Communism
- Thread starter Full Metal Jacket
- Start date
- Status
Handy,
I have tried to argue to the contrary for a long time. But rather than talking myself into anything, it is simply based on what they do, and do not. Oppression is oppression, lying is lying, dead is dead, and murder is murder. If the show fits - they can wear it.
Whether or not you and I live in the same country - it is definately not the one I was born in.
I have tried to argue to the contrary for a long time. But rather than talking myself into anything, it is simply based on what they do, and do not. Oppression is oppression, lying is lying, dead is dead, and murder is murder. If the show fits - they can wear it.
Whether or not you and I live in the same country - it is definately not the one I was born in.
LAK,
The very definition of extremism is when you are unable to judge the constituent parts of a system in the light of the whole.
You live in a free country. You can say what you want, go where you want, do what you want and believe what you want. There are restrictions, as there have always been in every society. But confusing those restrictions with a culture that is restrictive in nature is sad.
You CURRENTLY have more freedoms than 99% of the people that have ever walked the earth. To hear you talk about this country as if your 'plight' compares to those who lived under Stalin breaks my heart.
Freedom in a society is ALWAYS a compromise. Please consider that as you vote, eat sushi, listen to Rage Against the Machine and read the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Want a truly free society? Find an island that you can live alone on. All the civil liberties you can handle before the malaria gets you.
The very definition of extremism is when you are unable to judge the constituent parts of a system in the light of the whole.
You live in a free country. You can say what you want, go where you want, do what you want and believe what you want. There are restrictions, as there have always been in every society. But confusing those restrictions with a culture that is restrictive in nature is sad.
You CURRENTLY have more freedoms than 99% of the people that have ever walked the earth. To hear you talk about this country as if your 'plight' compares to those who lived under Stalin breaks my heart.
Freedom in a society is ALWAYS a compromise. Please consider that as you vote, eat sushi, listen to Rage Against the Machine and read the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Want a truly free society? Find an island that you can live alone on. All the civil liberties you can handle before the malaria gets you.
Handy
When thousands of unidentified people can march across our border every day at a time of alleged national peril, suppress my standard of living, suppress my rights as a citizen, and I am subject to increased control and restrictions all sanctioned by the highest level of government then something is radically wrong. Not with me, and not "my views".
Of course we could have all taken John Ashcroft's own spoken words for it, right after the demolition of the WTC when he said; "You will lose your liberties" - emphasis his.
And this is not just about me; tell the families of the people who were murdered in Sudan by William Jefferson Clinton all about Stalin. Tell it to the families of the thousands of Serbians who were murdered so a drug army could run them out of a province in their own nation. Tell it to the dead and few surviving sailors of the USS Liberty. Send them all some Rage Against the Machine CDs, a copy each of the Anarchist Cookbook, and an invitation to a sushi bar. Why don't you roll them some foil party hats while you're at it.
This is not about a system - rather identifiable people in public office spanning a considerable period of time. Their actions and inactions; not some automated machine process whereby each part has no control over what they do and do not do.
There have always been restrictions of one sort of another in this country going back to it's beginning. But alongside a parallel perversion of certain Constitutional Articles and the Bill of Rights and rising taxation - we have had some fundemental rights eroded that were even recognized into the 19th century in Great Britain that go back to the Magna Carta. And certainly the road has been steeply downhill for the last 40 years or more.
This is not true; my own parents had a great deal more liberty than I currently enjoy in this country, and I have watched some being progressively degraded in my lifetime. Unlike a seemly increasing number of people I do not suffer from amnesia, and my attention span isn't limited to an election cycle or two.
When thousands of unidentified people can march across our border every day at a time of alleged national peril, suppress my standard of living, suppress my rights as a citizen, and I am subject to increased control and restrictions all sanctioned by the highest level of government then something is radically wrong. Not with me, and not "my views".
Of course we could have all taken John Ashcroft's own spoken words for it, right after the demolition of the WTC when he said; "You will lose your liberties" - emphasis his.
And this is not just about me; tell the families of the people who were murdered in Sudan by William Jefferson Clinton all about Stalin. Tell it to the families of the thousands of Serbians who were murdered so a drug army could run them out of a province in their own nation. Tell it to the dead and few surviving sailors of the USS Liberty. Send them all some Rage Against the Machine CDs, a copy each of the Anarchist Cookbook, and an invitation to a sushi bar. Why don't you roll them some foil party hats while you're at it.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
This is a dishonest representation of Ashcroft's words. Taking quotations out of context is a classic way that those with weak arguments twist facts to support their positions. I thought you were better than that, LAK.LAK said:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/2001/1206transcriptsenatejudiciarycommittee.htm
I'm no fan of the Patriot Act, but let's not stoop to the level of our adversaries just to make a point.
shootinstudent
New member
Your parents lived in a time when most racial minorities were denied the right to vote, and when forced sterilization for the mentally disabled was the law in some states.
