Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Voter Fraud (Business As Usual)

#21
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2018, 09:13 PM by mikesez.)

(10-26-2018, 06:26 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:
(10-26-2018, 05:13 PM)mikesez Wrote: We have a federal court decision, handed down just two days ago, regarding the signatures on absentee ballots. 
Your claim is that Kemp is just enforcing federal regulations. Is that the argument that his team made in federal court? If so what did the federal judges think of that argument?
A simple Google search for the name of the case and the court it was argued in Etc should turn up the opinion text. Read it for yourself.  I'm not in GA.  I don't care.

A simple Google search would show you that it is federal regulations, and the issues with the registrations are signatures related to those regulations. You care enough to insult me, so maybe it's you that should read up on it.

Is that the way you think the courts work? The federal judge's decision isn't based on federal regulations and law. I know this because the federal judge is instructing them to not follow federal law. The judge is legislating from the bench and even permitting an appeals process for each issue.

Wait so you're telling me that federal courts hold voting to be a fundamental right, on the same level as speech, assembly, and petition, and they often strike down laws that infringe on that right? It's almost like we have a 15th and a 19th Amendment and they are more important than federal laws and regulations. Nah. couldn't be.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(10-26-2018, 09:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-26-2018, 06:26 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: A simple Google search would show you that it is federal regulations, and the issues with the registrations are signatures related to those regulations. You care enough to insult me, so maybe it's you that should read up on it.

Is that the way you think the courts work? The federal judge's decision isn't based on federal regulations and law. I know this because the federal judge is instructing them to not follow federal law. The judge is legislating from the bench and even permitting an appeals process for each issue.

Wait so you're telling me that federal courts hold voting to be a fundamental right, on the same level as speech, assembly, and petition, and they often strike down laws that infringe on that right? It's almost like we have a 15th and a 19th Amendment and they are more important than federal laws and regulations. Nah. couldn't be.

Oh, please.

You're either unable to understand the law or you're purposely deflecting. The state doesn't have the ability to allow tens of thousands of voters to contest each every one a couple weeks before an election. Each person could've simply registered again, but they chose not to so the responsibility falls on the voters not the state. No one was stopping them from registering; they just chose not to submit another application. 

But yeah... try to make it appear that someone is infringing on someone's rights.
Reply

#23

(10-26-2018, 09:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-26-2018, 06:26 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: A simple Google search would show you that it is federal regulations, and the issues with the registrations are signatures related to those regulations. You care enough to insult me, so maybe it's you that should read up on it.

Is that the way you think the courts work? The federal judge's decision isn't based on federal regulations and law. I know this because the federal judge is instructing them to not follow federal law. The judge is legislating from the bench and even permitting an appeals process for each issue.

Wait so you're telling me that federal courts hold voting to be a fundamental right, on the same level as speech, assembly, and petition, and they often strike down laws that infringe on that right? It's almost like we have a 15th and a 19th Amendment and they are more important than federal laws and regulations. Nah. couldn't be.

Actually, no they don't. You don't lose your 1st Amendment rights over a felony conviction, voting "rights" are something less.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#24

(10-28-2018, 04:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(10-26-2018, 09:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: Wait so you're telling me that federal courts hold voting to be a fundamental right, on the same level as speech, assembly, and petition, and they often strike down laws that infringe on that right? It's almost like we have a 15th and a 19th Amendment and they are more important than federal laws and regulations. Nah. couldn't be.

Actually, no they don't. You don't lose your 1st Amendment rights over a felony conviction, voting "rights" are something less.

Sure, there are different ways to lose different rights. Walking into the theater means you can't yell "fire." Joining the military means you are no longer free to say what you want most of the time. Getting a security clearance leaves you not free to discuss or publish the secret matters. And there are ways to lose your right to vote. The courts sort out if the reasons that the government offers for abridging our rights are good enough or not.  "I had somebody who's not trained in handwriting or signature recognition say that they don't think your signatures match, but I can't offer any evidence that there are teams of people stealing absetee ballots and forging the signatures" turns out to not be a very good reason to invalidate someone's right to vote.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#25

(10-28-2018, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 04:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Actually, no they don't. You don't lose your 1st Amendment rights over a felony conviction, voting "rights" are something less.

Sure, there are different ways to lose different rights. Walking into the theater means you can't yell "fire." Joining the military means you are no longer free to say what you want most of the time. Getting a security clearance leaves you not free to discuss or publish the secret matters. And there are ways to lose your right to vote. The courts sort out if the reasons that the government offers for abridging our rights are good enough or not.  "I had somebody who's not trained in handwriting or signature recognition say that they don't think your signatures match, but I can't offer any evidence that there are teams of people stealing absetee ballots and forging the signatures" turns out to not be a very good reason to invalidate someone's right to vote.

You can yell fire, you're 50 years behind in your jurisprudence, and military and clearance affairs are voluntary not a revocation.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26

(10-28-2018, 07:56 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 04:13 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: Actually, no they don't. You don't lose your 1st Amendment rights over a felony conviction, voting "rights" are something less.

Sure, there are different ways to lose different rights. Walking into the theater means you can't yell "fire." Joining the military means you are no longer free to say what you want most of the time. Getting a security clearance leaves you not free to discuss or publish the secret matters. And there are ways to lose your right to vote. The courts sort out if the reasons that the government offers for abridging our rights are good enough or not.  "I had somebody who's not trained in handwriting or signature recognition say that they don't think your signatures match, but I can't offer any evidence that there are teams of people stealing absetee ballots and forging the signatures" turns out to not be a very good reason to invalidate someone's right to vote.

The names don't match, not just the signatures.

And while there are voting rights in the Constitution, it is not a fundamental right like speech. The 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments spell out specific reasons that can not be used to deny the right to vote, but do not establish a right to vote under all circumstances. They merely state that if there is a vote, people can't be excluded due to race, sex, or the lack of ability to pay.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!