OSCE invited to monitor U.S. election, Texas say F off.

[rejenorst]

Generally speaking, yes there are some gray areas  when it comes to federal powers over the states. However, NOT when it comes to voting rules. It says that the states get to choose the voting rules right there in the Constitution, and the federal government has no power to change that at the Executive level. To do so REQUIRES a Constitutional Amendment. There's no gray area. This has been proven time after time - and is why Amendments dealing with voting rights are the most common type of Amendment.

I am honestly not so sure man. Take a look at the Voting Rights Act. In terms of the Voting Rights Act however it was mainly meant to stop discrimination against African American voters but its an example of Federal interference in state voting laws (and a just one I presume).

How are the leaders of those states hypocrites? They have nothing to do with foreign policy and probably don't even give a **** about another country's election process.

I personally see it from a few different angles, nationally: Republicans accuse Democrats of voter fraud while Democrats counter that the GOP-inspired voter ID laws aim to disenfranchise minority voters. If you accuse one party over fraud and then use your authority to veil what goes on in your own electoral process then I find it a bit odd.

Internationally the Republican party, has in the past, held and stands to hold the presidency again, and thereby shape/exercise foreign policy. In the past both Republicans and Democrats have aggressively espoused the ideals of democracy and fair elections overseas.

The U.S. is a signatory to the CSCE (later renamed the OSCE) which makes the OSCE presence obligatory, at least that's what the head of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights states:
"The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable," Lenarčič said. "The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections." 

In regards to the Voter ID laws I don't really care that much. During elections here in Aus I have to show ID as well. The only problem would be if it conveniently stops a minority or integral part of the community from voting which I know has been alleged but I dunno if that's just another political storm in a tea cup.

Now you could successfully argue that the idiots who made the statements in the original article are individuals and therefore do not reflect the party's position but I am finding it difficult to separate individuals from the parties they represent since they got voted in on that ticket I presume.

It doesn't do anything to undermine national policy. The US has its own independent election monitors and a record of free and fair elections. Yes, even in Texas.

Actually you are right, It more undermines international obligations. But in any case you can't sign onto obligations to the OSCE and then have states override your foreign obligations without undermining either International or national policy.

It should be noted that Obama endorses OSCE involvement in Texas however Clinton has clearly said there will be no diplomatic immunity for the observers and that they must follow state law: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-25/news/sns-rt-us-usa-elections-texasbre89p05k-20121025_1_observers-abbott-monitors
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13415-obama-backs-un-linked-election-monitors-but-texas-stands-firm

As I've already proven, there's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about any of this. Texas implemented a legitimate and common requirement that voters present valid ID. Everything else on the topic is just partisan politics and grandstanding.

Texas should settle this by succeeding, Americans really got the short end of the stick with the civil war outcome (with exception to African-Americans)

And actually, I've done a little more research on this. The OSCE monitors weren't sent in response to the voter ID laws, the Texas group is just 1 part of a much larger group monitoring the elections nationwide (just as they did in 200. Texas didn't have any objection to it until the OSCE met with some anti-ID groups and pissed them off. So this whole topic is a lie .

I read something similar but regardless you don't jump down an international monitoring group by threatening them with arrest/prosecution. I suppose I'll end this with "Only in Texas".

 

[Mage246]

Rej, you're going to have to stop fighting me on this aspect: there is no gray area when it comes to Congress and the President having the power to change voting rules without a Constitutional Amendment. The Voting Rights Act actually supportsmy point. It was intended to support the Fiftennth Amendment. Without that Amendment, the Voting Rights Act would be unconstitutional. Why is it constitutional afterwards? Because the Amendment includes a (fairly common) clause:"Congress shall have power to enact legislation to enforce this Amendment" (going from memory, so that's not an exact quote).  This IS a black and white area.

 

[Almalexia]

The core flaw in that model is that it relies too much on the upper class' integrity, and failing to consider that they are, well, people and are as fallible as any and depending on the time are even more so than the simpleton peasant. It was the perfect model for the establishment and rooting of a historical absolute monarchy.

For example a levy or dam breaks, it is often due to neglect by a corrupt government who spends the money elsewhere

That's happened so, so very damn often in history it isn't even funny. Especially when you consider that every time that happened, it's a 2010 tsunami in terms of life cost.

Hey, I'm not saying its perfect at all, its just it is valuable as the first and only dedicated model for meritocracy in history. And upper class integrity aside, it at least presided over, if not resulted, in some of the greatest golden ages in all mankind. Plus, over time, dynasty by dynasty, it accepted more and more common, working class administrators into the government. By the Song dynasty, 1/3 of all administrators were from the common folk.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

The core flaw in that model is that it relies too much on the upper class' integrity, and failing to consider that they are, well, people and are as fallible as any and depending on the time are even more so than the simpleton peasant. It was the perfect model for the establishment and rooting of a historical absolute monarchy.

