PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
all of which highlight why illegals should NOT be included.....
Separate Elections, Too
- Thread starter Flanders
- Start date
all of which highlight why illegals should NOT be included.....
Better yet, separate candidates from the ballot:
ICYMI: Washington State Joins New Jersey In Trying To Keep Trump Off The 2020 Ballot
Matt Vespa
Posted: Mar 17, 2019 4:05 AM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...ng-to-keep-trump-off-the-2020-ballot-n2543246
Matt Vespa
Posted: Mar 17, 2019 4:05 AM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...ng-to-keep-trump-off-the-2020-ballot-n2543246
jimmymccready
Verified User
Illegal aliens are under state law in terms of voting restrictions, not the federal government.
This proposed overreach by the right wing to make the feds responsible for voting is Republican Big Government Progressivism.
This proposed overreach by the right wing to make the feds responsible for voting is Republican Big Government Progressivism.
Earlier this month, California began to join the growing chorus of Democrat-run states that are restricting which candidates may be listed on the presidential ballot. Normally, Democrats decry any limits on ballot access, be they for candidates or voters, but this bill is different. Why? Because it is an undisguised attempt to keep Donald Trump off the ballot, and when Trump enters the equation, his opponents throw all other calculations out the window.
Democrats Are All About Restricting Ballot Access If It Helps Stop Trump
By Kyle Sammin
May 10, 2019
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/10/democrats-restricting-ballot-access-helps-stop-trump/
By Kyle Sammin
May 10, 2019
https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/10/democrats-restricting-ballot-access-helps-stop-trump/
I do not know where state legislatures get the authority to keep anybody off the ballot in a federal election? No matter. I have to thank Democrats for giving traction to my suggestion:
Will the Supreme Court ever admit that illegal aliens are not protected by the Constitutional?
In a partial victory for the administration, the justices rejected a number of legal arguments lodged against the citizenship question.
For example, the Court said the question does not violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires an “actual enumeration” of the population. Critics say the question runs afoul of the Constitution because it could depress participation in the census, thus preventing a full and accurate counting.
“In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the enumeration clause, we conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire,” Roberts wrote.
For example, the Court said the question does not violate the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires an “actual enumeration” of the population. Critics say the question runs afoul of the Constitution because it could depress participation in the census, thus preventing a full and accurate counting.
“In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the enumeration clause, we conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire,” Roberts wrote.
The Supreme Court Just Ruled On The Census Citizenship Question
Kevin Daley
Supreme Court correspondent
June 27, 2019 10:52 AM ET
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-census-decision/
Kevin Daley
Supreme Court correspondent
June 27, 2019 10:52 AM ET
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-census-decision/
Nor should immigrants claiming political asylum be counted in the census since they not citizens. In theory, they and their children must return to their homelands when the reason for asylum no longer exists.
ECONOMIC ASYLUM IS NOT A VALID CLAIM FOR ASYLUM.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
The Republicans say, "We aren't going to let those millions of people living in L.A. and NYC to elect our presidents.....
No, they want those 6 redneck assholes that live in Montana to choose our presidents!
People get real!
No, they want those 6 redneck assholes that live in Montana to choose our presidents!
People get real!
To Adolf_Twitler: Asshole. One American citizen’s vote is better than millions of illegal aliens votes.
Incidentally, I would not call this ‘One last hope’.
“Whether or not the citizenship question can still be added to the Census before the printer needs the final proofs remains to be seen.”
I call it a death rattle:
But in another decision, it was a bad day for the right and those who want to collect data on how many aliens are in the United States. The Court blocked, for now, the proposed citizenship question on the 2020 Census.
NOTE: The dream of a conservative court evaporated with John Roberts long before the census decision. If Roberts is the swing vote myth he is a switch hitter who bats from the left side of the plate like every other swing vote in my lifetime.
If that wasn't bad enough, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote along with the four liberal justices. Writing for the Court, Roberts agreed that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross had the power and authority to add the question, but something just didn't smell right.
Over the last few weeks, the ACLU has bombarded the Court with letters, missives, complaints, and self-proclaimed bombshells containing conspiracy theories on the "real" origins of the Census question. It's not as bad as O.J.'s quest for the real killer, but it's close.
Naturally the compliant leftist media at CNN and the Washington Post has had an endless parade of stories. See, they know who still takes the mainstream media seriously, and today they won five votes to block the question.
It's a shame that five votes validated these extracurricular mob tactics after the briefing was complete. It provides a roadmap for future last-minute efforts to influence the Supreme Court. One suspects Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown or Chief Justice Edith Jones would not have sided with the left to block the Census question. Whether or not the citizenship question can still be added to the Census before the printer needs the final proofs remains to be seen.
Over the last few weeks, the ACLU has bombarded the Court with letters, missives, complaints, and self-proclaimed bombshells containing conspiracy theories on the "real" origins of the Census question. It's not as bad as O.J.'s quest for the real killer, but it's close.
Naturally the compliant leftist media at CNN and the Washington Post has had an endless parade of stories. See, they know who still takes the mainstream media seriously, and today they won five votes to block the question.
It's a shame that five votes validated these extracurricular mob tactics after the briefing was complete. It provides a roadmap for future last-minute efforts to influence the Supreme Court. One suspects Chief Justice Janice Rogers Brown or Chief Justice Edith Jones would not have sided with the left to block the Census question. Whether or not the citizenship question can still be added to the Census before the printer needs the final proofs remains to be seen.
Supreme Court: Bad Day for Everyone, Especially Roberts
By J. Christian Adams
June 27, 2019
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/supreme-court-bad-day-for-everyone-especially-roberts/
By J. Christian Adams
June 27, 2019
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/supreme-court-bad-day-for-everyone-especially-roberts/
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Get a life dude! Life is not just about what you White Nationalists want!
America is not a White Nation- never has been- never will!
We represent everyone's concerns here in America!
And everyone's vote should count. That is Democracy!
Not just some Corporate farmers drunk on Farm Bill handouts that are buying Republican politicians to keep them fat and boozed up!
jimmymccready
Verified User
Immigrants have voted in local and state elections in localities for over 200 years.
it does the opposite. You really have trouble with logic.
To Adolf_Twitler: Asshole. Research the numbers from Colonial America up to today —— Ted Kennedy notwithstanding:
1965: Senator Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act turned immigration into an affirmative action program based on racial preferences. From the day LBJ began his losing war on poverty, Democrats told every legal and illegal immigrant the welfare state would take care of them if they vote for Democrats.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ump-Picked-A-Good-Fight&p=3018279#post3018279
To Adolf_Twitler: Drop Victoria’s pronoun if you do not have a tapeworm:
Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we." Mark Twain
To Adolf_Twitler: Parasites never did, nor will they ever, represent the majority of Americans.
To Adolf_Twitler: Take your democracy and shove it up the furthest part of your parasite ass.
To jimmymccready: NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
then explain it logically.......if the census is used to determine how many representatives a state should have, why should illegals be counted?.....if it is used to determine how federal taxes should be spent, why should illegals be counted.......I want to hear you say it.....
jimmymccready
Verified User
The right wing extremist parasites such as Flanders are mental and emotional cripples.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Here's one flying high above the CooCoo's nest! LOL!
What a hateful uneducated bat-shit-crazy idiot!
I wish this was tough to understand, but it is not. Illegals cannot vote. They cannot get through the registration requirements, which include citizenship. They are here to make money and improve their lives. They send money back to their families.
Why would they want to risk all that to vote in an election that does not concern them and they know nothing about? They would go through all the trouble and expense of coming here and throw it all away to vote. Does that make sense?
And of course, they know nothing about American politics. Who would you vote for if you could vote in Mexico? You would not bother to learn all the politicians and programs.
This is a typical stupid righty belief with no substance.
