Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Modern Civics
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 236 (647598)
01-10-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Perdition
01-10-2012 12:34 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
If that were the case, we wouldn't be in the middle of a second round of recall elections in less than a year.
It takes a rather small minority of eligible voters to initiate a recall. In fact, given the small percentage of people who actually turn out for the general election, and the outrage generated by the union issue, I don't think even a successful recall election proves all that much. I suspect I could have gotten half of the signatures needed for a recall by standing outside of the state house during the protests.
ABE
Students at a nearby campus were told that local elections were usually close enough such that the student voters alone were capable of determining the outcome if they voted as a bloc.
I suspect that WI election for governor was largely determined by those who decided not to vote.
end ABE
True, and a truly comprehensive questionaire and test would be unfeasible in the extreme. But, a set of questions based on what the polls show as the major concerns of the voters in the jurisdiction over which the candidate hopes to have authority would not be too lengthy or too difficult.
I think your idealism is showing. I would like to believe that when all of the facts are laid out and considered that everyone would vote exactly as I do (absent some fundamental differences between us that are easy to recognize). Yet a lot of apparently intelligent people managed to vote for McCain/Palin in the 2008 election.
Edited by NoNukes, : Marked as ABE

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 12:34 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 236 (647599)
01-10-2012 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Perdition
01-10-2012 12:43 PM


Re: Jos the Well-Informed Voter
If handled properly, this test would do nothing more than make it take a little longer to vote.
I think the test would be abused and become a propaganda tool policed by those currently in power. It is already the case that there are subtle efforts by those in power in my jurisdiction to discourage or make it inconvenient for likely supporters of the opposition to vote. I don't trust anyone to write such a test.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 12:43 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:32 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 93 of 236 (647604)
01-10-2012 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Perdition
01-09-2012 3:57 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
crashfrog writes:
Show you how what? I don't understand. Do you not know your own position, the position you've just articulated in this thread?
Lulztypical response when called out. Typical and predictable.
Perdition writes:
Well, to be pedantic, there's the Bill of Rights...
Interesting that you mention those. When they bill of rights where ratified in 1791 were women citizens? Were Native Americans? Blacks? Were women protected? Did they have rights? Could they vote? Could they own property?
Or were they simply Residents? Savage animals? And Property?
How could these groups gain rights, gain citizenship, gain freedom? Wouldn’t giving them shared freedoms redefine everything in the US?
just to be pedantic
I guess you could redefine everyone in the US as a resident
We’d probably have to grandfather everyone in who was already a citizen at the time of the new rules passing, but everyone else, would have to test out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Perdition, posted 01-09-2012 3:57 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:37 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 94 of 236 (647606)
01-10-2012 1:21 PM


caffeine writes:
The problem with some sort of voting test is that it opens up the possibility, however small, of being abused to prevent people from exercising their vote. We know, from bitter experience, that given the opportunity, people will attempt to disenfranchise those whom they expect to disagree with them.
I am not aware of the situation in the Czech Republic, what happened with voting there?
butterflytyrant writes:
t greatly concerns me that someone like this has weaseled his way to where he is and it concerns me more that there are enough fucking idiots in Australia who may vote him in.
More disteurbing is that anyone who disagrees with your view is a fucking idiot. But then you do call yourself a tyrant. Sic semper tyrannis
butterflytyrant writes:
Dis I say that? Or are you creating a straw man to shoot at?
As a matter of fact, I didn't say anythinglike that.
He wasn’t arguing that you did say that. But I agree with him, its sounds like you should be the emperor of Australia, because you know what is right, and those who disagree with you are fucking idiots and stupid people.
perdition writes:
I agree that this is a legitimate concern, and one I take very seriously. I would propose that any national vote would have a nationally approved test, probably administered by computer, without asking for any personal information. It spits out a piece of paper with either "pass" or "fail" written on it. You then bring the piece of paper with "Pass" on it, along with anything else necessary to register to vote with you to the table and everything proceeds as it does now.
Word.
I should clarify. I was also speaking on a Federal Level. State and local elections are completely different.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:40 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 107 by caffeine, posted 01-11-2012 3:55 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 95 of 236 (647608)
01-10-2012 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by NoNukes
01-10-2012 12:49 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
It takes a rather small minority of eligible voters to initiate a recall. In fact, given the small percentage of people who actually turn out for the general election, and the outrage generated by the union issue, I don't think even a successful recall election proves all that much. I suspect I could have gotten half of the signatures needed for a recall by standing outside of the state house during the protests.
True, to initiate a recall, it takes just one petitioner...but s/he then needs to collect signatures equalling 25% of the number of people who voted in the last election for governor in the electoral district of the officer being recalled.
So, theoretically, in a close election, all you need to do is get half of the people who voted against a guy to sign the petition and you've got a recall going. However, if the person being recalled loses, it would seem to indicate that either the people who supported him/her originally changed sides, or weren't passionate enough to vote for him/her twice.
But what I'm specifically worried about are the people who vote for a guy, then, not only choose not to vote for him again, but actually sign the petition for his recall and vote against him. Especially when he's doign what he said he would do. It would seem that if people had known what he said he would do, they would not have voted for him, does it not?
I suspect that WI election for governor was largely determined by those who decided not to vote.
Not really. If you assume that those who chose not to vote would vote approximately equal to those who did vote, then the results would be the same, naturally.
2,133167 people voted total. It came to about 52%-48%. There were 5,686,986 people in WI in 2010, of which 23.6% are below 18. So there were 4,344,857 eligible voters. That comes to 49%. That's a fairly large sample size on whcih to base the trend for the state.
I think your idealism is showing.
I'm sure it is. But I'm not asking for as much as you seem to be thinking. It shouldn't bar anyone from voting, and if it does, I'd fully support doing away with the whole thing. Just because my idea seems to idealistic, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out a way to get more voters informed.
I would like to believe that when all of the facts are laid out and considered that everyone would vote exactly as I do (absent some fundamental differences between us that are easy to recognize).
Well, obviously I think I'm on the right side. But I respect that informed people on the other side feel the same. It's the people who have no idea why they're voting or who they're voting for that frustrates me.
But again, I'm not suggesting we ban anyone from voting. If people are determined to vote for someone without knowing a thing about them...or only what they hear on the pundit TV shows, then all they need to do is fail the test, answer based on the pamphlet, and then go on about their business.
If the news media in this country weren't so worried about "access" and "entertainment" I wouldn't feel so passionate about this, but many people don't know where to begin to learn about the candidates, but still feel the need to vote.
Uninformed voters are not the same as stupid voters. I want to fix the former, and the latter can do as they wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 12:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 4:09 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 96 of 236 (647613)
01-10-2012 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by NoNukes
01-10-2012 12:53 PM


