Senators Clinton and Kerry Submit Open Voting Bill

An anonymous reader writes "DailyKos is reporting that a group of senators and representatives including Hillary Clinton, John Kerrry, and Tubbs Jones, have proposed an 'open-source' voting bill. This bill (The Count Every Vote Act of 2005) corrects many of the problems in the last election. Notably, it requires paper receipts, and that the source and object code of all electronic voting machines to be open and readable by the public. " Commentary on the bill available at the Miami Herald.

Comments

Re:Corporate Lobbies vs. Public Interest

[b17bmbr]

yeah, bush has done 40 things worse. excessive spending, a federal takeover of education and airport security, a massive medicare bill, trade tariffs, spending more than clinton ever did. yeah, i got alot of issues domestically. how again is he a "conservative"?

however, he has been right on the war on terror. not just afghanistan and iraq, but look at lebanon, egypt, palestinian terrirtories, ukraine, etc. i only supported him on the war, because he is doing a great job. we are winning. maybe all those anti-war people maybe should rethink a few things...

Re:Corporate Lobbies vs. Public Interest

[bechthros]

When has a communist ever been democratically elected in a REAL election, where there's more than one party? (IE one the UN monitored and approved of) By that logic you could say Saddam was elected. He was, but there was a slight caveat - there was nobody else on the ballot. Same for the Soviets in the 20th Century.

Seriously, name a communist that was elected in a real election.

Re:Corporate Lobbies vs. Public Interest

[aussie_a]

When has a communist ever been democratically elected in a REAL election, where there's more than one party? (IE one the UN monitored and approved of)

When has an American president ever been democratically elected in a REAL election (IE one the UN monitored and approved of)

Re:Corporate Lobbies vs. Public Interest

[alsta]

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that this says that Congress shall not force people to worship in any certain way(s), nor shall it not prevent people from free exercise of religion. Also, the Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of press. Nor shall it enact law depriving people to peaceably assemble (congregate, protest or whatever the cause). It shall neither enact law preventing people from petitioning their Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Constitution describes rights granted to described parties. These rights are absolute and may not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless the Federal Government is permitted to do something by the Constitution, the right to such action is delegated to the several States or the people. The States may not usurp such rights to regulate matters which the Constitution has prohibited them to regulate, such as being forbidden to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms...

The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges? I speak of such things as abortion, which according to said Amendments is a right for States to legislate against;

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
"Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, "in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right." The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances."

Unbelievable.

Re:Corporate Lobbies vs. Public Interest

[alsta]

It IS unequivocal. What about 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to understand?

The codifying of the Militia in the Militia Act of 1792, assuming that this is what you speak of, says that the Militia may be called upon in the defense of the land against any foreign aggressor and that the President shall have such power.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

From Merriam-Webster;

infringe "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights"

How is infringing (you can only have a deer rifle if you're a member of an organized State militia (National Guard)) on the people's right to keep and bear arm compatible with 'shall not be infringed'? It is not possible to have limits on the right to keep and bear arms while protecting against such limits.

If you do not like guns, something which I've been unable to gauge, but I will assume - the correct thing would be to argue the repeal of Amendment II. Not inventing some meaning that isn't there. Same actually goes for all of the Constitution, but let's start with Amendment II since we have it on subject.

The DoJ did a study on the matter and came up with the following;

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Read on further here;

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www .guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html