amendments tell only who the states cannot *prevent* from
>> voting. As for who CAN vote, that's up to the states.
>>
>> The states can allow anyone to vote that they want to. They just can't
>> *disallow* people from voting based on race, sex, etc. The 14th and
>> 15th Amendments say that states can't withhold voting rights to
>> citizens; they don't say that only citizens are allowed to vote.
>> Whether to allow non-citizens to vote is up to the states.

You simply don't have an answer for this, do you, you stupid fucking
knuckledragger?

>>> It created the Federal Government and any Federal power NOT delegated
>>> "doesn't exist".
>>
>> It isn't a federal power you're talking about. It's a state power, and
>> they have a free hand to allow people to vote. They DON'T have a free
>> hand, however, in *restricting* who can vote.
>
> Immigration makes laws for illegal aliens....

This isn't about illegal aliens. It's about who can vote, regardless of
the legality of their presence in the country.

>> That's all there is about it in the Constitution. Otherwise, under the
>> 10th, it's in the hands of the states.
>
> Article. [XXVI.]
> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]

Irrelevant. Nothing in that says that only citizens are permitted to
vote. Instead, it specifies ways that Congress and the states are *NOT*
permitted to restrict voting.

Nothing in the Constitution says only citizens may vote. You are wrong,
and you're also a stupid stubborn shitbag.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You want to vote.... become a citizen.

[Rudy Canoza]

Or, live in a state that permits aliens to vote in state and local
elections. Or, lobby Congress to repeal the federal law that restricts
voting in federal elections to citizens.

There are multiple possibilities by which aliens might be permitted to
vote in elections in the U.S.

The key point is: *nothing* in the Constitution restricts voting only
to citizens. Your misreading of the 26th amendment's references to
citizens is comical, but it also reflects your abject stupidity. You
are dumber than a fence post.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:08:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

No it doesn't. It enforces IMMIGRATION laws, for all immigrants.

> Obama just proved that in
>Arizona.

You're talking about immigration and deportation rulings, not about
voting.

> SO a State can't allow illegals to do anything (and apparently
>they can't deny them anything either except they do deny the illegals a
>drivers license somehow), because the federal Government is in charge of
>them, Arizona State police can't ask if they're citizens, how would the
>State election board be able to ask if they are citizens?

The federal government is not "in charge" of them. It's in charge of
immigration.

>
>It would be illegal in Arizona....

Arizona may turn out to be illegal. <g>

>
>> That's all there is about it in the Constitution. Otherwise, under the
>> 10th, it's in the hands of the states.
>
>Article. [XXVI.]
>[Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>
>Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>United States or by any State on account of age.
>
>*It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*

That's right. And that means what? (See the federal statutes that Jon
Ball mentioned.) You're citing an amendment that prevents states from
disallowing 18-year-old citizens from voting. It does not say that
states can only allow citizens to vote.

>
>Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
>appropriate legislation.
>
>This line allows the congress to *only enact legislation* to allow 18
>year old *citizens* to vote"

No. It allows Congress to enforce the law by requiring that states
allow 18-year-old citizens to vote. It says nothing about a state's
decision to allow non-citizens to vote.

>
>It didn't allow any laws to permit any illegal aliens to vote.

It has nothing to do with that. That's up to the states.

>
>
>There is NO power in the constitution to allow non citizens to vote, and
>without that delegated power the congress can't make a law that allows
>NON citizens to vote.

We're not talking about Congress. We're talking about state
legislatures.

And you have the "allow" business exactly backwards. You don't "allow"
people to vote. Governments can *prevent* some people from voting --
except those whose rights are protected under the four or five
relevant amendments to the Constitution. Otherwise, people are
allowed.

>And immigration is a Federal jurisdiction and

>since there is no Federal power to allow them to vote....

*Immigration* -- a process -- is a federal jurisdiction. *Immigrants*
-- people -- are subject to both state and federal laws.

>.... it's a catch-22

>the people in charge don't have the delegated authority to make a law to
>allow it.

You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.

>
>That means there is no way but to change the constitution with an
>amendment as I have said so many different ways.

All of them wrong. See above. If there's no law against something, you
can do it.

>
>Which is why in the above amendment on voting they say citizens can vote
>at 18 rather than saying anyone that registers can vote at 18, they
>limit voting to citizens.

No they don't. That's up to the states.

>
>Otherwise the illegal alien children would be able to vote wouldn't they
>and only citizens would need to be 18 years old to vote.

That's up to the states.

>
>Or is that the loophole Obama thought he was exploiting when he imported
>over 50,000 central American illegal alien children into the United
>States? Did Obama give them all absentee ballots to fill out?

There's no loophole.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.

