Florida high court sides with governor on felon voter rights

[AliHajiSheik]

I know, I know, reading is hard. :lol: Maybe if you keep reading the phrase over and over again, you just might finally get it.

Repeat it to yourself: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote"

Keep ducking:

"Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right."

 

[Phys251]

Keep ducking:

"Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right."

Okay, fine, let's follow your deliberate denial to its logical conclusion: By your reasoning, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Okay, fine, let's follow your deliberate denial to its logical conclusion: By your reasoning, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

Keep ducking:

"Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right."

Do try to stay on topic.

 

[Phys251]

Keep ducking:

"Shame you aren’t clear on an explicit right and an implied right."

Do try to stay on topic.

You want to try to talk down to me after you deliberately and intentionally a right that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution four times? :lol:
Please proceed. Your attitude is pure comedy now. :lamo

 

[AliHajiSheik]

You want to try to talk down to me after you deliberately and intentionally a right that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution four times? :lol:
Please proceed. Your attitude is pure comedy now. :lamo

Your point was already address and you continue to ignore mine and my friends at Fairvote.org.

You have presented partial quotes from the Constitution. You have contributed nothing and have ignored questions you don't like.

I'll have no further use for you on this subject.

 

[Phys251]

Your point was already address and you continue to ignore mine and my friends at Fairvote.org.

You have presented partial quotes from the Constitution. You have contributed nothing and have ignored questions you don't like.

I'll have no further use for you on this subject.

I accept your surrender. Do try to take advantage of basic reading comprehension and dictionary skills next time. It would help you embarrass yourself a lot less.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You left out this clause of the 14th Amendment: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property”. As for the rest of the Amendment, it mentions privileges not rights. I think that is the central conflict in this thread. I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said "it might".

I can make out an arguable case either way.

PS - The full wording is "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." (emphasis added).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

No ****. Now tell me exactly why the multiple-times-repeated phrase in the United States Constitution "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" does not mean "the right of citizens of the United States to vote."

Because the phrase does not stop there and continued (paraphrased) "shall not be denied for reason of _[fill in the blank]_.".

As I, and others, have pointed out to you multiple times, by the mere fact of listing a factor upon which the right to vote MAY NOT be denied, the rules of legal interpretation provide that there are other (not mentioned) factors on which the right to vote MAY be denied.

Two people have already tried that here and failed miserably. Would you like to be the third?

Indeed, when the mind is closed it is very difficult to pound knowledge into it.

I have absolutely no hope that you will actually listen to facts on this point and am absolutely confident that you will not listen to the facts simply because you don't want to hear them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Okay, fine, let's follow your deliberate denial to its logical conclusion: By your reasoning, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

If I gave you an honest appraisal of that post I'd get nastygrams from the moderators.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

As I said "it might".

I can make out an arguable case either way.

Yes you did. It is unfortunate that some people are ill equipped to have a non-emotional discussion about what the Constitution says and doesn't say. Oh well, takes all kinds.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes you did. It is unfortunate that some people are ill equipped to have a non-emotional discussion about what the Constitution says and doesn't say. Oh well, takes all kinds.

I definitely agree that "hasn't read the law and/or hasn't comprehended the law and/or wants to ignore the reality of what the law is and/or doesn't know the rules of legal interpretation" does have a tendency to make someone slightly ill equipped to discuss what the law actually is and what the law actually means.

I mean IF the rules of admission to the arena are:

1. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the colour of hair;
   *
2. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the colour of eyes;
   *
   and
   *
3. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the presence of BO;
   *
   THEN the ONLY logical conclusion is that
   *
4. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis that no ticket to the event has been purchased;

after all, the three printed rules all contain the words "The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused" - right?

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I definitely agree that "hasn't read the law and/or hasn't comprehended the law and/or wants to ignore the reality of what the law is and/or doesn't know the rules of legal interpretation" does have a tendency to make someone slightly ill equipped to discuss what the law actually is and what the law actually means.

I mean IF the rules of admission to the arena are:

1. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the colour of hair;
   *
2. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the colour of eyes;
   *
   and
   *
3. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis of the presence of BO;
   *
   THEN the ONLY logical conclusion is that
   *
4. The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused on the basis that no ticket to the event has been purchased;

after all, the three printed rules all contain the words "The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused" - right?

When one stops reading at this "The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused..." they totally miss your point, and of course, the gaps in the explicit language of the Constitution.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When one stops reading at this "The right of admission to the arena shall not be refused..." they totally miss your point, and of course, the gaps in the explicit language of the Constitution.

Which, of course, it the point that both you and I have been attempting to get across.

I just thought that coming up with an absolute parallel (especially one that is so silly that no one with more than 10 functioning brain cells could miss the point) might help.

[ASIDE - The current odds are 9 for 10 that it won't.]

 

[Deuce]

I mean, if you determine that the definition of "rights" is something that is absolute and can never be abridged in any way, then you're naturally going to conclude there is no such thing as a right. It's not a terribly useful basis for discussion.

 

[iguanaman]

Actually it isn't a poll tax and yes voting is a right until you can lose that right.
in order to get that right back all debts have to be paid.

which means paying your fines.
that is not a poll tax.

So if you owe back taxes or on your credit card you should not be able to vote? That is a poll tax.

 

[ludin]

So if you owe back taxes or on your credit card you should not be able to vote? That is a poll tax.

show me where that is a law?
show me where i said that.

 

[ludin]

Yes you did. It is unfortunate that some people are ill equipped to have a non-emotional discussion about what the Constitution says and doesn't say. Oh well, takes all kinds.

you have to remember every argument made from the left involves some kind of appeal to emotion fallacy.

 

[bradt99]

Only U.S. citizens should vote, not illegals. So, I don't get the problem liberals have with this ruling?

 

[Deuce]

you have to remember every argument made from the left involves some kind of appeal to emotion fallacy.

Also: "Those LIBERALS are just so MEAN to Trump *sniffle*"

 

[Deuce]

Only U.S. citizens should vote, not illegals. So, I don't get the problem liberals have with this ruling?

The imaginary liberals in your head are objecting to an imaginary ruling in your head? For shame!

 

[ludin]

Also: "Those LIBERALS are just so MEAN to Trump *sniffle*"

did you say something? nope didn't think so.

 

[Deuce]

did you say something? nope didn't think so.

No, I wrote words on a message board. Do you say the words you write here... out loud? I thought that's something they only did on television or in movies, so that the audience would know what was being written.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I mean, if you determine that the definition of "rights" is something that is absolute and can never be abridged in any way, then you're naturally going to conclude there is no such thing as a right. It's not a terribly useful basis for discussion.

Unfortunately simply calling something a "right" (especially when it is conditional) REALLY confuses the discussion.

There are other (admittedly longer and more complex) terms that more accurately describe what a lot of people (sloppily) describe as "rights" but which are actually conditional. "Conditional freedoms", "fundamental freedoms", and "essential social conditions" are but three of them.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

you have to remember every argument made from the left involves some kind of appeal to emotion fallacy.

While I don' take strenuous objection to "(Almost) every argument made from the (American) (L)eft involves some kind of appeal to emotion(al) fallacy." it is also (generally) that "Almost every argument made from the American _Right_ involves some kind of appeal to emotional fallacy.".

It is also true that "The American Left" is, in general (and as far as any effective political clout is concerned) on the "right" side of the political spectrum is you consider the entire political spectrum including countries other than the United States of America.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Only U.S. citizens should vote, not illegals. So, I don't get the problem liberals have with this ruling?

Are you taking the position that no felons are US citizens?

If you aren't then your comment makes no sense whatsoever.