The proper role and scope of government

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Elsewhere, I posted my concern over Gingrich's intentions for his presidency.
Here are excerpts from the articles I cited.

NY Times Editorial
Dec 10, 2011

Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts

----------------

Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.

21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution



Is anyone still willing to say: "Anyone but Obama"

Why does Newt hate the Constitution?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I wonder how Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is feeling about Newt now.
Has he uttered the phrase: "Dear God, what have I wrought"

It was Alito, while working in the Reagan administration,
that expanded the concept of "Signing Statements" which in effect
allowed US Presidents to ignore parts of new legislation the President (by himself) deemed as unconstitutional.

Obama has been doing a pretty good job of that.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Obama has been doing a pretty good job of that.

He has?

here's a list of Obama's 17 signing statements.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

And here's a list of Bush's signing statements - 85 in his first three years.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm

Regardless of how you perceive the egregiousness of some - any - of the statements, that's a HUGE gap. What are your problems with Obama's?

[Sundae]

Egregious. Good word.

[Ibby]

I really am curious, merc. As a left-winger far enough left to have huge problems with Obama's presidency from the opposite side as you, I'm all ears as to how Obama has abused signing statements. I haven't seen any stories in the news or among the libertarian blogs I follow noting Obama's use of signing statements, so I'd really like to know what I've missed about them.

[TheMercenary]

I never said Bush didn't use them. Bush is not in office and has not been there for three years. Here is what King Obama said during his run up to the crown:



http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...ism_reign.html

The signing statement are constitutionally not authorized, regardless of who does them.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Here is what King Obama said during his run up to the crown:

If the AmericanThinker.com citation was honest, then it would have listed each signing statement. No examples provided. It does what any wacko extremist and Limbaugh disciple does.

If AmericanThinker.com had credibility, then facts about "Pres Obama" were cited. Instead,

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't see himself as merely the United States' 44th President; he is her liege, King Barack the First.

Repeatedly reference to "King Barack", as if that proves something, targets readers with lowest intelligence and educaton.

AmericanThinker.com says nothing about signing statements. But says everything about the intelligence of anyone who would cite it as responsible or honest. Only the dumbest among us would use the expression "King Obama" as proof of something. Especially when Fatherland Security, torture, and contempt for humanity comes from supporters of AmericanThinker.com.

Where are signing statments listed? That topic was irrelevant. Only Tea Party extremists and Limbaugh disciples would love articles that inspire more hate. The topic is signing statements - not a mockery of educated Americans and Obama.

[Lamplighter]

The Obama Dept of Justice is doing something right...

Washington Post
Jerry Markon
12/23/11

Justice Dept. rejects South Carolina voter ID law, calling it discriminatory

The Justice Department on Friday entered the divisive national debate over new state voting laws,
rejecting South Carolina’s measure requiring photo-identification at the polls as discriminatory against minority voters.<snip>

In its first decision on one of those new measures, the Justice Department said Friday
that South Carolina’s law will discriminate against minority voters,
though the department declined to take a position on whether the alleged discrimination was intentional.
The law, passed in May and signed by Gov. Nikki Haley (R),
requires voters to show a driver’s license or one of several other forms of photo identification. <snip>

The federal action signals an escalating legal battle nationwide over
the new laws as the presidential campaign intensifies.
The American Civil Liberties Union and another group recently filed a federal lawsuit in Milwaukee,
contending that Wisconsin’s voter-identification measure is unconstitutional.
It was signed into law in May. <snip>

In addition to South Carolina, Wisconsin and Mississippi, more stringent voter-identification laws
have been passed this year in Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Tennessee.
Justice civil rights officials are currently examining the Texas law,
along with electoral changes made by Florida that reduce the number of days for early voting.

[TheMercenary]

Well I don't see a problem with it.

I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......

[Lamplighter]

Merc, not everyone carries their military-issued ID in their pocket the way you do.
... Obtaining the "proper" or "valid" pictured ID can be difficult and/or time critical.

To get the proper state-issued, photo ID now,
with all the hoopla required by Homeland Security it can be / is very difficult.
The problem is complexity...especially for the elderly, the poor, the minorities, etc.

Some of the issues I have heard about are:

Hospital-issued "birth certificates" are no longer valid or accepted

... to be valid, the birth certificate must be issued by the State Dept of Vital Statistics (or whatever)

... if a woman is divorced, she must also show the state-issued divorce papers, and proper name-change legal papers

... if any birth date, name, etc are not the same on all papers, it can derail the process.

... if any of the above occurred in separate states, it can be difficult

... In Oregon, and I'll bet it is or will be the same in other states,
in order to get a new Driver's license, not only do you have to show all of the above,
you also have to paperwork to show you are legally entitled to live in the US,
and that you do actually live at a particular address in Oregon (utility bill, rent payment receipt, etc.)

Then, a person often also has to register to vote, and in some state this is required prior to the day of voting.

"Voter fraud" is almost non-existant, but it is the excuse for these new laws.

Basically, the Republican Party knows it is a minority party,
and so sets about to disqualify poor and/or minority voters,
or to make the process so difficult they don't vote.
.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

... Obtaining the "proper" or "valid" pictured ID can be difficult and/or time critical.

Difficult, not impossible. This is not a race issue although that seems to be the flavor of the season when ever someone disagrees with the Demoncratic party or the president.

[Lamplighter]

The problem is complexity...especially for the elderly, the poor, the minorities, etc.

As you point out, it's not a race issue... it is Civil Rights being abused by Repubicans.
Race is just one of the elephants in the room.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Difficult, not impossible. This is not a race issue although that seems to be the flavor of the season when ever someone disagrees with the Demoncratic party or the president.

It is the same shit that is going on in Wisconsin right now. Dirty politics.

Unless Republicans can show that requiring a photo ID like a driver's license instead of the current system will lower voter fraud, I honestly see no other point of it besides preventing people who will statistically more likely vote Democrat from voting.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......

None of those are deemed citizen privileges. Being able to vote is right in the US. Flying, using credit, buying liquor, going to different countries, etc, are not.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I don't see a problem with it.

I have to show my ID to vote, to get on an Airplane, often to use my credit or debit card, to get on to post, to buy at the PX, to cash a check, to by a beer or liquor, to the police if I get stopped, to get on a cruise ship, to go into another country, hell where do you not have to show one. And these mother fuckers are worried about showing one to vote. What load of horse shit.......

Merc, it would be a load of shit if that were the only thing going on. Republicans are trying to use this as a method of evening the vote in areas where there are more Dem voters. That's really not democracy in action. sure I can understand people wanting to "win", but hey, if you don't like the outcome of the voters then..well, wait till the next election. Don't try to figure out ways to exclude voters.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

None of those are deemed citizen privileges.
Being able to vote is right in the US. Flying, using credit, buying liquor, going to different countries, etc, are not.

I agree, voting is far more important than any of those other things.
If it weren't for the political BS that started this, I would agree wholeheartedly with one
having to provide a picture ID to vote. The system should be more secure.
Perhaps we could agree to do it in the future - say as of the 2016 election.

As far as how hard it is to get a picture ID. I call MAJOR BS.
Getting a passport is supposedly much harder. I had to accrue my original Birth Certificate
(which I apparently never had) as well as a couple other things.
Sent it away and got the passport in a few weeks. It was a completely painless process.