TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:

57Coastie wrote:

74novaman wrote: The difference between voting and gun rights is only one was considered important enough to be included in the bill of rights.

Some reading on the founders views of Democracies vs Republics might give a hint as to why the other "right" wasnt included.

Reading some of the founders' views of permitting blacks, women and certain others to vote show why the Constitutional Convention and the new constitution's enactment was such a difficult and uncertain process. Early on the qualifications required of who voted, even in federal elections, was up to each of the separate states. At that time the general rule was that voting was done by propertied white adult males.

Eventually amendments after the first ten caught up with both morality and reality.

Jim

From a high school textbook, surface level interpretation, you are correct.

If you read some of their letters and publications (Federalist Papers, for one) and look beyond this countries issues regarding minorities and women, many of the founders wrote extensively on the dangers of a democracy and the short life of democratic govt before it is replaced by authoritarianism.

But by all means, let's just stop the train of thought at "The founders were racists and sexist".


Edit: Alright, I reread my post and realized how grumpy that sounded. Let me elaborate, and apologize for sounding grumpy. I was a History major in college. I took some classes from wonderful professors who wanted you to do the research, write papers and figure it out yourself. I also took classes from leftists and dedicated Marxists that spoon fed you "their" version of history.

People who use the argument that "well, the founders were racist/sexist/anti poor/whatever other label they can stick on them" drive me up a wall. Were the founders perfect? By no means whatsoever were they shining examples of human perfection. Does that mean that having the prejudices and thoughts consistent with their time frame null any valid thoughts regarding government they had?

Should we ignore the words and thoughts put forth by Plato and Aristotle? After all, they grew up in a time where slavery was common.

There are problems with every age. To go down the road of "oh, the founders didn't want blacks voting" isn't addressing my point at all. I was referring to their thoughts on democracy vs republic, not their thoughts on race.

When you attempt to ignore a discussion point by saying "the founders were racist", you're missing the point. Some of them were...but they also had done a lot of research on governments throughout history, and had done everything possible to curb what they refereed to as mob rule democratic tendencies. I wonder why they'd do that?

I think it's misleading to use the term "racist" to describe the founders, just like it's misleading to talk about ancient Greek "Democracy." Neither word describes the reality of the past as seen from the present. "Racist" and "Democracy" have quite different meanings today than what they are used to describe of the past. To say as another poster has, that National morality started sometime after our founding, as if our current government is more "moral" than some previous stage of our government, is utter nonsense.

Katygunnut wrote:The right to vote is no more important than the right to keep and bear arms, IMHO. I have to produce ID, pay a fee, pass a test and pass a background check to exercise my right to keep and bear arms. Does anyone really think it is OK that I don't need to do any of these things to exercise my right to vote?

The Obama administration wants to impose a fee for being alive (via the Obamacare mandate), and yet his administration is up in arms because people might have to pay for an ID so that they can vote? Is voting more important than life itself in their mind?

I'd argue that the right to keep and bear arms is more important than the right to vote, and that if I had to choose one over the other, I'd choose the very practical right to keep and bear arms, rather the symbolic right to choose between tweedledumb and tweedledee.

57Coastie wrote:"My" administration?

The standard tactic of some types is when caught with their pants down, to change the subject, real quick.

Jim

To quote The Dude: "Well, that's...like, your opinion, man." Interestingly, you obliquely claim that "someone" was caught with their pants down....but present no argument or evidence of said pants being down, and merely assert a change of subject, where there was none. I will explain further:

1. The whole point of my OP is that the Obama administration, with Mr. Holder acting as it's representative, seeks to prevent States from purging illegal aliens (among others) from their voting rolls. Do they say this outright? No, but it is the inexorably logical conclusion from what they do say.

2. Your reply appears to be in defense of the administration's tactics, hence my use of "your administration," which I admit could be an unfortunate choice of words, but since I can't read your mind, I can only respond to what you write.