They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
old citizens vote. They don't disallow anyone unless you count the fact
they didn't allow illegals and NON citizens so they have no authority to
make any laws allowing them.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>
>
> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
> old citizens vote.

No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

>> Article. [XXVI.]
>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>
>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>
>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*

> That's right. And that means what?

That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote.

SO the States don't decide who can or can't vote the constitution has
done it for them.

> (See the federal statutes that Jon
> Ball mentioned.) You're citing an amendment that prevents states from
> disallowing 18-year-old citizens from voting. It does not say that
> states can only allow citizens to vote.

States can't make a law to allow illegal aliens to vote. The Feds have
the delegated power over those illegal immigrants (Obama v Arizona). And
the feds have no constitutional power delegated that they can use to
allow them to vote.... as I said it's a catch-22 any way you try you
can't constitutionally make a law to allow illegal immigrants to vote,
without first passing an amendment to the constitution.



Liberalism is self destructive, eventually you end up with so many laws
and regulations that even the Liberals can't pass any more to make the
system more Liberal.


Liberalism shoots its self in the foot every time.
--
*Rumination*
#44 - Love your country, but fear your Government, and when they say
we're here from the government and we're here to help....
run Forest run.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/27/2015 3:20 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>
>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>
>> That's right. And that means what?
>
> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote.

No.

> SO the States don't decide who can or can't vote the constitution has
> done it for them.

No, the Constitution has not done that. All the Constitution, via the
amendments, has done is tell that the states cannot prohibit citizens
from voting based on sex or age (as long as the prospective voter is at
least 18.) It permits the states to deny the vote to felons, for example.

Nothing in the amendments says only citizens are permitted to vote.

>> (See the federal statutes that Rudy Canoza mentioned.) You're citing an

>> amendment that prevents states from
>> disallowing 18-year-old citizens from voting. It does not say that
>> states can only allow citizens to vote.
>
> States can't make a law to allow illegal aliens to vote.

They most certainly can. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it. The
only thing that prohibits it in elections for federal office is a
federal statute, *not* the Constitution.

You are just fucking stupid.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:37:55 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

No. I'll make one last try. See if this sinks in.

You can vote; anybody can vote -- unless there is a law that says you
can't. What the federal laws and consitutional amendments do is to
tell the states who they MUST allow to vote. In other words, the
states can't deny the vote to those classes of people.

Beyond that, the states can allow anyone ELSE to vote that they want
to. So the feds don't tell the states ALL of the people they can let
vote. They only tell that certain people MUST be allowed to vote.

Did that sink in? <sigh> Probably not.

--
Ed Huntress

[deep]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>
>>
>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>> old citizens vote.
>
>No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.

Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative. You lose.

[benj]

On 03/27/2015 06:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>
>>
>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>> old citizens vote.
>
> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.

Not quite, there Rudy. The amendments "disallow" denying the vote to
CITIZENS who are women or black or over 18. The right for illegals to
vote obviously CAN be denied on the basis of race sex or age, because
the amendments do not apply to them.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[Rudy Canoza]

Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
time. You wouldn't know about it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/27/2015 4:02 PM, benj wrote:
> On 03/27/2015 06:05 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>
>>>
>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>> old citizens vote.
>>
>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>
> Not quite, there Rudy. The amendments "disallow" denying the vote to
> CITIZENS who are women or black or over 18. The right for illegals to
> vote obviously CAN be denied on the basis of race sex or age, because
> the amendments do not apply to them.

This is about the rights of citizens vs non citizens, not specifically
illegal aliens, and in fact, the Supreme Court has held that most
provisions of the Constitution apply to aliens - whether legally
resident or not. Even more, the Supreme Court has held that the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment is what makes prohibits the
denial of public school admission to illegal alien children. States
must admit children who are illegals into public schools.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

>On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>
>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>
>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>
>> That's right. And that means what?
>
>That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote

No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.

.
>
>SO the States don't decide who can or can't vote the constitution has
>done it for them.

The states can decide who votes, as long as they don't EXCLUDE certain
classes of people -- women, minorities, citizens over 18, etc.

>
>> (See the federal statutes that Jon
>> Ball mentioned.) You're citing an amendment that prevents states from
>> disallowing 18-year-old citizens from voting. It does not say that
>> states can only allow citizens to vote.
>
>States can't make a law to allow illegal aliens to vote.

They don't have to. Anyone can vote, unless there is a law DISALLOWING
them the vote.

>The Feds have
>the delegated power over those illegal immigrants (Obama v Arizona).

No.

>And
>the feds have no constitutional power delegated that they can use to
>allow them to vote....

Well, that's right. But the states can.

>... as I said it's a catch-22 any way you try you
>can't constitutionally make a law to allow illegal immigrants to vote,
>without first passing an amendment to the constitution.

No one has to pass a law to ALLOW them to vote. The states MAY (and
generaly do) pass laws DISALLOWING them the vote.

>Liberalism is self destructive, eventually you end up with so many laws
>and regulations that even the Liberals can't pass any more to make the
>system more Liberal.
>
>
>Liberalism shoots its self in the foot every time.

As often as you get the facts backward, it appears that you're the one
who keeps shooting himself in the foot.

--
Ed Huntress

[deep]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:08:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza

<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 3/27/2015 4:00 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>>> old citizens vote.
>>>
>>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>>
>> Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative.
>
>Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
>time. You wouldn't know about it.

Wrong. A double negative is a logical fallacy. You lose. Get
over it.

But you always lose, don't you? You can't even be the smartest
person on a grade school playground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation#Double_negative_elimination

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/27/2015 4:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>>
>>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>>
>>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>>
>>> That's right. And that means what?
>>
>> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote
>
> No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.

...unless they have some other voting rights disability, such as being a
convicted felon, or never having registered to vote. The Constitution,
including the amendments, absolutely allow the states to require
registration and some proof of residence. An American citizen residing
in another state passing through a state holding an election may be
denied the ability to vote. A person residing in one city may not vote
in the municipal election of another city.

>>
>> SO the States don't decide who can or can't vote the constitution has
>> done it for them.
>
> The states can decide who votes, as long as they don't EXCLUDE certain
> classes of people -- women, minorities, citizens over 18, etc.

Nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from letting aliens vote.
It would be interesting if state or local governments enacted laws
permitting aliens to vote only if they were males over the age of 30.

>>
>>> (See the federal statutes that Rudy
>>> Canoza mentioned.) You're citing an amendment that prevents states from

>>> disallowing 18-year-old citizens from voting. It does not say that
>>> states can only allow citizens to vote.
>>
>> States can't make a law to allow illegal aliens to vote.
>
> They don't have to. Anyone can vote, unless there is a law DISALLOWING
> them the vote.
>
>> The Feds have
>> the delegated power over those illegal immigrants (Obama v Arizona).
>
> No.
>
>> And the feds have no constitutional power delegated that they can use to
>> allow them to vote....
>
> Well, that's right. But the states can.

The federal government could repeal the statute that forbids aliens from
voting in federal elections.

>> ... as I said it's a catch-22 any way you try you
>> can't constitutionally make a law to allow illegal immigrants to vote,
>> without first passing an amendment to the constitution.
>
> No one has to pass a law to ALLOW them to vote. The states MAY (and
> generaly do) pass laws DISALLOWING them the vote.
>
>> Liberalism is self destructive, eventually you end up with so many laws
>> and regulations that even the Liberals can't pass any more to make the
>> system more Liberal.
>>
>>
>> Liberalism shoots its self in the foot every time.
>
> As often as you get the facts backward, it appears that you're the one
> who keeps shooting himself in the foot.
>


--

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:26:29 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:08:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
><LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>On 3/27/2015 4:00 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>>>> old citizens vote.
>>>>
>>>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>>>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>>>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>>>
>>> Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative.
>>
>>Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
>>time. You wouldn't know about it.
>
>Wrong. A double negative is a logical fallacy.

ROFLMAO

Is there anything more funny than YOU trying to take people to task
for logical fallacies?

Particularly when you try to claim a double negative is a logical
fallacy?


Find it in this list...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You sure aren't not stupid.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/27/2015 4:26 PM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:08:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2015 4:00 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>>>> old citizens vote.
>>>>
>>>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>>>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>>>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>>>
>>> Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative.
>>
>> Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
>> time. You wouldn't know about it.
>
> Wrong. A double negative is a logical fallacy.

No, it's not. It is not unreasonable for me to use a double negative.

You are stupid.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:26:29 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:08:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
><LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>>On 3/27/2015 4:00 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>>>> old citizens vote.
>>>>
>>>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>>>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>>>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>>>
>>> Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative.
>>
>>Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
>>time. You wouldn't know about it.
>
>Wrong. A double negative is a logical fallacy. You lose. Get
>over it.

No, no, no, no, no! There is nothing inherently, logically wrong with
a double negative. There are languages in which it is common.

In English, it's less common, but this is a case where it is
appropriate. "Denying the vote" is the affirmative action. Disallowing
it is the counter action.

The law being discussed does NOT "allow the affirmation of the vote."
It DISallows the DENIAL of the vote. They are not the same thing.

>
>But you always lose, don't you? You can't even be the smartest
>person on a grade school playground.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negation#Double_negative_elimination

That does not apply in this case, because the affirmative action being
negated is "denying the vote."

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

His statement that double negatives comprise a "logical fallacy" is
simply wrong, plain and simple. Some that are commonly used by
uneducated 47-percenters often literally mean the opposite of what the
stupid person intended. Ghetto thugs often wail when seized by the
popo, "I didden do nuffin'!", which taken literally means they did
*something* [wrong], even though what they intend to convey is one of "I
didn't do anything [wrong]" or "I did nothing [wrong]", but being stupid
criminals, they fuck it up.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, Dudu Scheisskopf's errors (and bad and
wrong beliefs, and failures of logic) are not inconspicuous.

[deep]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:58:01 -0400, Ed Huntress
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:26:29 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:08:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>><LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/27/2015 4:00 PM, deep wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:05:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:37 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>>> You don't make laws to allow things. You make laws to disallow things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They made a law to allow women to vote, they made a law to allow 18 year
>>>>>> old citizens vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. They passed amendments to *disallow* denying the vote to women or
>>>>> adults having reached the age of 18. It's a crucial distinction, but
>>>>> because you are stupid and stubborn, you refuse to see it.
>>>>
>>>> Your "crucial distinction" is a double negative.
>>>
>>>Perfectly normal. It happens in the speech of educated people all the
>>>time. You wouldn't know about it.
>>
>>Wrong. A double negative is a logical fallacy. You lose. Get
>>over it.
>
>
>No, no, no, no, no! There is nothing inherently, logically wrong with
>a double negative. There are languages in which it is common.

There is if he's trying to play games with them which is exactly what
he's doing.

[Ed Huntress]

You used the wrong reference. This is a literary question, not one of
formal logic. What you want is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

Be aware that there are two kinds of double negation in English. The
use here is of the stylistic one, rather than the dialectical one:

"In Standard English, two negatives are understood to resolve to a
positive. This rule was observed as early as 1762, when Bishop Robert
Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar with Critical
Notes.[1] For instance, "I do not disagree" could mean "I certainly
agree". Further statements may be necessary to resolve which
particular meaning was intended."

In this case, there is no ambiguity, because the affirmative is the
denial of the right to vote.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Read the other Wikipedia reference that I supplied. You'll see how the
literary use resolves.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Hey, I have one more for you, in a Wikpedia item called "Common
English usage misconceptions":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Usage

"Misconception: Using double negatives is always bad English. Patricia
O'Conner includes this in a list of "bogus or worn-out rules".[22][23]
She advises readers to avoid certain uses (such as "I didn't do
nothing") but not to completely remove the double negative from our
English toolboxes when constructing prose.[24] Acceptable examples
given are "It's not inconceivable, She's not unappealing"[25] (see
litotes). Whether the double negative is a positive constitutes a
major difference between the acceptable and unacceptable examples.
Many prescriptive English speakers consider this the criterion for
whether a double negative is acceptable."

That last sentence is an arch way to put it, but, again, the double
negative that resolves to a positive is the case here. That's the one
that's considered "acceptable."

It's a literary device, one that often more accurately describes the
situation than a simple positive.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Wrong - that's not what I'm doing in the least, *and* it wouldn't matter
even if I were, because they *still* would not comprise a logical
fallacy. You don't have any fucking clue what a logical fallacy is -
that's why you commit so many of them.

Your logical fallacies are not inconspicuous.

You stupid fat fuck.

[Just Wondering]

On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>
> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>

So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.

[Rudy Canoza]

Just another Dudu Scheisskopf fuck-up.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Dudu has been trained to shriek out various words and phrases in
response to certain stimuli.

He has no idea what they mean.

Kinda like the word "socialism."

[chuckle]

[deep]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

It's a double negative. Why not simply say you agree? It's more
succinct and grammatically correct. Typically (and correctly) you
should trim sentences to their simplest form.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:03:43 -0600, deep wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
><fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>>>
>>> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>>So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
>> If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.
>
>It's a double negative.

No, "I do not disagree" is not a double negative.

> Why not simply say you agree? It's more succinct and grammatically correct.

LOL He *should* make things as simple as possible for you, that's for
sure.

> Typically (and correctly) you should trim sentences to their simplest form.

For Dudu, the simpler the better.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/28/2015 7:03 AM, deep wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>>>
>>> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>> So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
>> If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.
>
> It's a double negative. Why not simply say you agree?

Because although they're close in meaning, they're not exactly the same.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/28/2015 7:12 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:03:43 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>> So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
>>> If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.
>>
>> It's a double negative.
>
> No, "I do not disagree" is not a double negative.

Of course it contains double negation: not + dis. But not disagreeing
with someone doesn't exactly mean you agree fully or enthusiastically
with him.