For example a levy or dam breaks, it is often due to neglect by a corrupt government who spends the money elsewhere

That's happened so, so very damn often in history it isn't even funny. Especially when you consider that every time that happened, it's a 2010 tsunami in terms of life cost.

Hey, I'm not saying its perfect at all, its just it is valuable as the first and only dedicated model for meritocracy in history. And upper class integrity aside, it at least presided over, if not resulted, in some of the greatest golden ages in all mankind. Plus, over time, dynasty by dynasty, it accepted more and more common, working class administrators into the government. By the Song dynasty, 1/3 of all administrators were from the common folk.

On a complete tangent, I blame that as the root of the overachieving, slave-driven azn stereotype. When there were so many rag to riches stories around, the most logical response is "Hey, I can do that too! Best push maself a liiiitle harder..."

But I believe we'd better take this back to the EA history thread.

 

[Mad Vader]

The more I see of individual US states, the more I appreciate the centrifugal forces in the US, trying to pull the Union apart. This is always a problem in large countries, invariably solved by centralizing the state - something that's pretty impossible to do in the US at the moment.
As the US identity against the world suffers more indignities with the rise of China and others, I predict internal seccession movements gaining strength and further weakening the federal lawmakers and the presidency.

And I support everything that Rejenorst argues, you are a true European liberal, mate.

 

[rejenorst]

Rej, you're going to have to stop fighting me on this aspect: there is no gray area when it comes to Congress and the President having the power to change voting rules without a Constitutional Amendment. The Voting Rights Act actually supportsmy point. It was intended to support the Fiftennth Amendment. Without that Amendment, the Voting Rights Act would be unconstitutional. Why is it constitutional afterwards? Because the Amendment includes a (fairly common) clause:"Congress shall have power to enact legislation to enforce this Amendment" (going from memory, so that's not an exact quote).  This IS a black and white area.

Sure, but remember the whole issue was kicked up by rights groups because they felt minorities would be excluded from voting in 2012 and the other allegation is that the voter ID is unconstitutional. Personally I highly doubt it but if there were any evidence to support that claim then the Federal Government or Congress would most likely be able to act. In which case it could (probably still wouldn't) insist on election monitoring compliance.

I know I am stretching that rather wildly but like I said it wouldn't be the first time the constitution got pissed on by Federal Government. As time progresses the constitution is becoming less and less relevant, which is a shame in some cases.

Anyway look I think we've exhausted the discussion. I believe your argument above is probably the stronger one in this aspect in terms of plausibility and likelihood.

EDIT: Also what I referenced earlier was the Supremacy Clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

 

[Almalexia]

The more I see of individual US states, the more I appreciate the centrifugal forces in the US, trying to pull the Union apart. This is always a problem in large countries, invariably solved by centralizing the state - something that's pretty impossible to do in the US at the moment.
As the US identity against the world suffers more indignities with the rise of China and others, I predict internal seccession movements gaining strength and further weakening the federal lawmakers and the presidency.

We went over this before:

Subversion from within works much better than outside threats.
Of course, I base this on the perceived strength of Tea Party-like sentiment and Ron Paulites, so I don't really know. It is similar to Israel's security services assessment on how they face a greater threat from the Haridi than Iran.
What do you Amis think?

And really, there really isn't an chance of the states dividing. Ever. Sure, I guess you could point to the South and the whole Confederacy schtick, but having lived here, and been down to Richmond a fair few times, I can say there isn't anything resembling a separatist movement. If anything, its merely a cultural thing, and some historical grievances that really don't matter anymore. I mean, I'll be blunt, you really don't know what you're talking about, and you kind of come off as a conspiracy theorist. 

 

[rejenorst]

Apparently the U.S. supreme court will look at the voting rights act, I think some states want to drop it because they consider it no longer relevant/nessecary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/28/voting-rights-act-supreme-court_n_2034419.html
http://rt.com/usa/news/anti-racism-voting-law-supreme-court-447/

 

[Mage246]

Ok, so?

Also, you may want to read your link on the Supremacy Clause again. It exists specifically so the federal government can exercise constitutionally granted powers. In this case, the constitution grants these powers SPECIFICALLY to the STATES.

Look, I'm not bull****ting you. I've had to study the Constitution backwards and forwards for exams. I'm not just cherry-picking **** to prove a point - there are things that the Constitution allows and things that it does not allow. Messing with state voting rules is prohibited unless it is done to enforce a constitutional provision. I don't know how many ways I can repeat myself on this! Just stop fighting me on it. 

 

[rejenorst]

Look I don't doubt it but in whenever I look online about it the Supremacy clause is touted as something that enables the Supreme Court to uphold federal laws over state laws ie: allowing Federal laws to trump state laws.

Alone the quote at the start along with the precedents at the bottom: The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

So my point being if there is a valid concern over a violation of what would probably now fall under the voting rights act (if the rights group in question are to be believed) then really the ball would be in the courts to decide the matter and they would most likely be expected not to side with the state if their laws where found to be in violation of the constitution.

Digging a bit through other sources however I managed to find this:

The œsupremacy clauseâ does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even œordinarily as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by We the People.“ in the Constitution.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/30/getting-the-supremacy-clause-wrong/

Which may explain what you've been trying to tell me. Apparently the interpretation that Supremacy clause = automatic federal law trumps state law is not an uncommon misinterpretation.

But I wouldn't see that changing my point if the Federal Government is enforcing constitutional rights as they did with the voting rights act, which some states now want to repeal (hence I posted it as a side note since it came up in discussion). Is that notion incorrect?

 

[Mage246]

Yeah, now you're getting it.

States can't repeal the Fifteenth Amendment (not without a Constitutional Amendment), which means that they can't alter a constitutional right. The most they can do is demonstrate that a law which was passed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment is no longer necessary. If they can't prove that, the law will remain. The reason why that would work is because the law draws its strength based on the justification that it exists to enforce the amendment - if it can be shown that it is no longer having any practical effect, it can be nullified.

 

[rejenorst]

Awesome. Thought I was going crazy D:
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Mad Vader]

隐藏

The more I see of individual US states, the more I appreciate the centrifugal forces in the US, trying to pull the Union apart. This is always a problem in large countries, invariably solved by centralizing the state - something that's pretty impossible to do in the US at the moment.
As the US identity against the world suffers more indignities with the rise of China and others, I predict internal seccession movements gaining strength and further weakening the federal lawmakers and the presidency.

We went over this before:

Subversion from within works much better than outside threats.
Of course, I base this on the perceived strength of Tea Party-like sentiment and Ron Paulites, so I don't really know. It is similar to Israel's security services assessment on how they face a greater threat from the Haridi than Iran.
What do you Amis think?

And really, there really isn't an chance of the states dividing. Ever. Sure, I guess you could point to the South and the whole Confederacy schtick, but having lived here, and been down to Richmond a fair few times, I can say there isn't anything resembling a separatist movement. If anything, its merely a cultural thing, and some historical grievances that really don't matter anymore. I mean, I'll be blunt, you really don't know what you're talking about, and you kind of come off as a conspiracy theorist. 

Just wait and see. Once the common American identity gets dented, people will start to retreat into their other, more local identities.
You are right, I don't really know what I'm talking about. I just find it an interesting scenario.

 

[Argeus the Paladin]

You need something ridiculously cataclysmic for that though. "Ridiculous" as in "Conspirator theorist ridiculous". Something that completely and utterly shatters the federal government's ability to administer the country and/or gather the trust of the majority of the people. Something that suddenly and irreversibly turns society upside down. Something that quite literally ends America's world as they know it.

I can only think of two scenarios where this could happen: Nuclear war and alien invasion.

 

[Almalexia]

But really, I don't know anyone who thinks of themselves as Virginian first, and then American. Hell, I can't think of anyone who actually considers themselves as anything special as a Virginian, its just a place of residence in America. I doubt this is different elsewhere in the US, or even the Deep South, seeing as nowadays the South has the most gung-ho patriots around.

 

[Mage246]

Let the Europeans have their silly fantasies, Tibs.

 

[Mad Vader]

You live in DC and have no fallback identity. Jelly?

Anyways, I concede the point that state identities are not that important - maybe more important are racial and even political identities.

However, secessionists sometimes crawl out from under their rocks, as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#State_secession

I particularly like this one:

Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.[81]

I know you would say "lol, Georgia is always pulling stunts like that, it's not serious". That's funny.

 

[Splintert]

I doubt any individual state will secede from the union all of the sudden. If the United States does ever break up, it'll be as a result of something far more influential than some radical secession groups.

 

[Mage246]

You live in DC and have no fallback identity. Jelly?

Why would I need a fallback identity? I've lived all along the East Coast and could comfortably reside in any state in that region, North or South.

However, secessionists sometimes crawl out from under their rocks, as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#State_secession

I particularly like this one:

Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.[81]

I know you would say "lol, Georgia is always pulling stunts like that, it's not serious". That's funny.

You make way too many assumptions. And do too little research, too. For example:

to be fair, the resolution passed because it was snuck unnoticed onto the Senate resolution calendar on the 39th day of the 40-day legislative session, when senators were trying to handle dozens of bills and scores of amendments. Most did not have an opportunity to read the six-page resolution, which in its description claimed to merely affirm “states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.”

 

[Almalexia]

You live in DC and have no fallback identity. Jelly?

Anyways, I concede the point that state identities are not that important - maybe more important are racial and even political identities.

However, secessionists sometimes crawl out from under their rocks, as shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#State_secession

I particularly like this one:

Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.[81]

I know you would say "lol, Georgia is always pulling stunts like that, it's not serious". That's funny.

I can easily say they aren't even remotely significant, because I live here, and heard of exactly none of these. We got a lot of radical movements that raise a lot of noise, sometimes pass legislation (remember the gay marriage bill in California and the Mormons?), but in the end they really don't have any clout. It's like proposing that Slovenia could someday split up into all the old fiefdoms.