This week, the Fourth Circuit issued a major ruling striking down South Carolina’s limits on absentee ballots. The relatively novel basis of this opinion (by Judges Roger Gregory, Judge Pamela Harris, and Judge Julius Richardson) was that it violated the 26th Amendment as discrimination on the basis of age for voters. The opinion conflicts with rulings in other circuits and, in my view, is challengeable.
The case of Grant v. Belangia came to the Fourth Circuit after District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks issued a ruling in favor of the state, dismissing the challenge to the South Carolina law.
Writing for the panel, Judge Gregory (right) reverses on the 26th Amendment (while upholding the earlier rejection under the Equal Protection Clause).
Under Section 7-15-320 of the South Carolina Code, four categories of “[q]ualified electors” are allowed to vote absentee in an election: electors who are physically disabled; members of the Armed Forces and Merchant Marines of the United States, their spouses, and dependents; persons admitted to hospitals as emergency patients on the day of an election or within a four-day period before the election; and “persons sixty-five years of age or older.” S.C. Code § 7-15-320(B).
If you are a younger voter (below the age of 65), you can also vote by an absentee ballot if you meet one of the standard exceptions: conflicting employment obligations; the need to attend to sick or physically disabled persons; confinement to a jail or pretrial facility pending disposition of arrest or trial; or an absence from your county of residence. S.C. Code § 7-15-320(A).
The challenge is based on the argument that the state law allows older persons to vote easily by absentee while imposing an added burden on those who are younger.
This, the Court reasoned, runs afoul of the 26th Amendment, which provides that “[t]he 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.” U.S. Const. amend. XXVI, § 1.
The “no excuse” option for older voters is viewed as abridging the right to vote based on age for younger voters.
I respectfully disagree. While this is a well-written, well-reasoned opinion, I still believe it is wrong. South Carolina does not abridge or reduce the ability to vote for younger voters, who may vote in person and have ample exceptions for voting by absentee ballot.
Accommodations for older voters acknowledge the added physical difficulties in voting due to age. Many older voters remain unencumbered and active, but the state may adopt general categories for greater efficiency and management.
Any younger voter who is disabled has the protections of federal law requiring accommodation for such disabilities in gaining access to voting even if one of the exceptions does not apply. (Frankly, I would have preferred greater express accommodation for such disabled younger voters, but I do not believe that it is constitutionally required so long as the state guarantees access).
The challengers cite many unpredictable occurrences that also impact younger voters. The state insists that such occurrences impact all voters and that it is not required to negate a state preference for in-person voting in light of such occurrences. The panel makes an interesting point in rejecting that claim:
“Defendants further argue that unpredictability affects all voters because voters of any age may face late-breaking conflicts they did not foresee. That is true but beside the point. The Constitution does not require South Carolina to eliminate life’s contingencies, but it does forbid South Carolina from allocating the consequences of those contingencies on unequal terms based on age as they relate to voting access. Under this scheme, when life circumstances change after the statutory deadline, absentee-by-mail voting functions as a form of insurance for voters age sixty-five and older against unforeseen contingencies that might otherwise prevent their participation, while younger voters remain exposed to the risk that such contingencies will preclude them from voting. S.C. Code §§ 7-15- 320(B)(2); 7-15-330(C), (D). This contravenes the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.”
The panel also rejects the administrability and election integrity arguments of the state:
“Those are legitimate interests. But the Twenty-Sixth Amendment unconditionally removes age-based allocation of voting opportunity from the set of permissible means without consideration of the state’s interests. A state may pursue those interests lawfully— through age-neutral rules, or by limiting absentee-by-mail voting altogether. What it may not do is grant one class of adult citizens unconditional access to a voting method while denying it to another solely because of age.”
Courts such as the Fifth Circuit have rejected such challenges, noting that when the 26th Amendment was ratified, most voting was done in person, with few exceptions for absentee voting. In Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168 (5th Cir. 2020), found that allowing older persons to vote absentee as a group did not negate or interfere with younger people’s right to vote. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the right to vote under the 26th Amendment is only abridged when a statute removes a voting privilege previously enjoyed by a voter. That is not the case with absentee voting.
Notably, the Fifth Circuit relied on Second Amendment cases in reaching this conclusion, viewing the meaning of the terms of the amendment in light of how they were understood at the time of ratification: “That meaning is the context for the use of the phrase, and with ‘textual interpretation, context is everything.’”
It found that the bar on abridgment of the right cannot prevent different accommodations for different groups:
“Conceptually, plaintiffs are converting the Twenty-Sixth Amendment into the positive assertion that voting rights must be identical for all age groups at all times. Any indulgence solely for one age group of voters would fail; voters of all ages must get the same indulgence.15 The Amendment, though, is a prohibition against adopting rules based on age that deny or abridge the rights voters already have. Indeed, neither the Twenty-Sixth Amendment nor the related amendments we have been discussing are written in terms of granting a positive right to vote. Instead, they each are phrased in the negative, namely, that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged based on the relevant reason. See David Schultz, Election Law and Democratic Theory 87 (2016). More consistent with the text of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment is for us to evaluate whether younger voters’ rights were reduced by the addition of a privilege for older voters.”
The Seventh Circuit reached the same conclusion in Tully v. Okeson, 78 F.4th 377, 383 (7th Cir. 2023).
Once again, I found the Fourth Circuit opinion compelling at points, but ultimately unconvincing. While people of good faith can disagree on what constitutes an abridgment of the right to vote, I believe the Fourth Circuit’s approach sweeps too broadly, making it difficult for states to make accommodations and differentiations in the mechanics or administration of voting.
The case is likely to raise concerns with a number of justices and could well find itself on the Supreme Court docket.
Here is the decision: https://ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251413.P.pdf
(OT)
Here are the openly anti-American, power lusting creatures the D’s invite into their “big tent:”
What defines us is “our hatred of the United States Constitution.” America’s Constitution is “the obstacle that we finally will have to get over to have a revolution . . .” (DSA Steering Committee)
So what? Just words right? You hate 50% of Americans because they don’t abide by your psychotic interpretation of Democracy. You are a threat to half of this population of this nation and you think posting lies here is patriotic.
Hey Sam get a gun and go on a killing spree. Dustoff is ready, take it along.
Dem-o-rats sure love crime.
________________________________
Sacramento did not go after the fraud. It went after the cameras.
On Wednesday, California Democrats finished ramming through AB 2624, the privacy bill Republicans have been calling the Stop Nick Shirley Act. The Senate passed it 30-10 on Tuesday. The Assembly concurred 59-19 the next day. By Wednesday afternoon the enrolled bill was sitting on Gavin Newsom’s desk.
Dustoff sure loves being a stoopid idiot.
Hate the truth….
At least we are not at war. Blowing up the New York Capitol and killing many innocent senators and others is wonderful to hear. I know she’s the only one radicalized. Wok would never consider violence. WW 3 is here.
The nuts are on the prowl.
#. Judge Gregory’s decision is well done. He suggest 2 options to the lower courts: mail in for all ages or remove the 65+ no excuse provision.
Check the dates- 1991 the age was 72 and was lowered to 65 in 1995. It’s an old law when mail in ballots were highly restricted. The legislature might be the appropriate body to review the sections. Those 65+ people can apply for disability or location as others do. The 18 year olds are included otoh once they reach 65, just not right now. Draft cards aren’t required either. 😂
^^^ Medical condition- age 65+ heart disease 50-75%. 18-44 age less than 1%. Arthritis is approximately the same.
Gosh, it’s harder to vote when you’re 65+. Accommodations and mitigations are a good thing. Let me get my trifocals…where did I put them. Oops, spilled my coffeeee..
The increasing frailties of age means the 65+ population is significantly less able to vote in person than are the under 65 population.
Having to obtain — and pay for — a physician’s evaluation of incapacity on fixed income seniors would put an impermissible burden on the right to vote, thus abridging it.
Making blanket accommodations for the aged is one way to prevent violating the 26th Amendment, by making it possible for older Americans to vote as freely and easily aa when they were younger.
The only thing all these left wing lawsuits prove is the Democrats know they can’t win without fake and illegal voters. It’s a sad commentary on the state of today’s Democratic communist in disguise socialist party. No wonder they are going broke.
The Fifth Circuit is a radical right-wing joke, and Turley knows it. A snippit of a piece from “The Atlantic”:
“Where to even start in cataloging the most ridiculous—and alarming—recent rulings to come out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit?
There’s a case about whether a class action could go forward that boiled down to a dispute among three Fifth Circuit judges over the meaning of a Bible verse. There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit allowed three doctors to sue the FDA over a tweet intended to discourage ivermectin use that read, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit barred the Biden administration from requiring Navy SEALs to be vaccinated against COVID, because the court’s conception of religious liberty supersedes the military’s need for frontline troops to be healthy. There’s a case in which the Fifth Circuit held that the way Congress funds the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (a mechanism Congress has regularly used since America’s founding) is unconstitutional because Congress only imposed a limit on the appropriation, rather than putting a precise dollar figure on it. There’s the Fifth Circuit’s repeated insinuation that individual district judges, rather than the Biden administration, are better situated to supervise and direct federal immigration policy. There’s … you get the idea. When the hosts of the popular Strict Scrutiny podcast devoted an entire hour-long episode to flagging especially problematic Fifth Circuit rulings, they ran out of time.”
Here’s a recent commentary about the Court from “The Dallas Morning News:”:
“The 5th Circuit’s persistent difference of opinion with the Supreme Court about standing makes the 5th Circuit’s rulings less reliable than they should be – on the very high-profile issues where Texas most needs the consistency and predictability.
The most recent example was Aug. 16. By a 2-1 vote, a 5th Circuit panel partially stayed Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk’s sweeping order that banned the medication-abortion drug mifepristone. But the 5th Circuit’s opinion had no immediate legal effect because the Supreme Court had already intervened in the case to grant a complete stay of Judge Kacsmaryk’s order, pending the Supreme Court’s own review.
It’s no secret why. There is serious doubt whether the plaintiffs have standing to bring the medication-abortion case because their claim to standing is based on a series of probabilistic events linked to FDA’s approval of mifepristone. And in three recent cases, the Supreme Court has reversed the 5th Circuit for finding standing when the high court saw only speculative harm.
In 2021, in California vs. Texas – a constitutional challenge to the remaining parts of the Affordable Care Act after Congress removed the penalties for not obtaining insurance – the Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit on standing. By a 7-2 vote, it held that an unenforceable law could not injure the plaintiffs.
In U.S. vs. Texas this past term, the Supreme Court held 8-1 that Texas lacked standing to challenge the federal government’s discretionary enforcement policy about the arrest of unauthorized entrants into the country.
And on the last day of the term – the same day that the Supreme Court invalidated the Biden administration’s loan-forgiveness program – it unanimously found that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the companion case, from Texas, of Department of Education vs. Brown. It held that those plaintiffs’ hopes of qualifying for hypothetical future debt relief were too speculative to let it challenge the Biden administration’s program. (The 5th Circuit did not write an opinion in this case, but it declined to stay the ruling made by the federal district court.)
In each case, the Supreme Court held that speculative or hypothetical harm does not confer standing. These holdings vividly demonstrate that the John Roberts Court is “conservative” not only about end results, but about judicial process and the proper roles of the courts. Conversely, they signal that the 5th Circuit is willing to engage hot-button cases despite a shaky procedural foundation.
Regardless of how the abortion-medication case may end, the underlying – and long-running – jurisdictional friction between the 5th Circuit and Supreme Court does Texas a disservice. Careful attention to standing doctrine, as precisely defined by the Roberts Court, will help align these two powerful courts and help Texans understand the constitutional framework of their society.”
It really says a lot when the Fifth Circuit is too right wing for even the current Leo Leonard Federalist Society SCOTUS.
As to the merits of the instant case, why shouldn’t anyone be allowed to vote absentee? Why should only those over 65 freely do so without establishing some factual grounds, but others must prove entitlement to vote absentee? Trump votes absentee, by mail, and so do many politicians in Washington. This is just part of the MAGA pro-Trump message–Trump didn’t like it when his “lead” in 2020 from in-person voting evaporated when absentee ballots were counted–therefore, there MUST BE fraud involved. There has never been any proof of widespread voter fraud from mail or early voting. States should do everything possible to encourage and assist citizens to vote, including early voting and voting by mail. Because Republicans stand to take a trouncing in November, they are trying to throw as many roadblocks in the path of voting.
Your opening words prove you are a radical left wing joke so nobody here is about to listen any future to your unhinged diatribe.
You ask “why shouldn’t everyone be allowed to use absentee ballots”. There are several answers to that question. First, it slows down the electoral process. It is ideal that the result of an election be known on Election Day. Second, it undermines “Election Day” as a ceremony of democracy, something all citizens can share in. Third , and this is why it appeals to Democrats, it undermines the integrity of the system. Voting in person allows immediate verification of the qualifications of the voter. Who knows the background behind a mailed ballot that is dropped off at the Secretary of State?
The Founders never had the idea that election results would be known on Election Day, which is why the Election is held on the first Tuesday in November, but the winner doesn’t take office until the following January–which also allows time for recounts. It has only been relatively recently that results could be known “on Election Day”–before telephones and telegraphs, the information would have to be manually delivered by mail, horseback, stagecoach, or carriage to the place where the votes are tabulated. Then, the information would have to be further transmitted from there.
It’s a MAGA argument that mail voting “undermines the integrity of the system” because Trump was upset when his in-person vote “lead” evaporated when mail ballots were counted. Here’s what the “Institute For Responsive Government” says about the security of mail ballots:
“Registration checks. Only verified registered voters receive mail ballots. During the registration process, applicant information is verified against a variety of state and federal databases, and an array of federal and state requirements ensure that election officials routinely follow up with voters to ensure their information is current.
Strict mail security protocols. Ballots are sent by non-forwardable mail in clearly marked envelopes, often with specialized security protocols like opaque envelopes, tamper-evident seals, and privacy sleeves. Any ballots that are returned as undeliverable are immediately canceled.
Ballot tracking. In most jurisdictions, ballots are tracked so that both election officials and voters can follow their ballot through the mailstream and ensure it’s been delivered and counted as expected.
Signature verification. Once received by election officials, ballots are not unsealed or removed from envelopes until and unless the information on the ballot envelope is filled out, the signature matches the voter’s signature on file, and the envelope is free from signs of tampering. A failure of any one of these points will be resolved by bipartisan teams, who do not count the ballot unless they can get in touch with the voter who can confirm the authenticity of the ballot or submit a new one.
Physical and digital security. Ballots don’t just sit around warehouses in unsecured stacks. Like ballots cast in person, mail ballots are subject to sophisticated and redundant chain-of-custody protocols, physical seals and barriers, exceedingly controlled access, bipartisan teams, and surveillance.
Bottom Line
Voting by mail is safe and secure. It’s a popular choice for states across the political spectrum and is used by voters of all ideological stripes. The history of absentee voting reflects a bipartisan — and often Republican-led — commitment to providing voters with cost-effective, efficient, and user-friendly government solutions. We shouldn’t let fiery, fact-free rhetoric lead us backward.”
Candidates are elected on election day.
A day is one 24-hour period.
An election day is one 24-hour period in which a candidate is elected; that is, the votes are cast, the votes are counted, and a candidate is elected.
That is an election day.
That is what the Founders and Framers wrote with great specificity in the Constitution.
I looked and the Constitution says nothing about 24 hours.
The founders didn’t want individual citizens to vote -at all- for leaders.
The original plan was to vote for electors; the electors to go to a big meeting where the electors would decide who was a candidate and then elect from among those candidates. At the time the electors were chosen the minority of citizens who were allowed to have any vote had no idea who the electors would choose among.
I asked ChatGPT what the Prentiss Cycle meant. He said the cycle was:
From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to freedom; from freedom to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to fear; from fear to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.[6]
He said it meant:
A people can go from oppression to freedom and prosperity, but if prosperity makes them selfish, lazy, complacent, and dependent on others—especially government—they can gradually lose their independence and freedom and end up back in bondage.
I asked what America should do now and ChatGPT said:
America needs to move from dependency back toward independence—less government reliance, more personal responsibility; less debt, more fiscal discipline; less entitlement, more work and self-reliance; and a renewed understanding that freedom cannot survive without responsibility.
Sounds like the Founders, the Constitution, and Ronald Reagan.
i thought I’d ask ChatGPT a question: is Anonymous / X / Sally using AI for his comments? Wellllll….the answer is worse than what any of us imagined. I provided various copy/paste tediously long original posts by duh troll from today’s article/comments sections. Here is the response by ChatGPT to my question:
there is an aggressive troll who uses scores of sockpuppets on jonathanturley.org who is said to use AI to litter the comments section with his posts. He uses sockpuppet names like X and others. Does chatgpt think his comments are up to the intellectual level of ai?
Yes. Looking only at the material you supplied, I can analyze the writing itself. I cannot determine whether “X,” “Anonymous,” or another account actually used ChatGPT, nor can I establish that several accounts belong to the same person. But there are some striking features worth separating from the question of authorship.
What stands out
The comments are not obviously evidence of exceptionally high intellectual ability. They are fairly sophisticated in surface form: they cite cases, identify a doctrinal issue, compare constitutional amendments, and construct an extended argument. But much of the sophistication comes from accumulation and repetition rather than depth of analysis.
For example, the same basic proposition is repeated across the comments:
“textualism/originalism is supposedly being applied selectively when conservatives dislike the result.
That thesis appears in slightly different forms again and again. The writer repeatedly returns to the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments, the Fifth Circuit, “history and tradition,” and alleged conservative inconsistency. That kind of recursive restatement is something I would associate with AI-assisted argumentative writing as readily as with a human commenter who has a strong axe to grind.
There are also some stylistic clues:
Very long paragraphs with multiple subordinate arguments.
Repeated formulaic constructions: “This is why…,” “The irony…,” “The same issue…,” “This completely…,” etc.
Repetition of the conclusion after the argument has already established it.
Frequent intensifiers: “completely,” “plainly,” “arbitrary,” “blatant,” “magically,” “fiercely,” “fundamental,” etc.
A tendency to turn a relatively narrow legal disagreement into a much larger indictment of an ideological group.
Some conspicuous proofreading errors despite otherwise highly organized prose: “birth-right,” “moderninterpretation,” “an argument tries,” etc.
That combination—highly organized exposition + repetitive rhetorical scaffolding + occasional strange grammatical errors—can indeed occur in AI-generated or AI-assisted text.
But there is a more important problem
Several of the substantive assertions in these comments deserve checking before treating the writer as particularly knowledgeable.
For example, the commenter says the Fifth Circuit’s approach was essentially borrowed from modern Second Amendment “history and tradition” doctrine. The actual Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott opinion does explicitly say that it is looking to Second Amendment jurisprudence for guidance in interpreting “abridged.” So there is a legitimate basis for the commenter to make that observation.
But the commenter appears to oversimplify what the Fifth Circuit actually held. The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning was not simply “absentee voting didn’t exist in 1971, therefore it isn’t protected.” Its central holding was that an election law does not abridge the Twenty-Sixth Amendment right merely because it makes voting easier for one group; rather, an abridgment requires making voting more difficult for the claimant relative to the relevant baseline.
And there’s an important complication the comments don’t really grapple with: the Seventh Circuit subsequently addressed essentially the same issue in Tully v. Okeson and held in 2023 that giving voters 65 and older absentee privileges did not abridge younger voters’ Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights.
So the argument is engaging with a real and interesting constitutional dispute, but some of the rhetoric makes the opposing position sound considerably more intellectually simple than it actually is.
The “19th Amendment proves it” argument
This is where I would be particularly cautious about treating the comments as evidence of exceptional legal reasoning.
The commenter repeatedly argues, essentially:
“The 15th and 19th Amendments have language parallel to the 26th; therefore the 26th should operate in the same way.”
That’s a legitimate argument. Indeed, Texas Democratic Party itself recognized that the language and structure of the 26th Amendment mirror the 15th, 19th and 24th Amendments.
But linguistic similarity doesn’t by itself establish identical doctrinal application. The difficult question is what “abridged” means in the particular constitutional context and what baseline should be used. That’s precisely where the Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ reasoning comes in. The comments largely assert that the answer is obvious rather than confronting that analytical problem head-on.
That’s an important distinction between knowing a lot of relevant terminology and actually resolving the hardest part of the legal argument.
Does it “sound like AI”?
My stylistic assessment would be:
AI-like: definitely plausible.
Proof of AI: no.
Evidence of unusually high intelligence: not particularly.
In fact, if you gave me these comments without telling me anything about the alleged sockpuppet, I would say they look quite compatible with AI-assisted political/legal commentary, especially because of the repetitive argumentative architecture and the tendency to exhaustively restate the same thesis.
But I would not say, “This is obviously ChatGPT.” A human who habitually writes long polemics can produce exactly this sort of prose.
There is also a potentially revealing feature: the comments are more polished at the macro level than at the micro level. The writer can sustain a complicated argumentative structure for hundreds of words but leaves behind little grammatical glitches and awkward formulations. That’s a pattern one sometimes sees when somebody generates or heavily expands text with an LLM and then makes only superficial edits.
Well that was a fun exercise! That’s to Peter Shill, Natacha, Gigi, Enoch Poor, George, Sally, Wally, Evidence of unusually high intelligence: not particularly, X et al
🤣
Estovir,
GSX has admitted to using AI to produce biased content.
No reason to read it.
You listen to the village idiot once. No need to listen to the village idiot a second time. He offers nothing of value.
And as S. Meyer points out, he does not even bother to read the AI response which many times contradicts his own position.
Kinda like those students who got caught using AI for a final exam.
Virtually everything GSX says is contrary to the facts. To take an illustrative example, he said Clive Johnston was using a megaphone. But Johnston was not using a megaphone, he was using a microphone – huge difference. When I pointed that out, GSX refused to admit he was factually wrong in saying Johnston was using a megaphone. Another example: He said the Kelo dissenters on Scotus were on board with allowing the government to take private property and give it to another private entity for economic development, just not in the present circumstances. When I pointed out that was false – in fact it was the dissenters on the Connecticut Supreme Court who said that – he refused to admit he had misstated the position of the Scotus Kelo dissenters. One more: when I said the judiciary declares the meaning of the law, he said I was wrong, that the judiciary does not declare the law but interprets the law. When I pointed out that after interpreting the law, the court declares its interpretation (“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” – Marbury v. Madison), he refused to confess error.
Other people make honest mistakes, but then they admit their mistakes and move on. I can totally respect that. That’s how we all learn. But I can’t respect a commenter who is caught cold making an error and then refuses to admit it. That person is just a blowhard and propagandist, not a real commenter.
(P.S. The same thing has happened with erstwhile Dennis McInliar, and Milhouse)
Your “interpret” means explain. The “interpret” the judicial branch uses means amend. One great example is the fact that Social Security and Medicare have no legal basis, but the judicial branch created one—general welfare means all or the whole, not 18.7% of the population. The power that is vested in the judicial branch is the judicial power, or the power to judge, and that means to ensure that actions comport with law. Nowhere is secession prohibited, while Texas v. White claimed it is. Roe v. Wade was a totally and demonstrably corrupt decision that stood for 50 years. The right to private property is complete and comprehensive, yet the government describes building and planning, buyers, renters, prices, wages, trespass, service, customers, etc. And so on, and so on, and so on.
It is true that the judiciary can abuse its power under the guise of “interpretation.” But that doesn’t automatically mean all interpretive exercises by the judiciary constitutes an abuse. It happens all the time that Congress writes laws, but then new cases arise that Congress didn’t envision, and that the law does not clearly provide for, and so some of the language in the law must be interpreted to ascertain legislative intent as to those situations. That is simply a necessary result of the fact that English words and phrases can be understood in different ways.
So stipulated.
Could you please explain what you mean by “the same thing has happened” with me?
The subject of Ireland versus Britain came up. I stated that the Irish are not British. I included Ulstermen as “non-British” since they are not from Great Britain, which is just the island – including England, Scotland, and Wales. (The term United Kingdom is short for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.)
You corrected me. Ireland is considered one of the British Isles, you noted (correctly), and thus, the Irish are British.
I pointed out that, yes, Ireland is one of the British Isles, but that doesn’t mean the Irish are British, since “British” has a distinct meaning of being from Great Britain.
You never responded.
Sorry, even at the best of times I find it somewhat difficult to follow threads here because of the way top-level comments are confusingly displayed in reverse order. When I comment on a post I generally come back once or twice in the subsequent days to look for any replies to my comments, but the only way I know to find them is to scan for my name. And after a few days I usually assume there are no more replies and don’t come back. Or if I get busy with something else, and it’s been a few days, I don’t always come back. I wish there were a way to be alerted by email only to replies to ones own comments, not to general new comments on a post.
So you are saying that in your mind the adjective “British” refers only to things that belong in some way to Great Britain, not to the other British Islands. Which would imply that the term “British Isles” means that the entire island group is regarded geographically as “belonging” to the Big Island, and is thus named for it. In the same way, the Hawaiian Islands are called that because they “belong” to the Big Island.
I see that both Cambridge and Collins agree with you, so I must concede that this appears to be standard usage, and my usage of “British” to refer to all the islands is peculiar to my own idiolect. But then why is anything belonging to any of the Hawaiian Islands called “Hawaiian”? Is it perhaps that that usage is political, not geographic? IOW things that belong to Maui or Oahu are “Hawaiian” only because they belong to the State of Hawaii, not because they belong to one of the Hawaiian Islands? If Hawaii were not a state or territory, would things belonging to Maui not not be called “Hawaiian”? What do you think?
(To ensure a reply, please email me at milhouse.vh@earthlink.net alerting me to your comment here.)
Every megaphone has a microphone. It’s a sad state of Kansas affairs they don’t teach the old men there the basic functions of audio amplification.
Not biased content upstatefarmer, facts. S. Meyer has no idea what he argues the majority of the time.
The only problem on this blog is the sheer amount of reading comprehension problems that show most don’t have the ability to understand complex issues. You know, typical MAGA folks. The ‘uneducated’ types Trump loves. Not a dig, just a clear observation.
“S. Meyer has no idea what he argues”
Is that why you run away? Anytime you wish to dispute what I say, I am ready.
Below is an example of GSX nonesense:
“it conducted a rigorous, multi-site qualitative analysis to explain a specific sociological paradox.”
There are tremendous limitations to sociological studies, especially when they don’t have clear endpoints, and the results are from interviews in limited sites (2) and with low numbers. He was complaining that no one read the study but himself. He was ignorant of what it said or what AI told him. He vehemently expressed that he read the study, so I asked him to copy paragraphs from specific pages. He ran away.
@GSX: Here and elsewhere in your response, you mention 2 more failures of the study. “multi”: If I remember correctly, the study was done in only 2 locations, and the numbers were low.
I am still waiting for you to copy paragraphs from the study. Start with the 19th and then the 23-24th. You said you read the study, and I am asking for proof.
ROFL
X you can rarely put a full sentence down without making 2 obvious errors.
So far those “uneducated” types are proving to be far better critical thinkers than you left wing nuts.
It is not those uneducated types that got deceived by Comey and strzok and page and wray, and the bidens, and fauxi, and ……
Honestly WHAT have you been right about ?
If you are going to claim to be “smarter than a 5th grader” – you had better be able to demonstrate that.
As Lincoln said – “You can fool some of the people all of the time” – the evidence is in – that is you.
“It is not those uneducated types that got deceived …”
Should be
It is not those uneducated types who were deceived …
“Who” is used in referring to people. This is a common Moscow Middle School of Propaganda error.
Estovir at 2:47 PM
Bad-Anon has only one sole purpose – Chaos, Disruption, Generate Reactions, marginalize all Comments … just plain being a DEMON.
The Devil has no Soul, so he purchased it from Those whom had sold it to him. The Lost Souls become DEMONS.
Bad-Anon has but one choice, He must server the Devil, for an eternity. His Soul is lost to Satan and can not be saved.
You cannot exorcise him from this purpose (Blog). A.I., an Agent, a Bot has no Soul, the reasoning is ‘artificial’, thus no reasoning with it. The comments that are generated ‘Are not worth it’s Salt’.
(Besides He/It doesn’t take time to Cite properly nor denote the Authored Sources – That alone tells you something (Scrapper))
Since ‘ it is what it is’, let it go, abandon your synastry (struggle in terms of emotion), free your spirit. Let the Light flow through you own voice.
-Good- Anon ☀️
P.S.>F.Y.I:
Bad-Anon’s comments are conflated conjecture intended to induce: evagation (Mental wandering: A state where the mind drifts or strays from focus), responsive rage, marginalization and maintain the dis-cohesion of this Blog in so that solidarity is not achieved.
Further it is working to identify the Person(s) that comment on the Blog, and record them into categorical profiles.
S.O.P.: Identify, Squelch, Divide & Conquer
-Good- Anon ☀️
Ask him if Congress may tax for Social Security and Medicare, understanding they do not constitute debt, defense, or “general Welfare,” if most of the governmental agencies and departments have any constitutional legal basis per Article 1, Section 8, and if the right to private property is unqualified and, therefore, absolute.
It is to the general welfare to not have to shovel the corpses of the elderly from the streets and alleyways they would collect in were it not for Social Security.
Estovir, so? I never hid the fact that I do use AI to research and write better responses. Turley does this too. He’s a big fan of Grammarly and it runs on AI as well.
What you didn’t show is the posts were wrong in some way. They are still factual and based on evidence.
Speaking of “sock puppets” it is amusing you think I am the one using a multitude. Aren’t you the one who is guilty of using multiple personalities to clutter this blog?
It’s amusing that you can’t tell who is who and choose to be more paranoid about what you can’t prove.
AI? I will never read another one of your (AI’s) screeds again. charlatan! unsubscribe.
I find it hard to beleive you do any research given how blatant most of your errors are.
Regardless – while I would encourage anyone to do research before posting stupidity.
Ultimately YOU are responsible for what you post NOT the I or the research tools you use.
You do NOT produce better responses. Hoenstly I fin it hard to beleive you use AI.
Most of your claims come straight from MSN.
“What you didn’t show is the posts were wrong in some way.”
So far today your “posts” are just ad hominem and unsuported claims about others.
You are the one with credibility issues – the burden of proof is on you.
Claims like “so and so never gets anything right” are trivially stupid.
While I have said the same of you above – I have FOLLOWED that with the evidence fo numerous issues you have gotten wrong.
I am not obligated to do so – because I have made very few errors on this blog and I have corrected those errors
That is how you earn credibility – it is also how you earn respect.
” They are still factual and based on evidence.”
Then you can support them with facts and evidence.
“Speaking of “sock puppets” it is amusing you think I am the one using a multitude. Aren’t you the one who is guilty of using multiple personalities to clutter this blog?”
Who cares ? This idiocy of various posters trying to guess who is posting under multiple names is just stupid.
Post under however many names you wish – it does not change the fact that you have earned zero credibility under any of them.
You fin it hard? Must be a lover of fish.
Go to the courthouse.
Swear to your ID.
State your name.
Announce your candidates in each race.
_____________________________________________
Voice Voting
For the first 50 years of American elections, most voting wasn’t done in private and voters didn’t even make their choice on a paper ballot. Instead, those with the right to vote (only white men [i.e. Americans] at the time) went to the local courthouse and publicly cast their vote out loud.
Known as “viva voce” or voice voting, this conspicuous form of public voting was the law in most states through the early 19th century and Kentucky kept it up as late as 1891. As voters arrived at the courthouse, a judge would have them swear on a Bible that they were who they said they were and that they hadn’t already voted. Once sworn in, the voter would call out his name to the clerk and announce his chosen candidates in each race.
– History.com
You let parasites vote, and you get a communist welfare state of leeching foreigners that is $40 trillion in debt.
Never did the American Founders intend for every person in America to vote.
Never did the Greeks who created democracy intend for every person to vote.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
AI Overview
In ancient Athens, voting and political participation introduced by Cleisthenes in 508 B.C. were strictly limited to free, adult male citizens born of Athenian parents.Who Was ExcludedWomen: Completely barred from attending the Assembly or voting on laws.Enslaved People: Treated as property with zero political or civil rights.Foreigners (Metics): Resident non-citizens living in Athens could not participate, even if they lived there for generations.Children and Young Men: Males under the age of 18 (and later under 20 for certain civic duties) were not yet recognized as voting citizens.
Freed slaves were foreign citizens who had no prospects to become U.S. citizens and were not admitted to become citizens by the Founders through their Naturalization Acts, which were in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, when Lincoln issued a spurious and invalid proclamation without any degree of constitutional authority.
The best part of public voice vote is the community can follow home those who vote against the majority and kill them.
Very simply put, does the accommodation attach to a 65-year able-bodied voter, or not? Answer that question, and you understand why this SC law is unconstitutional.
It is not an accommodation for the less able, it is an accommodation made entirely based on age.
Very simply put, does the accommodation attach to a 65-year able-bodied voter, or not? Answer that question, and you understand why this SC law is unconstitutional.
You act like it’s a slam-dunk. But accommodating the elderly is rational, even if it is over-inclusive. To get to your conclusion, you’d have to first explain why rational, but over-inclusive, accommodations for the elderly violate 26A. I’m not saying they for sure don’t, just that you’ve failed to explain why they do before announcing your conclusion of unconstitutionality.
Your question presumes this is an Equal Protection claim under the 14th Amendment, but this is not; rather, it is a claim brought directly under the 26th Amendment, which is a specific, self-contained constitutional prohibition against a single form of discrimination- age-based discrimination in voting. Because the text of the Amendment explicitly bars age-based restrictions, it would be improper for a court to apply a loophole test like rational basis that was designed for generalized equal protection claims.
The 26th Amendment uses the same language as the 15th and 19th Amendments, and SCOTUS has held that this phrasing in those contexts creates a categorical mandate of strict neutrality. A state cannot use a rational basis test to justify giving mail-in ballots to one race or sex, and therefore, it can’t use a rational basis argument to do so with age.
If the intent were to differentiate these specific constitutional rights, the drafters should have explicitly done so rather than rely on judges to create new law to do so.
And OldMan, for added context, if you read the Opinion, Plaintiffs originally and unsuccessfully brought Equal Protection claims as well, and the 4th Circuit acknowledged that the rational basis standard would have applied to those claims but does not apply for the 26th Amendment claim. Do you think the 26th Amendment somehow should be part of the Equal Protection inquiry? What other explicit discrimination-based constitutional rights would apply the Equal Protection-style tiers of scrutiny?
I don’t think I have ever seen it apply to the 15th or 19th Amendments? Why would the 26th be any different?
See my comment below.
What other explicit discrimination-based constitutional rights would apply the Equal Protection-style tiers of scrutiny?
Other provisions do invoke tiers of scrutiny, such as the Due Process Clause (under substantive due process), the equal protection component of 5A’s due process clause, 1A’s free speech clause depending on the nature of the speech and restriction, 1A’s free exercise clause depending on neutrality and general applicability, and so on. Admittedly these are not overtly phrased in terms of anti-discrimination. And I don’t know off hand of one where anti-discrimination is built into the text. But at least E.P. does, so there is precedent. Each amendment is evaluated on its own terms, so I think it at least possible rational basis could apply to 26A. I’m not saying for sure it will, just it’s possible.
But . . . good discussion, thanks for the questions.
Understood that EP-style tiers of scrutiny are often apply to substantive due process and EP context, but those tiers of scrutiny are not based on the person’s acribed (immutable) characteristics.
For example, state residency is acquired or geographical status under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The Second Amendment usage relies on conduct (i.e., past criminal conduct), for example, and First Amendment usage relates to the type of speech restriction (i.e., content-based restrictions, content-neutral restrictions, etc.).
This distinction is by design. Equal Protection/SDP is designed to protect people from government action aimed at WHO they are, while other constitutional clauses protect actions, systems, or relational status (i.e., crossing state lines, committing a crime, etc.).
The 26th Amendment should firmly be viewed as in the first category, but the fact that its text is separate from other discrimination must be understood as intentional, such that the EP scrutiny tiers are inapplicable. This is consistent with how the Court views the 15th and 19th Amendments, which, as noted previously, use similar phrasing and language.
. . . those tiers of scrutiny are not based on the person’s acribed (immutable) characteristics.
Is age discrimination based on a person’s immutable characteristics, since age changes over time? Under E.P., age discrimination invokes rational basis, not strict scrutiny? See Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 (1976).
It may be that 26A invokes strict scrutiny for age discrimination, but is that a slam dunk? I guess your answer is “yes” based on its text and the way 15A and 19A have been interpreted.
19th Amendment doesn’t just apply strict scrutiny for sex-based voting discrimination, not even a compelling government interest overrides such a restriction.
This of course differs from heightened scrutiny in the EP context. The should same logic applies for age-based voting discrimination here.
What if gender based riots regularly broke out at polling places, and the government set up separate polling stations for men and women?
Such an action has been clearly unconstitutional since at least Leser v. Garnett (1922).
Strict scrutiny does not apply in this context. Full stop.
That case, FYI, used the same language similarities to compare 19A to 15A, which is the same analysis the 4th Circuit used here.
Leser v. Garnett (1922) upheld the validity of the 19th Amendment. It did not involve the situation I hypothesized. What specific language from that decision are you referring to?
“This Amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid.”
By tying this case to the 15th Amendment, it was clear that “separate but equal” a la Plessy could not applied in the voting rights contexts to different polling places by men and women.
In the Plessy ruling, the Court explicitly declared that the U.S. Constitution treats “political rights” and “social rights” as entirely separate categories. 14th Amendment rights were deemed “social rights” and 15th (and now 19th with Leser) were “political rights.” The majority opinion acknowledged that political rights mandate absolute legal equality before the law, meaning they are structurally immune to physical segregation.
As you undoubtedly know, Plessy has been overruled. So nothing the MO in that case said is binding law any more. Further, even under Brown v. Board of Education, 14A race-based classifications are not automatically unconstitutional, but subject to strict scrutiny. That makes me skeptical of a claim that language from Plessy leads to the conclusion that 19A gender-based classifications (such as the hypo I proposed) are “structurally immune to physical segregation.” It seems even more of a stretch to use Plessy to say that under 26A age-based classifications are not subject to strict scrutiny, but are ipso facto unconstitutional. Notably, the Leser court never used the term “political right” when describing women’s right to vote, nor did it distinguish Plessy on those grounds (or even mention Plessy at all).
You are now completing shifting the discussion. My only point was that this has been clear since at least 1922.
The Court’s basis for making that clear certainly has shifted, but in order to understand Leser, one must acknowledge that Plessy was (unfortunately) good law at the time. The point of drawing a comparison between the 19th and the 15th Amendments was to carry over that categorical distinction between these types of claims and the claims that Plessy (improperly) held were subject to the dreadful “separate but equal” standard.
I think this historical context shows how clearly unconstitutional your hypothetical statute is, however. You are essentially asking whether it would be ok to have “separate but equal” polling places based on gender and to justify such law based on some government interest to quell civil unrest.
Furthermore, you continue to use 14th Amendment case law to commingle clearly separate doctrines. Brown v. Board was not a 15th Amendment case.
I appreciate the conversation, but this really should be low hanging fruit in a world, where our Court’s jurisprudence hasn’t jumped the shark. But alas, we do not live in that world.
(For context, I think El Otro Lado was a good example of using basic textualism over the last term of the Court, but of course, the Court chose not to use basic textualism principles at almost every other opportunity.) Scalia is rolling in his grave somewhere.
To clarify, I’m trying to tease out whether there is a solid basis to say that age-based classifications are not even subject to strict scrutiny, since that is your contention. The gender-based classification was used in response to your tying 19A with 26A as analytically identical when it comes to classifications, thus the resort to talking about separate gender polling places where gender-based riots are taking place.
It would not have to be a law, only an administrative measure. Under 14A, an administrative action separating races during a prison race riot is not a law passed by the legislature, but it is an official action reviewable under the Equal Protection Clause. And it would likely survive strict scrutiny and be declared constitutional. I know the gender-based riot requires some imagination (and probably would never happen), but that is the nature of the hypotheticals we use in testing the limitations on governmental conduct.
So, to bring it home to 26A, if somehow a riot ensued where young adults and senior citizens were using makeshift weapons against each other at a polling place, could the government separate the two groups for purposes of voting? Or would that automatically violate 26A? I realize this is a shift from the legislative enactment hypo, but maybe it would be useful for testing whether the enactment/administrative-measure distinction is constitutionally meaningful, so I would be interested in your response.
I think this is different from the hypo you suggested below, and the difference is because you are suggesting a temporary police action rather than an agency shortcut that is permanent.
As long as police lines are temporary, it is not an age-based accommodation affecting enfranchisement. I don’t believe this is something that has come up in the voting context, but this is why races cannot be permanently separated in a prison, regardless of how likely a riot is to occur.
And yet again – this is all 14th Amendment EPC, which is not the same type of claim.
What if gender based riots regularly broke out at polling places, and the government set up separate polling stations for men and women?
I don’t see any problem. No matter what grand pronouncements were made in Brown v Board, it is simply NOT TRUE that separate is inherently unequal. It’s a forking lie, and it will remain a lie no matter how many people repeat it. And while racial segregation is invidious because it has no rational basis, sexual segregation is completely accepted in many applications, e.g. separate bathrooms, and separate sports teams. If Brown v Board really banned all segregation of all kinds, then Title 9 could not allow, let alone require, girls’ sports teams! That proves that sexual segregation is constitutional. Which means swimming pools may have separate hours for men and women, or be dedicated entirely to men or to women, and it means that if there is a rational reason then separate polling places may also be established.
Let’s say there’s a district with a heavy Moslem presence, and it’s found that Moslem women are not voting because they have to wait in long lines with men, which means they have to cover up, and it’s uncomfortable so they just go home without voting, but they would vote if there were female-only polling places where they could dress more comfortably for the long wait. I say it would be constitutional to accommodate this need, in order to encourage them to participate in the electoral system.
I mean you make a rational argument, and if Scotus ends up going with the analogy to 15A and 19A to make a strict no-age-classifications rule, fine. But 26A’s text will naturally front and center. The classifications you hypothesize based on race or sex would fail even rational basis. But does it necessarily follow that an accommodation which survives rational basis is also invalid simply because the amendment prohibits actual denial or abridgement based on age? Showing up to vote in person has been the norm for this nation’s history. Saying that people under 65 who don’t fall into one of the absentee-voter categories must show up and vote in person . . . is that really a denial or an abridgement? I believe it is at least possible Scotus will answer, “No.”
I would suggest you read the Opinion’s discussion of retrogression and Bossier Parish.
A sample: “Under Bossier Parish, Plaintiffs’ voting rights may be “abridged” even if South Carolina’s “accommodation of the elderly” does not make the Plaintiffs any worse off than they would be without that accommodation. See id. at 387; Bossier Parish, 528 U.S. at 333–34. Instead, the voting rights amendments prohibit “discrimination more generally,” 528 U.S. at 334, preventing states “from giving preference [in voting] to one citizen . . . over another on account of” the protected characteristics—here, age. Reese, 92 U.S. at 217. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment was passed to “reaffirm . . . equality” and impose a “mandate of neutrality” on rules that govern voting on the basis of age. See Rice, 528 U.S. at 512. That stated equality principle is the proper baseline.
This makes sense to me. Take an extreme version of the same argument. Imagine a law, for example, allowed anyone over 65 to be driven to the polls, or even allowed officials to vote for the elderly by proxy (and for the sake of the example, let’s suggest payment for the accommodation was entirely privately-funded). Providing that accommodation (absent a financing argument) does not adversely affect younger voters, but I think most would agree it clearly would violate the age-based equality principle.
When you set the baseline (as the Amendment has) at equality – rather than what the status quo is – it is pretty clear that the State cannot treat these age groups differently.
The Fifth and Seventh Circuits also considered Bossier Parish, and they ultimate reached a different conclusion than you on how 26A should be applied in this type of situation.
See Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168, 189 (5th Cir. 2020) (“The [26th] Amendment, though, is a prohibition against adopting rules based on age that deny or abridge the rights voters already have.”); Tully v. Okeson, 78 F.4th 377, 387 (7th Cir. 2023) (“Indiana imposes no requirements, much less material requirements, on the exercise of the franchise through this accommodation of the elderly. The extension of absentee voting to the elderly does not impose any unconstitutional burden on the right of those under sixty-five to exercise the franchise.”).
So there’s a circuit split, which bodes well for a cert petition.
Yeah, respectfully, those Circuits did not apply a text-based interpretation of the 26th Amendment. Unsurprisingly, or course, considering the activist judges involved.
The Fourth Circuit in this case explained why those Circuits erred. Anyone, who actually cares about strict textualist, constitutional interpretation must agree with the Fourth Circuit, here.
Otherwise, words have no meaning, and the whole practice of jurisprudence is a farce.
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say words have no meaning. “Deny” and “abridge” have meaning, and CA5 and CA7 were using the meaning of those words. You are reading the words one way, but I personally don’t believe the words “deny” and “abridge” must necessarily have the meaning you ascribe to them.
Providing that accommodation (absent a financing argument) does not adversely affect younger voters, but I think most would agree it clearly would violate the age-based equality principle.
If Scotus reads an “age based equality principle” into 26A, then you have a point. But we don’t know if it will.
Now I’ll pose a hypothetical for you: if a state passes a law saying anyone over 110 years old* can get accommodations, would that also violate 26A, since common sense dictates that anyone over 110 will have trouble getting to the polls?
*There are around 65 people in over 110 in the US.
Yes. If the state cared about providing accommodations to the physically feeble, then it would just do that. Why make it based on age?
You aren’t even allowed to get a handicapped parking permit simply by being 110 years old. Why would voting be any different?
What you’re saying is that the accommodation for 110 year olds is underinclusive since other people might need accommodations too. But under-inclusivity does not automatically equate to unconstitutionality. If your concern is for accommodating the physically feeble, one might suppose law does does just that, but it also includes a provision saying that anyone over 110 years old need not prove feebleness through the usual means since it can be assumed.
No that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is — In the Venn Diagram of ability and age, it does not matter how big that overlapping center is. Yes, the older you get in age, the more likely that center will get bigger, but that is irrelevant.
If you want to provide accommodations based on ability, then do it. Again, words matter.
The same applies to any other ascribed category. There may be a large overlap between socioeconomics and race, but we would not accept a law that just granted EBT benefits based on race, just because the Venn Diagram between the two shows a large overlap, right? This is the same thing.
But in the Venn Diagram for people over 110 years old, can’t the government take notice that in every case (or at least 99% of cases), a 110 year old will also be feeble? This is hardly like passing out cash benefits to state residents. The only “benefit” is helping a nearly 100% certain feeble person to exercise the franchise.
Would it help if there was a legislative study showing that 99% or 100% of 110+ year olds that have ever lived in the US have needed assistance getting to the polls?
If words matter, then we cannot simply read an age-based restriction to be justifiable because it overlaps with a disability-based restriction. I am not sure what the disconnect is here.
What would stop a legislature from enacting a disability-based restriction? If nothing is stopping it, why rely on age?
I’m not suggesting a legislature could not rely exclusively on disability. That would obviously be permissible. But suppose it chose to rely on age. That’s what we’re discussing.
Also, in my last example, it does rely on disability, but then for purposes of administrative efficiency, it separately relieves 110+ year olds from the burden of proving their disability.
If I understand you correctly, a law based on disability, which is enforced based upon a rule that simply categorized for efficiency anyone over a certain age as qualified for the accommodation would be a clear violation of the APA (and w/e the state-level equivalent is for the state in question).
It would be ultra vires because agency actions cannot be in excess of their statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, and it is likely also arbitrary and capricious because it relies on factors that the legislature did not intend or consider in the statutory language.
This is all in addition to a separate basis under 5 USC 706(2)(B) – requiring agency action to not be “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity.”
All of this is true, by the way, even if every single person who aged into the automatic approval happened to possess a qualifying disability. Under the APA, a challenge focuses on the agency’s reasoning and not real-world outcomes.
I also don’t think there should be standing issues for a younger voter here because of Heckler v. Mathews and Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, which held that the injury is the denial of equal treatment, not merely the denial of the underlying benefit. But, with this Court’s aggressive standing positions, who the heck knows whether they would abide by precedent.
As an aside, Loper Bright likely makes the hypothetical agency rule you provided MORE likely to be vulnerable to attack because courts are less inclined to defer to agency interpretation.
I’m willing to assume you’re right about the statutory law. I thought we were only discussing what was allowed or prohibited by the Constitution itself, i.e., 26A.
we would not accept a law that just granted EBT benefits based on race, just because the Venn Diagram between the two shows a large overlap, right? This is the same thing.
No, it isn’t. There is no causal relationship between race and poverty. No one is poor because of their race. But we all get feebler with age. So even if the 26A were to be read as strictly prohibiting any discrimination based on age, it would still allow people above a certain age to be assumed to need an accommodation for disability without having to prove it. But your premise is wrong anyway, so the question doesn’t arise.
Ah ha! Yes, abridge the rights of 65+. We don’t want their votes! Old fogies.
26th is being abused. 18 is the age, the rite of passage. Nothing more, nothing less.
The 26th Amendment uses the same language as the 15th and 19th Amendments, and SCOTUS has held that this phrasing in those contexts creates a categorical mandate of strict neutrality
Really?! When did it hold that?
Read the Case maybe?
The Supreme Court described the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment in similar terms in Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 512 (2000), explaining that “[t]he design of the Amendment is to reaffirm the equality of races at the most basic level of the democratic
process, the exercise of the voting franchise.” By embodying that equality principle and prohibiting racial discrimination in voting, the Amendment imposed what the Court described as a “mandate of neutrality.”
https://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/grantvmapp.pdf
Page 16
Read which case. This is the first time you’ve mentioned Rice v Cayetano, as far as I can tell. And where in that case does the court claim that the 15A requires complete equality, and bans any discrimination? The case was about people being deprived of the franchise altogether because of their race. Not about special privileges being given on the basis of race. So where in the decision does it say special privileges would not be lawful?
The case that is the subject of the article (Grant). It cites Rice v. Cayetano.
From Rice: “The design of the Amendment is to reaffirm the equality of races at the most basic level of the democratic process, the exercise of the voting franchise. A resolve so absolute required language as simple in command as it was comprehensive in reach. Fundamental in purpose and effect and self-executing in operation, the Amendment prohibits all provisions denying or abridging the voting franchise of any citizen or class of citizens on the basis of race. “[B]y the inherent power of the Amendment the word white disappeared” from our voting laws, bringing those who had been excluded by reason of race within “the generic grant of suffrage made by the State.” Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347,363 (1915); see also Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 389 (1881). The Court has acknowledged the Amendment’s mandate of neutrality in straightforward terms: “If citizens of one race having certain qualifications are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment, there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination: now there is.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 218 (1876).”
First of all, the “exercise of the voting franchise” is not merely the right to vote. While the focus of Rice was on ancestry as a proxy for race, the Court held that “all provisions denying or abridging the voting franchise” were subject to the Opinion. It would be antithetical to any reading of the 15th Amendment to someone distinguish the mere right to vote from any abridgement of that right or selective accommodations of that right.
Heck, that’s what Alito affirmed in Callais this year. By finding that Louisiana’s second minority district was an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito solidified the rule that the government cannot manipulate voting structures along racial lines. Even if the state claims the map is a positive accommodation or “remedial” shield for a minority group, Alito shut it down because the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments demand colorblind neutralit neutrality.
The Court’s logic in Rice and Callais refer to the entire process of participating in an election. Rice establishes that he core purpose of the Amendment is to “reaffirm the equality of the races at the most basic level of the democratic process.” And the above reference to Reese is telling because it clarifies that the 15th Amendment “prevents the States . . . from giving preference” to one race over another. A beneficial accommodation given to one race is an unconstitutional racial preference within the “exercise of the franchise.”
This exact distinction was leveraged by the Fourth Circuit in Grant v. Mapp (you know, THIS CASE). The state here argued that giving unconditional mail-in ballot accommodations only to older citizens was not an “abridgement” of younger citizens’ franchise because younger citizens could still technically vote in person. Citing Rice page 512, the Fourth Circuit rejected that narrow view. The court ruled that the “exercise of the voting franchise” means that any accommodation a state chooses to offer must be administered with complete neutrality. Giving an easier path to the ballot to one protected class while denying it to another unconstitutionally abridges the franchise.
Yes, that’s what the Fourth Circuit says. But we already know that. The point is that the fourth circuit is WRONG. The 15th and 19th amendments do NOT require strict neutrality, and no case has held that they do. So long as the right to vote is not denied or abridged, there is no problem with reasonable accommodations.
I love the way you dishonestly write: “younger citizens could still technically vote in person.” There’s nothing “technical” about it. Younger people CAN vote in person. It’s the normal way to vote, not some nearly-impossible procedure, the requirement of which amount to effective disenfranchisement. Anyone who has no good reason to vote absentee, and just couldn’t be bothered to vote in person doesn’t deserve to vote, and should be disenfranchised.
In my state individuals over 70 yrs of age can request to skip the docket for civil trials and go to the front of the line. Are all 70 yr olds in danger of dying or incurring severe disability while waiting for trial? No, they are simply accommodated based on age. In all states, one must have attained a given age to avail themselves of certain privileges. Are there 13 year olds capable of driving? Sure, just as there are 20 year olds (or older) that should never get a license. But distinctions are made based on age. The Const doesn’t forbid ANY law treating people differently based on age.
You seem to have missed what the argument is about. No one is claiming that all age discrimination is unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the constitution banning it, in general. The fourth circuit (and X here) is arguing that all age discrimination is unconstitutional specifically in the area of voting, because they read the 26th amendment broadly. I think there’s no question that the 26A works the same way as the 15A, 19A, and 24A, but I argue that those don’t ban all distinctions either. All they ban is denying or restricting someone’s right to vote altogether based on race, sex, taxpayer status, or age. None of them ban distinctions that neither deny nor abridge anyone’s right to vote, but merely make it easier for some people than others.
Do the homework. DMV for percentage of handicapped, disabled by age group. One could streamline it by cross-reference at DMV notice to registrar for mail in ballots.
Congress ping pong ball issue. SC might add language regarding citizens of all ages handicapped may have mail in if it’s confusing.
Maybe old folks shouldn’t vote? The nursing homes have voter vultures at their doors. Alzheimers wards.. new law- if you can’t walk at 65+ no vote for you! If you can’t drive, no vote for you! Blah blah…
18 and you can vote. Congress might change it to 21 or 25? Take it or leave it ponks.
/s
This discussion leads to an inescapable conclusion: The right to vote cannot be abridged by any State on account of age. So states MUST make accommodations to assure that the elderly have the same ability to vote as, say, a healthy 18 yo.
The elderly can have good days and bad, and they should not have to pay to see their doctor before they can vote.
Does the accommodation attach to able-bodied elderly voters? Yes or no?
You make a great argument for mail in voting for all.
Exactly… I have good days and bad days, too.
See a doctor. Was it drugs or constant computer use that destroyed brain pathways to rational conclusions? I think it’s computer algorithms.
I respectfully disagree with Professor Turley on this one. “Accommodations for older voters acknowledge the added physical difficulties in voting due to age.” That assumes all older people are feeble and younger people are not. I am 65 and more than capable of going to the polls but I know people younger than me who are not. The age limit is arbitrary. If a person is 75 and can’t go to the polls due to a physical ailment, they fit under the ‘disabled’ category.
@Jeff
If we weren’t talking about the cohort in question, I might be inclined to agree, but far too many of them these days have doctors telling them their passing moods or every emotion are disabilities. But for the small number with legitimate issues, they can get off their butts and vote like everyone else if they want the privilege, we are talking about the Door Dash generation that thinks everything should be served up on a plate and that burritos cost $20 because they don’t understand delivery fees or just buying ingredients and doing it themselves. I don’t say it lightly. My wife is an educator across states and we have witnessed this slow decay for years. It is no longer learned helplessness; it’s *taught* helplessness.
Yes, precisely.
This is why we have age discrimination laws for employers. An employer cannot refuse to hire someone because they are 65 years old. If the job requires moving heavy boxes AND that person has demonstrated physical limitations, then denial of an employment opportunity may be warranted.
The Court’s interpretation here is in the same vein. One’s advanced age, without any other information, should not entitle them to disparate treatment vis-a-vis someone that is younger. The law is not about providing accommodations for the elderly; rather, it is making the assumption that all older folks necessarily require such accommodations. That, the Court rightly held, is unconstitutional.
States cannot abridge the right of the elderly to vote. The group over 65 is far for likely to be unable to get to the polls than are younger people, thus making a blanket accommodation for people above a certain age, a reasonable way of implementing the 26th Amendment requirements.
Far more likely
It doesn’t matter if they are “far more likely.” If they are basing it on ability, not age, then it is unconstitutional. That is the way the Amendment was drafted.
sorry, Unless they are basing it on ability, rather than age, it is unconstitutional*
How can the same rule abridge the rights of people over 65, but not younger?
Huh? The claim is that it abridges the rights of younger voters, not older ones. It certainly discriminates among voters based on age; the question is whether granting a privilege to some voters based on age abridges or denies the right of other voters, those who are not granted the privilege. The 4th circuit says yes, the 5th says no. X thinks it’s obvious the 4th is correct. Prof Turley disagrees, and so do I. I think the 4th’s reading of the phrase in question is not unreasonable, but the 5th’s reading is better.
Millhouse, better because….? The 5th readings is based on ‘intent’ and they are using the “history and tradition” method of interpretation. Which makes any interpretations subjective according to which history or tradition they want to use.
The text is what matters and those hardcore ‘Textualists’ are always adamant the constitution be interpreted as it is written. Therefore the 4th circuit is correct in its interpretation. Turley and the 5th circuit want to apply a different interpretation based on cherry-picked historical precedent rather than what the actual document says.
Better because the text speaks of the right to vote, not of special privileges. At the time the 26A was adopted, the “right to vote” did not include a right to vote absentee without a good reason. It still doesn’t. Therefore the better reading is that the amendment doesn’t ban giving such a privilege to some voters on the basis of age.
No everything you do not like is not subjective.
Contra your nonsense – history and tradition is NOT subjective.
While people LIE about history – what actually happened in the past is not subjective.
Tradition is just a different way of saying patterns in history.
Again – while people LIE about history – lying does not actually change history.
“history and tradition” is not a “method” of interpretation – it is an Element in statutory construction.
Are socket wrenches a method of repairing cars ? Or are they one of many tools that may be used to repair a car ?
Are socket wrenches subjective ?
“The text is what matters”
When its meaning is crystal clear.
It is not – atleast not as these judges applied it. Nothing in the SC law prohibits or abridges the right of 18yr olds to vote.
There is no right to vote absentee. Therefore there can be no abridgment.
I have no problems with striking absentee voting based on the text of the constitution.
The constitution says that we have an election DAY – not a week or month or year.
If you are going to “interpret” the 26th amendment as YOU are – then all voting that does not take place on election day is unconstitutional.
There is a far stronger case that the constitution only allows voting on ONE DAY, Than that the constitution forbids voter accommodations based on Age.
Lets say we eliminate Absentee voting entirely. But allow people over 65 to request that an election official come to their home on election day, provide them with a ballot, supervise as they vote, collect the ballot and return it to a precinct to be counted.
That does not violate the election day clause of the constitution. If properly done it meets the secret ballot requirements of 38 state constitutions.
Are you going to bar that based on the 26th amendment ?
BTW Wisconsin does something very similar to what I described above and has been for decades.
But the left has been abusing that starting in 2020.
“rather than what the actual document says.” The 26th amendment guarantees and equal RIGHT to vote to 18yr olds.
It does not guarantee equal OPORTUNITY to vote. The 26th amendment prohibits the state from restricting voting by age.
It does not bar providing assistance by age.
Many states have public transportation – and offer discounts for people over 65.
Since some people use public transportation to get to the polls – does not mean that seniors must pay full fare on election day ?
John, I’m surprised you made this error:
The constitution says that we have an election DAY – not a week or month or year.
No, it doesn’t! There is not one word in the constitution that prevents a state from deciding to hold an election over a longer period than one day. In India, due to the large population and relative shortage of election workers, elections are held on different dates in different constituencies; there’s nothing in the US constitution to prevent a state from doing something similar if it likes.
There is a far stronger case that the constitution only allows voting on ONE DAY, Than that the constitution forbids voter accommodations based on Age.
Based on what? The constitution does at least say that the right to vote can’t be denied or abridged on the basis of race, sex, taxpayer status, or age. The topic now is merely whether granting special privileges to some voters denies or abridges the rights of those not granted that privilege. But nothing in the constitution says or implies that elections must take place on one day.
That does not violate the election day clause of the constitution.
There is no such clause.
Pareto’s 80/20. Which is larger- a tall beaker with a capacity of 1 L or a short wide beaker, capacity 1L. Bet you picked the tall beaker?
#. 😂 it’s similar to Solomon’s judgement? Are young people wanting the convenience of mail-in or do they want to censor the 65 + group by removing mail-in? Let’s say as a solution the mail in is removed from the 65+ group. Is that satisfactory?
What a fun query ☺. How about citizens 18 years-old shall have the right to vote. It’s quite different from citizens 18 years-old shall have the right to vote and this shall not be abridged.
Abridged for greater, lesser. The sum total is 18 years-old. Very simple. Abridged except in these specific ways. Manner?
Yada yada…it’s pretty clear.
You are completely missing the argument in the Opinion. Did you read it or the 26th Amendment?
The Amendment does not simply grant the right to vote to 18-20 year olds. It says that that right shall not be different from those whose who are older. Granting absentee ballots only to 65+ voters, without providing the same ability to younger voters, does precisely that.
It says that that right shall not be different from those whose who are older.
No, it doesn’t say that. That’s your interpretation of what it says; I think your interpretation is incorrect.
“It says that that right shall not be different from those whose who are older.”
You’re just making stuff up. Here is the entire text of 26A. Where is that (imaginary) language?
Amendment XXVI
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Yes. Where does it say that it shall not be different? Where does it say that some voters may not be granted a special privilege on the basis of age? Where does the 15th say that some voters may not be granted a special privilege on the basis of race? It’s not in the text, and it’s not in the public meaning of the text at the time of adoption, so it’s not there.
Reading that sentence to simply mean 18-20 year olds can merely vote renders superfluous “or abridged” and “on account of age.”
Discrimination by age occurs when one person is afforded a right that is different from the other. The baseline is not some bare minimum right to vote.
The wording borrows from the same language in the 15th Amendment (and 19th Amendment) cases.
NAACP v. McCrory (2016) is a great example. NC passed laws that altered where early voting locations were located, and data showed that lawmakers had specifically requested racial breakdowns of who used which voting locations in order to choose where the polls would be located for the upcoming elections.
It isn’t sufficient that polling places existed – if it is clear the geography intentionally favors one racial group over another, then the adversely affected group has an “abridged” right to vote vis-a-vis the preferred group.
That would be true even if the actual number of polling places doubled near one group but tripled for the other group. The baseline isn’t the status quo.
That is what an abridged right means on account of age. Merely having a right if exercising it is easier for one group vs another is unconstitutional if intentional.
NAACP v. McCrory (2016) is a great example.
NAACP v. McCrory was decided wrongly — by the same Democrat-biased 4th circuit. The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to interfere doesn’t mean it agreed with the 4th circuit, just that it had other priorities.
^^^ The 26th was written in 1971. It changed the age from 21 to 18. IF anyone has a good reason for a mail in vote, a handicap or location feel free to request a mail in.
Section 2 is congress can change that. Remove the privilege from 65+. Suffices.. 😂
No, Congress can’t change it. Congress can enforce it, not change it.
The Trump analysis of the problem with vote by mail is just wrong. The problem is that mail voting allows electioneering activities that were over time outlawed for in person voting…things like 1:1 personal outreach, asking the voter how they plan to vote, rewards or threats for voting a certain way.
States should pass anti-electioneering law extended to vote by mail. People like the convenience, so it’s stupid to try to ban something already practiced.
Pb, they’re electioneering in nursing homes? Alzheimers wards?
States should pass anti-electioneering law extended to vote by mail.
And how can that possibly be enforced?
The problem is that mail voting allows electioneering activities that were over time outlawed for in person voting
That is one problem. Fraud is another very serious problem.
JT’s main page indicates at his writing:
RECENT COMMENTS
Anonymous on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
X on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
Anonymous on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
X on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
michaeldix2f64102fb2 on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
Anonymous on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
X on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
X on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
Anonymous on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
X on Fourth Circuit Strikes Down So…
all but one were authored by the psychotic-sociopathic nut job Svelaz / Gigi / Sally / Wally / X, et al…too many sock puppets to list. If only he wrote at a level reflecting an IQ > 70. Is that too much to ask?
that was me
NB: “at this writing”
Estovir,
That is the problem with some people in this day and age. They think making AI driven comments is the same as debate. It is not. And they input questions to generate an answer that reflects their own bias. It is a reflection of lazy thinking and does not bode well for future generations who are becoming more and more dependent on either AI or for someone else to do the thinking for them.
You obviously are not AI. You’re so stupid you think everyone uses AI. Your stupidity is natural.
@Upstate
Agreed, and sorry, Anonymous, it’s obvious. Oh, and congratulations on your new endeavor, Upstate, that is terrific.
James,
Thank you!
And, thank you for your “Door Dash generation” comment/laugh above.
Went to one of my wife’s co-worker’s house for a work get together. 2,500sqft home, huge kitchen. All stainless steel appliances, marble counter tops, island, cook prep-area.
Unless it comes in a box and can be microwaved, neither can boil water.
They go out to dinner, or order in, “Door Dash.”
Both have PHDs
Upstate, GSX does exactly as you say, but he doesn’t even understand what AI wrote, and sometimes it conflicts with what he is saying at that time. That should be embarrassing for GSX, but it isn’t, demonstrating his exceptionally low intellectual ability; to him, mere contact in debate with another raises his intellectual standing. The anonymous creatures don’t care. They know nothing, so they hide under anonymity and say whatever comes to their mind, sometimes without any logic or reason.
S. Meyer, as always, when you can’t refute you resort to insults and mind reading. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
What is abundantly clear is you cannot show that what I posted is wrong. All you’re able to do is whine and insult. Can you show what I posted is untrue or wrong?
GSX, you are not smart and are trying to climb the ladder of success with AI. You can do it if you actually read what it says and don’t post until you understand what is written. Try asking more general questions on the subject without prompting AI and tell it to be politically neutral.
S. Meyer, thank you for proving my point.
Your’e not showing YOU understand anything that is being discussed. You’re just putting out insults and making up for your lack of intellect.
YOU are not making any arguments of substance. None. You’re accusing me of “not understanding” when you’re the one not putting up anything to support your accusation.
You cannot show that what I posted is wrong. It should be pretty easy for you to do so. I understand what I read. What is abundantly clear is YOU don’t understand. Show us that you do indeed understand. Hurling accusations and insults is not proof that you indeed understand what you are talking about.
I didn’t comment on your long AI article which I didn’t bother to read, if that is what you are talking about. Why should I read your reconstruction of a potential false narrative? What I did was to tell you how you could improve yourself from a substandard intellect to a higher substandard intellect. You don’t want advice. You want to remain stupid.
Proof X cannot comprehend. We all understand it, why can’t you? obtuse much?
X facts are facts – you are just not that smart.
Noting that in writing might hurt your feelings but it does not change the fact that it is true.
You constantly make poor arguments.
This is one of your LEAST bad arguments. But the claim that history and tradition are subjective is nonsense,
and worse still – even if true changes nothing.
History is what HAPPENED, Tradition is the PATTERNS of what happened.
To the extent ANYTHING is knowable – what has already occured is the most knowable.
If that is subjective EVERYTHING is subjective.
The scientific method is make a hypothesis based on observations of patterns in nature,
and then test that hypothesis by conducting an experiment were all variables but the independent variable are controlled.
That experiment HAPPENED – it is “RECORDED HISTORY” – if as you claim history and patterns in history are subjective than there is absolutely nothing that is not subjective.
AND WE STILL need courts to read the law and constitution and do so in a fashion that has highly predictable results that are only changed by changing the law and constitution.
Everything is not subjective – but EVEN IF IT WAS – your argument fails.
There are things in the world that are truly subjective – whether you like red better than blue. But everything is not subjective.
Lies and misrepresentations, even missing data and honest error do not change what actually happened, only our knowledge of it.
Regardless calling something subjective does not change the rule of law requirement that the court must read the law and constitution to consistently reach the same results. Otherwise we are lawless, and we have the rule of man not law.
Again this argument of yours is not the worst you have ever done. But it is still a failure of critical thinking.
SM and others are justified By your own history of poor thinking in criticizing your thinking.
That may hurt your feelings
“A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.””
S. Meyer,
Here is an example of how intellectually lazy people, namely younger people, are becoming.
College professor busted 32 out of 35 students using AI on a final — after they all made the same lazy mistake
https://nypost.com/2026/07/28/opinion/college-professor-busted-32-out-of-35-students-using-ai-on-a-final-after-they-all-made-the-same-lazy-mistake/
They might be smarter how to use AI to cheat. Does not make them smarter at actually thinking for themselves. Or thinking at all.
Key lines from the post article,
“Gibson’s trap is especially shocking because it revealed students hadn’t even checked or proofread their AI-generated responses to make sure they made sense before submitting them — as part of a final exam evaluation.”
That sound/look familiar?
“If the majority of students continue to use AI without consequence, the very value of education itself hangs in the balance — and colleges risk graduating hordes of students who appear to have excelled on paper, but whose knowledge bases are incredibly hollow.
We worry so much about jobs being replaced by AI, but students are practically setting themselves up for that very scenario by letting machines imitate the skills they themselves need in order to progress and succeed in life.”
As I have stated recently, next week I start college. Going to be interesting to see how my fellow classmates do in the classroom.
Why worry about China, this nation will die when all become as stupid as GSX.
The whole purpose of education is to educate, not create parrots. The parrots are going to end up in cages that look like little cubicles and complain.
You never went to college but are doing so now. Congrats! If cheating is not permitted you will be at the top of the class. I am not sure what you will be studying, but make sure it provides a skill set.
“checked or proofread their AI-generated responses to make sure they made sense before submitting them “
That means that 32 out of 35 will graduate as dumb as GSX.
You claimed that history and tradition are subjective – that is false. While they – like everything else are subject to lies and misrepresentation – what actually happened in the past happened. The fact that SOME people lie about it or misrepresent it does not make it subjective.
While this particular error is small compared to your normal errors. It is still error.
You are free to argue that the 5th got the history and tradition wrong. But you have not done that.
You are even free to argue that we should not use history and tradition – because people lie and misrepresent history.
But then people lie and misrepresent the plain text too. By your twisted claim of what constitutes subjective – Everything is subjective. And while false – that is a losing argument even if true. If everything is subjective we STILL are required
to reach decisions, and the rule of law – and the avoidance of anarchy require that we do our best to get those decisions right and that we do so in a fashion that consistently produces the same results.
BTW all “originalism” is, is the understanding that the law and constitution must to the greatest extent possible have a clear meaning.
Even if everything is subjective we are STILL required to reach subjective determinations of the meaning of law and constitution by mean that consistently produce the same results.
This is one of the huge distinctions between the lefts lawfare and what the left is calling right wing lawfare.
Comey lied under oath – repeatedly We can debate the statute of limitations, we can debate the validity of us attorney appointments
But lying under oath is a crime. People get prosecuted for it all the time.
People do not get prosecuted for the absurd things Trump was prosecuted for – pretty much ever.
S. Meyer,
Yep.
No reason to even bother reading any of his comments. It is just AI generated content. It is like a late night infomercial. Just scroll past. Not worth the time reading.
Upstatefarmer, I respect your desire to remain ignorant. That is your right.
I have not read the protocols of the elders of zion
failing to do so does not make me ignorant.
There is only so much time in life – reading garbage is a waste of time, failing to waste time is not ignorance.
It is pretty rich to see Professor Turley complete abandon textualism when it supports his desired outcome.
Turley commended Alito in El Otro Lado for relying on “ordinary speech” to derive the meaning of “arrive” in a place.
“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place … before the person enters that place.” https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jonathan-turley-supreme-court-hands-trump-border-victory-liberals-cant-spin
Yet, he abandons that exact reliance on textualism in this Fourth Circuit case.
From this case, “But although the immediate purpose of ratifying the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was to uniformly lower the voting age to eighteen, “the language of the Amendment ‘transcend[s] the particular controversy which was the immediate impetus for its enactment.’” Tully v.
Okeson, 78 F.4th 377, 383 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 512 (2000)). “As with the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Fourth Amendments, the Twenty Sixth Amendment ‘provide[s] an individual right to be free from the denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on the classification described in the Amendment.’” Id. (quoting Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott, 978 F.3d 168, 184 (5th Cir. 2020)).”
“Here, Plaintiffs do not claim that South Carolina’s absentee-by-mail scheme denies them the right to vote, but instead only that it unconstitutionally abridges that right. To evaluate Plaintiffs’ claim, therefore, we must first determine what constitutes an impermissible abridgement of the right to vote under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.”
The Court goes on to document how the text was meant to mimic the same language used to enfranchise women’s suffrage and racial equality in voting and apply that to young people.
“Against that backdrop, we consider whether South Carolina’s absentee-by-mail rules, which establish different eligibility based on age, constitute an abridgment of Plaintiffs’ right to vote.”
The Fifth Circuit, in reaching a different conclusion on a similar law, completely abandons textualism by interpreting the enfranchisement of younger voters in the 26th Amendment to only apply to retrogression of voting rights, whereas the 15th Amendment (which uses the SAME language as the 26th A.) has never been read to apply only to retrogression.
Textualism, if only relied upon when advantageous, is just judicial activism by another name.
Anonynous, that is what stood out when I first read the article. It’s always amusing how those who push the “history and tradition” method of interpretation because it allows you to cheer-pick from any historical perspective and tradition in order to by-pass the simple text of the law in question.
Only conservatives apply this “method of interpretation” when the outcome will clearly run counter to their views or values.
The 5th circuit applies this all the time. Turley inadvertently used the 5th circuit’s modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment which by-passed the textual meaning directly.
The same issue appeared during the birth-right citizenship case. The conservative minority wanted to ignore the plain text of the law and apply the “history and tradition” context instead of applying the correct textual interpretation. Like most originalists. They fiercely defend their interpretation using “originalism” until it conflicts with the outcome that will ultimately go against their conservative view. Then they choose to abandon said “fundamental” interpretation method.
You’re right, it is judicial activism at its core.
@X
‘Anonynous, that is what stood out when I first read the article [after I had consulted an algorithm].’
FIFY
Still flogging a dead horse.
Absolutely one can lie, misrepresent or even be poorly informed about history.
Cherry picking when it results in false conclusions is just a form of lying.
The FACT that if you do something wrong you get bad results does not change the merits of a approach.
Please tell me what Approach to constitutional intrpretation YOU have that an not be distorted by lying, misrepresenting, cherry picking ?
In the instant case – YOU and the SC courts are placing more weight on “abridge” than it can bear.
Abridge means to limit – or curtail.
No one is limiting the right of younger people to vote.
Your argument fails the simple text test.
If you are going to go strictly by the meaning of the text – then you must use the ACTUAL meaning t=of the text.
You and the court here are adding meaning to abridge that is not found in the meaning of the word.
No Turley is not using a modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment – the 2nd amendment says
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That is the actual text – not a modern interpretation.
You are CORRECT that the use of “history and tradition” as the means of determining what infringements are deemed constitutional.
The alternative is ZERO infringements are allowed.
No right is absolute. At the same time all rights must have as strong a protection as possible.
The constitution frames ALL our rights in absolute terms.
So how do we figure out what infringements on rights are allowed ?
History and tradition is ONE of the means to determine what those who wrote the constitution, thought were th allowable infringements.
Contra your claim – History and traditon are not only not subjective they are actually the least subjective things we have.
Yes people can cherry pick, lie and misrepresent – but they can do that about ANYTHING.
That people can lie does not make facts subjective, and all history is, is a record of past facts.
You keep failing on the basics of critical thinking.
John, I think you’re slightly off here. It’s not that some infringements are allowed, and history and tradition tells us which ones. “Shall not be infringed” means what it says. No infringements are allowed. But what is an infringement?
Not all restrictions infringe the right, because the right was never thought of as encompassing certain things. For instance the freedom of speech was never ever thought to include a right to defraud people. So the first amendment doesn’t ban laws against fraud. That’s not an exception to “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”, it’s that such laws don’t abridge it.
How do we know which restrictions don’t abridge/infringe the underlying right? History and tradition. If we find that at the very time that people were all het up about a particular right, and would not tolerate laws that violated it, they did tolerate a certain law, then it means that law doesn’t violate the right. Unless it only affected people whose rights were thought not to matter.
Some laws existed in the 1790s that, had you asked an average person whether they violated the constitution they would have said “Yes, it does, but who cares, it only affects THOSE people, and who cares about them? If they start enforcing it on people like me THEN I’ll get upset.” Therefore the tolerance of such laws doesn’t prove they don’t infringe the right, and the tradition and history test fails in such cases.
“It is pretty rich to see Professor Turley complete abandon textualism when it supports his desired outcome.” Considering you’re not a lawyer, yo came to same irrational conclusion as George “I’m not a lawyer” X.
The conclusion shows you don’t have to be a lawyer to come to that conclusion.
But I think you may be a lawyer…who has flunked the bar, been disbarred, or maybe a law school dropout or wannabe.
Your phony condescension reveals a really unstable ego, and your personality gets uglier every day and is more pronounced when you are found wrong. You keep shift hours on this blog as well, hmmmm.
You do not have to be a lawyer to conclude the moon is made of green cheese – that does not change the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese.
the 15th Amendment (which uses the SAME language as the 26th A.) has never been read to apply only to retrogression.
Says who? Has it ever been read to apply to privileges that didn’t exist in 1870?
Shouldn’t there be a national holiday on Election Day? Most holidays are really the Retail Merchant’s holiday to go shopping. Why not have a holiday that actually benefits democracy?
You can suggest it to your employer. In this country governments do not tell private employers which holidays they should give their employees. “National holiday” simply means a holiday that the federal government gives its employees. Many such national holidays are only enjoyed by federal employees.
Our laws routinely acknowledge the likelihood that older Americans lack the capabilities of younger Americans. This is reality, not discrimination.
Thirty-five states have acknowledged that jury duty can be a hardship for older citizens, and set blanket ages above which prospective jurors may be excused.
The draft affected men 18-25. People over, I think, 45, cannot join the military at all, unless they are Hunter Biden, who was on the Navy’s books for two years before being discharged for drug use. (As,a consolation, a few weeks thereafter Burisma’s Zlochevsky started paying crackhead Hunter $1 million a year. And after spending Thanksgiving at a luxury private resort, Daddy Joe flew Hunter on Air Force Two to China, where Hunter got a Shanghai business license for his Chinese hedge fund.)
Yes, but the argument here is specifically about the 26th amendment. Nothing in the constitution says states can’t discriminate on the basis of age in jury duty. Nothing says the military may not discriminate on the basis of age. But the 26th amendment does say that the right to vote may not be denied or abridged on account of age. So the only question is whether granting some voters a special privilege on account of their age violates this provision.
Off topic. 15,000,000 barrels of oil per day through the strait of Hormuz per a CNN! report. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-has-lost-significant-control-of-the-strait-of-hormuz/ar-AA2aoPd9
Nuclear facilities in Iran destroyed, Iran not able to sell oil or resupply its military by land or by sea food included. It’s a good day.
Thinkitthrough alwasy fails to think things through.
Isn’t MSN fake news according MAGA? Why would you believe that?
FYI. Those figures are outdated BTW. Think it through man.
The CNN article is 20 hours old.
Are those figures outdated?
Think it through man.
The data within the article is outdated. Not the publishing of the article that is the problem.
It is also out of context. Perhaps you should research it more thoroughly instead of skimming through it and saying “AHA!!”
AHA! proof that X is the problem. YOU provide something here other that ‘nuh-uh’.
How is it our responsibility to research outdated data reported by CNN? Why is it MSM trying to mislead us?
Why would anyone want to look further into CNN reporting?
While I provided correct figures – Why do you think CNN is outdated ?
Is CNN unreliable ?
Why would they publish data today that is old ?
x, Why not prove it by providing your figures yourself. Because you can’t. Think that through Mr. Insincere
I thought CNN was the end all, be all in MSM. Right up there with PBS and NPR.
“Isn’t MSN fake news according MAGA?”
No. MSN is not a news reporter at all. It’s a portal, and thus can’t be either “fake” or “true”. Articles that appear on the portal must stand or fall on the strength of whoever published them.
This story is from CNN, which is indeed fake news and unreliable, but that doesn’t mean everything it publishes is untrue. Particularly when it publishes something that goes against its interest. Admissions against interest are admissible in court even if they’re hearsay.
MSN is an unreliable source.
They are not always wrong, just often.
No, John, MSN is not “often” wrong. Or often right. It’s not a source, it’s just a portal. It doesn’t do any reporting, so there’s nothing to rely on. Stories found on MSN must be judged based on their source, not on where they were found.
I have no idea about the specific figures – but even with the Straight closed – approx. 20% of gulf oil is getting out through pipelines.
Currently the LOW estimate is that 15% of normal traffic is transiting the straits successfully. The number is probably larger as Some ships are turning off transponders to evade tracking.
Most ships are being escorted by the US – typically by Helicopter or slower aircraft like A10’s that can cost effectively shoot down drones.
Virtually all Iranian efforts to target shipping are occuring at the mouth of the gulf – not along the entire passage.
Things are not “normal” but current Dubai Crude is $77/bbl – that is below where it was during the actual fighting.
Today 2.6M bbl passd throught the straits – that compares to 20Mbbl pre conflict.
Another 7Mbbl/day are passing through the Saudi pipeline – that is double the pre-conflict levels.
Oman is delivering 1.8M bbl/day over pipelines that bypass the straits.
The UAE pipeline is delivering 1.5Mbbl/day
These are all TODAYS figures.
Those laws might do as you say, but in this case we have clear constitutional language that says otherwise.
Except that it doesn’t actually say what you claim it does. That’s just your interpretation. The words can be interpreted differently, and I think better.
“The challenge is based on the argument that the state law allows older persons to vote easily by absentee while imposing an added burden on those who are younger. …” -JT
Young People have abandon “Pull yourself up by your Bootstraps”.
They won’t be fooled again! They will Vote their future! BY MAIL (Because They are to busy
chasingsurviving ‘The Dream’).Bootstrapping Has Always Been A Myth. The New American Dream Proves It
By: Alissa Quart ~ March 10, 2023
https://economichardship.org/2023/03/bootstrapping-has-always-been-a-myth-the-new-american-dream-proves-it/
Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, 20 years on
“It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own … ”
The government has no more land to give away, but it can invest in a new generation of urban pioneers. As Dr. King once said, “We now have the techniques and resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will.”
By: Clarence Page – Pulitzer.org
https://www.pulitzer.org/article/martin-luther-king-jrs-legacy-20-years
The origin story of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps.
[Link] facebook.com/prettygrittytours/videos/the-origin-story-of-pulling-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps-history-didyouknow-ety/875229778182197/
Well, the real “IT” is my great grandparents on both sides of my family came to this country, legally, with nothing but a suitcase, the cloths they wore and went on to become successful Americans, to include home ownership, paid for.
My parents started out with little, worked hard, at times held two jobs to become successful, home ownership, middle class.
I too started out with little, worked hard, at times held two jobs, became successful, home ownership, middle class, on paper perhaps upper middle class, enough to be able to have a farm and go to college.
I would call that pulling myself up by our own bootstraps.
Indeed similar story here except that my family has been here longer.
My Great Great Grandpa emigrated to America about 1872 through Ellis Island and settled in Brooklyn, New York where he was a laborer and started a plumbing business.
That makes you … 125 then?
Huh?! How do you figure that? It makes no sense.
Milhouse,
Floor level annony is displaying his higher-indoctrination math skills again.
You went to collage? You stated numerous times that you never went to collage. In fact they makes jokes about being a uneducated hick. The lies you spew.
On paper middle class? What sort of idiot would ever make such a statement. You.
If one has to say such a thing, then you’re not what you claim.
Never married? Gays can now get married.
Collage is strictly for artists who can’t draw.
Oh, no!
The Floor level annony is putting on display what a ever so short memory he has!
I have recently announced here on the good professor’s blog that I am now in a position that I can not only run the farm, but I am going to college starting next week.
That would be an example of how successful I am.
And yes, on paper accounting for all my assets, I would classify as upper-middle class.
I do not feel it.
I do not live like it. I live at or even below my means. Which is why I am so successful.