ID required to have Michelle Obama sign her book for you

[JenaS62]

So you should not need an ID to vote but you have to provide ID to have the first lady sign a copy of her book for you? Really? Just when I think I've heard it all.... Got hypocrisy?



"The Obama administration has done its best to oppose states from instituting new, stricter voter ID laws, complaining that many minority voters lack photo identification. But those same folks it wants voting in November are apparently not welcome anywhere near the First Lady's book signings. Something tells me that the same media outlets comparing voter ID laws to the Jim Crow Laws, however, won't see any hint of hypocrisy here, if they even report the story at all.

As stated on the blog Obama Foodorama:

On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee. At the same time, customers must also submit their social security number and show an official photo ID (driver's license, passport) to a Secret Service agent, and they will be issued a wristband to the First Lady's event on June 12.( Emphasis added)

The liberal media, particularly Obama-boosting cable network MSNBC has done its best to attack voter ID laws as discriminatory at best and racist at worst."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-bates/2012/06/06/first-lady-requires-photo-id-her-book-signings-voter-id-law-hating-media#ixzz1x6yLkViB

[Cartesiantheater]

I would dare suspect that attending a book signing isn't a constitutional right.

[Lillith]

And one would probably NOT get a face to face in a contained room with the Queen Mum without showing similar ID.

[JenaS62]

Apparently Michelle only wants rich white people to get their books signed as the poor and minorities don't have IDs according to most on the left.

[MaximumPain]

Apparently Michelle only wants rich white people to get their books signed as the poor and minorities don't have IDs according to most on the left.

I see what you did there!!!! :lol: clever.

[Cartesiantheater]

Apparently Michelle only wants rich white people to get their books signed as the poor and minorities don't have IDs according to most on the left.

:Llol:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0801/CielHiverPic_sallez.jpg

[JenaS62]

Is this supposed to mean something to me? I hate when people add some random picture to their post.

[MaximumPain]

Of course this is all about security and I would also like to point out that voting is a FUCKING RIGHT!!!!! getting your book signed is not.

On Friday, June 8th, those wishing to attend the event must purchase a copy of the First Lady's book at the location and leave it at the store, according to the employee. At the same time, customers must also submit their social security number and show an official photo ID (driver's license, passport) to a Secret Service agent, and they will be issued a wristband to the First Lady's event on June 12.

Whatever you need to try and score fake points though Jenna... newsbusters!!! really LMAO Im not even sure if the story is true base on your horribly politically biased source.

[Cartesiantheater]

Is this supposed to mean something to me? I hate when people add some random picture to their post.

I thought the picture looked better than 25 chars 25 chars.

[lycanox]

Signing an book is not a constitutional right and will not have an impact on national policy.

Besides, these days it sadly makes sense to increase security to such absurd degrees.
Or have we forgotten about Gabrielle Gifford's.

[MaximumPain]

Also to really influence an election they would need to get out thousands of so called unregistered voters.... remember these are the same so called lazy welfare moms who cant even spend 10 minutes looking for a job... or they are the illegal aliens who are afraid to get deported.... or known felons who for some reason give a shit enough to actually want to vote..... and you need them to show up by the thousands to even have a chance of influencing the vote.

Now that you have convinced these people to come out by the thousands and risk getting caught commiting a felony you need to find someone else who is already on the rolls but wont show up to vote so your fraudulent vote caster can walk up, claim to be <person who has not showed up yet to vote today yet is a registered voter in that area> by giving their first and last name and confirming an address.... all of this by the thousands remember or you don't even really influence the vote. In order to pull that off you would need massive training and recruitment efforts conducted on groups of people who are either indifferent or fearful of the process... so how do you motivate them and get them the information they need to be able to cast a fraudulent vote?

No I call complete bullshit on this entire right wing effort to disenfranchise people they don't feel should have the right to vote. And I call bullshit on this article that draws a false comparison of security needs to voting rights...... shame...... shame on you for wanting to deny your fellow citizens their constitutional right to vote in our democracy (republic..... whatever).

If you really want to fix an election you need to figure out a way to influence the electronic voting machines... those things can add votes by the thousands and don't need to be trained or paid off.