>> Why not simply say you agree? It's more succinct and grammatically correct.
>
> LOL He *should* make things as simple as possible for you, that's for
> sure.
>
>> Typically (and correctly) you should trim sentences to their simplest form.
>
> For Dudu, the simpler the better.

Scheisskopf needs to stick with words no longer than three letters.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/28/2015 7:03 AM, deep wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>>>
>>> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>>>
>> So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
>> If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.
>
> It's a double negative.

It's a grammatically correct and meaningful thing to say.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>>
>>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>>
>>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>>
>>> That's right. And that means what?
>>
>> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote
>
> No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.

Is voting a privilege or a right, is citizenship a privilege or a
right.... The government can allow the privileges but a right can't be
given by the government which is why it can't be revoked by the
government either. A right was there before the government existed. The
constitution never lists all rights... Why did the 18th amendment have
to be there to create Prohibition?

Then is it a right of the people meaning all of us or a citizens
privilege which is something that comes with the privilege of
citizenship. Why does the constitution call it a right of citizens to
vote. And why did they only limit citizens with an age limit, why
didn't they limit *all voters* meaning the illegal aliens and others
from voting below the age of 18? Why did they target just citizens?


What you are trying to tell us is that Utah can lower the age for voting
to 12 years old and allow any one 12 or above to vote in a Presidential
election. Why wouldn't Obama be trying to lower that age State by State
so he gets more stupid kids to vote for him? Harry Reid would have
pushed for that for Obama in Nevada..... Obama could promise the kids
free WELFARE LOLLY POPS for their votes.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/28/2015 8:28 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>>>
>>>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>>>
>>>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>>>
>>>> That's right. And that means what?
>>>
>>> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote
>>
>> No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.
>
> Is voting a privilege or a right, is citizenship a privilege or a
> right.... The government can allow the privileges but a right can't be
> given by the government which is why it can't be revoked by the
> government either.

What do those whiny questions have to do with the fact that the
Constitution does *NOT* limit voting only to citizens?

> What you are trying to tell us is that Utah can lower the age for voting
> to 12 years old and allow any one 12 or above to vote in a Presidential
> election.

Yes, they certainly could. Nothing in the Constitution forbids it.

[RD Sandman]

BeamMeUpScotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EP
A.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in news:5NzRw.180855$jx4....@fx27.iad:

> On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA
>> .EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>>>
>>>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are
>>>>> eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or
>>>>> abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>>>
>>>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>>>
>>>> That's right. And that means what?
>>>
>>> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote
>>
>> No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.
>
> Is voting a privilege or a right, is citizenship a privilege or a
> right.... The government can allow the privileges but a right can't be
> given by the government which is why it can't be revoked by the
> government either.

However, if your government doesn't recognize and support that right,
then, essentially, it doesn't exist for you or the other citizens of that
country. You cannot openly practice a right your government does not
recognize without penalty.

> A right was there before the government existed.

Where did it come from? Desire for that right or from a diety?

> The constitution never lists all rights... Why did the 18th amendment
> have to be there to create Prohibition?

The 18th amendment granted a *power* to the government.

One needs to look at the Constitution as setting up how the federal
government will operate and what powers it has. People have rights,
governments have powers.

> Then is it a right of the people meaning all of us or a citizens
> privilege which is something that comes with the privilege of
> citizenship. Why does the constitution call it a right of citizens to
> vote. And why did they only limit citizens with an age limit, why
> didn't they limit *all voters* meaning the illegal aliens and others
> from voting below the age of 18? Why did they target just citizens?
>
>
> What you are trying to tell us is that Utah can lower the age for
> voting to 12 years old and allow any one 12 or above to vote in a
> Presidential election.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that the state can grant power to vote
in a federal election to someone who does not meet the requirements of
the 26A. Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
*state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12 year
old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not the
president of the US or Congress critters.

Why wouldn't Obama be trying to lower that age
> State by State so he gets more stupid kids to vote for him? Harry Reid
> would have pushed for that for Obama in Nevada..... Obama could
> promise the kids free WELFARE LOLLY POPS for their votes.
>
>
>

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
news:5ad0b$5516c731$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET:

Perhaps not, but the 26A reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged to the
United States or **by any State on account of age.**

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legidlation.

IOW, Congress and the Constitution sets the rules for voting in federal
elections.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 11:28:49 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:

>On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 2:57 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> Article. [XXVI.]
>>>>> [Proposed 1971; Ratified 1971]
>>>>>
>>>>> Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen
>>>>> years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
>>>>> United States or by any State on account of age.
>>>>>
>>>>> *It doesn't say... ONLY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS*
>>>
>>>> That's right. And that means what?
>>>
>>> That the Feds are telling the States who can and can't vote
>>
>> No. Only certain classes of people who MUST be allowed to vote.
>
>Is voting a privilege or a right

It is a right for citizens:

Amendment 14, Section 2, "...the right to vote at any election..."
Amendment 15, Section 1, "The right of citizens of the United States
to vote..."
Amendment 19, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote..."
Amendment 24, Section 1, "The right of citizens of the United States
to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice
President..."
Amendment 26, Section 1, "The right of citizens of the United States,

who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or

abridged..."

