Right. Take politics out of it I am saying. Why not do it? Is there any reason not to then?
Nope. The word amendment is based on the verb amend, which means to change. All amendments are subject to change. The 15th amendment wouldn’t be the first amendment to be adjusted.
I assume your position is - the end justifies the means. I won’t turn a blind eye because the motive is an unethical and despicable political ploy by sadistic charlatans.
Right. Take politics out of it I am saying. Why not do it? Is there any reason not to then?
Nope. The word amendment is based on the verb amend, which means to change. All amendments are subject to change. The 15th amendment wouldn’t be the first amendment to be adjusted.
I assume your position is - the end justifies the means. I won’t turn a blind eye because the motive is an unethical and despicable political ploy by sadistic charlatans.
Nope. The word amendment is based on the verb amend, which means to change. All amendments are subject to change. The 15th amendment wouldn’t be the first amendment to be adjusted.
I assume your position is - the end justifies the means. I won’t turn a blind eye because the motive is an unethical and despicable political ploy by sadistic charlatans.
Huh? Why do you need to amend anything? Again, take politics out of it for this discussion. I am perplexed why it has to be political. Amendment is citizen and 18. Why not simply verify those two things? There are no means to justify to me. Seems common sense, as long as people would quit making it political.
Nope. The word amendment is based on the verb amend, which means to change. All amendments are subject to change. The 15th amendment wouldn’t be the first amendment to be adjusted.
I assume your position is - the end justifies the means. I won’t turn a blind eye because the motive is an unethical and despicable political ploy by sadistic charlatans.
Huh? Why do you need to amend anything? Again, take politics out of it for this discussion. I am perplexed why it has to be political. Amendment is citizen and 18. Why not simply verify those two things? There are no means to justify to me. Seems common sense, as long as people would quit making it political.
in the good old days--pre-1830--you had to own property or pay taxes in order to vote. blacks could vote if they met either of these requirements, but women could not.
in the good old days--pre-1830--you had to own property or pay taxes in order to vote. blacks could vote if they met either of these requirements, but women could not.
Huh? Why do you need to amend anything? Again, take politics out of it for this discussion. I am perplexed why it has to be political. Amendment is citizen and 18. Why not simply verify those two things? There are no means to justify to me. Seems common sense, as long as people would quit making it political.
Why do you need to amend anything? The answer is - because you would have to add provisos to the 15th Amendment requiring ID and proof of citizenship.
The constitution cannot be modified without it going through a voting process. What part of “shall not be denied” don’t you understand?
You can’t take the politics out of politics.
It’s political because democrats and republicans have made the 15th amendment a controversial political issue. Republicans believe human parasites and undocumented people are voting democrat.
Republicans don’t care about the integrity of the american voting process. That's why I'm even against this. The motive is despicable and unethical.
All they care about is winning. The republicans have you fooled, raiders. They have you right where they want you to be. You’re on here spouting “common sense” and “integrity,” while republicans laugh behind closed doors knowing it’s just a stupid political ploy.
Huh? Why do you need to amend anything? Again, take politics out of it for this discussion. I am perplexed why it has to be political. Amendment is citizen and 18. Why not simply verify those two things? There are no means to justify to me. Seems common sense, as long as people would quit making it political.
Why do you need to amend anything? The answer is - because you would have to add provisos to the 15th Amendment requiring ID and proof of citizenship.
The constitution cannot be modified without it going through a voting process. What part of “shall not be denied” don’t you understand?
You can’t take the politics out of politics.
It’s political because democrats and republicans have made the 15th amendment a controversial political issue. Republicans believe human parasites and undocumented people are voting democrat.
Republicans don’t care about the integrity of the american voting process. That's why I'm even against this. The motive is despicable and unethical.
All they care about is winning. The republicans have you fooled, raiders. They have you right where they want you to be. You’re on here spouting “common sense” and “integrity,” while republicans laugh behind closed doors knowing it’s just a stupid political ploy.
I'm not sure that characterizing Judge Posner as a " conservative " is entirely accurate. It appears to me that liberal newspaper writers like to refer to him in this manner to bolster their own point of view, based almost exclusively on his appointment by President Reagan. However, Justice Blackmun, a liberal's liberal was appointed by President Nixon, and Justice Souter, a fairly reliable liberal vote was appointed by President GHW Bush. The fact that they were appointed by a conservative president doesn't automatically make the jurist a " conservative ." A review of Judge Posner's voting record on most of the current social issues tells me he is a social liberal. It really is just cherry picking one of over a thousand federal judges, probably because he agrees with the cherry picker's point of view. Is anyone on Covers really ready to say they have previously relied on this jurist as their " go to " guy on important issues ? I'd hit the BS button on that one. I'm guessing he is largely irrelevant now that Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Scalia, Thomas and Alito from the Big Court have apparently ruled that these regulations can be valid.