[MaximumPain]

Ok so if you have thousands of people voting illegally what percentage are getting caught? There is no way it would be 0... 5% is probably too high so lets say a meager 2.5% get caught.... out of say 5000 possible instances that would be 125 people..... I wonder if that would make the news? Also what percentage of people would show up only to be told they already voted? Are you saying they are all using dead people still on the rolls? It cant even be half the fake votes are cast in the name of dead people... so how many people are reporting that they tried to vote but someone had voted in their stead? out of 5000 possibles half of them dead leaving 2500 at least half of those would have probably blocked someone else from voting so 1250 instances and how many would have complained... would that make the news??? Would the GOP leadership let that news story sit without calling it out.


All that speculation also assumes that none of the voter fraud is done in the name of the GOP candidates.... You aren't stupid enough to believe that are you? Really are you saying only democratic voters would cheat in an election?

[JenaS62]

All that speculation also assumes that none of the voter fraud is done in the name of the GOP candidates.... You aren't stupid enough to believe that are you? Really are you saying only democratic voters would cheat in an election?


No, of course not. I want fair elections. I do not want ineligible voters voting. I have always believed that the GOP never let Ron Paul win any primaries - so yeah I do also think that the GOP cheats. So implement voter ID laws and be done with it. I really can't understand why the left is so against it. What are you afraid of?

[DontBeAfraid]

What are you afraid of? Disenfranchising legal voters... Denying citizens one of their constitutional rights...

[MaximumPain]

No, of course not. I want fair elections. I do not want ineligible voters voting. I have always believed that the GOP never let Ron Paul win any primaries - so yeah I do also think that the GOP cheats. So implement voter ID laws and be done with it. I really can't understand why the left is so against it. What are you afraid of?

So to stop an insignificant amount of people from voting illegally you want to prevent many legal voters from voting by a needless requirement?

I know its actually about defeating democrats even for you so don't pretend you just want fair elections.

[JenaS62]

I know its actually about defeating democrats even for you so don't pretend you just want fair elections.


So the dems can't win without the help of ineligible voters (non citizens, dead people, felons)??? HAHA - is that what you're saying?

Look at people all up in arms about Florida. They are sending notices to people that show up on the ineligible list and YET you guys are still complaining. We are talking about 2700 people. Certainly not enough to make a difference in any presidential, senate or congressional election and there are certainly more than 2700 minorities in Florida.

[MaximumPain]

So the dems can't win without the help of ineligible voters (non citizens, dead people, felons)??? HAHA - is that what you're saying? I just got done showing you how a few cheaters cant influence an election and you even agreed that the GOP likely cheats as well so its all a wash. Now if you make it so thousands of legitimate voters cant vote then you do influence the election by disenfranchisement. But you keep on hearing what you want.


Look at people all up in arms about Florida. They are sending notices to people that show up on the ineligible list and YET you guys are still complaining. We are talking about 2700 people. Certainly not enough to make a difference in any presidential, senate or congressional election and there are certainly more than 2700 minorities in Florida. You lost me there... what are you talking about?

Oh and granting money and power to powerful corporations is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys ~ Me

[DontBeAfraid]

So the dems can't win without the help of ineligible voters (non citizens, dead people, felons)??? HAHA - is that what you're saying?If that is what you actually think he was saying then not only are you bad at math but you are also bad at english...

[GamerGal]

Jena, it is to keep people like Keil and you away from her. So you two don't show up screaming about "Obama was born in Kenya and Glenn Beck said shoot Democrats in the head!" And shooting Michelle.

Also, voting is a right, book signings are not. At least Michelle shows up to hers unlike Palin.

[Ningishiddza]

So you should not need an ID to vote but you have to provide ID to have the first lady sign a copy of her book for you? Really? Just when I think I've heard it all.... Got hypocrisy?

But, of course!

One cannot be a Libtard without also being an hypocrite and employing double-standards, and the old, "Do as I say, not as I do" axiom.


I would dare suspect that attending a book signing isn't a constitutional right.

Neither is voting.

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).


Apparently Michelle only wants rich white people to get their books signed as the poor and minorities don't have IDs according to most on the left.

You go girl.


Is this supposed to mean something to me? I hate when people add some random picture to their post.

It means they lost and you won. You slammed them with facts and they don't know how to respond.


