JT wrote: "This is still under investigation and there are new revelations every day."
Really? Every single "revelation" has been trounced by the testimony that only proves that at worst, there was an organized instance of ineptness by agents charged with verifying how political, political groups were, when applying for consideration for tax-exempt status.
"When the opportune moment arrives they will drop it on Obama and it won't be on a Friday afternoon."
You're nothing, if not a dreamer.
"If you want a real example of “why people lose confidence in their institutions” then the fact that Holder, our chief law enforcement official lied under oath is a prime example."
When Eric Holder is charged, prosecuted, and convicted for lying under oath, let's discuss it. Until then, your opinion is just that...an opinion.
"That is much more damaging than the pointing out of the IRS’s and the Obama administration’s malfeasance in this debacle."
I'm so sorry to inform you, but no one has accused the President, or anyone whom he hired, of any wrongdoing. So far, those who have been let go, or whom have voluntarily resigned, were Bush appointees.
"Although that is way up there on the Holy $^%# list."
How 'bout I go on the record, and state that there will never be anyone even close to Obama touched by any of this.
Your list is a wish list. Crap in one hand and wish in the other. See which one is filled first.
rick1 wrote: "In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the Court decided the 600,000 or so (mostly black) residents of Washington D.C. have no legal recourse for their complete lack of voting representation in Congress (they have one “representative” in the House who can speak, but cannot vote)."
Sir...who is referring to Congressional representation? You're intentionally muddying the waters and addressing an issue that has not even been raised.
"The Court affirmed the district court’s interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” And it’s state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is “qualified.”..."
Washington D.C. has not been made a state, yet.
The case you cite above had nothing to do with the right of individual citizens to vote.
It is uniform throughout the United States, in the year 2013, that all law abiding citizens over the age of 18, with no felony convictions in their past, are qualified to be extended the right to cast their votes in all 50 of their respective, statewide elections.
"As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments."
You Sir, are in complete denial of five references that clearly dictate that voting is a right, NOT to be taken away by the states, without lawful exception.
"Just months after the Alexander decision, a 5-4 Court majority in Bush v. Gore denied Florida citizens a right to ensure their votes were counted, saying “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote [for presidential electors]."
As unfortunate as that ruling was, and it was very unfortunate, the 14th Amendment specifically uses the words "right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President," so it appears that the ruling was an egregious error, although binding because it was handed down by the highest court in the land and we are to abide by it.
It was not the first time in history that the Supreme Court Justices made an error, and that one was a blatant and provable error.
rick1, you're a reasonable man.
How can you deny what is written in those five Amendments? They aren't mistakes or illusions. The wording in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants the states to deny the right to vote only in cases of a criminal conviction or rebellion, which is defined as: open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government.
The exact wording in those five Constitutional Amendments are as binding as the original body of the Constitution itself.
14th Amendment - "...But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime..."
15th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
19th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
24th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
26th Amendment - "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
Five times. Not one passing remark that might have been a clerical error. The words could not be any clearer. So long as one has no criminal record, is a rebel, and continues to live and breathe, there is a written, implied right to vote in five Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America for each and every citizen, for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature.
JT wrote: "I'm fairly sure I have already been kind enough."
Yeah, I guess you were, but you offered the loaded statement as if there was more on your mind.
Maybe one day you will surprise me.
JT wrote: "If states reversed themselves would you have a valid claim that your Constitutional rights are being violated? If not did you really have that right to start with?"
If the day ever comes that any state refuses to hold a statewide election, then get back to me. Until then, voters that meet the qualifications in their state of residence, have a RIGHT to appear at an assigned polling location and a very reasonable expectation that they will be allowed to cast their votes.
You just love to argue hypothetical scenarios all the time.
JT wrote: "It is perfectly legal for states to purge the voter rolls or disenfranchises certain groups."
Would you be so kind as to give some examples of "groups" that it is perfectly legal to purge or to disenfranchise from the voter rolls?
PT wrote: "Jt: Don't argue with Easy. He's an L-1 at an online law school."
Wherever Easy gets his education, which does appear to be extensive, he is 100% correct on this one.
Like it or not, the Constitutional Amendments refer five times to a right to vote. Any argument offered that this right is only extended IF states hold statewide elections is a rather moot point, since it appears that all states have held statewide elections for at least the last 150 years, if not longer.
JT wrote: "And you bought that?"
Hey...she swore to tell the truth and that is her truth.
"If true, should a person that unaware be trusted to be an employee at the IRS much less a position of authority? Maybe that’s why they though they could get away with this routine."
Ma'am, the only proof to what went on is contained in the testimony. It's certainly not my fault that the testimony is not living up to the claims that Darrell Issa promised it would.
The IRS is making these fist-pounding Republicans look like boobs of the highest order.
Sorry dear. Quoting a USA Today article that obviously was written a month ago is not proof that any law was violated.
Cite the specific law(s) that were violated. You're smart enough to figure out how to read coded law, aren't you?
It is the duty of the IRS to delve into whether or not those groups were engaged in political activity, and the names of those groups were the first clue that they might be.
You can argue that it raised red flags before they were supposed to be raised, and there is now evidence to suggest that there were some very inept agents doing those evaluations, but there was absolutely no law whatsoever broken, and those delays are proving to be totally unintentional.
Here's my evidence. Where is yours?