Segregation, no adherence to the bill of rights, and in the past, criminal offenses didn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the state level.
That's more freedom than you have today? What freedoms exactly were you enjoying in the past that you don't have now?
Coltdriver
New member
In my opinion, a communist is a socialist willing to impose his belief system with a gun.
So, to the degree that we slide toward a more socialist state it is, again just my opinion, that at some point the enforcement of the socialist state begins to occur at the point of a gun.
Politics is all about power. Our Constitution was supposed to limit the ability of the Government to acquire power over the people.
That a third of our GDP is spent by the Federal Government was probably not in the original vision of the founding fathers.
You run afoul of the US Government, you will be met with the barrel of a gun at some point regardless of the law you have run afoul of.
So both parties are equally guilty. Until one of them begins calling for the repeal of socialist laws and un-constitutional impositions, they are indistinguishable from each other.
So, to the degree that we slide toward a more socialist state it is, again just my opinion, that at some point the enforcement of the socialist state begins to occur at the point of a gun.
Politics is all about power. Our Constitution was supposed to limit the ability of the Government to acquire power over the people.
That a third of our GDP is spent by the Federal Government was probably not in the original vision of the founding fathers.
You run afoul of the US Government, you will be met with the barrel of a gun at some point regardless of the law you have run afoul of.
So both parties are equally guilty. Until one of them begins calling for the repeal of socialist laws and un-constitutional impositions, they are indistinguishable from each other.
TheBluesMan
I have seen a great deal of material over the last decade or more that implies that the definition of "terrorist" might already be alittle broader than what Mr. Ashcroft states. References to "Christians" and other "groups" etc. This in organizational training material etc. If you look at the Southern Pharisee Law Center's material (an NGO, but one that seems to have the popular ear) things are even broader still. So when the highest levels of government issue such "policy" statements, in practice at the street level things might be alittle different.
Notice that he says "Since 1983 .... ". We can speculate on one thing, and bank on another. That is if, say in 2006 for example, the definition of a "terrorist" is changed to something broader, the last part of his statement will certainly not change.
We have a chipping away of what liberties we have left alongside a growing system of controls, restrictions, and an increasing inclination towards the legal precepts of foreign nations and institutions by these people. As I have pointed out before, in Europa you can already be jailed for what you say or write, and people are being jailed on counts of "inciting violence" for simply stating their beliefs.
The "Patriot" Act itself seems to be written in such a way that it is easier to say what is not a "terrorist act" than what is. At some stage, in practice, anyone that for example refuses to give a DNA sample, get their iris scanned or refuses to take a "mandatory" vaccine could suddenly find themselves a de facto "terrorist".
These same people have laid us wide open for another big event; they ought to re-name the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security something more like Open House USA. This while they have repeatedly warned us that another event is "inevitable" and might be more catastrophic than what occurred on 9/11/01.
In such a case, we can be sure that everything they have previously told us, they meant - along with whatever they decide to add on at the time. And that their "emergency management" plans will be the order of the day. There are no liberties or rights written into any of them.
Not really; one must look at the overall picture when weighing what these people say. And the overall picture here isn't very healthy.
I have seen a great deal of material over the last decade or more that implies that the definition of "terrorist" might already be alittle broader than what Mr. Ashcroft states. References to "Christians" and other "groups" etc. This in organizational training material etc. If you look at the Southern Pharisee Law Center's material (an NGO, but one that seems to have the popular ear) things are even broader still. So when the highest levels of government issue such "policy" statements, in practice at the street level things might be alittle different.
Notice that he says "Since 1983 .... ". We can speculate on one thing, and bank on another. That is if, say in 2006 for example, the definition of a "terrorist" is changed to something broader, the last part of his statement will certainly not change.
We have a chipping away of what liberties we have left alongside a growing system of controls, restrictions, and an increasing inclination towards the legal precepts of foreign nations and institutions by these people. As I have pointed out before, in Europa you can already be jailed for what you say or write, and people are being jailed on counts of "inciting violence" for simply stating their beliefs.
The "Patriot" Act itself seems to be written in such a way that it is easier to say what is not a "terrorist act" than what is. At some stage, in practice, anyone that for example refuses to give a DNA sample, get their iris scanned or refuses to take a "mandatory" vaccine could suddenly find themselves a de facto "terrorist".
These same people have laid us wide open for another big event; they ought to re-name the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security something more like Open House USA. This while they have repeatedly warned us that another event is "inevitable" and might be more catastrophic than what occurred on 9/11/01.
In such a case, we can be sure that everything they have previously told us, they meant - along with whatever they decide to add on at the time. And that their "emergency management" plans will be the order of the day. There are no liberties or rights written into any of them.
shootinstudent
"Most racial minorities"? I think you have that wrong; specifically who and at what date were they all suddenly "allowed to vote"?
But I can cite concrete and blatant examples like "civil forfeiture", Federal "gun control" laws that have been enacted, and a plethora of intrusions into private information; all sanctioned by law - both in the commercial and government realm. The public-private partnership.
If I had a few hours I could list a considerable number, especially if I had the resources and time to research it fully as a particular subject - I'd no doubt find have have even less liberty and rights than I am aware of now.
The applicability of the Bill of Rights is a subject in itself well trampled in a couple of other recent threads. But overall here you are implying that because some people may have had their rights violated at an earlier time, my parents did not have more than I have now - and it is ok to violate the rights of all of us at the present.
"Most racial minorities"? I think you have that wrong; specifically who and at what date were they all suddenly "allowed to vote"?
I did say degraded; and "freedom" is both an erroneous term and not applicable to the discussion. We are speaking of rights and liberty.
But I can cite concrete and blatant examples like "civil forfeiture", Federal "gun control" laws that have been enacted, and a plethora of intrusions into private information; all sanctioned by law - both in the commercial and government realm. The public-private partnership.
If I had a few hours I could list a considerable number, especially if I had the resources and time to research it fully as a particular subject - I'd no doubt find have have even less liberty and rights than I am aware of now.
LAK,
It seems to be great sport among people your age to look back on the fifties and admire the tranquility, ignoring, as people did then, everything that wasn't so tidy.
The fact that you pretend minorities had unlimited voting freedoms from the Lincoln administration on is evidence enough. You grew up in an era when lynchings were still common, police brutality politely ignored and people applauded the black lists they secretly feared. Truman and Eisenhower used American might to support European colonialism, and the citizens did nothing (until it was our war, too). Federal law enforcement agencies did whatever they wanted - acting more like the KGB than cops. There was no tolerance of anything outside the Cleaver family mold.
We have different laws, now. Some more restrictive; many that protect us from our protectors. We do not live in the forcibly homogenized society of 40 years ago - and thank God.
It seems to be great sport among people your age to look back on the fifties and admire the tranquility, ignoring, as people did then, everything that wasn't so tidy.
The fact that you pretend minorities had unlimited voting freedoms from the Lincoln administration on is evidence enough. You grew up in an era when lynchings were still common, police brutality politely ignored and people applauded the black lists they secretly feared. Truman and Eisenhower used American might to support European colonialism, and the citizens did nothing (until it was our war, too). Federal law enforcement agencies did whatever they wanted - acting more like the KGB than cops. There was no tolerance of anything outside the Cleaver family mold.
We have different laws, now. Some more restrictive; many that protect us from our protectors. We do not live in the forcibly homogenized society of 40 years ago - and thank God.
shootinstudent
New member
Handy, thanks for handling the minority vote issue. Wasn't until the 60's that those problems really started to change.
LAK,
Cite five such examples that are a direct violation of your rights, and tell me what right is violated, or how much money it costs you personally.
LAK,
Cite five such examples that are a direct violation of your rights, and tell me what right is violated, or how much money it costs you personally.
Handy
shootinstudent
How much money, time and your current physical health will you lose next time you get robbed?
Anyway, here are five starters for you.
One must have Federal clearance - permission - only gained through providing personal information to the Federal government in the form of a "background check" and on a form 4473 to purchase a firearm from a local commercial dealer. This is a violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
One must personally pay a particular Federal tax in order to purchase and possess certain firearms, and a special Federal register is kept of persons purchasing, possessing or transferring such firearms - a violation of the 2nd and the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Civil forfeiture. Property can be seized without an accusation or charge against the owner of that property that he or she committed an actual specified crime - 4th Amendment. And before a citizen of this country can be deprived of their property, there must be due process. In the case of civil forfeiture, the owner of the property must seek due process in order to regain their property, and in that process "prove" that their property (or money) was not used or derived in a "crime". Something like saying "prove that your pen has never been used to write a four-letter word".
One can not discuss political subjects at their church. This is contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Under the current sanction of the law and government of the United States; ones personal information such as financial records, transactions, certain property ownership, and other information is held and distributed between government and private commercial entities. A violation of the 4th Amendment.
Private property in the form of real estate can be seized under perversions of "eminent domain"; the underpinning justifications these days which have been reduced to things like the "compelling need of the public good". Which can mean to build a private commercial shopping mall or other private business enterprize. Violation of the 4th - simply depriving one private person or persons of their property and passing right to it to another private person or persons.
And as I stated to shootinstudent, whatever injustices existed in the 1950s that do not exist now have not one thing to do with the many injustices introduced since that time.
That is not what I said, or even implied. But shootinstudent is in error in his statement - and hence my question of specifics to him in this regard.
shootinstudent
With which minorities?
"How much money it costs [me] personally" is not the issue. Rights and liberty apply to everyone in this country, and whether or not I myself have suffered a particular monetary loss past or present is not the issue. Often the costs to people that have had their rights and liberty stomped on are greater than money alone.
How much money, time and your current physical health will you lose next time you get robbed?
Anyway, here are five starters for you.
One must have Federal clearance - permission - only gained through providing personal information to the Federal government in the form of a "background check" and on a form 4473 to purchase a firearm from a local commercial dealer. This is a violation of the 2nd and 4th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
One must personally pay a particular Federal tax in order to purchase and possess certain firearms, and a special Federal register is kept of persons purchasing, possessing or transferring such firearms - a violation of the 2nd and the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Civil forfeiture. Property can be seized without an accusation or charge against the owner of that property that he or she committed an actual specified crime - 4th Amendment. And before a citizen of this country can be deprived of their property, there must be due process. In the case of civil forfeiture, the owner of the property must seek due process in order to regain their property, and in that process "prove" that their property (or money) was not used or derived in a "crime". Something like saying "prove that your pen has never been used to write a four-letter word".
One can not discuss political subjects at their church. This is contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Under the current sanction of the law and government of the United States; ones personal information such as financial records, transactions, certain property ownership, and other information is held and distributed between government and private commercial entities. A violation of the 4th Amendment.
Private property in the form of real estate can be seized under perversions of "eminent domain"; the underpinning justifications these days which have been reduced to things like the "compelling need of the public good". Which can mean to build a private commercial shopping mall or other private business enterprize. Violation of the 4th - simply depriving one private person or persons of their property and passing right to it to another private person or persons.
Lak,
Most of that is alot older than you. Gun control and emminent domain most particularly. The machine gun stuff goes back to 1934.
Even the GCA of '68, while limiting YOUR ability to buy guns, also codified the purchase requirements on a federal level. Before, states could have their own criteria, such as land ownership or race, to allow this right to go on.
And I'd like to see what law refers to discussing politics in church.
Most of that is alot older than you. Gun control and emminent domain most particularly. The machine gun stuff goes back to 1934.
Even the GCA of '68, while limiting YOUR ability to buy guns, also codified the purchase requirements on a federal level. Before, states could have their own criteria, such as land ownership or race, to allow this right to go on.
And I'd like to see what law refers to discussing politics in church.
shootinstudent
New member
LAK,
once again, handy has the issue of the law down pat. You cited grievances that, if true, would attach to every state government at the time of the constitution's adoption.
As for firearms rights, the bill of rights only binds the federal government. No 14th amendment ruling has ever incorporated the second amendment. So I'm not sure how things are different now. The only real difference is that in the past, gun control legislation wasn't easily passed. Now it is more easily passed.
To answer your question on minorities:
Blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and jews, and, depending on the state, poor whites from the south.
All of those groups were routinely denied basic civil rights.
Do you have any examples maybe of a right that has only been taken away in your lifetime?
once again, handy has the issue of the law down pat. You cited grievances that, if true, would attach to every state government at the time of the constitution's adoption.
As for firearms rights, the bill of rights only binds the federal government. No 14th amendment ruling has ever incorporated the second amendment. So I'm not sure how things are different now. The only real difference is that in the past, gun control legislation wasn't easily passed. Now it is more easily passed.
To answer your question on minorities:
Blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and jews, and, depending on the state, poor whites from the south.
All of those groups were routinely denied basic civil rights.
Do you have any examples maybe of a right that has only been taken away in your lifetime?
It sounds to me like he is screaming WOLF!!!
Russia/Communism was "The Union of Soviet SOCIALEST Republics.
The Decocratic Party has transformed it's self into
"The American Democratic Socialest Party".
Think about this:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
*Norman Thomas {1884-1968 American Socialist Party Leader}
Russia/Communism was "The Union of Soviet SOCIALEST Republics.
The Decocratic Party has transformed it's self into
"The American Democratic Socialest Party".
Think about this:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.
*Norman Thomas {1884-1968 American Socialist Party Leader}
Handy and shootinstudent,
I already cited examples in my lifetime, and those of my parents. Eminent domain and civil forfeiture have been warped and stretched far beyond anything I can recall even twenty years ago, let alone what my parents would have to say about it.
Indeed, the Federal controls and records around the GCA have nothing to to do with the laws of States - and the 2nd Amendment binds the Federal government; hence the GCA as it applies to private citizens, keeping private information and a de facto nationwide register is a blatant infringement of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
You two are in blatant denial or oblivion, I am not sure which.
Cover what are deemed "political" subjects in your local church, and you'll lose your Section 502 tax-exempt status.
shootinstudent,
"Poor whites" were a group of "minorities"? Give me a break. Tell us when each group you name did not have the right to vote by staute, and when each group was given the right by statute.
I already cited examples in my lifetime, and those of my parents. Eminent domain and civil forfeiture have been warped and stretched far beyond anything I can recall even twenty years ago, let alone what my parents would have to say about it.
Indeed, the Federal controls and records around the GCA have nothing to to do with the laws of States - and the 2nd Amendment binds the Federal government; hence the GCA as it applies to private citizens, keeping private information and a de facto nationwide register is a blatant infringement of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
You two are in blatant denial or oblivion, I am not sure which.
Cover what are deemed "political" subjects in your local church, and you'll lose your Section 502 tax-exempt status.
shootinstudent,
"Poor whites" were a group of "minorities"? Give me a break. Tell us when each group you name did not have the right to vote by staute, and when each group was given the right by statute.
shootinstudent
New member
LAK,
Statutes are mixed in with these cases, but it's not always a statutory denial of the right. States got wise to the game early on after the civil war, and passed legislation that was enforced to bar rights to unpopular groups without mentioning them. I think you know this, which is why you demand a statute for each example of a rights violation. I'm giving you the cases that deal with rights violation by statutes that had discriminatory purposes, or suits involving state/private violations of rights:
1941: Poor whites can't be barred from California. Edwards v. California.
1954: "Separate but equal" is finally shot down for the farce that it was. Brown v. Board of Education.
1965: Civil rights act. Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans get the right to vote guaranteed. (The act is passed after the Selma march, where black protesters are beaten, shot, and have the dogs loosed on them by police.)
1966: Discriminatory "Literacy" tests and "grandfather clauses" in voter qualifications are finally outlawed. South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1967: Blacks and whites get the right to marry each other. Loving v. Virginia.
1968: Jury trial mandated for serious criminal punishment. Before this, states could send you to jail without a jury trial. Duncan v. Louisiana.
1985: Stripping voting rights for "moral turpitude" crimes is prohibited. Hunter v. Underwood.
1987: Jews and Arabs are guaranteed protection under the civil rights act of 1968. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji.
Given what I've listed above, the "good old days" sure don't seem so good anymore, do they? Do you not find it outrageous that you could be sentenced to prison time without a jury trial? Or that states were trying to bar citizens of other states from crossing the border, a blatant constitutional violation?
Now that I have taken the time to answer this question property, LAK, I'd like for you to cite a right that you had previously which has now been violated.
Statutes are mixed in with these cases, but it's not always a statutory denial of the right. States got wise to the game early on after the civil war, and passed legislation that was enforced to bar rights to unpopular groups without mentioning them. I think you know this, which is why you demand a statute for each example of a rights violation. I'm giving you the cases that deal with rights violation by statutes that had discriminatory purposes, or suits involving state/private violations of rights:
1941: Poor whites can't be barred from California. Edwards v. California.
1954: "Separate but equal" is finally shot down for the farce that it was. Brown v. Board of Education.
1965: Civil rights act. Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans get the right to vote guaranteed. (The act is passed after the Selma march, where black protesters are beaten, shot, and have the dogs loosed on them by police.)