Why would they want to risk all that to vote in an election that does not concern them and they know nothing about? They would go through all the trouble and expense of coming here and throw it all away to vote. Does that make sense?
And of course, they know nothing about American politics. Who would you vote for if you could vote in Mexico? You would not bother to learn all the politicians and programs.
This is a typical stupid righty belief with no substance.
GINSBURG UPDATE
The ACLU’s associate justice on the high court never had much use for the Constitution, but now she wants state governors to change the rules for federal elections:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decried a decision made by the Supreme Court’s majority blocking an extension to the absentee ballot deadline in Wisconsin, where the governor unsuccessfully tried to postpone in-person voting due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The high court on Monday blocked a lower court’s extension of the ballot deadline in a 5-4 decision, just hours after the Wisconsin Supreme Court shut down Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute executive order postponing voting in Tuesday’s contests.
In her dissent, Ginsburg, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the ruling “will result in massive disenfranchisement.”
The high court on Monday blocked a lower court’s extension of the ballot deadline in a 5-4 decision, just hours after the Wisconsin Supreme Court shut down Gov. Tony Evers’ last-minute executive order postponing voting in Tuesday’s contests.
In her dissent, Ginsburg, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the ruling “will result in massive disenfranchisement.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg slams SCOTUS decision on Wisconsin absentee voting
By Emily Jacobs
April 7, 2020 | 9:34am
https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-slams-supreme-court-decision-on-wisconsin-voting/
By Emily Jacobs
April 7, 2020 | 9:34am
https://nypost.com/2020/04/07/ruth-bader-ginsburg-slams-supreme-court-decision-on-wisconsin-voting/
NOTE: I do not know where “. . . disenfranchisement.” appears in the Constitution, nor do I know when and who defined disenfranchisement before Ginsburg & Company decided to upgrade voting Rights without ratifying a constitutional amendment.
Presumably, Democrat governors like Tony Evers need only write an executive order allowing them to make changes to federal elections, while known conservative governors would be impeached for exercising their constitutional authority.
I find it hilarious how the "CON"- Servitudes proclaim to be Constitutionalist, then work overtime to restrict voting rights to anyone other than themselves.
To Tacomaman: I find it tragic that Democrat freakazoids legitimated involuntary servitude. See this thread:
VIII Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
XIII Amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...2s-Brand-Of-Intolerance&p=2782041#post2782041
To Tacomaman: I find it ludicrous that the Parasite Class (DEMOCRATS) fail to understand that Rights are not Rights until they are enjoyed by everyone. Failing to understand, or pretending they do not understand, allows Democrats to add voting rights to a long list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS they invented.
Notice that the coronavirus overrides the Constitution as though it never existed:
The lockdowns imposed on law-abiding American citizens as part of governments' coronavirus response have demonstrated the extent to which our Constitution has become meaningless.
Since World War II, American political leaders have increasingly ignored the United States Constitution, its limitations and requirements viewed as too constricting and the rights of citizens an inconvenience to politicians and unelected bureaucrats in advancing their agendas.
The rights to privacy, abortion and gay marriage: None is even mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment – reserving all powers for the states and the people not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government – has been ignored entirely as though it were not there. Likewise, Article I gives Congress the sole power to declare war. The last time this provision was followed and Congress declared war in accordance with the Constitution was in 1941. Since then, well over 100,000 U.S. troops have died in wars around the world from Korea and Vietnam all the way through the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the longest war in American history, in Afghanistan. These were Americans killed in wars arguably not constitutional.
In 1964 the Supreme Court invented a brand-new constitutional right. The "right to privacy" is found nowhere in the Constitution. The court created it out of thin air on the belief that it should be in there, citing emanations of penumbras. In other words, "What I'm creating isn't in there, but I'm reading between the lines, and I think this is what the writers of the Constitution really meant." Just a few years later, since there was now a right to privacy, the court decided there must also be a right for women to abort their children. And so the constitutional right to abortion was also simply added as a brand-new right alongside all those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Interestingly, this constitutional right to privacy is completely ignored when it comes to the government establishing and operating secret FISA courts to get secret warrants to spy on American citizens, the never-ending incursions into the private lives of every American in the Patriot Act or the invasions of privacy and meddling in the private medical and financial affairs written into Obamacare. The judiciary only seems to create new rights when it comes to advancing liberal interests. Limiting liberals' use of government authority against the people is not a concern.
