"God Bless America" to be added to Alabama license plates

[A18]

Yes. You are being forced to express that (a) there is a God, and (b) America deserves to be blessed.

[MODU]

Would you like to identify a problem with it?

it keeps poor minorities from voting?

It keeps people who don't pay the tax from voting, many of whom happen to be poor, many of whom happen to minorities.

If the person owes taxes, and has not paid them, then yes, I could see denying them the right to vote since they are not responsible enough to fulfill one aspect of their civil duties.  However, if a person is "poor," and is not required to pay taxes, then to deny them the ability to vote due to a poll tax is disenfranchisement, and violates their right to vote.  One of the reasons why poll taxes were a flawed concept.

[A18]

There is no "right" to "vote" (summon the coercive forces of the government), legal or moral.

[MODU]

There is no "right" to "vote" (summon the coercive forces of the government), legal or moral.

It's an implied right, founded under various US Constitution Amendments, Supreme Court rulings, and Voting Rights Acts.  Not everything in our government comes directly out of the Constitution.

[minionofmidas]

There is no "right" to "vote" (summon the coercive forces of the government), legal or moral.

And that underlying position is exactly why the statement is offensive. (Not that I'm offended, don't get me wrong.)

Al - yep, Famous Potatoes. Seen it in a fleamarket stall. These days though, states do offer alternatives. Anyways, Famous Potatoes may be said to be merely identifying the state (like The Garden State or The Keystone State) ... Live Free or Die or God Bless America don't, they're purely ideological statements that the state has no business forcing it's citizens to wear. Imagine having to wear a badge on the sleeve of your school uniform at all times that says "God Bless America" (although I wouldn't want to wear a badge saying "Famous Potatoes" either. )

[A18]

The Constitution does not imply a right to vote. To the contrary: by listing criteria for which you can not be denied the right to vote, it implies that you can be denied that right on other bases.

The federal government arguably has power to establish a right to vote in national elections, but no such power exists with regard to state elections.

The Voting Rights Act is a remedy for race discrimination in voting. It does not create a generic right to vote.

[minionofmidas]

The Constitution does not imply a right to vote. To the contrary: by listing criteria for which you can not be denied the right to vote, it implies that you can be denied that right on other bases.

The federal government arguably has power to establish a right to vote in national elections, but no such power exists with regard to state elections.

The Voting Rights Act is a remedy for race discrimination in voting. It does not create a generic right to vote.

A constitutional setup without a right to vote is not a constitutional setup worth preserving.

[A18]

I disagree. However, I'm just arguing over what the Constitution actually says. Not what the document is worth.

[MODU]

The Constitution does not imply a right to vote. To the contrary: by listing criteria for which you can not be denied the right to vote, it implies that you can be denied that right on other bases.

Which is true, since we can deny people the right to vote since they broke the law and are imprisoned.  Poor people have not broken any laws, therefore they have the right to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Voting Rights Act shows that the Federal Government does have the power over state election laws, since the Act followed the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment when the Dixiecrats tried to use you very same argument.  Additionally, it allows the DOJ to review state election laws to ensure that they do not disenfranchise eligible voters.  A poll tax disenfranchises the "poor," and therefore it would not be legal.  The only way around that would to have the state pay the tax for the "poor" since the "poor" are already tax exempt.

[A18]

No. The implication is that it can be denied on any other basis. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

The Fifteenth Amendment imposed a prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. It did not create a right to vote. The Voting Rights Act is merely a remedy enacted pursuant to the enforcement provision of the article.

Literacy tests are banned in southern states. That is because the remedy can go beyond the actual constitutional violation.

[MODU]

No. The implication is that it can be denied on any other basis. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

The Fifteenth Amendment imposed a prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. It did not create a right to vote. The Voting Rights Act is merely a remedy enacted pursuant to the enforcement provision of the article.

Literacy tests are banned in southern states. That is because the remedy can go beyond the actual constitutional violation.

You are not making any headway here.  The Voting Rights Act gave the power to the Attorny General to review the poll tax.  In 1964, the 24th Amendment had already made poll taxes unconstitutional for all federal level elections.  In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes in state-level elections were also unconstitutional in the Harper vs Virginia State Board of Elections case.  This led to a series of court cases over the VRA of 1965, challenging it's authority . . . all struck down by the Supreme Court, making the power to oversee state elections by the DOJ solid.  The right has been established, and what you are proposing is therefore unconstitutional. 

[A18]

That is not a right to vote. That is a right not to be denied the right to vote on account of failure to pay any poll tax.

I thought we were discussing literacy tests, anyway.

