Fox Hosts Text Trump to Stop Insurrection

Skeeter

Well-known member
I cannot imagine a law that would prevent voter fraud that would prevent legitimate voters from voting.
How about a law that is overly restrictive of the time and location of voting in the name of thorough scrutiny? Time during the work day, location in a a place without public transportation.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Sometimes efforts ... eliminate voters.
I would argue that most voters should be eliminated. Voting should be a responsibility not a right. Those who wish to vote should demonstrate that they can vote responsibly. They should demonstrate that they know what the issues are and where the candidates stand. They should demonstrate an understanding of American governmental system and election process.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
I would argue that most voters should be eliminated. Voting should be a responsibility not a right. Those who wish to vote should demonstrate that they can vote responsibly. They should demonstrate that they know what the issues are and where the candidates stand. They should demonstrate an understanding of American governmental system and election process.
I would like one of the questions to be, "Explain why the first amendment was placed in the #1 position." Then sit back and watch all the lefties (who are so in favor of censoring political speech they disagree with) struggle to answer it. If they don't know the answer to such a vital question then guess what? They don't get to vote.
 

marke

Well-known member
How about a law that is overly restrictive of the time and location of voting in the name of thorough scrutiny? Time during the work day, location in a a place without public transportation.
Because crooks have abused extended voting times to commit voter fraud, those times should be shortened as much as possible to prevent fraud and abuse. Americans should do everything they can to adapt to measures that protect voting from fraud.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
I would like one of the questions to be, "Explain why the first amendment was placed in the #1 position." Then sit back and watch all the lefties (who are so in favor of censoring political speech they disagree with) struggle to answer it. If they don't know the answer to such a vital question then guess what? They don't get to vote.
You would not be allowed to vote as a result of your answer to this question. This is a trick question because the amendments to the Constitution are NOT a top ten list. The thirteenth amendment is the most important! The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is arguably equal to or more important than free speech.

Your biased example of a question is precisely why barriers to voting are repugnant. Such questions can serve a particular political bend and be self-serving. The right to vote is as fundamental as free speech via the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Because crooks have abused extended voting times to commit voter fraud, those times should be shortened as much as possible to prevent fraud and abuse. Americans should do everything they can to adapt to measures that protect voting from fraud.
Ok Marke, if people in your state were restricted to voting on a Sundays in a church conducting gay weddings, would you complain?
 
Last edited:

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
You would not be allowed to vote as a result of your answer to this question. This is a trick question because the amendments to the Constitution are NOT a top ten list. The thirteenth amendment is the most important! The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is arguably equal to or more important than free speech.

Your biased example of a question is precisely why barriers to voting are repugnant. Such questions can serve a particular political bend and be self-serving. The right to vote is as fundamental as free speech via the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.
Do you actually think the framers listed the bill of rìghts haphazardly? Do you think they wrote each right on separate pieces of paper, then tossed them up in the air and the piece of paper that had "freedom of speech" written on it happened to be the one that fluttered down and landed in the #1 spot? That's how you think it actually happened?
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Do you actually think the framers listed the bill of rìghts haphazardly?
Chance factors were certainly at play, but I have no reason to believe they tried to eliminate relevance or importance from the order either. Psychological preference likely made that first amendment jam packed with important issues. A subconscious trend to include more important issues first might be hypothesized. But, that does not dictate that what comes after is less important. And, whether the end result actually orders the importance is VERY arguable. The third amendment is clearly less important that the fourth, for example.

A matter of opinion cannot be used to bar voters. Do you see how this actually violates the right to vote and the right of free speech? Voting is form of speaking.

You did not think your comment through. Not a big deal, But, will you continue to dig your heals in about it? That is a bigger deal.
 

marke

Well-known member
You would not be allowed to vote as a result of your answer to this question. This is a trick question because the amendments to the Constitution are NOT a top ten list. The thirteenth amendment is the most important! The prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure is arguably equal to or more important than free speech.

Your biased example of a question is precisely why barriers to voting are repugnant. Such questions can serve a particular political bend and be self-serving. The right to vote is as fundamental as free speech via the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.
No amendment can be assumed to take priority over another amendment just as no law can be enforced that violates freedoms detailed by the Amendments to the US Constitution.
 

marke

Well-known member
Ok Marke, if people in your state were restricted to voting on a Sundays in a church conducting gay weddings, would you complain?
Democrats might like to restrict voting to churches that conduct gay weddings but that is another example of a bad voting method, just as voting methods that allow voters to vote multiple times in multiple precincts for several weeks leading up to election day.
 

marke

Well-known member
Chance factors were certainly at play, but I have no reason to believe they tried to eliminate relevance or importance from the order either. Psychological preference likely made that first amendment jam packed with important issues. A subconscious trend to include more important issues first might be hypothesized. But, that does not dictate that what comes after is less important. And, whether the end result actually orders the importance is VERY arguable. The third amendment is clearly less important that the fourth, for example.

A matter of opinion cannot be used to bar voters. Do you see how this actually violates the right to vote and the right of free speech? Voting is form of speaking.

You did not think your comment through. Not a big deal, But, will you continue to dig your heals in about it? That is a bigger deal.
Voters should be offered every freedom to vote legally while keeping restrictions in place to keep voters from voting illegally.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
A matter of opinion cannot be used to bar voters. Do you see how this actually violates the right to vote and the right of free speech? Voting is form of speaking.
The founders held that people under the age of 21 had the freedom of speech but they did not have the right to vote. Hence, they held freedom of speech in higher regard.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
The founders held that people under the age of 21 had the freedom of speech but they did not have the right to vote. Hence, they held freedom of speech in higher regard.
You are straying from the main issue. Literary tests almost uniformly lead to injustice when it comes to voting. Designers of such test intentionally or inadvertently bake bias into them. Look at the poll tests historically used in the south, for example. They were obviously in effect to exclude black people. The questions were culturally biased.

What the founders thought is only tangentially helpful. More important is precedent and modern day application of principles. Age is relevant in interpreting civil rights of all kinds. Free speech is different when it comes to people under 18 years old although not completely barred as is the case with voting. There is whole line of cases involving children in public schools and after-school activities. The results are different than those involving adults. You cannot really declare one right more important because of this sort of thing. That would be like saying the right to abortion is of lesser importance because it only applies to women while other rights apply to both genders.

Voting is considered a fundamental right along with speech, but it has been treated like a red-headed step-child by the court. Giving money to a candidate on the other hand is treated as a full-on free speech issue. The courts treatment is warped. The whole rationale for have strong safeguards supporting free speech in a democracy is to allow for informed voting. Voting is a specialized form of speech and should be treated as such rather than an after thought based on the equal right's clause.

You can continue to grasp at straws trying to justify yourself or just ignore this post. It is more for others. Debating is not your strong point.
 
Top