Of course this is all about security and I would also like to point out that voting is a FUCKING RIGHT!!!!! getting your book signed is not.

And voting does not deserve security?

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).


Signing an book is not a constitutional right and will not have an impact on national policy.

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).

When you grow a brain, you can examine constitutionally protected concepts such as free speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to redress grievances.


Now that you have convinced these people to come out by the thousands and risk getting caught commiting a felony....

Um, no, big brain, the risk getting caught is in obtaining either a driver's license or a State ID card.

What you are not intelligent enough to understand is that there are thousands and thousands of deadbeats who owe back child-support. They are flying under the radar. They cannot go to a State licensing bureau and renew their driver's license, nor can they obtain a driver's license, nor can they obtain a State ID card without getting arrested for being in arrears on child support.

Likewise, there are thousands and thousands who have unpaid parking tickets, who live under the fear of a capias (bench) warrant because they failed to pay a traffic violation and they also failed to appear in court; and who live in fear because they have either a bench warrant, or a felony warrant, because they failed to pay the fines owed for some misdemeanor offense, like a drug possession offense, a drug paraphernalia offense "open container" or Drunk & Disorderly, or public intox, or they were arrested for a felony offense, released on their own recognizance and then failed to appear at trial, or they appeared at trial and were convicted, but failed to appear for the sentencing hearing.

Now your little brain has lots to think about.


Disenfranchising legal voters... Denying citizens one of their constitutional rights...

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).

When you grow a brain, you can examine constitutionally protected concepts such as free speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to redress grievances.


So to stop an insignificant amount of people from voting illegally you want to prevent many legal voters from voting by a needless requirement?

It is not a needless requirement. You cannot obtain any federal or State welfare benefits without a valid driver's license or State ID Card.

If you dial 2-1-1, a free call on your cellular telephone, you will be hooked into social services, who will steer you toward any number of government or private organizations who will help you get your driver's license or ID card for ---- FREE.


Also, voting is a right, book signings are not.

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).

When you grow a brain, you can examine constitutionally protected concepts such as free speech, the right to assemble peaceably, and the right to redress grievances.

Since Michelle is married to The Boy King™ is not an audience with Michelle an attempt to exercise a constitutional right and redress grievances?

Do people not have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble?

Do people not have a constitutional right to free speech?

Well, apparently, to exercise those constitutional rights, you need an ID card.

Total fail.

[Cartesiantheater]

Neither is voting.

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to vote."

For what it's worth, knowing that half of this will go over your head, and the other half will go way, way over your head, the US Constitution only protects the rights of qualified voters to vote, and does not guarantee the right to vote.

See Alexander v Mineta US Supreme Court (2000).

That was the implication you were supposed to understand without it being spelled out for you.

[DontBeAfraid]

Ning is either playing stupid(all the time) or is just incredibly stupid... Also a liar who sprinkles his posts with small bits of truth making him appear smart to dumb people or people who already agree with him(and probably happen to also be dumb)... his posts are not worth reading.

[Ningishiddza]

That was the implication you were supposed to understand without it being spelled out for you.

You said:


I would dare suspect that attending a book signing isn't a constitutional right.

Voting is not a constitutional right. Each State has the right to determine who is qualified to vote. That qualification cannot be based on race or gender. If a State wants to require proof of US Citizenship to vote, it surely can.

Your analogy to a book signing is a classic Straw Man: You grotesquely distorted and misrepresented the position thinking you would get a quick victory.

You failed to grasp the other implications. You cannot express free speech (a bona fide Constitutional Right) in front of Michelle The Girl Queen™ without having identification, and you cannot peaceably assemble (a bona fide Constitutional Right) in front of Michelle The Girl Queen™ without identification and you cannot redress grievances (a bona fide Constitutional Right) before Michelle the Girl Queen™ without an identification.

You failed.


Ning is either playing stupid(all the time) or is just incredibly stupid... Also a liar who sprinkles his posts with small bits of truth making him appear smart to dumb people or people who already agree with him(and probably happen to also be dumb)... his posts are not worth reading.

Wow, you actually posted something other than a snappy one-liner. Still jealous as ever I see.

You get today's GamerGal On-Line™ Dumbest Post Ever Award.

Do you have something to add to our discussion? Quick, search your Obamabot Talking Points™. I'll give you time. Do you have a link to support your erroneous claim that voting is a "constitutional right?" No you don't. Here's a link:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/531bv.pdf

When your mommy gets done walking the streets tonight, have her read it to you (sorry it doesn't have any pictures).

[DontBeAfraid]

Just cant... bother... to read... nincompoops.... post... argh

[JenaS62]

For those of you too lazy to look up what Ning said about voting not being a constitutional right, I'll make it easy for you. I've even highlighted the one sentence which is relevant to this discussion to make it even easier.


"The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote


BAM


And just in case that's not good enough - here is another:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy/A_Right_to_Vote.html

"Of everything we learned about American politics from the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore last December, nothing was more important than the Court's insistence that the people still have "no federal constitutional right to vote." We (the people) have only the voting privileges our states choose to grant us."

[DontBeAfraid]

If a person cannot "be denied the right to vote" it is implied that that person has a right to vote... that cannot be denied...

And you are just the kind of dumbshit that laps up nings garbage...

[JenaS62]

You're the dumb shit.

You cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender or color. That's all it says. If your state says that you need a photo ID to vote - you can be denied. If your state says that felons cannot vote and you're a felon - you can be denied. If your state says that you have to be an eligible voter and you're not, you can be denied.

[Beatnik Bob]

Voting is not a constitutional right. Each State has the right to determine who is qualified to vote.

You contradicted yourself slightly.

The State having the right to determine who is qualified to vote does not make voting a non-right.
It just means that they can set parameters around that right.
But it's still a right.

You understand that parameters don't negate that?

Article IV Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


That qualification cannot be based on race or gender. If a State wants to require proof of US Citizenship to vote, it surely can.
Obviously, yes.
No one questions whether or not they can actually do it. There is merely a concern that IDs are unethical.


You failed to grasp the other implications. You cannot express free speech (a bona fide Constitutional Right) in front of Michelle The Girl Queen™ without having identification, and you cannot peaceably assemble (a bona fide Constitutional Right) in front of Michelle The Girl Queen™ without identification and you cannot redress grievances (a bona fide Constitutional Right) before Michelle the Girl Queen™ without an identification.
That's because...
Michelle the Green Queen™ is not the president of this country!

I did not vote for her... I am not going to vote for her... And you don't have to either.

You do NOT have a constitutional right to address grievances to, and be heard by, someone who is just a citizen--and not a public servant.

Michelle Obama owes you nothing. And this is not hypocrisy because she is an unelected official. If Michelle and Obama were the same person, we would maybe have a problem. As it is... We do not have a problem.


And trust me on this... I am not going to vote for Michelle this year. That's a promise. And people who like Obama and/or voted/will vote for him are under no obligation to like his wife.
They are still two separate people. Or do you still think a woman is a reflection of a man as his property?



If this was a story about Palin being a hypocrite, it still wouldn't matter. While the stories themselves may find traction with their particular ideological groups (right or left), it doesn't mean that the story actually matters.

Come back when Barack is the one asking for IDs to a book signing... Then that will be noteworthy.

Michelle, as a private citizen who (honestly) only matters because of her marital status, is well within her rights to want her own security during a book signing.

Come to think of it, even Obama, as an elected head of the executive branch, is entitled to personal security as well. It has to do with his safety, not the rights of people getting their books signed. The parameter is not there to weed-out book signers... But rather to protect.
And as far as I know, Obama or his wife, or a member of his administration, will not be present at every single voting installation in the country come voting time. So there would be no reason for an ID to ensure their personal safety.

And you can't address grievances to Michelle... Were you serious? She isn't an executive of this government.

At least, not officially on paper anyway... According to the constitution she isn't an executive in government...

You failed.
Think.


Do you have a link to support your erroneous claim that voting is a "constitutional right?" No you don't. Here's a link:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/531bv.pdf
Article IV section 4. Read it...
It's in the Constitution.

Are you unclear what constitutes a Republic?


When your mommy gets done walking the streets tonight, have her read it to you (sorry it doesn't have any pictures).
The constitution doesn't have any pictures either.
I'm sure you can try though.

[Beatnik Bob]

You're the dumb shit.

You cannot be denied the right to vote based on gender or color. That's all it says.
Well, you forgot poll-taxes as well. And other taxes.


If your state says that you need a photo ID to vote - you can be denied. If your state says that felons cannot vote and you're a felon - you can be denied. If your state says that you have to be an eligible voter and you're not, you can be denied.
It's an ethical discussion Jena...

[Freddy]

I would think the Secret Service would be patting down those who got their books signed by the First Lady. Having to show an ID would be simply smart.

[DontBeAfraid]

You cannot be denied the right to voteI cannot be denied what based on sex/color....? The "what" to vote?

[Ningishiddza]

Just cant... bother... to read... nincompoops.... post... argh

You either intentionally lied when you said voting is a constitutional right, or you proved that you are dumber than GG's tampons.

Which is it?

If you don't want me to embarrass you tears, then don't post.


...the Court's insistence that the people still have "no federal constitutional right to vote." We (the people) have only the voting privileges our states choose to grant us."'

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held for 250+ years that there is no constitutional right to vote.

I guess people believe only what they want to believe. I don't know which is scarier, that or the fact that there is no constitutional right to vote.


If a person cannot "be denied the right to vote" it is implied that that person has a right to vote... that cannot be denied...

And you are just the kind of dumbshit that laps up nings garbage...

There is nothing implied in the US Constitution. Had you bothered to read the US Constitution even once in your sad pathetic life, you would have come across the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Anything "delegated" is express, not implied, and it doesn't matter, since there is no such thing as an "implied right." Are you going to show us in the US Constitution where people have a right to vote, or are you going to weasel-dick out like you always do?


You contradicted yourself slightly.

The State having the right to determine who is qualified to vote does not make voting a non-right. It just means that they can set parameters around that right.
But it's still a right.

You understand that parameters don't negate that?

There's no contradiction there. You might want to study Logic in greater detail -- "The Absence of Conflict is Not Peace."

The State also licenses doctors. Accordingly then, do you have a right to be a doctor? No.

The State also licenses people to drive. Do you have a right to drive? No.

Show us where you have an express right to vote.


No one questions whether or not they can actually do it.

Uh, wut? Did you bother to read the idiotic comments on this thread? People believe they have a constitutional right to vote, when in fact that is not true, and that is not my opinion, that is the opinion of your Supreme Court, who has held that opinion for more than 250 years.


There is merely a concern that IDs are unethical.

There is nothing unethical about it. Funny how all of you liberals want to be just like Europe, except Europe requires voter IDs, but you all ignore that fact. Don't you have a "right" to housing? Try getting housing without ID. Doesn't matter if you're renting or getting a mortgage. Don't you have a right to education? To Food Stamps? To other benefits? Try getting those without an ID.

Like I said, if The Boy King™ had proposed voter IDs, you all would be hot for it, claiming how good it would be for America™.


That's because...
Michelle the Green Queen™ is not the president of this country!

I never said she was. Regardless, she is the President's representative, as First Lady. If she wants to give up the title of First Lady and move out of the White House, then it wouldn't be a problem.


You do NOT have a constitutional right to address grievances to, and be heard by, someone who is just a citizen--and not a public servant.

She is not just an ordinary citizen. She is the First Lady, and she represents the President and she represents the United States, and she is a public policy maker, or are you going to deny that she had a hand in ramming another useless tax-payer bureaucracy down everyone's throats with her Reichsministry of School Nutrition?


Michelle, as a private citizen who (honestly) only matters because of her marital status, is well within her rights to want her own security during a book signing.

The children are private citizens and off-limits. She is not. She is the First Lady. If she wishes to forgo that title and move out of the White House, then she will be a private citizen.


YCome to think of it, even Obama, as an elected head of the executive branch, is entitled to personal security as well. It has to do with his safety, not the rights of people getting their books signed. The parameter is not there to weed-out book signers... But rather to protect.

And the volunteers who run the polling precincts don't deserve security or protection? The integrity of voting does not need to be protected? You have people voting in Florida, and then voting in New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by absentee ballot. You have students in Ohio voting in Ohio and then voting in their home State by absentee ballot. You have people who should be in jail, instead of voting, you have people who should not be voting for legitimate reasons, and you don't want to take any action to correct that. That's brilliant.


And you can't address grievances to Michelle... Were you serious? She isn't an executive of this government.

She voluntarily assumed the duties of First Lady. It is an exercise in Free Speech, and an exercise to the right to peaceably assemble. There are many ways to redress grievances. An audience with the First Lady is merely one way of many ways to redress grievances.

You explain your problem/issue/conundrum to the First Lady, and she tells The Boy King™. Get it? Or, since she is a policy maker, she'll set up another useless tax-payer money sucking bureaucracy to study your problem. And they'll spend your tax money watching shrimp run on treadmills, and having Jell-O parties, and using prostitutes, and then they'll have quarterly meetings at the swankiest hotels in America™.

I would point out that if you wish to exercise your constitutional right to redress grievances, then you must have a valid State-issued ID, or not only will you not be able to file your case, you won't even be able to set foot in the court house. There is nothing unethical here; it's just plain common sense.

The only reason you all are railing on this is because the opposition party came up with the idea. If Democrats had come up with the idea, it would be a done deal. Mark my words, if nothing happens, in a few years Democrats will propose Voter IDs and claim the idea as their own.

[Beatnik Bob]

Show us where you have an express right to vote.
What is Article IV section 4 if but that?

What else constitutes a Republican form of government? I believe the definition of "Republic" is inescapable...


There is nothing unethical about it.
That's your opinion...
Just like the opinions that it is unethical are opinions.
You have to back opinions up.


Like I said, if The Boy King™ had proposed voter IDs, you all would be hot for it, claiming how good it would be for America™.
That might be true...


I never said she was. Regardless, she is the President's representative, as First Lady. If she wants to give up the title of First Lady and move out of the White House, then it wouldn't be a problem.
What article in the Constitution gave the "first lady" any power as a representative?


She is not just an ordinary citizen. She is the First Lady, and she represents the President and she represents the United States, and she is a public policy maker
Where is that in the Constitution?

You seem so keen on what is and isn't constitutional... So what article in the constitution make the "first lady" represent "the President" and "the United States."


or are you going to deny that she had a hand in ramming another useless tax-payer bureaucracy down everyone's throats with her Reichsministry of School Nutrition?
I don't deny that.
But again, I didn't vote for her. And the executive branch of the U.S. does not call for a wife.
I mean, President Buchanan didn't have a wife.


The children are private citizens and off-limits. She is not. She is the First Lady. If she wishes to forgo that title and move out of the White House, then she will be a private citizen.
That is contradictory logic.
She lives in the White House and is the "first lady," therefore she isn't a private citizen. But if she leaves, she will lose that title. Her children, however, live in the White House as well, and are apart of what is called the "first family." Yet you made no mention of me having to answer to Sasha and Malia. Or that if they moved out of the White House they would opt out of some position...

No matter... "First lady" is not a position described in the constitution. It is merely a colloquial designation. Like "first family."


And the volunteers who run the polling precincts don't deserve security or protection? The integrity of voting does not need to be protected? You have people voting in Florida, and then voting in New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan by absentee ballot. You have students in Ohio voting in Ohio and then voting in their home State by absentee ballot. You have people who should be in jail, instead of voting, you have people who should not be voting for legitimate reasons, and you don't want to take any action to correct that. That's brilliant.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Just curious.


She voluntarily assumed the duties of First Lady. It is an exercise in Free Speech, and an exercise to the right to peaceably assemble. There are many ways to redress grievances. An audience with the First Lady is merely one way of many ways to redress grievances.
So how come "first ladies" are not a requirement for the executive office...

And where in the constitution are they provided for?


I would point out that if you wish to exercise your constitutional right to redress grievances, then you must have a valid State-issued ID, or not only will you not be able to file your case, you won't even be able to set foot in the court house. There is nothing unethical here; it's just plain common sense.
Here's a question:

If someone who is not a legal citizen here is mistreated, and has a genuine reason to protest, should they not be allowed to protest if they can't produce an ID? Should we prevent free speech to people who don't have IDs?

[Reef Badlaw]

-Any bets that MO just scribbles her name anyway? like: /\/\ __~_~~ () ~____, like celebs do at orchestrated signings.

so your grandkids'll never believe it when ya try to jam it at 'em during a probate-hearing...

" Hey, kids, it really was signed by Michelle... "
" Just give us the money... "