It can be granted as a right or a privilege to non-citizens, by the
states.

>, is citizenship a privilege or a right....

In the US, it can be either. It is a right under two circumstances:

jus soli (right of birthplace)
jus sanguinis (right of blood)

It can be a privilege by naturalization.

> The government can allow the privileges but a right can't be
>given by the government which is why it can't be revoked by the
>government either.

Absolute, unmitigated nonsense perpetuated by half-educated fools.

You're confusing the "natural rights," or "fundamental rights," with
the many "rights" that are discussed in our founding documents and
law.

Spend some time looking up the word "right" in the Federalist Papers
if you want to straighten out your thinking, and to have a good laugh
while you're doing it.

> A right was there before the government existed.

Nonsense. That philosophy applies only to "natural rights," and no two
people will agree about what those might be.

>The constitution never lists all rights...

Of course not.

>Why did the 18th amendment have to be there to create Prohibition?

It didn't, any more than we needed an amendment to enforce drug laws.

>
>Then is it a right of the people meaning all of us or a citizens
>privilege which is something that comes with the privilege of
>citizenship.

See above.

>Why does the constitution call it a right of citizens to
>vote. And why did they only limit citizens with an age limit, why
>didn't they limit *all voters* meaning the illegal aliens and others
>from voting below the age of 18? Why did they target just citizens?

Because that's all that the amendments cover. The rest is up to the
states.

>
>
>What you are trying to tell us is that Utah can lower the age for voting
>to 12 years old and allow any one 12 or above to vote in a Presidential
>election.

No. Utah could lower the voting age to 12 for state offices, if they
so chose.

"A federal constitutional amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in
1971. States are allowed to set their ages lower, but not higher.

"In 2002, Cambridge, Mass., city leaders voted to lower the local
voting age to 17. But the state legislature, which has the final say,
has not approved the change.

"Maine is considering letting 17-year-olds vote in primaries, as long
as they turn 18 by the general election, something several other
states already allow. In Florida, advocates hope to have an initiative
on this fall's ballot lowering the voting age to 16. Proposals also
have been introduced in Texas and Hawaii.

"California has the most radical proposal: a constitutional amendment
that would give 16-year-olds a half vote and 14-year-olds a quarter
vote in state elections beginning in 2006."

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/04/08/loc_votingage09.html

>Why wouldn't Obama be trying to lower that age State by State
>so he gets more stupid kids to vote for him? Harry Reid would have
>pushed for that for Obama in Nevada..... Obama could promise the kids
>free WELFARE LOLLY POPS for their votes.

Why don't you suggest it to him? Watch out for the men in white coats,
with big butterfly nets.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

And the voting rights amendments made explicit that the government does
*not* have the power to deny voting using the listed criteria. As with
all the other amendments stating what the government may not do, those
in the Madisonian school would say they were superfluous, as the
Constitution never gave the government the power to deny voting on those
criteria.

> One needs to look at the Constitution as setting up how the federal
> government will operate and what powers it has. People have rights,
> governments have powers.

Exactly right.

>> Then is it a right of the people meaning all of us or a citizens
>> privilege which is something that comes with the privilege of
>> citizenship. Why does the constitution call it a right of citizens to
>> vote. And why did they only limit citizens with an age limit, why
>> didn't they limit *all voters* meaning the illegal aliens and others
>> from voting below the age of 18? Why did they target just citizens?
>>
>>
>> What you are trying to tell us is that Utah can lower the age for
>> voting to 12 years old and allow any one 12 or above to vote in a
>> Presidential election.
>
> I may be wrong, but I don't think that the state can grant power to vote
> in a federal election to someone who does not meet the requirements of
> the 26A.

You're misinterpreting the amendment in the same way beemer is. The
amendment does not say a voter *must* be 18 in order to vote. It says
that *IF* a voter is at least 18, the states may not deny him the vote
based on his age.

> Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
> *state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12 year
> old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not the
> president of the US or Congress critters.

Nothing in either the 26th amendment or federal voting law forbids
states from allowing people under the age of 18 to vote.

[Rudy Canoza]

That says that if a citizen is 18 and otherwise eligible to vote, states
may not deny him the vote. In no way does it say such a citizen *must*
be 18 or older in order to vote. Put another way, it says that age 17
is the *maximum* age at which a state may deny the vote based on age; a
state may, if it chooses, allow people to vote at a younger age. The
states may not, of course, allow aliens to vote in federal elections,
but that is by statute, not the Constitution.

> Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
> appropriate legidlation.
>
> IOW, Congress and the Constitution sets the rules for voting in federal
> elections.

They set some of them. States may set their own rules, within reason,
for some things pertaining to elections, including those for federal
office. For instance, neither the Constitution nor federal law says
that states may not enact rules pertaining to voter registration; nor do
they say that states *must* have registration rules.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in

news:5ac8$5516e1ef$414e828e$32...@EVERESTKC.NET:

Because legislation prior to that said he or she was to be 21 or older.
The 26A was suffrage for 18 year olds. Or do you think that women could
vote prior to the 19A?

>> Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
>> *state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12
>> year old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not
>> the president of the US or Congress critters.
>
> Nothing in either the 26th amendment or federal voting law forbids
> states from allowing people under the age of 18 to vote.
>

I bet that the election folks who assign polling places won't give a
ballotg to a 12 year old in a federal election.

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:b738b$5516e072
$414e828e$22...@EVERESTKC.NET:

> On 3/28/2015 9:43 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:5ad0b$5516c731$414e828e$85...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 3/28/2015 8:28 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

>>>>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
NET...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CI

See my previous post. Then you can list the places in the US that gave
the vote in federal elections to 12 year olds.

>> Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

>> appropriate legislation.

>>
>> IOW, Congress and the Constitution sets the rules for voting in
federal
>> elections.
>
> They set some of them. States may set their own rules, within reason,
> for some things pertaining to elections, including those for federal
> office. For instance, neither the Constitution nor federal law says
> that states may not enact rules pertaining to voter registration; nor
do
> they say that states *must* have registration rules.
>
>





--

[Ed Huntress]

I don't think that's right, RD. The 26th Amendment says only that
states may not DENY the vote to 18-year-olds on the basis of their
age. It doesn't say that they must deny the vote to younger people, if
the state so chooses..

The Voting Rights Act, with its revisions and amendments, doesn't say
that, either. In fact, some states allow 17-year-olds to vote in
primaries, and some other states have considered laws to further
reduce the voting age.

The Constituion itself doesn't say much about it, except in terms of
electing members of the House, in Art. 1 Sec. 2:

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen
every second year by the people of the several states, and the
electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for
electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature."

So it appears that, if a state allows younger people to vote for its
legislators, they can vote for members of the House.

[Ed Huntress]

They could, in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and, for a short time
after the Revolution, in New Jersey.

It's a similar thing, RD. The federal government didn't *restrict* who
could vote; that was up to the states. The federal government limited
to whom the states could *deny* the vote.

--
Ed Huntress

>

>>> Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
>>> *state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12
>>> year old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not
>>> the president of the US or Congress critters.
>>
>> Nothing in either the 26th amendment or federal voting law forbids
>> states from allowing people under the age of 18 to vote.
>>
>
>I bet that the election folks who assign polling places won't give a
>ballotg to a 12 year old in a federal election.

I don't think there's a state that would allow it. But that's up to
the STATES, not the federal government.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:pordha1o59pp74br6...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:59:30 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>>news:5ac8$5516e1ef$414e828e$32...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 3/28/2015 9:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty

>>>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
NET...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA

>>>> .EP A.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in
>>>> news:5NzRw.180855$jx4....@fx27.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

>>>>>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
NET...@IRS.FBI.NSA.C

I agree with that......I just enjoy pulling on Rudy's chain from time to
time. ;)

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:76qdhat1j0mbevg0q...@4ax.com:

I will stand corrected. I agreed (although I didn't say so) with Rudy on
his analysis, it was just that I was unaware of any state allowing folks
under 18 to vote in a federal election.

[Rudy Canoza]

Of course some women could vote prior to the 19th amendment.

"Between 1910 and 1918, the Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and
Washington all extended voting rights to women."

It may not be considered good form to tell you to "Google it", but
that's exactly what I'm going to do. Copy and paste "Between 1910 and
1918, the Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas" into a search engine, and you will find numerous sites
that say exactly what my full quotation above says.

>>> Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
>>> *state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12
>>> year old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not
>>> the president of the US or Congress critters.
>>
>> Nothing in either the 26th amendment or federal voting law forbids
>> states from allowing people under the age of 18 to vote.
>>
>
> I bet that the election folks who assign polling places won't give a
> ballotg to a 12 year old in a federal election.

I bet you that if any state passed laws allowing 12-year-olds to vote,
the polling place workers most certainly *would* give a ballot to voter
that young, because nothing in either the Constitution nor federal law
prohibits it.

