you never see our content in your newsfeeds.

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Email me when people reply –


    • Parole serves more than as a money pinching proposition... it helps to provide the incentive to improve one's self and too maintain order in prison.  The privilege of parole is often the motive to obtain vocational training, to enroll in drug and sexual abuse rehab, and to perform one's prison term without burning down the prison.  I support parole for most prisoners... less the more violent criminals and repeat offenders... no-repeat offender or dangerous violent offender deserves parole... They have proven to be career criminals and dangers to society.

    • The question posed to the SCOTUS nominee was whether voting rights could/should be restored once incarceration ended and fines paid.   She answered clearly and concisely,  She addressed the 'progressive's viewpoint' and cited the Amendment which makes that CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.   Should be the end of the question pending passage of another Constitutional Amendment.   

    • The several States are charged in Article 1, Section 4 Elections...  to regulate federal elections in their respective States... Here is the authorizing clause: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators."

      The Elections Clause is the primary source of constitutional authority to regulate elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections, subject to Congress’s authority to “make or alter” state regulations. It grants each level of government the authority to enact a complete code for such elections, including rules concerning public notices, voter registration, voter protection, fraud prevention, vote counting, and determination of election results. Whenever a state enacts a law relating to a congressional election, it is exercising power under the Elections Clause; states do not have any inherent authority to enact such measures.

      The power of states and Congress to regulate congressional elections under the Elections Clause is subject to express and implicit limits. Fundamentally, neither entity can enact laws under the Elections Clause that violate other constitutional provisions. For example, the Constitution specifies that anyone who is eligible to vote for the larger house of a state legislature may vote for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as well, there can no be two sets of laws... one for the State and the other for the Federal Government. The Elections Clause does not permit either the states or Congress to override those provisions by establishing additional qualifications for voting for Congress.

      Congressional and Presidential elections are conducted under a complicated mix of state and federal laws, reflecting the Elections Clause’s division of authority between state legislatures and Congress. 

    • My understanding is that voting is more than a mere priviledge.  In a Representative Republic form of government it is a duty.  Now, some people, for a number of reasons, may determine not to perform that duty, refrain from voting at all, and if we truly do love liberty as we claim we do, then there is nothing wrong with that.

      I have refrained from voting in some elections because I could not stomach the candidate choices put before the public.  Sometimes it is hard to determine which pile of puke is preferrable.

      In regard to the current Supreme Court nominee, I like her.  A lot. Not only is she absolutely qualified she is also apparently (judging from her family) a very good Christian woman. I do not agree at all with her religion, but she lives Christian principles and shows it.  And that is what matters.  She is much better than me, I can assure you of that.

      Earlier I stated my personal view regarding a felon voting again.  That view hasn't changed.  In fact, I would rather have felons voting rather than the stupid. By that I mean the people who are so stupid or ignorant that they knowingly vote for felons that have not been indicted.  Wouldn't you? These are the people who are a danger to the nation, not a felon who has competed his sentence.

      The Constitution is written to form a more perfect Union, and establish Justice.   Is it Just to continue to restrict one after they have paid the cost?  We say that part of that cost is losing the duty to vote, or not to vote, forever, for life?  If those who believe that is the purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, I say that you are wrong. And if ACB believes that, she is wrong as well.

      I do not read either founding document the same way that some people apparently do.  Anyway, that is my view.


    • Rights may not be limited or placed under government regulation... the minute a right is regulated it is no longer a right.   Elections are regulated as to who may vote, when, where, and how.  One's right to vote is more a privilege granted by the State to qualified citizens. Non-citizens, felons, the incompetent, and those failing to meet residency requirements, are excluded from voting. Therefore any implicit right to vote is at best a regulated privilege extended to a select group of individuals BY LAW...  

    • "The minute a right is regulated it is no longer a right." Really? And in the same post you talk about the right to vote. That's very funny. I am starting to think that you are a funny guy.

      Newsflash for you. ALL rights are regulated in any society, and they are still rights. - Nah. Disregard that statement. Instead, tell us one right that is NOT regulated. 

    • The terms right to vote... is commonly misused to describe the privilege to vote...  Not everyone has the privilege to vote. The privilege to Vote is GRANTED by the state to individuals who QUALIFY based on many factors... age, citizenship, mental competency, address/residency,  criminal record, and other registration requirements,   Individual Rights are not granted by the state they are the product of natural law and God's ordinances.  Substituting the term 'Privilege' for  'Right' is most appropriate when discussing voting privileges, as the law restricts the privilege to vote to specific classes of citizens and other conditions... a few mentioned above.

    • Good move, Col. Nelson. Better not to reply :-) 

    • Violent crimes are performed by actors in our society daily. Is unobservance of a law redefining a law, act by act? All inheirant rights can be claimed to be regulated, and actions taken accordingly. Is reality or truth virtually what is said, just because it is said so? Is murder not murder if undetected? If so, I see that short route to societal chaos in front of us. I don't think we can go this way Paul.

    • There is no implicit right to vote... in the Constitution.  The Constitution gives the power to regulate elections to the States.   It is up to the several states to establish voting rights... for individuals based on various facts such as residency requirements, criminal history, competency, and voter registration rules.  Voting is a right only where one is qualified by state and federal law... making it a regulated right... more of a privilege granted by law. 

This reply was deleted.