You are engaging in tortured logic. The fact that the Supreme Court sustained a portion of the Voting Rights Act, does not mean that ruling was constitutionally sound; and the fact that the Congress may establish a remedy for violation of a constitutional prohibition, does not mean it may create a generic right to vote.

Harper v. Virginia BOE had nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act anyway. The Court once again erred in making the ridiculous claim that the poll tax violated the Equal Protection Clause (blatantly ignoring history, and making all the voting amendments redundant).

Even the idea that the remedy may go beyond the violation is of course wrong as an original matter, but now settled law on grounds of stare decisis.

[MODU]

That is not a right to vote. That is a right not to be denied the right to vote on account of failure to pay any poll tax.

I thought we were discussing literacy tests, anyway.

You are engaging in tortured logic. The fact that the Supreme Court sustained a portion of the Voting Rights Act, does not mean that ruling was constitutionally sound; and the fact that the Congress may establish a remedy for violation of a constitutional prohibition, does not mean it may create a generic right to vote.

Harper v. Virginia BOE had nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act anyway. The Court once again erred in making the ridiculous claim that the poll tax violated the Equal Protection Clause (blatantly ignoring history, and making all the voting amendments redundant).

Even the idea that the remedy may go beyond the violation is of course wrong as an original matter, but now settled law on grounds of stare decisis.

*sigh*  Will you please go read the case before replying.  "Harper v. Virginia BOE had nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act anyway."   The voting rights act empowered the Attorny General to investigate the poll tax.  Harper vs Virginia was a case to view the constitutionality of the Viriginia State poll tax (which they ruled on correctly since wealth does not make one citizen more qualified to vote than another). 

"I thought we were discussing literacy tests, anyway."  Wrong again.  We have been discussing your recommendation to bring back the poll tax.

[KillerPollo]

This is why atheists should have no say in politics. They are the true Nazis of the world. They only want what they want to see, and hear, and make you live with it. What is this world coming to?

I know a few atheists, and they are the most intolerant people. This goes for you too, opebo.

Atheists should die by the sword, as opposed to christians be fed to lions.

[Joe Republic]

...incoherent stupidity....

Damn, I thought you'd gone for good.

[A18]

I have read the case. I don't think you have. The case was decided on equal protection grounds: not statutory language.

I did not recommend bringing back the poll tax. I said there was nothing wrong with it. I also said there was no generic right to vote.

It would of course be entirely constitutional to bring it back at the state level.

[Gabu]

Didn't Idaho have something like "Famous Potatoes" on their plates for a while or is that an urban myth?

For a while?  It's still there.  I've seen those plates in person.

[A18]

Are they mandatory, or optional? Anyway, even though that plate is dumb, at least no one's really going to object to it philosophically. I do, however, hate potatoes.

[Gabu]

Are they mandatory, or optional? Anyway, even though that plate is dumb, at least no one's really going to object to it philosophically. I do, however, hate potatoes.

I believe that's the official Idaho license plate.  Personally, if I was from Idaho, I would be embarassed that my state sucks so much that the best thing they can think to pitch on their license plates are the state's potatoes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

God Bless Alabama!

[Joe Republic]

The bill has passed the Committee stage in the state House.  However, it won't be mandatory any more, luckily.  The sponsors agreed to an amendment for fears that it would be struck down by the courts otherwise.

Link

[Gabu]

The bill has passed the Committee stage in the state House.  However, it won't be mandatory any more, luckily.  The sponsors agreed to an amendment for fears that it would be struck down by the courts otherwise.

Link

That sounds like a good compromise.  If it's not mandatory, then I have no problem with it whatsoever.

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, I don't plan on ever living or visiting the progressive and urbane state of Alabama, cause when I think of a state that embodies progress, I think Alabama. (Don't you love backhanded sarcasm, I do, lol)

Honestly, it's Alabama. The buckle of the bible belt. I'm not shocked... I don't agree, but this one really doesn't piss me off.

[??????????]

Well, I don't plan on ever living or visiting the progressive and urbane state of Alabama, cause when I think of a state that embodies progress, I think Alabama. (Don't you love backhanded sarcasm, I do, lol)

Honestly, it's Alabama. The buckle of the bible belt. I'm not shocked... I don't agree, but this one really doesn't piss me off.

Oh, because you're sh*thole of a state is so great. What with the hoods in Philadelphia and such garbage holes like that.

[angus]

no.  never been too keen on the "Spirit of America" on MA license plates either.  Or the "heart of it all" on OH license plates.  I like what california has done with its plate.  There's one word:  California.  and some letters and numbers to help authorities identify the car.  That's pretty much all you need.  All that other Save The Whales and God Bless America stuff is just a distraction, in my considered opinion.