[Rudy Canoza]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age. Some states already let
17-year-olds vote in primaries and caucuses if they will be 18 by the
date of the general election.

That same citation also says, "In the 1970 case Oregon v. Mitchell the
Supreme Court ruled that Congress had the right to regulate the minimum
age in federal elections; however, not at local and state level.
Congress passed the 26th Amendment in March 1971. It was promptly
ratified by the states and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law
in July 1971." Note that it says the court ruled that Congress "[has]
the right to regulate the minimum age in federal elections"; nothing in
federal election law mandates that voters *must* be at least age 18 to
vote in federal elections.

[Rudy Canoza]

It seems that, at present, no states allow voters under the age of 18 to
vote for federal offices in the general election. Nothing in the
Constitution or federal law prohibits them from allowing it, however.

[Just Wondering]

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon! What an ignoranimus!

You made the bullshit claim that a double negative is a logical fallacy.
I provided one that proved you wrong. Rather than admit being called
on it, you try to change the subject. What a weasel.

As to why not simply say you agree? Because you don't WANT to say that.
"I do not disagree", while a double negative, does not mean the same
thing as "I agree". It might, but it could also be a statement of
neutrality. Perhaps you WANT your answer to be ambiguous. It can even
be a polite way to avoid a confrontation when the truth is that you DO
disagree.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 3/29/2015 12:31 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 3/28/2015 8:03 AM, deep wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 21:42:55 -0600, Just Wondering
>> <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/27/2015 5:26 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A double negative is a logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>> So it would be a logical fallacy if I said "I do not disagree"? Wrong.
>>> If I said that it would be a lie, but not a logical fallacy.
>>
>> It's a double negative. Why not simply say you agree? It's more
>> succinct and grammatically correct. Typically (and correctly) you
>> should trim sentences to their simplest form.
>>
> In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon! What an ignoranimus!
>
> You made the bullshit claim that a double negative is a logical fallacy.
> I provided one that proved you wrong. Rather than admit being called
> on it, you try to change the subject. What a weasel.

The sniveling gutless squat-to-piss fucktard, Dudu Scheisskopf, always
does that.

> As to why not simply say you agree? Because you don't WANT to say that.
> "I do not disagree", while a double negative, does not mean the same
> thing as "I agree". It might, but it could also be a statement of
> neutrality. Perhaps you WANT your answer to be ambiguous. It can even
> be a polite way to avoid a confrontation when the truth is that you DO
> disagree.

There are all kinds of good reasons one might employ the construction.

The key thing is that Scheisskopf' statement that a double negative is a
"logical fallacy" is simply bullshit. A logical fallacy, either formal
or informal (Scheisskopf doesn't know anything about those), is
something that is contained in an argument. A statement such as "I do
not disagree" is not an argument; it's a statement of one's beliefs.

Scheisskopf is hopeless, and one of his biggest problems is that he runs
his ignorant fucking yap and says completely stupid shit, then refuses
ever to acknowledge his glaring, undeniable errors.


--

"America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to 'the common
good,' but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

Ayn Rand

[RD Sandman]

Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:4497f$5516f513
$414e828e$11...@EVERESTKC.NET:

> On 3/28/2015 10:59 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote in
>> news:5ac8$5516e1ef$414e828e$32...@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 3/28/2015 9:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty

>>>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
NET...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA

>>>> .EP A.FCC.DHS.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in
>>>> news:5NzRw.180855$jx4....@fx27.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/27/2015 7:14 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:20:15 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty

>>>>>> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-
NET...@IRS.FBI.NSA.C

Keyword "...some..."

> "Between 1910 and 1918, the Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas,
> California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska,
> Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota and
> Washington all extended voting rights to women."
>
> It may not be considered good form to tell you to "Google it", but
> that's exactly what I'm going to do. Copy and paste "Between 1910 and
> 1918, the Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois,
> Indiana, Kansas" into a search engine, and you will find numerous sites
> that say exactly what my full quotation above says.

Why would I do that? Do you expect me to doubt you? Why would that be?

>>>> Ergo, Utah may be able to allow 12 year olds to vote in a
>>>> *state* election but not in a federal or national one. IOW, a 12
>>>> year old could vote for the governor or legislators of Utah but not
>>>> the president of the US or Congress critters.
>>>
>>> Nothing in either the 26th amendment or federal voting law forbids
>>> states from allowing people under the age of 18 to vote.
>>>
>>
>> I bet that the election folks who assign polling places won't give a
>> ballotg to a 12 year old in a federal election.
>
> I bet you that if any state passed laws allowing 12-year-olds to vote,
> the polling place workers most certainly *would* give a ballot to voter
> that young, because nothing in either the Constitution nor federal law
> prohibits it.
>
>



--