Pursuing her natural constituency

Yes, it actually DOES address that point, quite succinctly. Art. II clearly states that the state legislature is soley responsible for determining how the electors are chosen. It's the first sentence of the second paragraph, or third sentence overall. Read it again, twice if you need to.
The vote certification that you're talking about is the certification of the *electoral vote* not the popular vote. The sole purpose of the popular vote is for choosing the electors.

Yes, it is quite explicit. It explicitely says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
This precludes congress from determining the manner in which the electors are chosen.

It says "other crimes"... Not "other federal crimes" not insurrection or rebellion alone... It says "rebellion or other crimes". If you can show that "other crimes" was intended to be limited in some way, then do so. You have not. Yes, "other crimes" could include moving violations. That it doesn't is evidence that no state has yet lost it's mind. All that Amendment 14 prevents is you losing your rights without *DUE PROCESS* . Even if you were correct about the "other crimes", the amendment grants that people can be legally disenfranchised for other reasons.

It doesn't say "other condition of servitude", it says "previous condition of servitude", and they meant slavery. If they *hadn't*, then your argument would have some sort of precedent.
Regardless, as I said, the argument you are making is irrellevant. Nobody is advocating taking away the right to vote based on jailtime, but based on their conviction of certain crimes. They're not the same thing.

no, i've said it all along.

sure, look it up the spending power. but i have the controlling case right here:

S. Dakota v. Dole

And you're wrong again. The feds can withhold money until the States go along, but they can not require them to spend money.
There is a diffrence.

[Edited on Feb 18, 2005 by bones_708]

it has been used to coerce states into paying for federal initiatives all the time, like the aforementioned medicaid and medicare programs - in the interest of uniformity. no child left behind also requires states to pay for a federal program - becuase of an interest in uniformity. the federal government can withold money as long as the money they are witholding is related to the federal inititative - indirectly forcing states to pay for some initiatives. congress can do this as long as it is acting in the general welfare.

more on that:


[Edited on Feb 18, 2005 by dead_ringer]

Yes it is two diffrent things.
It's like pullig teeth.

jeez...how are we so off topic arguing about random crap loosely related to this bill.

FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THIS IS A BAD IDEA: can you explain, in one or two sentences why you don't think that this bill should be passed. it seems pretty basic to me, and i think it's a good idea.

for example:

"i don't think this should pass cause i believe it's a state issue"
or
"i don't think felons should be able to vote"
etc.


my opinion - those who are against the bill are filling this thread with random arguements in an attempt to get people bored and, in turn, get them to tune out of the thread. a tactic i've come to expect from people like stockula. just my 2 cents.

The fact is that while you're techincally correct, your argument is pointless. It would require a constitutional amendment to implement, and if they had the support for it to get that passed, they'd have the support to get the money for it.

Me or dead_ringer

The Feds can pass a law, they would have to pay for it though and that won't happen.

You,... To pass the law they'd need an amendment, and if they had the support to get an amendment, they'd be able to get the money one way or another.

How about this. It is two diffrent problems (one reason its been so scatered in this thread) that are trying to be adressed by this bill and in my oppenion it is more about press than law making. Seperate the issues and it would be much easier to debate.

As an aside it seems, from my point of veiw, that proponents of the bill get off topic and use random arguments.

Yeah, evidence such as someone saying "hey, this thing didn't record my vote properly!"
Then it's called into question, and the reciepts come into play.

Stiles, when was the last time that you got a paper reciept that marked your vote?

Which aspect of the bill are we talking about? Felons or Holiday, or are you talking about the off topic voter machine debate?

The "congress implementing a uniform popular vote" aspect, which is what brought up the issue of funding.

OK

Why should we have a holiday honoring something that isn't our most important right?

As far as I can tell, there are really only two reasons people oppose giving former felons the franchise:

(1) Rational fear of empowering a group that is largely minority and overwhelmingly poor. This is the main practical reason Republicans tend to oppose it.
(2) Irrational animosity towards people who have committed a crime but served their time. People just don't like criminals and, for the more authoritarian, law-and-order types, one punishment is not enough. Not only must you serve your time, you must also forfeit what is almost universally regarded as a bedrock right of any functioning democracy.

I don't think I've ever heard an argument that doesn't at root boil down to one of these two.

Uh, Helter - logically, you check to see that you got the right result as soon as your vote is cast. Thus, any problems become apparent and the affected machine can be taken off-line immediately, so that a small problem dosen't affect every subsequent voter on that machine that day.

That's one of the main benefits of the concept.


...and you know better than to present an idea that hasn't been tried yet as bad simply because it hasn't been tried yet. C'mon.

How about because it's a stupid way to solve an extremely simple problem? Is that a good enough reason to present it as bad?

i like the idea of election day being a holiday... that way all the looser hippies that don't vote will really have no excuse. at least it will make it easier for those who DO vote. it will also make car-pooling, volunteering, etc., alot easier and much more do-able.

but felons voting? na', fuck them.