Re: Jos the Well-Informed Voter
I think the test would be abused and become a propaganda tool policed by those currently in power.
It might, but I would endeavor to make it unlikely as possible. Computerized questions that don't require any personal info to be entered to start or finish the test. Answers provided by the candidates themselves after answering a questionaire. Topics picked by selecting the most pressing concerns of the population across multiple polls.
It is already the case that there are subtle efforts by those in power in my jurisdiction to discourage or make it inconvenient for likely supporters of the opposition to vote.
That's terrible. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that seems to allow pelple to vote in peace. But are these subtle efforts outside the voting area, or after epople have registered? If it's before, then this test would reduce the effect of those efforts. If it's after, then that's illegal and should be pointed out and stopped.
I don't trust anyone to write such a test.
Would you feel more comfortable if the test were relegated only to resolutions that have a simpler description and explanation than the inconsistencies and baggage that comes with a human candidate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 12:53 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 4:45 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 97 of 236 (647616)
01-10-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Artemis Entreri
01-10-2012 1:03 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
Interesting that you mention those. When they bill of rights where ratified in 1791 were women citizens? Were Native Americans? Blacks? Were women protected? Did they have rights? Could they vote? Could they own property?
Or were they simply Residents? Savage animals? And Property?
How could these groups gain rights, gain citizenship, gain freedom? Wouldn’t giving them shared freedoms redefine everything in the US?
just to be pedantic
Are you suggesting we go back to those times? I'm in favor of everyone keeping all the rights, regardless of gender, race, or creed.
We’d probably have to grandfather everyone in who was already a citizen at the time of the new rules passing, but everyone else, would have to test out.
And change all of our laws and rules to ensure that every right currently enjoyed by a citizen is retained by "residents." We'd then have to redefine people who live here but aren't currently citizens. Then we'd need to change every law that pertains to them to make sure their new status doesn't lose any rights and freedoms they enjoy.
It just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work, when we're only talking about voting...and not even the right to vote, per se, just another step in registration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-10-2012 1:03 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 98 of 236 (647617)
01-10-2012 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Artemis Entreri
01-10-2012 1:21 PM


I should clarify. I was also speaking on a Federal Level. State and local elections are completely different.
I'd like to see them on a local level as well, or at least have informational material, not necessarily a test, describing each resolution and candidate.
I've often found, when voting for a local office, like sheriff or school board, that not only do I not know a thing about the people besides their name from lawn signs, there is no easy way to learn anything.
And for local resolutions, refer to my debate with Jon on Jose's poor backyard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-10-2012 1:21 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-10-2012 1:57 PM Perdition has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 99 of 236 (647621)
01-10-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Perdition
01-10-2012 1:40 PM


perdition writes:
Are you suggesting we go back to those times? I'm in favor of everyone keeping all the rights, regardless of gender, race, or creed.
Nope. It just seemed as if redefining things was an issue for you, when this nation is pretty much about redefinition every 30-50 years anyway.
perdition writes:
It just sounds like a lot of unnecessary work, when we're only talking about voting...and not even the right to vote, per se, just another step in registration.
You may be talking about voting, but I have been talking about citizenship since I answered the OP.
I'd like to see them on a local level as well, or at least have informational material, not necessarily a test, describing each resolution and candidate.
I think that information is available already.
I've often found, when voting for a local office, like sheriff or school board, that not only do I not know a thing about the people besides their name from lawn signs, there is no easy way to learn anything.
You have to be involved in your community and care about it. It is only your own fault for being uneducated in your own community, on community issues.
And for local resolutions, refer to my debate with Jon on Jose's poor backyard.
I haven’t started reading that one yet, maybe I should.
its difficult though because, as you know, anyone who disagrees with jon on this is an un-American idiot.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 2:09 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 100 of 236 (647626)
01-10-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Artemis Entreri
01-10-2012 1:57 PM


Nope. It just seemed as if redefining things was an issue for you, when this nation is pretty much about redefinition every 30-50 years anyway.
I think it's unnecessary. The country has been moving toward a broader and broader definition of citizen. At this point, we're as broad as we can get without granting animals and plants citizenship.
You may be talking about voting, but I have been talking about citizenship since I answered the OP.
So, why would you want to limit the number of people who have rights in this country? Or would citizens just have different rights from residents, and what would those rights be?
You have to be involved in your community and care about it. It is only your own fault for being uneducated in your own community, on community issues.
I am involved in my community. The problem is that say IO want to run for school baord. I gather signatures, and I'm on the ballot. Now, how does anyone know to vote for me over the other guy? Purely based on party affiliation? Most of our local positions are either run unopposed, in whcih case I don't vote for them, I write my name in, or there are two people, one from each party. There are no debates, and unless the newspaper takes the time to send them a voluntary questionaire and they take the time to fill it in and send it back, there is literally no way to know what anyone stands for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-10-2012 1:57 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-11-2012 1:10 PM Perdition has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 236 (647645)
01-10-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Perdition
01-10-2012 1:24 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
So, theoretically, in a close election, all you need to do is get half of the people who voted against a guy to sign the petition and you've got a recall going. However, if the person being recalled loses, it would seem to indicate that either the people who supported him/her originally changed sides, or weren't passionate enough to vote for him/her twice.
There is at least third possibility; namely that a whole bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to vote in the general election, are now incensed.
That comes to 49%. That's a fairly large sample size on whcih to base the trend for the state.
A sample yes, but does the sample statistically represent the opinions of people who did not vote? Perhaps not.
I suspect that a large segment of social conservatives in WI were energized by the passing of the sex education curriculum by Democrats in the previous session of your legislature. Democrats might not have been similarly motivated to maintain the status quo.
My guess is that even fewer people than voted in the general election are going to vote in the recall election and that the recall favoring voters may find an edge in motivation to vote.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:24 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 4:21 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 102 of 236 (647648)
01-10-2012 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
01-10-2012 4:09 PM


Re: Rights of a Citizen
There is at least third possibility; namely that a whole bunch of people who couldn't be bothered to vote in the general election, are now incensed.
This is certainly a possibility. From my own, admittedly limited, experience, there are more than a handful of people who voted for Walker and are now not only going to vote against him, but have been actively seeking signatures. It's not like it's everyone who voted for him, but if this group had voted against him in the first place, might it have changed the election? Possibly. Would knowing Walker's agenda before voting have convinced them to vote against him? Possibly.
A sample yes, but does the sample statistically represent the opinions of people who did not vote? Perhaps not.
Well, polls use considerably less than 49% of a population and are relatively accurate...especially when outliers are removed and the rest are averaged together.
I suspect that a large segment of social conservatives in WI were energized by the passing of the sex education curriculum by Democrats in the previous session of your legislature. Democrats might not have been similarly motivated to maintain the status quo.
Added by the fact that Barrett is one of the worst campaigners I've ever seen. He was just awful.
My guess is that even fewer people than voted in the general election are going to vote in the recall election and that the recall favoring voters may find an edge in motivation to vote.
I would guess that fewer people will vote, but I'm not so sure that will significantly favor the recallers. Many of the signatures on petitions are signed by family members of the signature collecter, or outside businesses people are already goign to. In other words, it's convenient and fulfills some desire to give voice to complaints. Will those same people force themselves to drive down to the voting place, stand in line and cast a vote? I don't know.
On the other hand. There are a lot of people who are sick and tired of elections and recalls and political TV ads. Some of these may stay home and ignore it. Others may use it as motivation to keep Walker in and stop the nonsense. I'm fairly sure that if he wins the recall, that will be the end of recalls for a while. There is also a lot of claiming sour grapes from the conservatives, saying that we're doing the recall just because we lost. They'll also have a point to prove.
Basically, there are a lot of reasons to vote and a lot fo reasons to not on both sides of the issue. I'm not confident claiming any side has an advantage, other than saying I'm confident he'll lose the recall election. But whether that's because many people have changed their minds, people who voted for him once don't feel any push to vote for him again, or some other reason, I leave to the historians of the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 4:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 236 (647663)
01-10-2012 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Perdition
01-10-2012 1:32 PM


