In France, in 1940, the parliament voted to give the full powers to Pétain. We exactly know who voted for or against.
Some times, it takes courage to vote, or just to make one’s duty.
The Republican who will not vote impeachment because they are afraid of Trump and his mobs are cowards and will stay in history as such.
In fact, sometime, to fulfill one’s duty takes courage. In 1917, a soldier who went out to attack did not risk the loss of his power, but the loss of his life. There are less threatening situation where people show courage.
I recognize that it can be difficult in some cases.
Very interesting logical contrast between arguments for and against voting and gun laws.
The argument to restrict voting is that a person has to provide identification just to buy a “cough syrup”, and therefore should be required to provide identification and background checks in order to “earn” legal right to vote.
Then the argument against restricting gun sales by requiring identification that proves legal right to purchase a gun is that requiring identification to earn the right to own a gun infringes on the legal right to bear arms.
If a person is required to provide identification to buy “cough syrup” because it contains addictive substances, is it unreasonable to require identification to buy an “assault weapon” , in spite of the fact that they are used for “mass murder” ?
If a person is required to provide identification to buy “cough syrup” because it contains addictive substances, is it unreasonable to require identification to buy an “assault weapon” , in spite of the fact that they are used for “mass murder” ?
The right to buy cough syrup is not in the constitution, nor an amendment ?
I forget, was it here that originally only land-owners could vote, or am I thinking of another country?
No, you are correct. And it was not just landowners, but white landowners. There were black land owners but they still could not vote. If you think of it, we are barely beginning to become civilized. That reptilian brain is still very influencial.
Don’t Listen to Your Lizard Brain
The evolution of the brain can help us understand human behavior.
The reptilian brain, composed of the basal ganglia (striatum) and brainstem, is involved with primitive drives related to thirst, hunger, sexuality, and territoriality, as well as habits and procedural memory (like putting your keys in the same place every day without thinking about it or riding a bike).
Federal elections held by States who are not accountable to the Federal government?
Constitutional Rights to vote being restricted by States who ignore Federal Constitutional Law?
The voting Rights Act of 1965
This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.
Maybe it’s time for the Feds to take elections out of the hands of states.
If voting is a Right of all registered citizens, then as with Free Speech it cannot be restricted by States, in any way!
The problem seems to be that the Dems believe requiring proof of citizenship and place of residence is a restriction of rights. As far as I’m concerned, if you can’t prove citizenship you don’t get to vote (period, full stop) and if you can’t prove place of residence you can’t claim a right to vote at a polling place set up for citizens of a specific area. Yes, we do need a way for homeless people to be registered to vote. If you see that as a worthy goal then do something about it.
We have to have a way to ensure that only citizens vote and that they vote only once. As long as we have systems that have the potential for non-citizens to vote and/or people to vote more than once we can have no assurance of valid elections. And yes, many people suspect the Dems exploited those voting vulnerabilities in the last election. Such suspicions might lead one to believe that winning is more important than having a fair election. Is winning the only thing that really matters?
If voting means anything to you why don’t you just take the time to get registered? If voting rights means anything to you why don’t you do something to help other citizens get registered?
The problem seems to be that the Dems believe requiring proof of citizenship and place of residence is a restriction of rights. As far as I’m concerned, if you can’t prove citizenship you don’t get to vote (period, full stop) and if you can’t prove place of residence you can’t claim a right to vote at a polling place set up for citizens of a specific area. Yes, we do need a way for homeless people to be registered to vote. If you see that as a worthy goal then do something about it.
I have no objection to proof citizenship or residency. After all proof of residency is required to get a drivers license.
What I object to is the removal of voting facilities in certain neighborhoods. Of restricting voting hours so that a whole class of working people are denied opportunity to vote altogether. Of “gerrymandering” voting districts in favor of a specific party.
The Electoral college is a wholly skewed voter allocation that allows a state with half the population of another state the same voting status and representative allocation at a National level.
How is it possible that Hillary Clinton won the national election by 3+ million votes, but lost the election? That means 3 million voters were denied the right to majority vote for a candidate of their choice. Something is wrong here. This has happened only three previous times in history.
It is called the Constitution and you seem to think it is wrong. Do you forget that we were and still are a federation of States?
Can you show where it says that at the Federal level the popular vote does not count?
Seriously, I understand the intent of the electoral college. But it should not be able to deny a minority to win a Federal election. It needs to be fixed.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, … means quite clearly that there is no popular vote for president at the Federal level. The only votes that count are those of the electors and they are appointed in a way determined by the legislature of each State. You can read for yourself the rest of the text on the way they are to vote.
The idea that the election of the President is, or should be, by popular vote is the Dem’s Big Lie. It really gained traction with Al Gore’s loss. Unfortunately many people have been duped by that lie.
The only reason the popular vote is reported is the liberal media’s bias. There is no other reason to count it.
You forgot women. There were some women who inherited land from their father or husband. They owned the land after their husband or father died, yet they could not vote either. Black men got the right to vote before any woman did.
Yes, the Constitution does say that, BUT it does not mean the Constitution cannot be amended. This is why we have all the amendments, including the Amendment that gave Black men the right to vote and the amendment that gave women the right to vote too. Our forefathers allowed for the ability to amend and we’ve done that many times throughout history and can we do it again.
But what? We don’t have to accept it? We don’t have to accept elections decided in accordance with what it says? We can piss and moan about it and keep everyone stirred up? We can change our government from a federation of States to one central authority? We don’t really expect, or want, our Congress people and Senators to “protect and defend the Constitution” even though they swore an oath to do just that? We’re so much smarter and so much better than the old white rich slave owning men some call our “founding fathers” that we need to just throw out all they did and set up a Marxist government?
Good luck with the amendments. At least that is the right way to get change.
I never said that. The forefather knew that as time passes things change. Black people aren’t counted as 1/3 (or whatever it was) of a person anymore. They weren’t allowed to vote, own guns, and a lot of other things. The Amendments added to the Constitution gave them the right to own guns, vote, and have equality under the Constitution. The same went for women too. So I have no idea what you’re talking about or how you came up with such questions.
Logic what are you trying to say? How do you words (35) fit in with what Republican insurrectionist keep trying to do with our traditional governmental processes, opposing any information gathering about what happened Jan 6th, the recount fundraising frauds, etc?