Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years and who resides in the voting area in which he or she seeks to vote shall be deemed a qualified elector
Yeah, there is more than just that but how voting works is consistent with the US constitution. This is just more conservative efforts to suppress the vote in a state that is already overwhelmingly conservative.
That line isn’t about voting, it’s about being qualified to be a Elector, sent to the Electoral College to actually elect the next US President. So, not exactly textual evidence that there is a right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution. The next couple of sections also kinda work against a universal right to vote in Kansas:
Disqualification to vote. The legislature may, by law, exclude persons from voting because of commitment to a jail or penal institution. No person convicted of a felony under the laws of any state or of the United States, unless pardoned or restored to his civil rights, shall be qualified to vote.
This shows that the legislature does have some power to remove a person’s ability to vote under Kansas law. Granted, there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote, so long as it’s not been removed. But then we get to:
Proof of right to vote. The legislature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage.
That, right there, is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting for this law. The legislature has the power to provide “proper proofs” for the right to vote. So, it would seem that the Kansas Constitution is setting the legislature up to gatekeep voting, based on “proper proofs”. That could well be the signature verification.
This looks like one of those cases where being a country of written laws can lead to weird outcomes. Yes, the right to vote should be universal. But, if the law, as written, doesn’t say that, then that’s not really the law.
As opposed to?
While being a country of written laws does have it’s pitfalls, it also means that we have something to go back to and agree on. There is a reason that political bodies have been codifying laws since the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. The alternatives usually break down to some sort of “guy with the biggest stick, at the moment, makes the law”. No thanks, I’ll stick with being a “codified law savage”.
So that explains the wooshing sound.
Sorry, I guess I’ve been primed by one too many comments where folks seem to want to ignore the laws as written when they are inconvenient to the outcome they want.
While it looks like I pulled the wrong sentence out of the section by forgetting electors was for the electoral college, there are a couple things to add.
The US constitution does include the right to vote and the state constitution builds upon that. The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place. So saying the state constitution doesn’t repeat a right from the US constitution is stupid on its face.
Second, the nitpicking sbout how to verify someone would still be an issue even if voting was explicitly stated as a right in the state constitution since it is a limitation on that right like age.
The US constitution does include the right to vote
Kind of, but also kind of not. I replied to another commenter on that, I’ll point you there.
The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place.
I agree that, and event directly stated in my previous post, exactly that:
there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote
Unfortunately, an implicit assumption is not the same as an explicitly enumerated right. It’s a fine distinction, but can be a big pain in the arse. In theory, US Citizens have a lot of unenumerated rights, via the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, as it’s left open to interpretation, it ends up amounting to almost nothing.
Regardless of how the state constitution does their wordsmithing, don’t the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments of the federal constitution, in combination, essentially grant all Kansans over 18 the right to vote (aside from restricted groups)? I could possibly see the state blocking certain people from state and local elections, or anything within their jurisdiction, but wouldn’t the state have zero say about federal elections?
I was just focusing on what was there in the Kansas Constitution; but, lets walk through it:
15th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
We’ll ignore Section 2, as it doesn’t seem useful here (same for other amendments below). So, you have a right to vote that cannot be limited by “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. That last bit meaning slavery. So, it kinda does seem to imply a universal right to vote. But again, this leaves open the possibility that the US Government (USG) and States do have the power to limit it otherwise. As a ridiculous example, it seems that this Amendment leaves open the possibility that the State could limit the right to vote for left handed people.
19th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Pretty much exactly as above, but extending the protections to “sex”.
24th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Continuing to extend the limits on USG/State powers. This time, it outlaws poll taxes.
26th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
And now we’ve extended the prohibition on limiting voting due to age.
There is a through-line on all of these which amounts to “The USG/State cannot limit the right to vote in these specific cases”. At the same time, they all leave open the possibility that the right to vote can be limited by the USG/States, so long as the reason isn’t one of the protected classes. The text of the US Constitution itself is pretty silent on the issue.
Article I, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
That kinda tosses the whole thing to the States to figure out. Though, that has been modified by Federal Law a few times.
Article 4, Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the US Constitution, and it’s been a useful “catch all” to further push the rights of the people. If a universal right to vote exists in the US Constitution, it’s probably here. But, that’s going to fall to judicial review. Which, for the moment, the Kansas court seems to have rejected.
Gotcha, thank you for your detailed response. So what I’m gathering here is that, essentially, the universal right to vote has typically been pushed under the Privileges and Immunities clause, but only because there isn’t exactly any specific line or section in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees it, and also that the P&I clause was utilized via the benevolence (for lack of a better word) for the people by lawmakers and the judiciary?
Given all those references to the right to vote, does that not obviously show that there is a right to vote? And that the right shall not be denied for those reasons? Sort of an “exception proves the rule” sort of thing.
It does seem that there is an implicit right to vote, but not an explicit one. Which is why I mentioned the Privileges and Immunities clause, if there is a Constitutional right to vote, it likely derives from there. But, being implicit, rather than explicit, means that it falls to judicial review to codify it. It’s also not as solidly guaranteed. Unlike say, the right to assemble, there is no specific text you can point to and say, “this bit of text, right here, says it.” So, it wouldn’t be surprising to see any such decision overturned later on (see: Dobbs decision).
This looks like one of those cases where being a country of written laws can lead to weird outcomes. Yes, the right to vote should be universal. But, if the law, as written, doesn’t say that, then that’s not really the law.
Without looking deeper I all but guarantee that these are relics of Jim Crow or earlier. They are a disgusting stain on our country, but not nearly as disgusting as those who would try to leverage them in the modern era for the sake of dragging us back to that era.
Turn off SafeSearch. SafeSearch is a tool by the WOKE corporations to stop the SNOWFLAKES from seeing REAL news, learning the TRUTH and freaking out so that they DETRANSITION their GENDER
Red Lobster first opened in Lakeland, Florida, in 1968 and was acquired by the food conglomerate General Mills in 1970. General Mills then spun the chain off in 1995 along with the rest of its restaurant division, which also included Olive Garden, as Darden Restaurants. In 2014, amid flagging sales and pressure from investors, Darden sold Red Lobster for $2.1 billion to Golden Gate Capital, a San Francisco private-equity firm.
To raise enough cash to make the deal happen, Golden Gate sold off Red Lobster’s real estate to another entity — in this case, a company called American Realty Capital Properties — and then immediately leased the restaurants back. The next year, Red Lobster bought back some sites, but many of its restaurants were suddenly strapped with added rent expenses. Even if Darden had kept Red Lobster, it’s not clear it would have taken a different route: A press release from the time says it had contacted buyers to explore such a transaction. But in Maze’s view, the sale of the real estate was sort of an original sin for Red Lobster’s current troubles. He compared it to throwing out a spare parachute — chances are, you’ll be OK, but if the first parachute fails, you’re in deep trouble.
First thing private equity does is sell the property, whether the business is a LTC home or a restaurant chain.
Fuck private equity. I hope every one of those bastards rots in hell where they belong.
Irrelevant. If you have a business that owns property you should have two divisions for accounting reasons, one that runs the business and one that leases the property to the business. Both sides should be making money. This should just be an accounting trick but you need to watch it, if you can't make money with either side alone that means you don't have a good business.
There are good reasons to own your own real estate, and good reasons to lease. However either way you need to make the accounting numbers work.
Not irrelevant. If they had kept the property the company would have assets. They liquidated the assets and sold the name which was now saddled with debt. That’s not even remotely irrelevant it’s the literal cause of the bankruptcy…can you even read???
This article just said “don’t sell real estate because it is an unsustainable expense.”
Private equity hate spending their own money or they overspend in an attempt to be an entrepreneur. They will buy something, squeeze all the value out of it, and then try to sell it off to be juiced by some other dumb schmuck with deep pockets and dreams.
Constant profitability is a cancer and you are giving advice on how to kill a business, with the example being Red Lobster used your “plan” and just died.
If there’s one thing the Right has done much better than the Left over the last 20+ years, it’s engaging people at the local level. Even if they have to lie to do it. There are lots and lots of school boards all across the country, but it only takes a small amount of money to mount an effective campaign in each one.
The Republican M.O. lately has been to create fake controversies in their media, the run against them. This lady proves it - she was elected based on all the objectionable things she thought the school wad teaching, only to land the job and realize none of what she campaigned on was actually true. She at least had enough critical thinking to realize she was being deceived. Most others would double-down on the alternative facts, so they can keep the money coming in.
Absolutely. This is my chief complaint about progressives. Fight and win the small battles first. If you can’t out complete more conservative competitors there, how can you expect to win larger positions, and advance progressive causes?
I’m aware efforts are being made, I’m only addressing malcontents who do nothing but complain about the lack of progressive presidential candidates and wide, global scale economic changes, but never discuss these lower, but critical bureaucratic postings.
The implication, well one of many, is that the President is the one charging Trump with these crimes. He’s being charged for state crimes, by the various states AGs, in accordance to their laws. He’s also being sued civilly by people he’s defrauded, sexually assaulted, or defamed.
The current president and current administration has had no input in any of this.
The federal cases he has stem from his “mishandling” of classified documents after he was out of office. This case is being handled by a special prosecutor who is insulated from the executive and bound by laws, procedure, legal ethics, etc to act independently from the administration.
So, at the end of the day it’s just more absolute horse shit from Trump and more evidence he should never be on the ballot.
This is where real business men shine. Anyone can ride the wave of right place, right time. It blows my mind how much of our tax dollars are funneled to this bafoon.
I think MKBHD’s (follow up?) review was probably the best take on it. He specifically did not review it as “a truck” and pretty much described it like an SUV where the trunk region is on the exterior the entire time.
Which I think is a vehicle a lot of people would want. Me and my buddies are sickos who go on multi day camping/climbing trips and would not want to leave all our crap in the open (stuff is either in a tent or locked in the car at night). But for the average person? Throw little timmy’s football pads in the back or put a tarp over your fifty suitcases on the way to a hotel. And make sure you have an empty toolchest so people think you work for a living. Groceries are an issue but basically every truck I have ever had the displeasure of parking near just opens their passenger door all the way (almost always dinging the car next to them) and takes twelve minutes to load three bags.
But as an actual truck? it is dogshit. But also… Simone Giertz kind of created Truckla, the dream vehicle of every single millennial who knows what a Lowe’s is: the El Camino. Form factor of a sedan/crossover but with a truckbed so we don’t have to hold a hand out to keep the pipe from shooting forward and cracking the windshield when we stop. And it would have let them reuse almost the entire existing assembly line and designs.
Agreed entirely. I live my SC and describe it as “for people who could get away with an SUV or hatchback but need a bed”. Like I get to have more of a car (albeit big for a car) but the messy stuff doesn’t get in the cab.
My bet is on Ford doing a mav EV before Hyundai does a SC EV though. Just glad to see more tiny trucks out there.
Groceries are an issue but basically every truck I have ever had the displeasure of parking near just opens their passenger door all the way (almost always dinging the car next to them) and takes twelve minutes to load three bags.
This just made me think of a great feature for all these cars with sensors nowadays.
Side door ding avoidance - as the door is opened if it detects its about to hit another vehicle, it will halt the door opening.
Of course now you need all the fancy tech in the door to halt the door but think of all dings saved!
Having computer logic to decide if you are allowed to open your door is how you get people drowning in their cars or getting heat stroke because they started a firmware update.
That said, this is very much the kind of problem that can be solved… basically the same way cabinets solve it. A few springs to increase the resistance so that you can’t slam the door open. But that probably has issues with needing to close a door REALLY fast for Reasons.
Personally? I don’t really care. Cars are going to get dings and those trucknuts are too weak to do any real damage. But the audacity I have seen from some drivers who slam their door open while on the phone and take ten minutes to put four bags in the passenger foot area. All while the driver of the car they just damaged is standing there and staring at them.
That’s more than Ford F150 lighting sold in the same starting period back in 2022,and its more than GM sold of the Silverado EV that started months earlier.
Sadly it’s more of a production problem than a demand problem. I believe there are 100s of thousands of preorders pending. They are just hard to build to any decent standard. Or apparently impossible to build to even a basic working standard.
One could argue that it is preferable to serial killers.
Serial killers meticulously plan and often torture their victims extensively and many of their victims families never get closure because nothing gets tied back to the killer.
Mass gunman attacks, for example, kill orders of magnitude faster with much less pain for many of their victims, the perpetrator isn’t active for a long period of time, and the families get closure.
Of two severely fucked up scenarios that happen, it seems that one is worse.
Not really, ETA, IRA, Al Qaeda the Palestinians hijacking planes, Pablo Escobar blowing up planes, Unabomber, Oklahoma City. These are all things of the past.
They want migrants to come work the hardest, shittiest jobs but they want them to all live in the crappy housing outside the city limits because the townsfolk don’t actually consider immigrants to be human beings. That was the gist of the article as I read it anyway…
Indentured servitude is still a form of slavery. A form where people signed themselves away to pay off debts at the cost of having little fucking rights. Slaves also didn’t just work on cotton plantations, some were servants to nobles too.
States’ Rights is a euphemism for the reactionary cause du jour. You can call them out for a contradiction, but at best they will just ignore you because they know and we know they’re not talking about or concerned with the rights of states vs. federal mandate. Then there’s always the threat that they will drop the euphemism and say that they want to punish promiscuous women and trans deviants. Trump has largely proven that the right doesn’t have to watch its mouth near as much as they used to think. Rather than abandon their political identity, the majority of the “moderate” right will go along with the new framing. The only ones who lose out in this shift in rhetoric are women and trans people, who are now directly and publicly targeted not just by the reactionary fringes but by the right as a whole.
If you’re wondering, yes, I absolutely lifted most of this from the Alt-Right Playbook, “The Death of a Euphemism”
State’s rights has always been disingenuous. Back when the Southern states were using it as a shield to own literal slaves, they took a break from their precious state’s rights long enough to demand other states send their escaped slaves back to them, before harping on state’s rights again.
It’s as disingenuous as the person harping on free speech while they say something obnoxious, but suddenly want to limit your speech when you call them out on it.
The South has never used “state’s rights” in good faith, it’s always been an excuse to be bigots.
It is impossible for a conservative to enter any conversation in good faith. Honesty is simply not a conservative trait. Every word uttered by a conservative is either deception or manipulation. Every word.
I get where you’re coming from and why, I really do, but I think saying stuff like that is really unhelpful.
I’m about as left wing as they come, but I grew up in rural Florida. All the bullshit you see about the place? That’s my family. None of them specifically have shown up on the news, but still, it’s them - their beliefs, attitudes, etc.
The issue isn’t deception or manipulation from regular conservatives. When my grandparents / cousins spit out that sort of bullshit, that’s not what’s going on.
The issue, rather, is a complex one that is, among other things, a thing of trust.
They believe, honestly and truly, in Fox News. They believe in their preachers. They believe that homosexuality is a demon that possesses people, and by interacting with “the gays,” you “open the door” to demonic influence in your life.
That last bit is an example of something I was outright taught.
When my grandparents talk about how it’d be good for America to round up all the gays and put them in concentration camps, what they’re feeling is protectiveness. They want to protect people from Satan’s influence, and if someone has accepted the enemy to the point of being proudly gay, then why should people be sympathetic to them? Get rid of them all, obviously.
Yes, it’s insane and hurtful and stupid and so frustrating that I haven’t spoken to my extended family in a few years.
But they’re not trying to trick people. They don’t need to think about what they believed before, they don’t need to second guess what’s right, they know what’s right. What’s right is believing in the authority figures they’ve been trained to believe in. What is right is to listen, to obey, to fight as they are directed to fight, for the good of all.
It’s horrifying from the outside, but from the inside, it’s a safe little bubble where you don’t have to wonder and worry about what is the right thing to do. It’s easy - the only hard part is acting on it. Do what’s right, and everything else will fall into place. It’s simple and feels good.
To challenge that way of thinking, to suggest that they have to figure it out themselves - that’s a huge ask. Going against what they’ve been taught their whole lives, and for what? To have to deal with moral uncertainty and unsolvable moral dilemmas? That’s hardly a reason to change.
Im going to use this comment to explain this idea to people. Im a lefty too and I grew up almost just like you. Whenever I try to explain this , it always comes out like I’m an apologist for all the crappy stuff they do and it makes people think I’m a closeted conservative. I have never once seen this explained so perfectly and succinctly. Thanks for sharing, really
Yeah, I’ve run into that plenty myself. Hell, I’m a woman and I have a wife, and I was once accused of being homophobic… as I was trying to explain why I was happy about living thousands of kilometers from my family.
It really bugs me when people accuse people like my grandparents of being “hateful.” If my grandparents see that, they’ll just see more “proof” that left wingers have no idea what they’re talking about.
I can’t do anything to fix the issues on the conservative side of the fence - I really wish I could - but I can hopefully help on my side of the fence, with fostering better understanding and communication.
My break from conservative thinking was… uh… perhaps best described as a violent psychological event. I went from thinking we were the good guys, to maybe getting some things wrong, to suddenly realizing I’d been unknowingly on the side of evil my whole life. Meeting someone who was gay and hearing his story, about the abuse he took from people who acted exactly as I’d been taught to… Stars above, that ripped out my heart.
And if I hadn’t already had my beliefs cracking and under pressure, I’d have blown off his story as pure manipulation.
It’s a whole thing, for me. I can only hope for reconciliation of some kind. My family members aren’t really evil people - they mean well, even if they only consider people who are straight, white, and Christian to be fully people.
But calling them things they aren’t won’t ever get them to listen.
Not that I know what would get them to listen, beyond convincing their pastor of things…
So, the guy was expected to appear in court for thw second round of questioning and when he didn’t show up was found dead in his truck in the underground car park of the hotel. Doesn’t sound like someone that wanted to end it. Maybe I’m wrong but I wouldn’t book a room to go to court and then on a whim decide to end it.
Most people that kill themselves do so on a whim. Its probably not the case, but its not impossible. I’m guessing either the coroner is corrupt, or they have actual evidence it was a suicide. If it was a murder, then I doubt Boeing would do it without assurance it couldn’t be traced back to them. So regardless of what actually happened, the only official story there will ever be is that it was a suicide. That is, unless Boeing is as reckless about murder as they are about building planes.
Absolutely, I don’t mean there is no warning whatsoever. There is almost always a history of depression, but that history is not always visible to loved ones, let alone the public. I just mean they are likely not specifically planning to commit suicide until soon before they do it, which at least in my experience is true
Yeah it could emerge apparently at random for unsuspecting familiars, but this guy was about to do something that was important for him, on which he worked for years according to the article. Sounds sus to me.
Trump sues someone, loses, wasted time and pays fine
Trump gets charged, loses, pays fine/legal penalties
Trump talks out of his ass, gets sued, loses court battle, pays the lawsuit
This is entertaining, more please, I want to see his life erode into a neverending cycle of paying out the people he’s harmed and getting his time wasted with court cases until he finally dies
Ultimately seeing his empire collapse while he’s still alive is the best punishment he can ever receive. It hits his narcissism and insecurity directly and in a way he can’t cover over.
I was banned from r/politics for saying I hoped Rupert Murdoch got a nasty staph infection in an article about him being in the hospital. What the fuck?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.