There is a new thread at the DUmp.
It's closely enough related to Freepers, so I'll put it here, rahtre a new post.
One interesting comment in it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002755592Fri Jun 1, 2012, 08:06 PM
bigtree (43,338 posts)
Attorney General Holder's Challenge to Florida's Voter Purge is a Shot Across the Bow
Providing the second blow in a one-two punch to Florida's republican governor Rick Scott's moves to disenfranchise the states' minority, immigrant, and Democratic voters, Attorney General Holder warned Florida's election authorities that they look to be running afoul of both the law and regulations requiring them to submit their plans for consideration under the Voting Rights Act.
LATimes: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-florida-election-laws-20120601,0,7018206.story
A federal judge struck down a key part of Florida’s new election laws, which would have applied to the 62 counties not subject to the Voting Rights Act.
A top lawyer for the Justice Department's civil rights division wants Florida officials to explain why they've unilaterally decided to purge the state's voter rolls of non-U.S. citizens just months before a key primary in the 2012 elections -- an apparent violation of provisions in the landmark Voting Rights Act.
>big snip<
Post went on and on.
Thought it best to grab the "interesting" one, in case it sort of disappears.
Response to bigtree (Original post)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 11:22 PM
girty (1 post) oh boy, run little mole, ruuuun
16. The Fourteenth Amendment
Part of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, "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, the basis of representation
therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of
age in such State." This seems to suggest that a State can deny the privilege of voting to eligible voters, and count those denied because of crime, for representation and direct tax purposes. What possible authority could national government have to affect the privilege of non eligible voters? And what possible jurisdiction could any "inferior" court of the United States have in a case to which a State is party? Article III. Section 2. clause 2.
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be party, the supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction."
Is a national "Voting Rights Act" a regulation of commerce? If not, I think it would not be within the authority of national government.
Sincerely; Girty
Three following comments, none addressing what was said.
