Posted on 03/12/2012 12:39:19 PM PDT by Hunton Peck
AG Van Hollen has said he'll appeal.
Appeal?
The best appeal is a bucket of hot tar, a sack of feathers and a pole.
I’m really concerned about the Federal government’s overreach.
California voters pass an initiative to enshrine marriage as between a man and woman, the 9th Circus considers it unconstitutional.
Texas legislators pass a law to make it mandatory to produce identification before you can vote. The courts, again, intercede and call is unconstitutional.
Now Michigan voters are disenfranchised by a judiciary Hell bent on a political agenda under the guise of constitutionality.
At what point did it become unconstitutional to validate the verity of a person’s claim to vote? At what point did it become unconstitutional to ensure that a voter is, in fact, a member of the American electorate and not some foreign usurper stuffing a ballot box?
Obama must be arrested and jailed for the rest of his life for a list of crimes against Americans that I cannot possible begin to enumerate here, and his corrupt, sycophant AG needs to go with him to the clink. They can share a mattress and dream of better days when free love meant more than dropping the soap when Bubba was on the prowl.
Correction/clarification: This is a different case from the one in which a temporary injunction was issued last week. In that one, the principal plaintiff was the NAALCP; in this one, it’s the League of Leftist Women Voters.
Just spoke with a friend over there, who told me about this.
My goodness, they really need to close their borders. lol Those hispanics swimming over there now? another rofl.
America has gone 99% NUTS.
I’ve not been a big supporter of document production at polling stations, but where the majority or their representatives have spoken, I don’t see what constitutional grounds you object to it on.
States provide an I.D. that works like a driver’s license but doesn’t provide permission to drive. Nobody is being denied the right to have a valid I. D., so where’s the beef.
I suppose someone could say they refuse to get an I. D., but then how do you tell them from an illegal alien?
One solution would be to get the illegal aliens out of our nation, but we haven’t had any success with that.
Can restrictions be placed on that right?
“One solution would be to get the illegal aliens out of our nation, but we haven’t had any success with that.”
At best that’s only a partial solution anyway. There would still be people voting at multiple precincts, people voting where they don’t reside (especially students), and voting felons.
Well then I guess this means it is “unconstitutional” for me to have to present an ID to exercise my right to buy, own or carry a gun.
How can you have the rule that one right is constitutional to infringe on by requiring an ID while another right it is “unconstitutional” to require an ID?
Saying that requiring an ID to vote is unconstitutional means that all rights are protected from such things. SO this means that any right is free from producing an ID to exercise.
Or am I missing something here?
Maybe tourists can vote now. Come to America, cast a ballot!
I guess liberals think that only rich, white people should have a right to defend themselves.
I think that we have already established that the courts have ceased to function in Dane county.
Based on that broad an "interpretation" (well, a better word for it would be "invention"), there is no way that a dastardly and heinous act such as requiring people to register before voting can possibly be permissible under the Constitution. Obviously, requiring voter registration is a hurdle that would have a disparate impact on minorities, which would undermine the very foundation of the government's legitimacy. On the other hand, enabling vote fraud is entirely in keeping with the highest principles of our cherished Democratic institutions, and must therefore be enshrined into law.
/s
What of "the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to [have their] vote [s] " honestly counted? Does not counting illegal votes imperil the legitimacy of government "by the people" instead of by ballot stuffers?
Why is one form of disenfranchisement less worthy of protection than the other?
Libs will never give in on this - it’s all they have left.
Can we just dip our finger into a jar of sterile, non-allergenic purple dye after we vote — whose right would that violate?
re: “”A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence - the people’s inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote - imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people,” said the eight-page opinion by Dane County Judge Richard Niess. “It sows the seeds for its own demise as a democratic institution. This is precisely what 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 does with its photo ID mandates.”
No, he’s got it completely backward - it’s his act of stopping this law going into effect that “imperils it’s legitimacy”. Asking for proof of ID is not “sowing the seeds of it’s own demise” - it’s actually legitimizing elections. What absolute insanity!!
Just ignore him. They should tell the judge to try and enforce it.
If people have an absolute right to vote without any regulations imposed upon that right then I write we have the right to vote as often as we want and without restriction. I should not have to register at all. Just tell the poll workers I am over 18.
“pre-constitutional right to vote”
That’s a new term to me.
“Pre-Constitution” would mean the period of time in which the colonies were ruled by a monarchy. There was no such right to vote; furthermore, it was restrictions on voting and representation that led to the revolution.
The judge is an idiot.
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.