I'm not sure that characterizing Judge Posner as a " conservative " is entirely accurate. It appears to me that liberal newspaper writers like to refer to him in this manner to bolster their own point of view, based almost exclusively on his appointment by President Reagan. However, Justice Blackmun, a liberal's liberal was appointed by President Nixon, and Justice Souter, a fairly reliable liberal vote was appointed by President GHW Bush. The fact that they were appointed by a conservative president doesn't automatically make the jurist a " conservative ." A review of Judge Posner's voting record on most of the current social issues tells me he is a social liberal. It really is just cherry picking one of over a thousand federal judges, probably because he agrees with the cherry picker's point of view. Is anyone on Covers really ready to say they have previously relied on this jurist as their " go to " guy on important issues ? I'd hit the BS button on that one. I'm guessing he is largely irrelevant now that Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Scalia, Thomas and Alito from the Big Court have apparently ruled that these regulations can be valid.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
Why do you need to amend anything? The answer is - because you would have to add provisos to the 15th Amendment requiring ID and proof of citizenship.
The constitution cannot be modified without it going through a voting process. What part of “shall not be denied” don’t you understand?
You can’t take the politics out of politics.
It’s political because democrats and republicans have made the 15th amendment a controversial political issue. Republicans believe human parasites and undocumented people are voting democrat.
Republicans don’t care about the integrity of the american voting process. That's why I'm even against this. The motive is despicable and unethical.
All they care about is winning. The republicans have you fooled, raiders. They have you right where they want you to be. You’re on here spouting “common sense” and “integrity,” while republicans laugh behind closed doors knowing it’s just a stupid political ploy.
You're against it because someone else's motive is bad?
What does that have to do with your motive? By that reasoning the Democrats have you right where they want you and they are openly laughing. To me this is just a common sense issue; nothing more. Sure some have political reasons but that is not a good enough reason for others to sit on their hands. If the amendment has two stipulations, how do you verify them? Just assume EVERYONE automatically meets these two requirements? Common sense to me is the amendment implies they are verified.
Anyway, still have not seen a good reason to not verify the amendments stipulations. Guess we for sure will continue to see this differently.
Why do you need to amend anything? The answer is - because you would have to add provisos to the 15th Amendment requiring ID and proof of citizenship.
The constitution cannot be modified without it going through a voting process. What part of “shall not be denied” don’t you understand?
You can’t take the politics out of politics.
It’s political because democrats and republicans have made the 15th amendment a controversial political issue. Republicans believe human parasites and undocumented people are voting democrat.
Republicans don’t care about the integrity of the american voting process. That's why I'm even against this. The motive is despicable and unethical.
All they care about is winning. The republicans have you fooled, raiders. They have you right where they want you to be. You’re on here spouting “common sense” and “integrity,” while republicans laugh behind closed doors knowing it’s just a stupid political ploy.
You're against it because someone else's motive is bad?
What does that have to do with your motive? By that reasoning the Democrats have you right where they want you and they are openly laughing. To me this is just a common sense issue; nothing more. Sure some have political reasons but that is not a good enough reason for others to sit on their hands. If the amendment has two stipulations, how do you verify them? Just assume EVERYONE automatically meets these two requirements? Common sense to me is the amendment implies they are verified.
Anyway, still have not seen a good reason to not verify the amendments stipulations. Guess we for sure will continue to see this differently.
You're against it because someone else's motive is bad?
What does that have to do with your motive? By that reasoning the Democrats have you right where they want you and they are openly laughing. To me this is just a common sense issue; nothing more. Sure some have political reasons but that is not a good enough reason for others to sit on their hands. If the amendment has two stipulations, how do you verify them? Just assume EVERYONE automatically meets these two requirements? Common sense to me is the amendment implies they are verified.
Anyway, still have not seen a good reason to not verify the amendments stipulations. Guess we for sure will continue to see this differently.
What? Every single right-wingers motive is corrupt.
I'm against the Koch Brothers, ALEC, NCPPR ... and the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other lobbyists and special interest groups behind the voter ID political ploy. You know - the people responsible for indoctrinating people like you - raiders.
How could democrats have me, when I don’t support them? I want both parties to fail. You are party right, though. It is common sense - follow the money trail. The most patriotic thing the American people can do is sit on their hands.
Show me where in the constitution that verification in order to vote is implied? I still haven’t seen a good reason to implement ID verification. All I see is paranoid and delusional accusations from sadistic charlatans with a heavily financed political agenda, which is why Judge Posner is against voter laws. He sees the same thing.
You're against it because someone else's motive is bad?