Throughout our history, the Constitution offered protection from government attempts to violate citizens' rights. Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court began expanding constitutional protections to apply to private businesses in matters such as civil rights, effectively deleting the First Amendment freedom of assembly and the correlated freedom of association. (The latter being a right established as a fundamental right by SCOTUS in the 1950s where it struck down government interference in NAACP activities. Contrast this with the current posture of many civil rights leaders demanding government intervention, tracking and harassment of conservative groups or organizations they call "right wing.") If it seems like the left has managed to have it both ways, creating robust new rights for themselves out of thin air while denying those same rights to others and ignoring explicit rights altogether, you are not alone. And while the Constitution now prohibits businesses from barring blacks from sitting at lunch counters or homeowners from agreeing to restrictive covenants, these prohibitions on discrimination are not applied to leftist private businesses like Twitter discriminating against conservative users or banks refusing service to gun stores.
New rights were never supposed to be just made up. There is a constitutional process by which the Constitution can be amended. It was, in fact, amended several times over the document's first 190 years. But, since liberal jurists discovered the power to simply make up any right they believe should be in the document, nobody even tries to amend the Constitution anymore because it is much easier to simply get the court to rule a new right into the document.
Sometimes, the exact constitutional issue seems to apply in a completely opposite way depending on who is advocating a position. When the Obama administration refused to enforce immigration laws, it forced states to enact their own laws to deal with the crime, human trafficking and crushing pressure on local services. SCOTUS ruled these laws invalid, declaring states constitutionally prohibited from interfering in immigration matters because it is a uniquely federal function. Immediately upon the election of Donald Trump, however, Democrats in state and local governments across America began declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" and enforcing their own immigration laws to protect illegal aliens. Again, the left gets to have it both ways.
During this coronavirus panic, Americans are banned from attending church or assembling for meetings, weddings and the like – rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment. Pastors have even been arrested for daring to hold worship services, and the mayor of New York threatened to permanently shut churches refusing to obey his order banning worship services. Likewise, medical procedures of all kinds have been stopped for the medical community to focus personnel and resources on fighting the coronavirus epidemic. But federal courts ruled abortions (that "right" found nowhere in the actual language of the Constitution) must not be interfered with. Specific, enumerated constitutional rights are violated without restraint, but a made-up right found nowhere in the document is so legally sacred it may not be limited for any reason, even during a pandemic.
Under this mass house arrest of the American people, our freedom of movement, our right to freely use our property, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are banned without so much as a hesitation from leaders regarding their constitutional authority to do so.
We have wars without calling them wars, strict enforcement of constitutional rights found nowhere in the Constitution and now martial law without calling it martial law.
Since World War II, American political leaders have increasingly ignored the United States Constitution, its limitations and requirements viewed as too constricting and the rights of citizens an inconvenience to politicians and unelected bureaucrats in advancing their agendas.
The rights to privacy, abortion and gay marriage: None is even mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Meanwhile, the 10th Amendment – reserving all powers for the states and the people not delegated in the Constitution to the federal government – has been ignored entirely as though it were not there. Likewise, Article I gives Congress the sole power to declare war. The last time this provision was followed and Congress declared war in accordance with the Constitution was in 1941. Since then, well over 100,000 U.S. troops have died in wars around the world from Korea and Vietnam all the way through the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the longest war in American history, in Afghanistan. These were Americans killed in wars arguably not constitutional.
In 1964 the Supreme Court invented a brand-new constitutional right. The "right to privacy" is found nowhere in the Constitution. The court created it out of thin air on the belief that it should be in there, citing emanations of penumbras. In other words, "What I'm creating isn't in there, but I'm reading between the lines, and I think this is what the writers of the Constitution really meant." Just a few years later, since there was now a right to privacy, the court decided there must also be a right for women to abort their children. And so the constitutional right to abortion was also simply added as a brand-new right alongside all those specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Interestingly, this constitutional right to privacy is completely ignored when it comes to the government establishing and operating secret FISA courts to get secret warrants to spy on American citizens, the never-ending incursions into the private lives of every American in the Patriot Act or the invasions of privacy and meddling in the private medical and financial affairs written into Obamacare. The judiciary only seems to create new rights when it comes to advancing liberal interests. Limiting liberals' use of government authority against the people is not a concern.
Throughout our history, the Constitution offered protection from government attempts to violate citizens' rights. Beginning in the 1950s, the Supreme Court began expanding constitutional protections to apply to private businesses in matters such as civil rights, effectively deleting the First Amendment freedom of assembly and the correlated freedom of association. (The latter being a right established as a fundamental right by SCOTUS in the 1950s where it struck down government interference in NAACP activities. Contrast this with the current posture of many civil rights leaders demanding government intervention, tracking and harassment of conservative groups or organizations they call "right wing.") If it seems like the left has managed to have it both ways, creating robust new rights for themselves out of thin air while denying those same rights to others and ignoring explicit rights altogether, you are not alone. And while the Constitution now prohibits businesses from barring blacks from sitting at lunch counters or homeowners from agreeing to restrictive covenants, these prohibitions on discrimination are not applied to leftist private businesses like Twitter discriminating against conservative users or banks refusing service to gun stores.
New rights were never supposed to be just made up. There is a constitutional process by which the Constitution can be amended. It was, in fact, amended several times over the document's first 190 years. But, since liberal jurists discovered the power to simply make up any right they believe should be in the document, nobody even tries to amend the Constitution anymore because it is much easier to simply get the court to rule a new right into the document.
Sometimes, the exact constitutional issue seems to apply in a completely opposite way depending on who is advocating a position. When the Obama administration refused to enforce immigration laws, it forced states to enact their own laws to deal with the crime, human trafficking and crushing pressure on local services. SCOTUS ruled these laws invalid, declaring states constitutionally prohibited from interfering in immigration matters because it is a uniquely federal function. Immediately upon the election of Donald Trump, however, Democrats in state and local governments across America began declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" and enforcing their own immigration laws to protect illegal aliens. Again, the left gets to have it both ways.
During this coronavirus panic, Americans are banned from attending church or assembling for meetings, weddings and the like – rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment. Pastors have even been arrested for daring to hold worship services, and the mayor of New York threatened to permanently shut churches refusing to obey his order banning worship services. Likewise, medical procedures of all kinds have been stopped for the medical community to focus personnel and resources on fighting the coronavirus epidemic. But federal courts ruled abortions (that "right" found nowhere in the actual language of the Constitution) must not be interfered with. Specific, enumerated constitutional rights are violated without restraint, but a made-up right found nowhere in the document is so legally sacred it may not be limited for any reason, even during a pandemic.
Under this mass house arrest of the American people, our freedom of movement, our right to freely use our property, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are banned without so much as a hesitation from leaders regarding their constitutional authority to do so.
We have wars without calling them wars, strict enforcement of constitutional rights found nowhere in the Constitution and now martial law without calling it martial law.
We had wars that weren't 'wars,' now martial law not called 'martial law'
By Sean Harshey
Published April 7, 2020 at 7:14pm
https://www.wnd.com/2020/04/wars-werent-wars-now-martial-law-not-called-martial-law/
By Sean Harshey
Published April 7, 2020 at 7:14pm
https://www.wnd.com/2020/04/wars-werent-wars-now-martial-law-not-called-martial-law/
To Tacomaman: Hardly required, but good advice if they want to cast a ballot. On the other hand Democrats require:
