Otherwise, since they bring their radical liberal and ridiculous voting habits with them, should Texas and other states, require Californians and people from other liberal hellholes to live in the state for 17 years before they become state citizens and can vote or hold public office?
Texas can't.
That's unconstitutional.
California is not a liberal hellhole.
It's a very nice place.
They don't have a tendency to shoot children in schools there so much.
It only took me 5 minutes to find that supreme court (that corrupt organization doesn’t deserve capitalization) case and another 20 minutes to read it. That ruling applies to bona fide residents. A bona fide residency requirement is whatever the state law for residency is. Bona fide residence is not the same as domicile. Therefore, a state can require a 17 year residency requirement. As soon as they become residences, they can vote and of course, until they establish residency, they can always vote in California and other radical states by a mail-in vote; [like a $1 bus fair tax] that is not unreasonable since mail in voting is only the cost of a first class letter or postcard. Also a state can have reciprocal agreements giving immediate residency with states such as Wyoming that is not full of insane overly indoctrinated people. The state can also tax them more by giving residents a 50% percent property tax exemption. Also, congress can declare the supreme court cannot rule on such issues.
There have been mass shooting in Texas but not in California. Of course the reason is obvious because as one lady on GAG explained to me, "Anytime something doesn't make sense; look for the real reason." Since mass shooting seldom, if ever, occurred, prior to the push for gun control, the real reason is obvious. They are false flag operations to get the public to accept gun control. Since California already has gun control and is full of gun control advocates, but has lots of crazies, there are no other realistic explanations.
I only live slightly over 1 mile from the Arkansas/Texas border and most of the places we shop are in Texas, or on State Line Road so I know Texans are good people that would never shoot children nor any innocent person.
First, young lady, don't use emotionally loaded language in an argument because that defeats what you are trying to say. Preaching to the converted doesn't help your cause; you want to convert the unconverted and the unconverted will tune-out when hearing or reading hate-filled emotional screeds like this:
"supreme court (that corrupt organization doesn’t deserve capitalization) "
=========
Now, I am going to echo back your original question and description for the moment:
----
Q: Since they bring their voting habits, should Texas deny Californians state citizenship and the right to vote or hold public office for 17 years?
D: Otherwise, since they bring their radical liberal and ridiculous voting habits with them, should Texas and other states, require Californians and people from other liberal hellholes to live in the state for 17 years before they become state citizens and can vote or hold public office?
Now, I am going to rewrite your question more clearly and generally and without the loaded language. But, I want to make sure that I understand you correctly, so please let me know if this rewrite passes your muster.
Q: Should a state be able to deny for 17 years these 3 rights or privileges:
1. state citizenship
2. the right to vote
3. the right to hold public office
to a new resident of that state
IF:
the new resident immigrated from another state on a list of specific states.
ELSE:
the new resident should not be denied those rights or privileges (beyond a short period of time, such as 30 days)?
(more)
So, for example:
The State of Pennsyltucky passes this law:
Revised Statutes of the State of Pennsyltucky
Pub. Law. 2022-07-26.1
Paragraph 1
Any new resident of the State of Pennsyltucky is denied these rights and privileges:
a) State Citizenship
b) the right to vote
c) the right to hold public office
for the first 17 years of residency if the new resident, immediately prior to immigrating to Pennsyltucky, resided in the states of Kansouri, Orefornia, and Wykota.
Paragraph 2
Any new resident of the State of Pennsyltucky who does not satisfy the immigration condition specified in Paragraph 1 is denied the rights and privileges enumerated in Paragraph 1 for only the first 30 days of residency.
============
Before I continue, I need to know...
Am I properly re-phrasing more generally what you are asking?
By the way, you might be interested...
This website contains all the requirements to be an eligible voter in each of the states.
https://www.vote.org/voter-registration-rules/
In all 50 states, there is a minimum residency of at most 30 days and there are multiple good reasons for that.
I am not sure I explained anything so I am a bit puzzled. I just wanted to make sure I understood your question before I explained why such a law like the Pennsyltucky law would be unconstitutional.
The primary reason is that it would violated the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" otherwise known as the "Comity Clause" of the US Constitution. The Comity Clause is Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:
"The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."
What this really means is that states can't discriminate against each other. This is a critical clause in the Constitution because it helped unify the country which was the whole point of the Constitution since the Articles of Confederation did a lousy job at that. Much of the US Constitution is written in a way to promote unity and an "American identity"... that the people needed to think of themselves as Americans first, then residents of their state secondly.
By the way, I am not so sure there is this concept of "citizenship" in a state. You have American citizenship or other national citizenship, but you can a legal resident of a state.
Another reason the Pennsyltucky law would be unconstitutional has to do with discrimination, but that's complicated to explain and it would still boil down to a violation of the Comity Clause.
@abc3643 You rewrote my post accurately. However, I'm not sure that is unconstitutional. In Arkansas, I know for a fact, there is instate and out--of-state tuition and moving to Arkansas and renting an apartment or moving into a dorm doesn't entitle someone to instate tuition. I don't see how, one can be allowed but not the other. Also, I can't state a single example but somewhere I have read or heard some states have reciprocal agreements that don't apply to all states.
@abc3643 Also it used to be "These United States" instead The United States." The first implies State citizenship the second implies country citizen ship. I doubt there was a constitutional amendment that changed the original meaning. That is, a confederation of states that are united and functioning with autonomy and no top down structure as in a republic.
I believe it is unconstitutional in this case but explaining why will take considerable time (*), so let me move on first...
There are "reciprocity agreements" on some things - for instance, exchanges of data and co-operation that is otherwise unenumerated. Voting is something basic to the republic, so screwing with that invites considerable scrutiny.
Here's an example of reciprocity agreements among states:
tax.thomsonreuters.com/.../
Meanwhile, yes in that historical context under The Articles of Confederation, state citizenship would be relevant. After all, while we may think of "states" as in US states, the more general term is for a nation state - nations. Back during colonial times, each of the colonies was independent from the others, the only commonality being subservient to England and thus having certain things in common. But, other than that, there wasn't much unifying them. Keep in mind that this was when most people worked locally and long-distance travel took a long time, so the next state over might just as easily be the next continent over for most people.
When the Constitution was created, the Founders recognized that a stronger sense of unity must be created for the nation to survive against the bigger powers like England or France or Spain.
=======
(*) Before I tell you more about this, see if you can do some homework on your own.
I want you to try and learn about the 3 levels of scrutiny in judicial review.
For example:
www.findlaw.com/.../
Then, ask yourself, "What level of scrutiny should be applied by a court when reviewing a law altering the fundamental right of voting?"
@abc3643 Do felons have a right to vote? For fundamental rights, the court uses the "highest level of scrutiny." However:
IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE REALLY FUNDAMENTAL? (1st paragraph of a 60 page article)
Joshua A. Douglas*
This Article poses a question at the core of our democracy: Is the constitutional right to vote a fundamental right? The answer, surprisingly, is "not always." For over forty years, the Supreme Court has fostered confusion surrounding the right to vote by creating two lines of election law cases. In one breath the Court calls the right to vote fundamental and applies strict scrutiny review. In another, the Court fails to recognize the right as fundamental and uses a lower level of scrutiny. These two lines of cases have coexisted, leaving lower courts and litigants with little guidance on how to approach future election law disputes. The problem inherent in this approach is that it derogates the value of having an individual right to vote and poses significant questions about the efficacy of
our notion of democratic self-governance.
scholarship.law.cornell.edu/.../viewcontent.cgi
Although the article lists over a dozen examples where the court used a lower standard, in my uneducated opinion, it this case the court would probably call it a fundamental right and use the strictest standard. Whether or not that would prevent states from having longer than 30 residency requirement applicable to voting by not other things such as tuition, I don't know but I suspect the court would rule it does apply in voting.
Why do you keep lying? California does have mass shootings. You live and die by Google, why don't you just Google it for yourself instead of listening to "one lady on GAG? Also, gun control has been pushed for over 200 years!
Whether a felon can vote is based on what the state law says. In most states, to varying degrees, felons cannot vote.
Now, "thinking meta", felons are a discriminated class meaning that the government has created a law which deliberately discriminates against them.
So, the courts would then ask if it is reasonable that this discriminating class exists.
The answer is yes. Because felons have violated the law, they illustrate actions against society and not for it, and that is considered an acceptable reason. After all, their freedom is taken from them for the same reason.
So, now, let me ask:
Pennsyltucky creates a law regarding different residency requirements for rights of new residents based on which state a new resident comes from.
Is there a discriminated class of persons here?
If so, who?
@abc3643 Since those from states that does not have a reciprocal agreement with said state, would be discriminated against in regards to residency. However, discrimination is legal except for protected classes. A protected class is a group of individuals who share a characteristic that shields them from discrimination. The following is a list of some of the classes protected under federal law:
Race: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Sex: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Disability: Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990
Age: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
Pregnancy: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status: Fair Housing Act
Genetic information: Genetic information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
OK, we are going off on a tangent, so don't look for too much detail here. Just concentrate on what's important.
Now, we do have a teachable moment.
In law, there is "statutory law", but there is also "common law".
Statutory law is the laws made by legislatures.
But, common law is created by judicial precedents.
So, just because statutes like those you listed identify discriminated classes, that does not mean that there could not be other or new discriminated classes as identified by justices.
Anyway, let's stay focused on the Pennsyltucky law...
Tell me if discrimination is occurring.
Forget about laws - common or statute.
Just tell me if the Pennsyltucky law is discriminatory.
Yes, that is discrimination! If you are not born it the state or from a state with a reciprocal agreement you must meet state's residency requirements.
Was the Cuban Adjustment Act discrimination?
This:
"Was the Cuban Adjustment Act discrimination?"
is irrelevant.
You need to learn to not fall into a trap many mentally undisciplined people do.
Here's an example:
This morning, on Facebook, I made a comment about this cartoon:
https://ibb.co/6Fps6fS
saying something like that cartoon summarizes what happened.
I got a retort from a man who wrote:
"Violent murderous mob? was the media playing video of Portland, new york, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, chicago, Fergison, violent"peaceful protest"by mistake, cuz they couldnt find any burning looting or killing on jan 6?"
Someone else then chimed about that guy's post with:
"First appearance of whataboutism so far."
>>> So, remember that.
"Whataboutism" is something that is usually irrelevant in arguments.
In court, it's tossed out because, in court cases, you have to focus on the subject at hand and the relevant laws. What happens in any other case is completely irrelevant.
So, my Socratic discussion with you is about the hypothetical Pennsyltucky law.
Stay focused on that.
So, I want to concentrate on the Pennsyltucky law and the alleged discrimination.
If I was a judge, I would ask you, the lawyer, to explain with relevant facts and opinions.
Now, if I was a judge, I would ask "Would you say that Pennsyltucky's law is discriminatory? If so, please elaborate for me on the nature of this discrimination."
So, be a lawyer and just answer the question. Trust me, this is going to take a while but is worth it.
@abc3643 Yes, that would be discrimination because people born in the state would be residences of the state and people moving from states with reciprocal agreement would have immediate residency but people moving from states without a reciprocal agreement would have a lengthy residency requirement.
Reciprocity is should be irrelevant to this issue.
My follow-up question, as a judge, would be something like this:
"Can you provide us with a real-world example, including the names of states, of the type of reciprocity you are discussing? I am failing to see how any form of reciprocity is relevant since no other state other than Pennsyltucky has discriminatory residency.."
====
OK, back to the real word for a moment, go here and save this PDF because it is a very good document.
GUIDE
FOR
COUNSEL
IN CASES TO BE ARGUED
BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES
Of particular importance is the section Part II ORAL ARGUMENT, Section E YOUR ARGUMENT.
This section isn't just useful for going in front of the US Supreme Court, but also whenever you need to persuade an authority figure. 20 years ago, I was working for General Electric Power Systems as a control systems engineer and my boss said to me "Never go in front of a Chief Engineer without a Top Level Summary Diagram". That's jargon, but I was friendly with two Chief Engineers and their time is extremely valuable because, when they speak, millions of dollars are at stake. Anyway, the point of this adage and the SCOTUS Guide is "Be prepared. Be prepared by being organized, doing your research, know what you are talking about, and anticipate the questions that will be asked of you as well as having solid answers.
www.supremecourt.gov/.../...%202019_rev10_3_19.pdf
Yeah, G@G sucks now. It used to be that all the links worked, but, whatever they've done, it sometimes kills links.
For posterity, this is the URL spelled out:
htt
ps://
www.supremecourt.gov
/casehand
/Guide%20for%20Counsel%202019_rev10_3_19
. pdf
Naw Just move Texans to California. Pull the old switcheroo
I live in Texarkana so I know Texans would not like California with all the graffiti and streets covered in human feces? Even liberal Austin Texas doesn't have that.
Well Texans can clean it up I guess. Plus imagine if we could take all of California's electoral votes
Even if it were possible, if every Texas moved to California, they would still be outvoted 4 to 3.
Opinion
4Opinion
not for 17 years, but I think there should be a period of required residency before allowing people voting rights. Seriously, few things worse in the world right now than watching Californian and New Yorkers' mass exodus to conservative states, in order to get away from the bat crap crazy policies, but then continuing to vote for those same bat crap crazy policies that they were originally trying to escape.
Reminds me of a woman fleeing an abusive relationship, only to find herself seeking out that same abusive treatment over and over again.
AHA! I see you are, in fact a Trumptard. The fact that you defended pedophiles in the other thread was another red flag. Your ad homonem attacks here prove it too. Enjoy the banhammer and the FBI will catch you for January 6. Also, only inbred fucktards homeschool, period, so your mother must either be your first cousin or a goat.
Yup. And they should send everyone in San Antonio back to California too !
Yes. The people of California are mostly degenerates.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions