At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
@MrChinky253 I dont think they are at all ! :]
Everything seems normal to me !
Hmmm... I know unequal taxes are one... but i need more to support my essay :L
Try finding a website on the gov .
But... I highly doubt that the Government would post something about them interfering with any of the tenets
lmao then idk >___<
Lol this is why I'm stumped xD
Keep thinking and look for something close to what your looking for on the internet and can i have a medal now lol :]
Lol i would give you a medal but i dont know how xD
nvm o .o
lol good luck bro ! ttyl
Aight thanks man
Of course. It interferes with political equality all the time. We just hope it does so in a rational way. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 gives the Federal government the ability to interfere with how some (but not all) states redraw their Congressional districts following each Census. The government has used this to (ideally) prevent any inappropriate reduction in the political power of minorities, but more than one person has argued it has actually been use to help the political party in power (e.g. Democrats or Republicans) dilute the power of the opposition party. For example, when Democrats control the Federal government, they may interfere with how Texas, for example, redraws its districts in a way that helps Democrats win election in Texas and makes it harder for Republicans to win elections. You may also have heard about recent conflicts between states and the Feds over voter ID laws, or about voter registration purges. For example, in an effort to cut down on voting fraud (or just to simplify their record-keeping), states may enact laws about clearing inactive voters off of registration rolls, so when a voter dies or moves, he disappears from the local county's registration rolls. That both simplifies record-keeping for the county, and cuts down on fraud, because a person can't vote twice in two counties, and no one can easily pretend to be a voter who long ago moved away or died. Similarly, states may enact laws that say a voter has to show a photo ID to vote or something, also to cut down on voter fraud. But the Federal government under the Obama Admnistration opposes both of these kinds of state laws, and has filed lawsuits in Federal court to stop them. The state's position is that they are trying to reduce voter fraud, or even just error, in an effort to make sure elections are clean and fair, particularly when they're close. The position of the Obama Administration is that the states are needlessly throwing roadblocks in the way of voting for the poor, who may forget their ID, not have a drivers' license, or not have voted in a long time. Why would anyone do that? Well, the Democratic partisan position is that the states are run by Republicans and trying to cut down on Democratic votes, and the Republican partisan position is that the Democrats are trying to allow for fraudulent voters because most people who vote fraudulently are likely to vote Democratic. Who knows what the truth is? On a more mundane level, both state and Federal govenment restrict voting rights based on age, residency (whether you've lived there long enough, whether you live in the district or just go to school there, et cetera), and legal status (whether you're in the country legally or not, whether you have been convicted of a crime or not). These clearly change the political power of individuals, but most people tend to agree these are reasonable discriminations between individuals. (Not always, though: the issue of whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote or not is hotly debated. Or rather, everyone agrees they should technically not, but people disagree strongly on how much effort should be put into stopping it, with Republicans tending to argue it should be strongly discouraged and prevented, and Democrats tending to argue it should essentially be only technically illegal, but no measures taken to actually suppress it.) If what you mean is some kind of much larger level of discriminatio or disenfranchisement, like the Soviets having only sham elections, or the Taliban saying women can't vote, or the Saudis saying that Palestinians who were born in the country are still not citizens and can't vote -- no, you don't get THAT level of interference in the United States.
THANK YOU!!! :D These are going to be good points in my essay ^-^