What does that have to do with your motive? By that reasoning the Democrats have you right where they want you and they are openly laughing. To me this is just a common sense issue; nothing more. Sure some have political reasons but that is not a good enough reason for others to sit on their hands. If the amendment has two stipulations, how do you verify them? Just assume EVERYONE automatically meets these two requirements? Common sense to me is the amendment implies they are verified.
Anyway, still have not seen a good reason to not verify the amendments stipulations. Guess we for sure will continue to see this differently.
What? Every single right-wingers motive is corrupt.
I'm against the Koch Brothers, ALEC, NCPPR ... and the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other lobbyists and special interest groups behind the voter ID political ploy. You know - the people responsible for indoctrinating people like you - raiders.
How could democrats have me, when I don’t support them? I want both parties to fail. You are party right, though. It is common sense - follow the money trail. The most patriotic thing the American people can do is sit on their hands.
Show me where in the constitution that verification in order to vote is implied? I still haven’t seen a good reason to implement ID verification. All I see is paranoid and delusional accusations from sadistic charlatans with a heavily financed political agenda, which is why Judge Posner is against voter laws. He sees the same thing.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
Not targeting you, I am always puzzled by the need of some to classify others for being either a liberal or a conservative. Most if not all are going to have different views on different issues. I haven't seen a single true liberal or conservative(whatever that means) on here.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
Not targeting you, I am always puzzled by the need of some to classify others for being either a liberal or a conservative. Most if not all are going to have different views on different issues. I haven't seen a single true liberal or conservative(whatever that means) on here.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
if you view being conservative as one interested in smaller government and not wasting taxpayer money, those are all conservative positions.
Judge Posner is in favor of abortion rights, same sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana and LSD. My point is that by today's standards, he is not someone most would consider a conservative. Not at all a criticism of those positions; he's just not a conservative.
if you view being conservative as one interested in smaller government and not wasting taxpayer money, those are all conservative positions.
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
Agree. There should be no mail in voting. Too easy to commit voter fraud. Laws now enable people to register online and get a mail ballot, never having to prove who they are and not making sure the person filling out the mail in ballot is actually the person who should be doing it.
Also, looking forward to James O'Keefe's report later this week or next on his voter fraud investigation.
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
Agree. There should be no mail in voting. Too easy to commit voter fraud. Laws now enable people to register online and get a mail ballot, never having to prove who they are and not making sure the person filling out the mail in ballot is actually the person who should be doing it.
Also, looking forward to James O'Keefe's report later this week or next on his voter fraud investigation.
Agree. There should be no mail in voting. Too easy to commit voter fraud. Laws now enable people to register online and get a mail ballot, never having to prove who they are and not making sure the person filling out the mail in ballot is actually the person who should be doing it.
Also, looking forward to James O'Keefe's report later this week or next on his voter fraud investigation.
Why? All of his stuff is doctored and edited. That man is a charlatan that works for special interest groups like donors capital fund and donors trust.
Agree. There should be no mail in voting. Too easy to commit voter fraud. Laws now enable people to register online and get a mail ballot, never having to prove who they are and not making sure the person filling out the mail in ballot is actually the person who should be doing it.
Also, looking forward to James O'Keefe's report later this week or next on his voter fraud investigation.
Why? All of his stuff is doctored and edited. That man is a charlatan that works for special interest groups like donors capital fund and donors trust.
Not targeting you, I am always puzzled by the need of some to classify others for being either a liberal or a conservative. Most if not all are going to have different views on different issues. I haven't seen a single true liberal or conservative(whatever that means) on here.
Bunny---Didn't think you were targeting, but appreciate your view. I agree that these attempts to pigeonhole people are usually inaccurate, always self serving and almost always disingenuous. It also makes the forum boring and repetitive.
Not targeting you, I am always puzzled by the need of some to classify others for being either a liberal or a conservative. Most if not all are going to have different views on different issues. I haven't seen a single true liberal or conservative(whatever that means) on here.
Bunny---Didn't think you were targeting, but appreciate your view. I agree that these attempts to pigeonhole people are usually inaccurate, always self serving and almost always disingenuous. It also makes the forum boring and repetitive.
What? Every single right-wingers motive is corrupt.
I'm against the Koch Brothers, ALEC, NCPPR ... and the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other lobbyists and special interest groups behind the voter ID political ploy. You know - the people responsible for indoctrinating people like you - raiders.
How could democrats have me, when I don’t support them? I want both parties to fail. You are party right, though. It is common sense - follow the money trail. The most patriotic thing the American people can do is sit on their hands.
Show me where in the constitution that verification in order to vote is implied? I still haven’t seen a good reason to implement ID verification. All I see is paranoid and delusional accusations from sadistic charlatans with a heavily financed political agenda, which is why Judge Posner is against voter laws. He sees the same thing.
