Reply With QuoteTo floridafan: Somebody has not been enforcing it!Originally Posted by floridafan
Verified User
The census just counts people. It is about redistricting and what services are needed in a specific area. It counts children, who are not allowed to vote. It counts people who have never voted.
1. representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states according to the numbers.
2. determines how to allocate federal spending programs
3. Foundation for data projections.
4. The data is shared with the business community for marketing and business strategies.
Verified User
To floridafan: Somebody has not been enforcing it!
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
Verified User
Thats total BS my dear, created to cover up republican election fraud in NC and how many other states. Lets discuss that !
Verified User
I hope he opens up the republican election fraud being perpetrated in North Carolina and how many other states. You just accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what you have done, in the hope that no one will notice
Verified User
Nutso & Company should have checked with me. There is nothing unconstitutional about my suggestion:
At some level, you have to give House Democrats some credit for ambition. They may have just sent to the Senate the most comprehensively unconstitutional bill in modern American history. It’s called the “For the People Act,” and it’s a legislative buffet of bad ideas.
The alleged purpose of the bill, H.R. 1, is to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants.”
There are no ethics rules to strengthen. Ethics Committees are where corruption goes to be buried every time a “public servant” get caught doing anything unethical.
In reality, the bill represents an extraordinary federal power grab. At every turn, it grants federal regulators more power. Time and again, it renders federal election law more complex — creating a chilling effect on political communication through sheer uncertainty and confusion.
The free-speech problems are so obvious that free-speech organizations on the left and right are united in opposition. Comprehensive analyses from the Institute for Free Speech and the American Civil Liberties Union are worth reading in their entirety and raise remarkably similar concerns.
At a time of extraordinary public harassment, boycotts, intimidating public shame campaigns, the act would expand financial-disclosure requirements, including in some circumstances requiring public disclosure of the names and addresses even of donors who did not know about or perhaps even support the political message of the organization they funded. Donors may give money, for example, to fund one aspect of an organization’s mission only to be involuntarily exposed as a “political donor” when the organization chooses — without the donor’s knowledge or consent — to mention a politician by name in a different context. As the ACLU points out, “it is unfair to hold donors responsible for every communication in which an organization engages.”
Moreover, in the effort to further limit “coordination” between candidates and political action committees, the bill sets forth language so broad that, as the ACLU explains, it affects communications that “merely refer to a candidate or an opponent to a candidate 120 days before an election or 60 days before a primary or a caucus.” The Institute for Free Speech’s Bradley Smith argues that, with such language, “the goal seems to be to limit discussion of candidates to the candidates and parties themselves, at the expense of the public at large.”
Compounding the problems, the bill revamps the Federal Election Commission, making practical partisan control a near-certainty. While no more than two members of one party could be appointed to the new, five-person commission, it would be easy to achieve ideological control by appointing a like-minded “independent” to break the logjam. As a result, two Democrats and an independent socialist could control the interpretation and enforcement of H.R. 1’s extraordinarily broad and vague provisions. Under current law, the FEC is supposed to have six commissioners, with no more than three of the same party. It takes a vote of four for the commission to act, so the commission can’t act without at least some degree of bipartisan consensus.
In addition to controlling political speech, the bill would transform the federal government into the sugar daddy of American politics by dramatically increasing federal funding of campaigns. Are Democrats truly worried about the influence of “big money” over politicians, or do they simply want to ensure that the government is the donor?
The bill would also strip from the states the ability to draw their own congressional districts (requiring instead that they be drawn by an independent commission) and the ability to engage in prudent, constitutionally appropriate measures to ensure the accuracy of their voter rolls. Moreover, it directly contradicts the text of the 14th Amendment, which grants states the ability to prohibit or restrict the voting rights of felons.
The bill also expands the definition of “lobbyist” far beyond the bounds of reason — to include even those individuals who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services” to actual lobbyists, even if the person who provides “counseling services” never communicates with the relevant government officials. As the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky explained in his written testimony opposing H.R. 1, the language is broad enough that it could even encompass casual conversations at social gatherings.
But there’s a larger concern with the bill beyond the multiple constitutional problems with individual provisions. Taken together, it directly contradicts two foundational virtues of the American constitution: its protection of political speech and its respect for federalism. The “For the People Act” is a legislative megaphone amplifying the Democrats’ belief that political speech is somehow particularly suspect. Political speakers are particularly suspicious.
The Democrats seem to believe that political speech is just too dangerous to be unrestrained. It has to be micromanaged, regulated by technocrats until it is directed into its government-approved lanes. This is of course exactly what incumbent politicians tend to prefer. They want predictable debates, reliable funding streams, and (above all) power — including the power to punish their opponents.
Finally, federalism isn’t just valuable as the “laboratory of democracy” (though that is valuable), it also recognizes the reality that American states have different cultures and different priorities. Drawing legislative districts according to state priorities allows each state to shape its federal delegation the way the people of the state dictate, not according to Washington’s demands.
Throughout the Trump years, Democrats have raised multiple alarms over the alleged authoritarianism of the Trump administration, and while we have not agreed with the propriety of all the administration’s actions, nothing it has proposed or enacted is as alarming as H.R. 1. This bill is a frontal assault on the Constitution, and the nation should be grateful that the Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly block it from becoming law.
The Democrats’ Election-Reform Bill Is an Unconstitutional, Authoritarian Power Grab
By The Editors
March 10, 2019 9:32 PM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/...onstitutional/
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
fully immersed in faith..
all of which highlight why illegals should NOT be included.....
Flanders (03-11-2019)
Verified User
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/mattve...allot-n2543246
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
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.
Verified User
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...ps-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:
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
Verified User
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.
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/s...nsus-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.
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
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!
Verified User
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.
Supreme Court: Bad Day for Everyone, Especially Roberts
By J. Christian Adams
June 27, 2019
https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/...ially-roberts/
The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer
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!
Verified User
Immigrants have voted in local and state elections in localities for over 200 years.
Verified User
it does the opposite. You really have trouble with logic.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks