TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote: Notwithstanding my personal views about this, I would think that when someone suggests that Holder "go after a political party," he might read the XIVth Amendment, and this time focus on the words "No State shall...."

Jim

Jim, you dont seriously think i was expecting holder to attack the dem party, do you?

It was more to illustrate the hypocricy on the left. They dont want voter id laws in political election because it disenfranchises voters, but they require voter id at party conventions?

DEB wrote:I hope this doesn't sound Trollish. It is my take only on this subject. My wife, when she took her citizenship test back in 1986 had to prove to the examiner that she had a working comprehension of the English language, both written and spoken. She also had to know much of the U.S. history as well as current events. I helped her study at length so that she could pass, prior to me deploying. To put this in today's perspective, she also has a friend who just failed her citizenship exam, due to her lack of English skills. So why, when I go vote I see the voting selection written both in English and Spanish? Who has been born here in the U.S. of today, that has not been exposed to the English language and/or attended a school where English is taught? Matter of fact aren't we paying extra for kids who were not fully exposed to the English language, to attend an English headstart? So, aren't we in fact, knowingly, allowing Illegals not only the vote but have made it easier for them to do so? Where else does a Nation give everyone, including the majority of Illegal's not only the chance to vote, but to vote in their own language? Not saying all Illegals are from Spanish speaking states, but I sure don't see these voting cards written also in Korean, Chinese, German, Vietnamese, Sanskrit, or whatnot.

I knew several servicemembers over the years who married ladies from other countries, including the Philippines, Japan, Germany, Korea, the Ukraine and even England. Those that didn't speak English or read it, had to learn. They all had to jump through a lot of hoops and paperwork to get their citizenship. They worked HARD to do so...so I agree with you, AND I know what you are talking about...

I'm not convinced we should legislate English as the sole American language. I've given this great thought and believe we should accept certain other languages as well, such as Arapahoe, Choctah, Navajo, Apache, Seminole, ...............

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.

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

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.

"My" administration?

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

Jim

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.

jeffrw wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Biometrics Database to document all US Citizens should be the law. Iris Scan and right hand bio-scan to validate who you are. A piece of cake nowadays.

I'm not comfortable with Big Brother maintaining a comprehensive biometric database on all citizens. They already have too much information about ordinary law-abiding citizens as it is.

Then you're gonna love Obamacare.

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?

Katygunnut wrote: Is voting more important than life itself in their mind?

When his base would be given healthcare without cost, what does he care?

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?

Imagine if they passed a law saying the before you can be registered to vote you had to pass the same background check as buying a gun

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.

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?

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.

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