1966: Discriminatory "Literacy" tests and "grandfather clauses" in voter qualifications are finally outlawed. South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1967: Blacks and whites get the right to marry each other. Loving v. Virginia.
1968: Jury trial mandated for serious criminal punishment. Before this, states could send you to jail without a jury trial. Duncan v. Louisiana.
1985: Stripping voting rights for "moral turpitude" crimes is prohibited. Hunter v. Underwood.
1987: Jews and Arabs are guaranteed protection under the civil rights act of 1968. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji.
Given what I've listed above, the "good old days" sure don't seem so good anymore, do they? Do you not find it outrageous that you could be sentenced to prison time without a jury trial? Or that states were trying to bar citizens of other states from crossing the border, a blatant constitutional violation?
Now that I have taken the time to answer this question property, LAK, I'd like for you to cite a right that you had previously which has now been violated.
shootinstudent
You left out the 24th Amendment of 1962 - ratified 1964 - which prohibits a poll (or other) tax as a prerequisite to voting in Federal elections (which was no doubt used as a discriminatory tool at some time or other);
"Section. 1. 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."
Talking of beatings, gassing and dogs; there was alot of that at the WTO/GATT protests in Seattle awhile back. How about the recent RNC? I have fairly recent film footage of a guy being chewed up by a dog with about a half dozen stormtroopers around him with guns pointed at him.
The Civil Rights Act was not passed for "minorities" - it supposed to be a measure to protect everyone.
In 1966 the SCOTUS also invoked the 14th Amendment against States using poll taxes as a requirement to vote.
If you want to dig up the past in an objective manner, let's ask why criminals like William Jefferson Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush - to name just two - are still walking around as free men.
Now we are getting somewhere. We have had "discriminatory" statutes from the founding of this country, many which no doubt continue up to the present. They are probably more subtle than openly direct obstacles based on race, sex, creed etc.
What does this have to do with "minorities" and voting rights? Can "poor whites" live in Beverly Hills today? How about in Martha's Vineyard? What about on the adjacent property to Maurice Strong's ranch in Colorado? Or Ted Turner's private hunting preserve - the one that's about the size of the State of Delaware? What about homesteading on Federal land, any obstacles in the way of "poor people" to claiming land and building their own home these days?
Nothing to do with "minorities" and the right to vote.
You left out the 24th Amendment of 1962 - ratified 1964 - which prohibits a poll (or other) tax as a prerequisite to voting in Federal elections (which was no doubt used as a discriminatory tool at some time or other);
"Section. 1. 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."
Native Americans born in the United States had the right to vote in 1924. And I'll bet the farm that there were other "minority" U.S. citizens that were voting prior to 1965 as well.
Talking of beatings, gassing and dogs; there was alot of that at the WTO/GATT protests in Seattle awhile back. How about the recent RNC? I have fairly recent film footage of a guy being chewed up by a dog with about a half dozen stormtroopers around him with guns pointed at him.
The Civil Rights Act was not passed for "minorities" - it supposed to be a measure to protect everyone.
Literacy tests might be a good idea; how can someone cast an objective vote if they can not speak, read, and understand our national language?
In 1966 the SCOTUS also invoked the 14th Amendment against States using poll taxes as a requirement to vote.
This another "minorities" voting issue? Can you currently marry without permission from the State - a marriage license - in your State?
Depends on what you call "serious criminal punishment", but some States have the right to a jury trial written into their constitutions.
Is "income tax evasion" that results in a prison term of more than one year a "crime of moral turpitude"? How about "possession of a controlled substance"? How about "possession of a [firearm under the NFA] without having paid the $200 tax and obtained permission"? Will those cost you your right to vote?
No one had challenged the CRA trying to say that "it did not apply to Persians". The issue was whether Al-Khazraji could prove he had in fact been discriminated against. Al-Khazraji was unable to prove his case.
I fail to see your point. As I have already stated, the injustices of the past do not have anything to do with those of the present. Some of those past were not necessarily statutary, rather basic corruption and individual discrimination. This sort of thing continues today and simply takes different forms. I have friends in foreign countries who would no doubt like to apply for a lottery visa to live here - but they are the wrong race and nationality.
No point in trying to communicate with a cassette player. I already listed five, and I could dig up plenty more. The past legal injustices that have been righted are over. It is the present erosion and violation of liberties and rights that are the issue.
If you want to dig up the past in an objective manner, let's ask why criminals like William Jefferson Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush - to name just two - are still walking around as free men.
- Status