Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NC Republican/General Assembly Idiocy


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#11 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    DeAngelo Williams/Steve Smith Huddle: Est 2003

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,626
  • Reputation: 5,037
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:29 AM

talk about shooting for the stars here

"The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people," the bill states.

"Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion," it states.


The bill goes on to say:
SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.
SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.


tldr "the US constitution doesn't apply to the states"

#12 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 17,903
  • Reputation: 6,252
  • LocationMatthews, NC
Administrators

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

I keep hearing about obscure bills being filed but nothing crazy being passed yet. This is a symptom of something... Can you guess what it is?

#13 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:43 AM

I keep hearing about obscure bills being filed but nothing crazy being passed yet. This is a symptom of something... Can you guess what it is?


Sky is falling?

#14 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    DeAngelo Williams/Steve Smith Huddle: Est 2003

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,626
  • Reputation: 5,037
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:44 AM

I keep hearing about obscure bills being filed but nothing crazy being passed yet. This is a symptom of something... Can you guess what it is?


so obscure that the majority leader is a sponsor

#15 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    DeAngelo Williams/Steve Smith Huddle: Est 2003

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,626
  • Reputation: 5,037
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:45 AM

Sky is falling?


and the huddle's biggest fan of voter disenfranchisement finally puts in an appearance

#16 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,062
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:51 AM

I've made this statement many times. I want every legal voter to vote. Period. You can pin ignorance, lack of care, etc to the reasons you want on any persons that take issue with it, but there's no poll taxing, no literacy testing, no bill that has been put to paper that resembles anything you all are saying is going on and preventing legal voters from voting. States have the right to determine their means of voting. Name one provision that doesn't pass constitutional muster or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But continue on...don't let this take the thread down a different path.

#17 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:56 AM

so am I understanding this right that college aged people and their parents would have to decide between the right to vote and being considered dependents for tax purposes? That seems like a huge effort to disenfranchise young people. It might be technically legal (though I'm not sure on that) but that doesn't mean it should be done.

#18 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

Wasn't it ruled that the 14th admendment enforces the Bill of Rights at the State level?

#19 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    DeAngelo Williams/Steve Smith Huddle: Est 2003

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,626
  • Reputation: 5,037
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:05 PM

I've made this statement many times. I want every legal voter to vote. Period. You can pin ignorance, lack of care, etc to the reasons you want on any persons that take issue with it, but there's no poll taxing, no literacy testing, no bill that has been put to paper that resembles anything you all are saying is going on and preventing legal voters from voting. States have the right to determine their means of voting. Name one provision that doesn't pass constitutional muster or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But continue on...don't let this take the thread down a different path.


it fails the undue burden standard outright, for one. forcing parents to accept what is a de facto tax penalty based on where their adult children register to vote is a glaring problem.

i refuse to believe for a second that you don't understand that this is intended to make voting as annoying as possible for demographics who threaten republicans. there's absolutely no use for it otherwise no matter how obtuse you want to be about it.

#20 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    DeAngelo Williams/Steve Smith Huddle: Est 2003

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 11,626
  • Reputation: 5,037
  • LocationChapel Hill
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 April 2013 - 12:13 PM

so am I understanding this right that college aged people and their parents would have to decide between the right to vote and being considered dependents for tax purposes? That seems like a huge effort to disenfranchise young people. It might be technically legal (though I'm not sure on that) but that doesn't mean it should be done.


g5 is going to argue from the standpoint of pure legality because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to anything regarding the implications stemming from the application of such a law. he "doesn't see the harm" in any kind of voter suppression effort.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users