Results 11 to 20 of 20
Thread: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
-
- Join Date
- 05-13-09
- Location
- Arizona
- Posts
- 6,117
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 3
10-21-09, 10:24 PM #11Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
Originally Posted by Consultant
Well I guess this means me and my conservative buddies are off to beat my slave workers, torment homeless people, lay out six pack plastic rings in the forest for little animals to get caught in, and go throw rocks at people I don't like...
-
10-21-09, 10:31 PM #12
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
-
10-21-09, 10:53 PM #13
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
Originally Posted by Hitch
-
-
10-24-09, 09:50 AM #15
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
Originally Posted by rock_lobster
Just an idea!
Hitch“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
>>> William F. Buckley, Jr. <<<
-
10-24-09, 09:59 AM #16
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
Originally Posted by Hitch
Call me unpatriotic, or whatever you want for not voting -- but our system if FUCKED
-
10-24-09, 10:18 AM #17
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
In Texas they use also pull the driver license info to use for jury duty.
I am not a fan of the two party system. I am a fan of particular ideals, that are found in the conservative side. However some things I believe we need to balance and be more liberal on. It just sucks because these politicians line up along party lines and there is no balance and happy medium.
-
10-24-09, 10:30 AM #18
Re: Government - Left vs Right (Pic)
Originally Posted by flame
-
-
10-24-09, 11:50 AM #20
Federal Government - Them v. Us
Originally Posted by Hitch
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/oba...lots_is_racis/
Similar case Missisippi
http://www.discourse.net/archives/20...ssissippi.html
But when I started to read another simialar case from 2007 in more detail I have to confess the legalese got to me and now really just don't know what to think.
The following facts are taken from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, 460 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2006): the state of Washington employed a “blanket primary” system from 1935 until 2003. Blanket systems allow all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for any candidate on the primary ballot. The top candidate from each political party then advances to the general election. Many other states have closed primaries where voters are required to have a formal affiliation with the political party to vote in the party’s primary and select the party’s nominee.
In Democratic Party of Washington v. Reed, 343 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit invalidated Washington’s blanket primary system because it was “materially indistinguishable” from California’s system -- which the Supreme Court had found unconstitutional in California Democratic Party v. Jones. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000). The primary system at issue in Jones permitted voters to vote for any candidate from any party, and the candidate who received the most votes from each party would then appear on the general ballot. The Supreme Court held that the system violated the constitutional right of free association of the political parties because voters who were not formally affiliated with the party were able to participate in the party nomination process.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks