TexasCHLforum.com

Voter ID is desired to address/prevent problems we Texans see else where in our country as well as in our state. Those that oppose with out a viable alternative solution, just crying "discrimination" and "voter suppression" know there is a growing problem and want it because they are using this gaping hole in our system to their benefit.

Oehamilton wrote:Voter ID is desired to address/prevent problems we Texans see else where in our country as well as in our state. Those that oppose with out a viable alternative solution, just crying "discrimination" and "voter suppression" know there is a growing problem and want it because they are using this gaping hole in our system to their benefit.

Right. That is what, "we Texans" (except for me, please) want to address/prevent problems we see.

I have honestly tried to discuss this question reasonably, with broad vocal support from but one other member, but it is apparent now that at least most of the other commentators simply refuse to be influenced by the facts. The old "Don't confuse me with the facts" routine does not work here.

"We Texans" are seeing a ghost -- it is not there. "We Texans" are not the ones to make this decision. After Texas proved to the rest of the country so many times that it intended to discriminate against certain classes of persons, the Congress of the United States in 1965 decided that henceforth the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would make that decision before a state's voting procedure could be changed if the Justice Department did not approve the change.

That court was the first of 10 federal district and appellate courts before which I have been honored to have been admitted to practice, one year after the enactment of the Voting Rights Act -- and that is not counting state courts.

As long as Texans continue refuse to accept the facts, and just whine, the Texas voting law will stay the way it is, and a new discriminatory practice will not be permitted by the federal government -- authority it was given by the 15th Amendment to our Constitution in 1870 after a horrible Civil War in fact decided the question. Many states got away with discriminatory voting laws for 95 years between the 15th Amendment and the 1965 Act, until the representatives of the nation at large said, "That is enough. 95 years is long enough. We will not stand for it any more. If you refuse to put your own house in order we will do it for you."

Now complain about this statement of mine. I must be a "Liberal," believing in the right of minorities of all kinds to be able to vote without artificial impediments enacted by a state for but one reason -- to prevent them from voting. To take it one step further, there are those of us who are convinced that the authors of SB14 knew that those who would be so impeded were more likely to vote for Democrats than for Republicans. I suspect the recent national election proved them to be correct, nationwide.

The District Court found no history of the "ghost" of voter fraud created out of whole cloth by the Texas legislature. It found that in fact SB14 would create an impediment to some persons when it came time to vote. The Texas AG could not meet his burden of proof, because his client, the state of Texas, would not let him.

Earlier I suggested some ways for Texas to solve this problem. Some others have also suggested ways.

The Republican Party of the State of Texas, in its platform for 2012, proposed the repeal of the '65 act. To quote the platform, "Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized." http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-r ... ct-of-1965" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Governor Perry has also complained about the act, and supports the state Republican Party platform, as it addresses the act. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2 ... 32455.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Representative Todd Akin, of Missouri, while an unsuccessful candidate for the Senate, just may have single-handedly reelected President Obama by way of his loose mouth, mainly about the rights of women. He also was a distinguished politician who recommended repealing the '65 act. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At least the Texas Republican Party, Governor Perry, and Todd Akin went further than just whining. They recommended concrete action to accomplish their goal. I, personally, am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen. As Ann Coulter is today reported having said, "We lost the election!" Regardless of what one may think about Ann Coulter, she got her facts right this time. To be just a little more frank, one might also say we lost the Civil War.

I predict that if those who are disappointed by the recent national election simply sit back and continue to bitch and moan to each other, without becoming politically active and effective, they will see a similar outcome in 2016. I can only hope and pray that I will live long enough to see the results of that election, as I will have broken the four-score mark by then.

Jim

If it's wrong for Texas to require ID to vote, then it's wrong for the ATF to require ID to buy a gun from a FFL.

At this point, we are in a special scenario.

The citizenship and voter rights of a person cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily unbiased certainty. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of a citizen and not a citizen. To measure a citizen while in a voting box would kill citizens voter rights.

We know of voter fraud theory, of course, but We feel discouraged, not to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental liberalism, which appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualisability with out measuring the voter.

The notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally new in liberalism. In liberalism, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of this country: certain facts are no longer objectifiable in liberalism. If in an exact science, such as liberalism, the outcome of an experiment depends on the view of the observer, then what does this imply for other fields of human knowledge? It would seem that in any faculty of human nature, there are different interpretations of the same phenomena. More often than occasionally, these interpretations are in conflict with each other. Does this mean that ultimate truth is unknowable?

"One cannot observe the voter citizenship inside the voter box. [...] but since it is reasonable to consider only those quantities in a theory that can be measured, it seemed natural to me to introduce them only as entities, as representatives of voter citizenship, so to speak."

"But you don't seriously believe that only observable quantities should be considered in a voter fraud theory?"

"I thought this was the very idea that your Conservative Theory is based on?"

"Perhaps I used this kind of reasoning, but it is nonsense nevertheless. [...] In reality the opposite is true: only the theory decides what can be observed."

