International observers say states out of line

[CADsortaGUY]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83160.html

I think there was a thread about Texas, but I've been watching the Iowa sitation for a bit now and now we have the foreign whiners responding.

The OSCE has ZERO jurisdiction in these matters. The Constitution of the USA doesn't allow for it and if the State's laws prohibit it - it must be enforced. I for one am happy to see both Iowa and Texas take a stand BEFORE the election to let these people know they are not welcome to break the law.

 

[IronWing]

The reporter should have done their homework. Did or did not the US sign/ratify a treaty allowing such observers? That piece of information would put the story in context. The story is either one of meddling busybodies or one of the US failing to abide by treaty law. I don't know the answer because the reporter was lazy.

 

[HomerJS]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83160.html

I think there was a thread about Texas, but I've been watching the Iowa sitation for a bit now and now we have the foreign whiners responding.

The OSCE has ZERO jurisdiction in these matters. The Constitution of the USA doesn't allow for it and if the State's laws prohibit it - it must be enforced. I for one am happy to see both Iowa and Texas take a stand BEFORE the election to let these people know they are not welcome to break the law.

If the United States signed an agreement allowing them to observe then they do have jurisdiction

 

[Agent11]

Why block impartial observers? That is shady in and of itself.

 

[UberNeuman]

Riddle me this: What do you have when you have a poster posting an outrage thread and nobody comes?



Answer: A Guy that's sort of a cad....

 

[Fern]

If the United States signed an agreement allowing them to observe then they do have jurisdiction

I could be wrong, but I don't think they have any jurisdiction..

It's not a (ratified) treaty, nor is it binding on the countries:

A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe

I don't see how they have any jurisdiction. In addition, IIRC, the Constitution explicitly gives the states power over elections.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Why block impartial observers? That is shady in and of itself.

Many states, and mine is one, have rules prohibiting anyone but voters and polling officials at the polls. Others must stay at 100 ft away etc. From my understanding, these laws weren't aimed at observers, but instead are intended to prevent 'politicking' of voters who are stuck in line waiting to vote. Likewise, no campaign brochures/posters etc allowed.

Fern

 

[monovillage]

Why block impartial observers? That is shady in and of itself.

It's the law, not our fault if the U.N. guys think they're above U.S. law while they're here and get arrested for it.

 

[bfdd]

lol the Federal Gov't cannot give jurisdiction over something it has no jurisdiction over. I love this and I wish more Govt's around the world would tell annoying European busy-bodies to get the fuck lost. They do not run or own the world.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I could be wrong, but I don't think they have any jurisdiction..

It's not a (ratified) treaty, nor is it binding on the countries:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe

I don't see how they have any jurisdiction. In addition, IIRC, the Constitution explicitly gives the states power over elections.

Fern

Boy I wish our "public education" system would teach the Constitution. Many here don't seem to have a clue about what it says and means.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

If the United States signed an agreement allowing them to observe then they do have jurisdiction

Try again... this time think first.

 

[bononos]

Its strange if the US thinks that its all right to send international observers (of which it has plenty) to other countries but not to its own. So the US champions the right of UN observers and send observers under the UN banner but inexplicably blocks such observations at home.

 

[bfdd]

Try again... this time think first.

Can't do that CAD, then people might actually know some shit and not just go along with what "they" know is good for them. And by "they" I mean our "benevolent" dictators.

 

[HomerJS]

Try again... this time think first.

I guess "IF" was too complicated for you. At least I don't pretend to know something when I don't

 

[xBiffx]

Many states, and mine is one, have rules prohibiting anyone but voters and polling officials at the polls. Others must stay at 100 ft away etc. From my understanding, these laws weren't aimed at observers, but instead are intended to prevent 'politicking' of voters who are stuck in line waiting to vote. Likewise, no campaign brochures/posters etc allowed.

Fern

Same here in Iowa but its a 300ft limit.

 

[bfdd]

I guess "IF" was too complicated for you. At least I don't pretend to know something when I don't

It doesn't matter "if" they signed shit. The US is represented by the Federal Gov't which does not have jurisdiction over elections so even "if" they signed it, it would be meaningless. It simply doesn't matter. Now if Texas had seeked them out and signed some shit and changed their laws to allow it, then there could be some outrage. The only outrage we should be having right now is over the Federal Gov't overstepping their bounds and signing such stupid shit. They had no right to and no place to do it. IMO it just shows again how corrupt and above the Constitution the major parties believe they are. They've stolen our Government and do whatever they feel like and interpret word however they feel best suits their situation.