3. In your response you suggest that those on what, for brevity, I'll call "the other side" of the issue, have malicious motives and dishonest intentions --so I merely pointed out that those advocating what you appear to be defending have ulterior motives and dishonest intentions; and I illustrated the hypocrisy and motives of the administration by the latest absurd pronouncement that those in the country, ILLEGALLY, should, in essence, get special protection from law enforcement so that they are not caught, whereas, this administration is apparently untroubled by, and in fact, practices all kinds of "illicit" and "backdoor" methods to apprehend US citizens, even those whom they have to prod into illegal behavior.

4. This administration also breaks or ignores the law as it wishes, so it can hardly get the benefit of anyone's doubt when they seek to claim that it is important to enforce the law when it is of political benefit to them.

57Coastie wrote:

PATHFINDER wrote:One very important fact has not yet been mentioned . If it has - SORRY -I missed it .

NO person will be turned away from a voting place in Texas for lack of a photo I.D.

They WILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON A PROVISIONAL BALLOT. They will then have a period of time in which to produce evidence verifying their voter eligibility. Not sure what the deadline on that is, but they can darn sure VOTE.

So this crocodile tear-letting about people being disenfranchised by the voter I.D. law requirements is pure malarkey.

Malarkey! I must adopt your analysis, but only to the extent that it is malarkey, Pathfinder.

This new twist to the enforcement of the Texas voter ID minority disenfranchisement act was not adopted because of the good heart and honest intentions of the Texas majority or its representatives in Austin, and it is disingenuous to claim credit for it.

It has come about only because the U. S. Department of Justice rejected the disenfranchisement act as passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. The state took this action for the recent (and some still ongoing) primaries, in hopes that its lawsuit against DOJ would be successful before the November general election. The last report I have seen indicates that it is unlikely that the U. S. District Court will get the case decided before the general election, primarily because of the delay the state is causing by failing to comply with the respondent's discovery requests -- particularly with respect to the DOJ's request that the state turn over internal communications which may resolve any remaining doubt as to the true, as compared with the expressed, purpose of the original act.

Jim

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... trol-call/

Yeah, here's your Obama administration in action on illegal immigrants.

A federal department ruled last week that the Forest Service violated a Spanish-speaking woman’s civil rights by calling the Border Patrol to help translate during a routine stop, saying it was “humiliating” to Hispanics and an illicit backdoor way to capture more illegal immigrants.

Ever increasing levels of absurdity. "IIlicit" and "backdoor" ways of capturing criminals are only authorized for US citizens, and apparently, probable cause doesn't apply either. It's only OK to "humiliate" US citizens. What's malarkey is that these rulings and acts have anything to do with civil rights or come from the "good heart" and "honest intentions" of the leftists advocating them for the purpose of undermining our Republic ; they're about swelling the Democratic voter base. English is the official language of the United States of America. Someone who can't communicate in English has no business voting in a US election; and people who come here from other countries and have not become US citizens have no more right to vote here than I have to vote for members of Parliament on my next trip to the UK.

gdanaher wrote:This topic seems to have been beat to death, so here's to beating the horse some more. This article and your reaction to it are a good example of people reading into something just what they want to hear. "Illegal" is not found anywhere in the article. Illegals do not have a right to vote, and they should not vote. If they vote, they are committing a felony, and they are criminals, but then they were committing criminal acts when they entered the nation illegally, anyway. Criminals should be tried and if found guilty, punished appropriately. That is not the issue here. Not at all. Photo ID is the issue, and how to get it. All you fine 30 somethings can get a drivers license in an afternoon. Even less time if you live in town. For those who don't live near a DPS office, it can take longer. Less than half of all Texas counties have a single DPS office, and of those that we have, many are open only one or two days a week and none of them on a weekend. You might have to drive 3 counties away to get a drivers license or ID card. The ID card is issued without charge now, but there is still a cost. You have to get there, and at $3.50 a gallon, three counties each way can cost a few bucks. But you also have to have other identification available to even get the ID card, and things like passports cost a Franklin these days. This is nothing more than a trick to reinstate a poll tax, to prevent citizens who by any standard are eligible to vote, and that has been illegal since 1964. It discriminates against whole classes of Americans: elderly, visually handicapped, physically handicapped,geographically isolated, etc. I'm all for finding a way to prevent illegal aliens from voting, but starting a topic and entitling it as it was is disingenuous and points to a shallowness of understanding of what is otherwise a complex problem.

