Originally posted by: fire400
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: fire400
i don't think you understand the math behind this. you are just saying that people shouldn't break the law. obviously you are ignorant, speaking on behalf of only people who've broken the law. the cases were evident during the vietnam war, research it, and research it well.
You wanna show me how 1% or so of the total population somehow makes up a huge voting bloc? I'm ignorant, why don't you enlighten me?
Oh, and Vietnam was a long time ago. How about something a bit more recent?
1. Official Reports of theupreme Court, vol. 384 U.S. pt. 3 (Preliminary Print), pp. 444-481, passim.
"The Court also decreed reapportionment in the state legislatures (1962) and in the congressional districts (1964) on the basis of "one man, one vote" rather than on the lopsided basis that often gave agricultural areas greater voting power than more populous urban areas.
In the 1960's and even earlier, the Supreme Court was a target for abuse by conservative groups. The more vocal extremists raised the insulting cry "Impeach Earl Warren" against the liberal chief justice. Conservatives were first outrated by a series of rulings that extended constitutional guarantees to communists and that ordered desegregation in the schools.
In 1963 an epochal decision held that accused criminals must be provided with lawyers in noncaptial offenses. In 1964 and 1966 other decisions decreed that confessions obtained by the police in private (and hence under suspicion of physical force) could not be used to convict. The Fifth Amendment had long barred self-incrimination. Finally, on July 13, 1966, The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, reversed the conviction of a confessesd kidnapper-rapist, Ernesto Miranda, together with three men accused of other felonies. Chief Justice Warren, speaking for the majority, ruled in part as follows. in view of the fact the crime rate was rising alarmingly and that this decision would make convictions harder to obtain, was the Court to be commanded for emphasizing the rights of the indivitual at the expense of social order?"
I already did the research. Vietnam War era had a lot of racism that kept people from voting. Even when 18 year olds could vote, there were still barriers that blocked them from fully participating in other parts of voting, which took years for politics and leadership-personel to 'comprehensively' understand by far at the time.
I also have to say, that if you want to know the barriers of today, do the research yourself; which are even more complex, politics has evolved so much through the 90's that into the millenium, the deepest and darkest secrets are kept from the naked eye (yours, obviously).
"I'm ignorant, why don't you enlighten me?"
=yeah, you are pretty stupid, you know that? entertain you huh, get off your a$$ and study about your own country yourself.
2. Bill Clinton, "A Strategy for Foreign Policy," Vital Speeches 58 (May 1, 1992): 421-422
"First, the end of the Cold War does not mean the end of danger in the world. Even as restructure our defenses, we must prepare for new threats. . . ."
That was commentary for all other else that has sparked indecisive conclusion without problems being fully solved, more or less for any finale of solutions that gave little room for positive growth in the nation.
So I learned that typical people will only see what they can see and express what they think is right to "win." Because all natural men have something in common, they like to win, in voting, in arguments, and even in self-righteousness, etc.
Research is an exploration that demands that mind to subtleness and uneasiness at times, but yields great rewards for accomplishing a search for the questions that knock us off of our balance when we cannot see the horizons, very clearly.
Nonetheless, I think that if more than the 30-40 percent of the U.S. participated in voting, politics would be something else today, for good or better, with or without any institutional barriers.
Facebook
Twitter