 

[Farang]

I think these states are wrong and should let observers do their jobs.

I have not seen anyone establish the harm they may cause, it seems to me to be more posturing of not wanting foreigners watching over our elections.

However, as the country with the most interest in seeing democracy spread overseas, we lose a lot of legitimacy when we don't let other people verify our elections are kosher.

If your place in the world depends on you being the leader and last defense for freedom around the world, it helps a lot to let everyone verify that if they want to. Especially if we insist on the UN verifying other elections.

 

[zinfamous]

Riddle me this: What do you have when you have a poster posting an outrage thread and nobody comes?



Answer: A Guy that's sort of a cad....

ouch

 

[Steeplerot]

Damn....Comrade Chavez just totally spammed the hell out of the Commie hyperspace commlink channel with "lulz@US hypocrites!"

Embarrassing.

 

[zinfamous]

I could be wrong, but I don't think they have any jurisdiction..

It's not a (ratified) treaty, nor is it binding on the countries:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe

I don't see how they have any jurisdiction. In addition, IIRC, the Constitution explicitly gives the states power over elections.

Fern

Boy I wish our "public education" system would teach the Constitution. Many here don't seem to have a clue about what it says and means.

I know you guys want to make this into a "secret euro commies infiltrating our election" sorta story, but let's settle down a bit...

What, exactly, are these observers doing?

Are they influencing the elections in these states? Are they providing, you know--observations and suggestions? Are they actually flexing power over how these states should run their elections?


Kind of important....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I guess "IF" was too complicated for you. At least I don't pretend to know something when I don't

"IF" doesn't matter because even "IF" the US signed an agreement as you say, it's unenforceable due to it being Unconstitutional. We started this country to get AWAY from people controlling us from afar, no?

 

[bfdd]

I think these states are wrong and should let observers do their jobs.

I have not seen anyone establish the harm they may cause, it seems to me to be more posturing of not wanting foreigners watching over our elections.

However, as the country with the most interest in seeing democracy spread overseas, we lose a lot of legitimacy when we don't let other people verify our elections are kosher.

If your place in the world depends on you being the leader and last defense for freedom around the world, it helps a lot to let everyone verify that if they want to. Especially if we insist on the UN verifying other elections.

Or maybe the USA should stop forcing others to be so fucking open if they're not willing to be. Not to mention let observers in? FUCK THAT. We are in a fight over should people voting be required to identify who they are in the first place and you think we should allow outsiders to view our process? FUCK THAT. I would rather the Federal Gov't stop thinking they have so much power and stop stepping all over the constitution and the feet of the states.

To the other countries fed up over US Fed Gov't hypocrisy, stand the fuck up to it and tell our Gov't to shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.

 

[Farang]

Or maybe the USA should stop forcing others to be so fucking open if they're not willing to be. Not to mention let observers in? FUCK THAT. We are in a fight over should people voting be required to identify who they are in the first place and you think we should allow outsiders to view our process? FUCK THAT. I would rather the Federal Gov't stop thinking they have so much power and stop stepping all over the constitution and the feet of the states.

To the other countries fed up over US Fed Gov't hypocrisy, stand the fuck up to it and tell our Gov't to shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.

america... fuck yea

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I know you guys want to make this into a "secret euro commies infiltrating our election" sorta story, but let's settle down a bit...

What, exactly, are these observers doing?

Are they influencing the elections in these states? Are they providing, you know--observations and suggestions? Are they actually flexing power over how these states should run their elections?


Kind of important....

They would be breaking the law. THAT is what they'd be doing.
If we let those fools in, who else would we have to let in? The law is quite clear in Iowa, Texas, and I'm sure in other states as well.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Many states, and mine is one, have rules prohibiting anyone but voters and polling officials at the polls. Others must stay at 100 ft away etc. From my understanding, these laws weren't aimed at observers, but instead are intended to prevent 'politicking' of voters who are stuck in line waiting to vote. Likewise, no campaign brochures/posters etc allowed.

Fern

You mean like Black Panthers ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A