I think TAM pretty much laid it out but I will make a couple of comments. First, what a load of hooey....just what "right" enumerated by the Constitution doesn't cost money or effort to exercise? We have the right to keep and bear arms...should people get "free" guns to protect themselves? Or should it just be those who can't afford a gun or can't get to a gun store who get a freebie? People have the basic right to life, should they all get free food and medical care? Why not? And it seems to me that if someone chooses to live somewhere that makes getting ID inconvenient, that's their choice and their problem. It's discrimination now that exercising a right isn't free, easy, or effortless? Then I'm being discriminated against because I don't have an equal right to free speech....people with more money and better access to national media get their voices heard when I don't. Perhaps your view can be summarized by: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

I said in my post that Holder didn't actually say illegals have a right to vote, but again, as TAM has aptly pointed out, the logical consequence of not having to provide proof of citizenship is that illegals will vote. If I endorse something that has a known and logical consequence then I also endorse that consequence. But I think it's you who is disingenuous, or naive, if you believe Holder and his boss care one whit about everyone's right to vote --what they care about is power for themselves and others of their camp. Holder in particular has made it clear by his actions that he is in no way concerned about equal protection or enforcement of the law. His supposed concern for voting rights is code for the "right people" voting ...and that isn't people like most of the people on the CHL forum.

Frankly, I think our Founders had it right and there are a lot of people voting who shouldn't be voting...in other words, just like the men who wrote and ratified our Constitution, I don't believe everyone has a right to vote. I don't think a poll tax is a bad thing at all. In the first place, no one who is a net tax consumer should be allowed to vote. The notion that those who produce nothing should be able to vote themselves wealth from those who do is absurd on its face and can only lead in one direction...as it is doing in this country and has in others --the proverbial "Democracy" of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's like letting your kids vote on how much you have to pay them as a weekly allowance. I happen to agree with H.L. Mencken that an election is generally an auction of previously stolen goods. He said it something like 90 years ago....I doubt he could even have imagined how his remark would so accurately describe today's reality.

Finally, the impetus for the universal vote is from the radical left --it's ultimately intended to empower the tax feeders over the productive class until the Marxist tipping point is reached, and one man, one vote, one time, renders a final election and the rule of the proletariat, which, of course, is in reality, a tyranny of political elites.

Edited to add:

And let's not forget another part of the context....the liberals in states like California have actually argued that illegals SHOULD be allowed to vote.

Illegals voting in California:http://www.wikilaw3k.org/forum/Immigrat ... 363067.htm

The Immigrant Voting Project: http://www.immigrantvoting.org/statescu ... n%20F.html

Why Support Proposition F

A supermajority of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has placed a charter amendment on the November 2004 ballot to allow an immigrant parent with a child in our school system to vote in San Francisco school board elections. Voters should support this simple idea for the following reasons:

Immigrant voting is currently practiced in other cities and countries. Jurisdictions in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have passed laws allowing immigrants to vote.

So much for your claim that illegals don't vote. It sure seems to me that you're the one reading what you want to hear into Holder's remarks.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 24823.html

Ok, he didn't say that exactly, but that's a logical conclusion that can be drawn from his remarks, since he wants to prohibit states from disallowing voters who can't prove they are US citizens. The real issue for Holder is that voter fraud primarily benefits Democrats, but that doesn't sound as good as a "sacred right to vote." And really, if a right is "sacred" how can it be denied to felons and illegal aliens?