JT wrote: "Well you seem to have skipped over the part about making “yourself aware of the history” of the discussion thread. Which in this case you obviously failed to do."
Your loaded and nonsense of a question did not deserve to be addressed or answered.
Apparently, the only difference between yourself and a whining puppy, is that the puppy will eventually quit whining.
JT wrote: "(Is there a “use by date” on the truth?)"
There most certainly is, when evidence has come out that disproves what was once suspected.
"(That is political profiling by an extremely powerful government agency and the wiser Democrats realize they may be on the receiving end in the future. Even they want an example set to to bring the IRS back into line)"
When this is all said and done, nothing will come down the pike, with the possible exception that agents will be better trained in how to process tax-exempt applications.
The more this investigation proceeds, the less outrageous it becomes.
JT wrote: "This is still under investigation and there are new revelations every day."
Really? Every single "revelation" has been trounced by the testimony that only proves that at worst, there was an organized instance of ineptness by agents charged with verifying how political, political groups were, when applying for consideration for tax-exempt status.
"When the opportune moment arrives they will drop it on Obama and it won't be on a Friday afternoon."
You're nothing, if not a dreamer.
"If you want a real example of “why people lose confidence in their institutions” then the fact that Holder, our chief law enforcement official lied under oath is a prime example."
When Eric Holder is charged, prosecuted, and convicted for lying under oath, let's discuss it. Until then, your opinion is just that...an opinion.
"That is much more damaging than the pointing out of the IRS’s and the Obama administration’s malfeasance in this debacle."
I'm so sorry to inform you, but no one has accused the President, or anyone whom he hired, of any wrongdoing. So far, those who have been let go, or whom have voluntarily resigned, were Bush appointees.
"Although that is way up there on the Holy $^%# list."
How 'bout I go on the record, and state that there will never be anyone even close to Obama touched by any of this.
Your list is a wish list. Crap in one hand and wish in the other. See which one is filled first.
rick1 wrote: "In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote)."
Sir...who is referring to Congressional representation? You're intentionally muddying the waters and addressing an issue that has not even been raised.
"The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”..."
Washington D.C. has not been made a state, yet.
The case you cite above had nothing to do with the right of individual citizens to vote.
It is uniform throughout the United States, in the year 2013, that all law abiding citizens over the age of 18, with no felony convictions in their past, are qualified to be extended the right to cast their votes in all 50 of their respective, statewide elections.
"As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
You Sir, are in complete denial of five references that clearly dictate that voting is a right, NOT to be taken away by the states, without lawful exception.
"Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]."
As unfortunate as that ruling was, and it was very unfortunate, the 14th Amendment specifically uses the words "right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President," so it appears that the ruling was an egregious error, although binding because it was handed down by the highest court in the land and we are to abide by it.
It was not the first time in history that the Supreme Court Justices made an error, and that one was a blatant and provable error.
How can you deny what is written in those five Amendments? They aren't mistakes or illusions. The wording in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants the states to deny the right to vote only in cases of a criminal conviction or rebellion, which is defined as: open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government.
The exact wording in those five Constitutional Amendments are as binding as the original body of the Constitution itself.
14th Amendment - "...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..."
15th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
19th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
24th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
26th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Five times. Not one passing remark that might have been a clerical error. The words could not be any clearer. So long as one has no criminal record, is a rebel, and continues to live and breathe, there is a written, implied right to vote in five Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America for each and every citizen, for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature.
JT wrote: "If states reversed themselves would you have a valid claim that your Constitutional rights are being violated? If not did you really have that right to start with?"
If the day ever comes that any state refuses to hold a statewide election, then get back to me. Until then, voters that meet the qualifications in their state of residence, have a RIGHT to appear at an assigned polling location and a very reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to cast their votes.
You just love to argue hypothetical scenarios all the time.
The Gun Rack
Clearly, I am relieved that I do not have any children or grand children in Tennessee schools.
The Monster
JT wrote: "Well you seem to have skipped over the part about making “yourself aware of the history” of the discussion thread. Which in this case you obviously failed to do."
Your loaded and nonsense of a question did not deserve to be addressed or answered.
Apparently, the only difference between yourself and a whining puppy, is that the puppy will eventually quit whining.
The Monster
JT wrote: "(Is there a “use by date” on the truth?)"
There most certainly is, when evidence has come out that disproves what was once suspected.
"(That is political profiling by an extremely powerful government agency and the wiser Democrats realize they may be on the receiving end in the future. Even they want an example set to to bring the IRS back into line)"
When this is all said and done, nothing will come down the pike, with the possible exception that agents will be better trained in how to process tax-exempt applications.
The more this investigation proceeds, the less outrageous it becomes.
The Monster
rick1 wrote: "Al, if there is a right to vote why did Jesse Jackson Jr propose an Amendment to establish a Constitutional Right to Vote in America?"
Jesse Jackson Jr.? Are you serious?
The man is or was in the loony bin. He's been charged with converting campaign contributions for personal use.
It doesn't appear to me that he is a fitting example of a man with a good grasp on reality.
The Monster
JT wrote: "This is still under investigation and there are new revelations every day."
Really? Every single "revelation" has been trounced by the testimony that only proves that at worst, there was an organized instance of ineptness by agents charged with verifying how political, political groups were, when applying for consideration for tax-exempt status.
"When the opportune moment arrives they will drop it on Obama and it won't be on a Friday afternoon."
You're nothing, if not a dreamer.
"If you want a real example of “why people lose confidence in their institutions” then the fact that Holder, our chief law enforcement official lied under oath is a prime example."
When Eric Holder is charged, prosecuted, and convicted for lying under oath, let's discuss it. Until then, your opinion is just that...an opinion.
"That is much more damaging than the pointing out of the IRS’s and the Obama administration’s malfeasance in this debacle."
I'm so sorry to inform you, but no one has accused the President, or anyone whom he hired, of any wrongdoing. So far, those who have been let go, or whom have voluntarily resigned, were Bush appointees.
"Although that is way up there on the Holy $^%# list."
How 'bout I go on the record, and state that there will never be anyone even close to Obama touched by any of this.
Your list is a wish list. Crap in one hand and wish in the other. See which one is filled first.
The Monster
rick1 wrote: "In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote)."
Sir...who is referring to Congressional representation? You're intentionally muddying the waters and addressing an issue that has not even been raised.
"The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”..."
Washington D.C. has not been made a state, yet.
The case you cite above had nothing to do with the right of individual citizens to vote.
It is uniform throughout the United States, in the year 2013, that all law abiding citizens over the age of 18, with no felony convictions in their past, are qualified to be extended the right to cast their votes in all 50 of their respective, statewide elections.
"As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
You Sir, are in complete denial of five references that clearly dictate that voting is a right, NOT to be taken away by the states, without lawful exception.
"Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]."
As unfortunate as that ruling was, and it was very unfortunate, the 14th Amendment specifically uses the words "right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President," so it appears that the ruling was an egregious error, although binding because it was handed down by the highest court in the land and we are to abide by it.
It was not the first time in history that the Supreme Court Justices made an error, and that one was a blatant and provable error.
The Monster
rick1, you're a reasonable man.
How can you deny what is written in those five Amendments? They aren't mistakes or illusions. The wording in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants the states to deny the right to vote only in cases of a criminal conviction or rebellion, which is defined as: open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government.
The exact wording in those five Constitutional Amendments are as binding as the original body of the Constitution itself.
The Monster
14th Amendment - "...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..."
15th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
19th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
24th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
26th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Five times. Not one passing remark that might have been a clerical error. The words could not be any clearer. So long as one has no criminal record, is a rebel, and continues to live and breathe, there is a written, implied right to vote in five Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America for each and every citizen, for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature.
The Monster
JT wrote: "I'm fairly sure I have already been kind enough."
Yeah, I guess you were, but you offered the loaded statement as if there was more on your mind.
Maybe one day you will surprise me.
The Monster
JT wrote: "If states reversed themselves would you have a valid claim that your Constitutional rights are being violated? If not did you really have that right to start with?"
If the day ever comes that any state refuses to hold a statewide election, then get back to me. Until then, voters that meet the qualifications in their state of residence, have a RIGHT to appear at an assigned polling location and a very reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to cast their votes.
You just love to argue hypothetical scenarios all the time.