It ain't much so far, but I will take what I can get at this point!
Posted on 12/29/2011 11:59:17 AM PST by smoothsailing
“The reason the federal courts accepted this as a federal case is that it affects the country nationwide. If this had just been a state problem for Virginia to deal with, then the state could have dealt with it in and of itself, but when something a state does involves the entire country or at least affects the entire country, it then is considered a federal issue, not a simple state issue.”
Ok, I see. So when Texas decides to require that voters show a picture ID to vote, the Federal Courts can intervene because that affects the country nationwide?
And when a state’s Republican Party decides to hold “Closed Primaries” the Federal Courts can intervene because that affects the country nationwide?
And you would also agree that Rick Perry was wrong when he came out in opposition to the Federal Courts rejection of the 2011 Texas Legislative Redistricting Plan?
After all, Texas redistricting does affect the country nationwide!
Yes, yes, and yes! :)
Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies
http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm
Perhaps I can have a constructive influence...
I never thought I’d see support for a piece of garbage like Mitt Romney on a conservative website like this....yet there are a few here who either mistakenly believe that he is a conservative (even though he’s never done ONE damn conservative thing in his wretched political life) or they are mormons and would vote for Barak Obama if he converted.
Doesn’t matter. You’ve shown all of us what kind of person you are.
You better believe it’s more than a state issue. This is a primary for the national election for President of the United States.
To say it interferes with merely a state matter is ridiculous.
BTW, the poster who said that it does, hates Perry for not supporting a Texas License plate with a Confederate Flag-sporting logo.
I can absolutely guarantee you that the hate will continue no matter what, unless there’s a religious miracle or some such.
So I ask that poster...who are you for that would support you on the Confederate Flag?
Is it Ron Paul, or someone else?
Let us in on it.
So we can compare and contrast YOUR guy with Rick Perry...
It ain't much so far, but I will take what I can get at this point!
Bump!
Like our buddy Herman Cain used to say, "you're mixing apples with oranges."
Banning an entire FIELD of presidential candidates from the ballot is damn near treasonous! I don't care who files this suit, Bachmann, Newt, whoever. Its the right thing to do. People have the RIGHT TO VOTE and Virginia is usurping the process. Get with the program, oddball.
Thanks for the clarification.....my information was based on an early report which said that both Romney & Paul had submitted enough signatures to avoid scrutiny.
Please enlighten me, is Rick Perry for or against the Federal Courts interfering in state election issues?
Because, as I understand it, up until a week of so, Rick Perry was Against the Federal Courts interfering in state election issues, such as redistricting and Voter ID. However, now he wants the Federal Courts to interfere in a state’s election issue.
Obviously the VAGOP did not set impossible standards as two candidates were abel to make it on the ballot.
Same here, thanks for the clarification, mrsmith.
It's amazing the stuff that flies around and passes for truth.
I read a post the other day by someone claiming that Romney and Paul weren't subject to having their petitions checked because they had been on the ballot in 2008 and were "grandfathered" in this time around! LOL!
Again, thanks mrsmith. :)
Are you for Romney or Ron Paul?
from a purely legalistic perspective I agree with you.
But I DON’T want Romney or Paul to be nominated. I think that would result in a 2008 repeat.
RRomney and Paul had both run there before in VA, and at that time, VA didn’t use the registration checking system that it used in this case. They weren’t grandfathered in, but most of their signatures had been accepted and they didn’t have to gather many new signatures (both Romney and Paul have been running for President since at least 2008, so they’re firmly installed everywhere).
The difference is that after the lawsuit (filed by a Dem), VA started machine checking signatures, which means that “St.” for “Street” would be rejected, depending on how the person was originally registered. So unless you had such a huge margin that nothing could be rejected, even after being split up among the different VA counties so you got at least 400 in each county, you were going to be out of luck.
It’s a cumbersome and useless system, which in this case is being used by Romney. However, he didn’t originate it and is simply enjoying it.
Gingrich and Perry should both withdraw from VA.
Differences throughout the country do occur and the diversity of our people, and in this case our states, come together to make us who we are. Yes, there are all kinds of things going on in individual states that come together in a way that make our country who we are - that have an effect on our nation.
Example: Texas has affected many other states by having an incredible business environment that has made it a location many businesses have transferred to, leaving other states with more liberal policies. When California looses so many businesses and falls apart, that affects our entire country. However, it does so within the jurisdiction of the right for a state to set its own legislation and policy for its state’s residents (and businesses in this case).
The fine line in the sand seems to come more into focus when a state robs American citizens of Constitutional rights, and this is what the federal court system is looking at in this case. We don’t know the answer from the courts yet, but are the rights of individual citizens being robbed by a state’s action that was possibly done with an anti-republican-government method or for an anti-republican-government goal, and does that theft of citizen rights then flow into the loss of rights of American citizens overall then?
I’m sure you are wise enough to understand there is a serious difference between a state protecting citizens or maneuvering within our Republican form of government and actions geared towards destroying our Republican form of government.
While this study is obviously going to be somewhat different than this case, the following excerpt should clarify (at least for reasonable people) the difference between a state’s right to work within the Constitution, ie protect the votes of its legitimate citizens and reject voting by illegal residents (voter ID) or a state’s determination to protect both its Democratic and Republican citizens’ choices with closed primaries verses a theft of Constitutionally-set practices which, when abused (by a group, state, or otherwise), can damage the rights of the entire group of American citizens.
Anyone reading this and wondering about this might enjoy reading this little snippet, or enjoy the entire publication at the URL below the excerpt.
Excerpt:
Justice Hugo Black wrote: “[I]t seems to me that [a law] which gives federal officials power to veto state laws they do not like is in direct conflict with the clear command of our Constitution that ‘The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”
Judge John Minor Wisdom likewise noted:
The question in this case is whether the constitutional amendment was adopted in an unrepublican manner; more specifically, whether the ballot was so misleading that the people were deprived of one of the fundamental rights inherent in a republican government, the right to vote ...
End of excerpt
Excerpt from:
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=wmlr
That's not a good enough reason to support a Federal Court's interference in the internal rules of a state political party.
Romney and Paul had to (and did) collect all new signatures.
Here is the form they had to gather the signatures on:
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/20120306SBE-545_legal.pdf
Note it says: “the Presidential Primary Election to be held on March 6, 2012.”
The RPV says it checked the signatures with “signature-by-signature scrutiny “. They spent 7 hourse checking Paul’s signature.
I’m sure you’re mistaken that obvious things- like “st” instead of “street”- mattered.
Paul and Romney’s pre-existing organizations made all the difference, unfortunately...
“The fine line in the sand seems to come more into focus when a state robs American citizens of Constitutional rights, and this is what the federal court system is looking at in this case.”
Virginia and the Virginia Republican Party are in no way robbing or restricting anyone’s constitutional rights.
However, if you are able to, please cite which constitutional rights are being violate in this Virginia case.
“Yep, that would be great, a Federal Court telling a state political party what there rules have to be.”
Perry’s case rests on a similar one, where the US Supreme Court ruled that putting too many restrictions on who can collect signatures is a violation of the US Constitution.
If the state GOP ignored the law in making rules, then Perry has a case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.