Not asking right wing motive or Democratic motive. I am only questioning yours. Why would you base your opinion on either?
So, if the law had those requirements---do you assume the honor code? What do you think is expected?
What? Every single right-wingers motive is corrupt.
I'm against the Koch Brothers, ALEC, NCPPR ... and the hundreds (possibly thousands) of other lobbyists and special interest groups behind the voter ID political ploy. You know - the people responsible for indoctrinating people like you - raiders.
How could democrats have me, when I don’t support them? I want both parties to fail. You are party right, though. It is common sense - follow the money trail. The most patriotic thing the American people can do is sit on their hands.
Show me where in the constitution that verification in order to vote is implied? I still haven’t seen a good reason to implement ID verification. All I see is paranoid and delusional accusations from sadistic charlatans with a heavily financed political agenda, which is why Judge Posner is against voter laws. He sees the same thing.
Not asking right wing motive or Democratic motive. I am only questioning yours. Why would you base your opinion on either?
So, if the law had those requirements---do you assume the honor code? What do you think is expected?
Why? All of his stuff is doctored and edited. That man is a charlatan that works for special interest groups like donors capital fund and donors trust.
I thought you worshiped Jon Stewart and the Daily Show?
Why? All of his stuff is doctored and edited. That man is a charlatan that works for special interest groups like donors capital fund and donors trust.
I thought you worshiped Jon Stewart and the Daily Show?
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
saw a good question the other day. if these voting laws are about protecting the sanctity of the voting process, why don't these laws outlaw mail-in voting?
Not asking right wing motive or Democratic motive. I am only questioning yours. Why would you base your opinion on either?
So, if the law had those requirements---do you assume the honor code? What do you think is expected?
The problem with the 26th Amendment is that it wasn't exact enough. It left the burden on the states to interpret and implement the amendment.
All of this could have been avoided by having the 26th amendment amended by a vote.
History clearly shows that states cannot police themselves.
When the voting rights act was reauthorized - I think politicians should have added an ID proviso.
This has nothing to do with the integrity of the voting process. It has to do with winning elections, period.
Arizona was the first to try and eliminate the amount of democrats in their state with voter ID laws. The funny thing is republicans had an opportunity to change things when Bush was in office. You know - since voter fraud was such a serious problem.
The obvious reason why it was left up to the states was for the exact reason why some people are outraged about the ID political ploy and compare it to Jim Crow laws. We all know the history of states’ rights states.
Republicans are clearly outnumbered. This is a desperate attempt to try and regain power. Republican extremist interest groups are the ones to blame for destroying the integrity of the voting process.
As long as they are the ones behind the initiative, I cannot see the attitude on voter ID changing.
Not asking right wing motive or Democratic motive. I am only questioning yours. Why would you base your opinion on either?
So, if the law had those requirements---do you assume the honor code? What do you think is expected?
The problem with the 26th Amendment is that it wasn't exact enough. It left the burden on the states to interpret and implement the amendment.
All of this could have been avoided by having the 26th amendment amended by a vote.
History clearly shows that states cannot police themselves.
When the voting rights act was reauthorized - I think politicians should have added an ID proviso.
This has nothing to do with the integrity of the voting process. It has to do with winning elections, period.
Arizona was the first to try and eliminate the amount of democrats in their state with voter ID laws. The funny thing is republicans had an opportunity to change things when Bush was in office. You know - since voter fraud was such a serious problem.
The obvious reason why it was left up to the states was for the exact reason why some people are outraged about the ID political ploy and compare it to Jim Crow laws. We all know the history of states’ rights states.
Republicans are clearly outnumbered. This is a desperate attempt to try and regain power. Republican extremist interest groups are the ones to blame for destroying the integrity of the voting process.
As long as they are the ones behind the initiative, I cannot see the attitude on voter ID changing.
I thought you worshiped Jon Stewart and the Daily Show?
None of the stuff on the show is doctored. When stuff is edited - it's only edited for time purposes. Nothing is ever taken out of context. Idiots exposed on the show are as they appear.
I thought you worshiped Jon Stewart and the Daily Show?
None of the stuff on the show is doctored. When stuff is edited - it's only edited for time purposes. Nothing is ever taken out of context. Idiots exposed on the show are as they appear.
None of the stuff on the show is doctored. When stuff is edited - it's only edited for time purposes. Nothing is ever taken out of context. Idiots exposed on the show are as they appear.
Can you give some examples of when one of O' Keefe's subjects are taken out of context?
None of the stuff on the show is doctored. When stuff is edited - it's only edited for time purposes. Nothing is ever taken out of context. Idiots exposed on the show are as they appear.
Can you give some examples of when one of O' Keefe's subjects are taken out of context?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.