Why do we have to register to vote?

bizarrenormality wrote:If it's wrong for Texas to require ID to vote, then it's wrong for the ATF to require ID to buy a gun from a FFL.

It is only wrong for Texas to require ID to vote when the requirement unlawfully discriminates against certain persons.

I would submit that the ATF is subject to a similar, but different, constitutional restraint when it requires a license to carry out a transaction.

Jim

Would you support voter registration requirements that parallel the CHL requirements? Same fees and background checks, a class to renew, etc? Obviously the class content would be different, but you have to carry the plastic to exercise your rights.

Logic and common sense say that reasonable restrictions for one constitutional right are reasonable restrictions for any constitutional rights. Or look at it from the other if you wish. If it's an unreasonable restriction for voting, it's also an unreasonable restriction for keeping and bearing arms. Have we forgotten Dred Scott v. Sandford now?



.

One could argue that the fee and price of a fun keeps the poor from obtaining a CHL and this is discriminatory.

It should be free and we should give everyone that wants a CHL and passes.

57Coastie wrote: This may get you some enemies, C-dub, but I must compliment your approach here. You ask very good questions, and politely, and I will try to answer them politely.

Texas has a burden under federal law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, (and the 15th Amendment, BTW), that a few other states also have, but which many states do not have, because of its demonstrated historic discriminatory practices to inhibit voting by minorities. Only one example: the poll tax. The U. S. Congress required Texas to prove to the U. S. Department of Justice that SB-14 would not have that discriminatory effect, because Texas has a lousy record in the past, and, frankly, could therefore not be trusted. It should be noted here that in the latest case Texas not only failed to prove it but it was affirmatively found that SB-14 would in fact have that discriminatory effect.

Now an opinion: the Texas Attorney General did not show the absence of a discriminatory effect because it was not possible for him to do so -- it was not bad lawyering by the AG, it was the fault of his client, the state of Texas.

How do you prove a negative? It was easy for the federal AG to show a "positive" in this case, and he showed in addition that, without any effective rebuttal by the state, that there was no substantial record of fraudulent voting in Texas, the alleged (and quite arguably dishonest) basis for SB-14.

Look at it from a different direction. The federal government did not, under the Voting Rights Act, have to prove that SB-14 would be discriminatory in effect. Yet the federal government did prove that. One cannot prove the negative when the positive has been proved.

How do other states do it? They cleaned up their record through the years, and they do not go to Washington making claims they cannot prove.

I do hope this helps.

Jim

Thanks Jim.

I guess I didn't get enough out of it. I didn't get that they proved it was discriminatory. So, if we modeled our law after or wrote it word for word what one of the "honorable" northern states it would pass muster? Some how I even have my doubts about that as long as the Dems have control of the US Attorney's office.

Crossfire wrote:What does any of this have to do with DPS in Palo Pinto county? This is about the worst case of thread drift I have ever seen!

longtooth wrote:

How about taking the suggestion of the Moderators?

10. Do not hijack threads. If a post gives you an idea for a new or different discussion, start a new thread.

longtooth wrote:I am REALLY glad to see this getting back to some discussion of the original topic. Sure would apreciate it if it stayed close from now on. Thanks folks.

Yall were doing so good on the previous page.
Lets either get this back on topic or cause 2 of us are getting wore out having to watch it.

Sorry about that. I had to go back and read through the whole thread to find out what happened. I was on back on page 7, but got distracted by a question on page 8. I'm done with that. I'll go to my room now.

So, what's next? Nothing? Just sit back and enjoy the descriminatory assumption that People with a CHL are thieves and let them run our serial numbers hoping to catch us in all our evil thieving ways?

Oehamilton wrote:So, what's next? Nothing? Just sit back and enjoy the descriminatory assumption that People with a CHL are thieves and let them run our serial numbers hoping to catch us in all our evil thieving ways?

And to add...
if with NO PC or RS your gun (item) can be considered possibly stolen, taken from you while you are detained (for an unrelated violation) the gun checked against whatever database the LEO is using to determine stolen property..

What else?
Can the LEO take my watch (that is on my wrist and in plain view) detain me and run it for stolen property check?

How about the Tires and wheels on my Shelby, an often stolen item. Can the LEO extend my detention (in addition to the traffic stop I was pulled over for) detain me further and "run" those numbers?.. They too are in plain sight..

The list goes on, that a LEO could confiscate from me, items in plain sight while being detained for a traffic infraction.... Where is the line? Is there a line?

Going by what many here believe,, If detained in a traffic stop, for a traffic infraction, any item in plain sight, even if it has NOTHING to do with the reason for the stop, the alleged infraction, or clear and obvious or likely evidence of a crime committed (bloody knife, bag of suspected drugs, crack pipe, car stereo with torn out wires), can be confiscated and checked against stolen property data bases.. Is that the common understanding of what is available to a LEO under current laws?