Re: Jos the Well-Informed Voter
That's terrible. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that seems to allow pelple to vote in peace. But are these subtle efforts outside the voting area, or after epople have registered?
Both at the polls and prior to voting, and in most cases the efforts use methods that are not illegal. Examples would include robo-calls to segments of the population offering false information about voting dates, aggressive challenging of voters at the polls requiring specific forms of identification when multiple forms are allowed, switching polling places and not bothering to inform voters. I've seen these tactics used in several southern states in ways that attempt to targeted voting preference.
In VA I've also seen campaigns to identify voters who may have changed addresses using unreliable information, and to challenge said voter at the polling place. Often no mention is made of provisions in law that allow a challenged voter to cast a provisional vote at any polling place.
Often efforts are down using one or more proxies for race which are used in turn as a proxy for identifying likely voting preferences.
Would you feel more comfortable if the test were relegated only to resolutions that have a simpler description and explanation than the inconsistencies and baggage that comes with a human candidate?
Yes, if you let me write the test.
Kidding aside, certainly there are some propositions that can yield to a simple, noncontroversial description, but I'm concerned that even in those cases it is possible to manipulate the description.
Incidentally, there was an early Supreme Court case that involved a physical altercation for the purpose prevent a man from voting. The Court found no violation of the constitution, and held that voters were expected to vigorously defend their right to vote, with force of arms if necessary. Perhaps I'm just a wuss about this.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 5:04 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 104 of 236 (647678)
01-10-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by NoNukes
01-10-2012 4:45 PM


Re: Jos the Well-Informed Voter
Both at the polls and prior to voting, and in most cases the efforts use methods that are not illegal. Examples would include robo-calls to segments of the population offering false information about voting dates, aggressive challenging of voters at the polls requiring specific forms of identification when multiple forms are allowed, switching polling places and not bothering to inform voters. I've seen these tactics used in several southern states in ways that attempt to targeted voting preference.
In VA I've also seen campaigns to identify voters who may have changed addresses using unreliable information, and to challenge said voter at the polling place. Often no mention is made of provisions in law that allow a challenged voter to cast a provisional vote at any polling place.
Often efforts are down using one or more proxies for race which are used in turn as a proxy for identifying likely voting preferences.
I know these things happen, and it just sounds wrong that there isn't a legal recourse for people affected by these tactics.
Yes, if you let me write the test.
Be my guest...as long as it is also checked by the person who wrote the resolution to make sure you're not misrepresenting it, as well as maybe a judge to make sure the effects of the resolution are accurately spelled out in as unbiased a way as possible.
Kidding aside, certainly there are some propositions that can yield to a simple, noncontroversial description, but I'm concerned that even in those cases it is possible to manipulate the description.
I'm thinking of this more along the lines of a translation from legalese. For example, we recently had a resolution that was something similar to, "Should the special fund set up for the creation of a park on the south side of town be used to help fun a civic center downtown?"
It's pretty easy to figure out what voting "Yes" means, but what about voting "no"? Does that mean the civic center will not be built? Does it mean it will be built but taxes will then be raised to pay for it? Does it mean it will need to be on another referendum to find another source of funding? A simple explanation that says what it actually means to vote yes or no would have been helpful. IIRC, I voted incorrectly on that question when it came up. (The exact fund and policy are made up, but the gist of the wording is pretty close.)
Incidentally, there was an early Supreme Court case that involved a physical altercation for the purpose prevent a man from voting. The Court found no violation of the constitution, and held that voters were expected to vigorously defend their right to vote, with force of arms if necessary. Perhaps I'm just a wuss about this.
So, they essentially ruled that people don't have the right to vote, they have the right to fight to vote? Crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 4:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2012 6:05 PM Perdition has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 236 (647689)
01-10-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Perdition
01-10-2012 5:04 PM


Re: Jos the Well-Informed Voter
So, they essentially ruled that people don't have the right to vote, they have the right to fight to vote? Crazy.
I'm sure that the old SC case doesn't reflect current law.
I'm thinking of this more along the lines of a translation from legalese. For example, we recently had a resolution that was something similar to, "Should the special fund set up for the creation of a park on the south side of town be used to help fun a civic center downtown?"
Why make a quiz out of the information?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 5:04 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 6:19 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024