Home of the Brave: A 1960s Political RP (86th Congress)

[Emazia]

Turner looked disappointedly and sent her a note.

What would it take for you to support this bill?

President Pro Tempore: "As there is a second and an objection, the Senate will move to vote."

Senator Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "Aye."

Sofia, upon taking Turner's note, immediately sent a note back with her reply.

Passage of my Voting Rights Enforcement Act proposal through both houses. No more, no less.

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Nay!

Fine. You can have it.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Sofia, upon taking Turner's note, immediately sent a note back with her reply.

Passage of my Voting Rights Enforcement Act proposal through both houses. No more, no less.

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Nay!

Fine. You can have it.

I'll need it to be passed first. You can trust that I'll vote for fusion voting afterward, we have it in New York already. Though you can imagine why I don't trust you help get the VREA passed until I see it pass.

[Emazia]

Fine. You can have it.

I'll need it to be passed first. You can trust that I'll vote for fusion voting afterward, we have it in New York already. Though you can imagine why I don't trust you help get the VREA passed until I see it pass.

I'm afraid I can't trust that. Sorry. What other concessions would you like?

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

I'll need it to be passed first. You can trust that I'll vote for fusion voting afterward, we have it in New York already. Though you can imagine why I don't trust you help get the VREA passed until I see it pass.

I'm afraid I can't trust that. Sorry. What other concessions would you like?

'No more, no less', means 'No more, no less'. I will oppose this federal change in voting until the constitutionally promised voting rights are secured by federal means. There is nothing to negotiate.

[Emazia]

I'm afraid I can't trust that. Sorry. What other concessions would you like?

'No more, no less', means 'No more, no less'. I will oppose this federal change in voting until the constitutionally promised voting rights are secured by federal means. There is nothing to negotiate.

What if I were to give you something lesser now, so that you know you can trust me, and you get VREA after this?

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

'No more, no less', means 'No more, no less'. I will oppose this federal change in voting until the constitutionally promised voting rights are secured by federal means. There is nothing to negotiate.

What if I were to give you something lesser now, so that you know you can trust me, and you get VREA after this?

No. Voting reform for voting reform, I don't make a practice of doing horse-trading for unrelated proposals.

[Emazia]

What if I were to give you something lesser now, so that you know you can trust me, and you get VREA after this?

No. Voting reform for voting reform, I don't make a practice of doing horse-trading for unrelated proposals.

It would be lesser voting reform, yes.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

No. Voting reform for voting reform, I don't make a practice of doing horse-trading for unrelated proposals.

It would be lesser voting reform, yes.

The securing the proper observation of the right the vote as presented in the constitution is an unshakeable requirement before supporting any other voting reform. You can be absolutely sure I will oppose your proposal until that happens, regardless of what you offer. If you're not going to support me on that, you might as well withdraw your bill, as I will not support this proposal and will fight against it.

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "The votes have been tallied, and the Ayes have it. The floor is open to motions and debate on the Fusion Voting Bill."

[Emazia]

President Pro Tempore: "The votes have been tallied, and the Ayes have it. The floor is open to motions and debate on the Fusion Voting Bill."

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I motion to open debate on the matter, Mr. President."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): Seconded.

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "The votes have been tallied, and the Ayes have it. The floor is open to motions and debate on the Fusion Voting Bill."

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I motion to open debate on the matter, Mr. President."

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."

[Emazia]

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I motion to open debate on the matter, Mr. President."

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I will make myself brief, my honourable friends. This bill will strengthen democracy, along with truly ensuring that every interest is represented. Liberals, conservatives, no matter who you are, this is a simple, pro-democracy measure. And I know what Senator Fraser is going to say. She's going to say that I should support her voting bill. Well, guess what, Senator, your voting bill is against the 10th amendment. Fusion voting for federal elections is a federal matter, forcing states to abolish poll taxes is an unconstitutional matter. I yield my time for further debate."

[Newne Carriebean7]

Joshua Sharp
Senator from Mississippi (Democratic)

---

"Now, as much as I'd like to criticize the madam Senator from New York's bill, this ain't what we is a here to discuss now is it, Senators? We ain't here to debate a bad bill, we're here to debate the other bad bill. It's the Senator from Mississippi's bill. It is my fellow Senator, the one whom I referred to so honestly. It's a darn shame to see how far this man's fallen. This bill, if passed, is designed to and will be destined to slowly decay the unlimited power of the Democratic Party in the South. It's a noose in the senate chambers that is threatening to strangle unlimited democratic- I mean democracy, one party like system, not the Democratic party. We don't need none of that in Alabama, nor do the good folks of Louisiana need such a bill. It might cut into their margins from a 97.5 percent to a modest 90 percent. No-body wants more than the proper patronage party o' 'the republicans to be heard. The south is still a two party system technically, though you'd be hard-pressed to find more than 22% in Tennessee for the Republicans, which is one o' our best scenarios.

While I will concede it's got good promises, and it's worked out in practice already with New York. However, the Senator from Mississippi must remember who used it. It was the populists and the Republicans against the Democratic Party of the South. It handed Democrats electoral defeats in deep blue Georgia. Georgia, I may remind every one o' y'alls, that has never voted for a Republican candidate ever! If this bill is passed, then we're going to see the end of the solid south, and a return to electoral chaos in this upcoming election! We cannot allow such a badly thought out bill to pass. I yield my time for future debate on the bill, Mr. President."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I motion to open debate on the matter, Mr. President."

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Firstly, my response to the idea that abolishing poll taxes is unconstitutional, is that the process of changing the constitution by following it's amendment process, is by definition constitutional. Senator Turner must know this, for it is obvious his concern is doing away with poll taxes. I appreciate the Senator going on record on this, as it'll be sure to follow him from this day forward whenever he makes reference to being on the side of the poor whites that these poll taxes disenfranchise.

Secondly, this body contains individuals who opposed the Voting Rights Enforcement Act and failed to overcome a filibuster on it's behalf, on the erroneous argument that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating elections, even to enforce that which is promised through the constitution, despite the fact it is explicitly in the power of the federal government to do so as provided before for Article Six of the constitution, which declares federal laws has having precedence over state law provided such federal laws don't contravene the constitution, as reaffirmed by the 10th amendment, which states that powers not delegated the the united states are reserved through to the states and people. It is notable that the 10th amendment says power, rather than rights, as while the people can exercise rights individually, the people exercise power through their representatives and of course the people pick their representatives with federal representatives being those with supreme law making power, again, provided again, that said laws are not in contravention of the constitution.

However, that is beside the point, as the VREA was written to operate on the powers provided for it under section 2 of the 15th amendment, which explicitly gives congress the power to enforce prevention of the denial of the right to vote on the basis race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As such, the legitimacy of the VREA was unassailable even when one applied originalist, textualist or strict constructionist interpretations to the constitution. The only argument against the legitimacy of the VREA on those grounds would be a peculiar form of loose constructionism which insists that state law has primacy over federal law, even in cases where amendments explicitly empower the federal government to act. Such a position would, of course, be utterly incompatible with support for Fusion Voting Bill. This is made more explicate by the fact that the 15th amendment makes an explicit command that race, color, or previous condition of servitude shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State and tasks the congress with enforcing it, while Article 1, Section. 4 of the constitution, which I assume the fusion voting bill is operating under the power of, merely says that congress may alter the laws and regulation of elections.

The difference is that failing to enforce the 15th amendment is an explicit breech of it, while this fusion voting bill simply permissible under the constitution. Any theory that says that the VREA is unconstitutional, would certainly make this fusion voting bill unconstitutional. Any principle that says the VREA is an infringement on some abstract states' rights that idea that exists outside of the constitution, must also see this Fusion voting bill as an infringement. Any one in this body who opposed the VREA on the grounds of infringement on state sovereignty, while support the VREA, is admitting to operating on acting on blatant hypocrisy that'd put to bed a notion, that sits at the foundation of the defense of the filibuster, that this senate is a place of reasoned deliberation rather than a body that shifts with partisan whims.

As for my part, my opposition to this Fusion Voting Bill rests on a severe distrust of effects of this bill, as proposed and supported by those who are engaged in the sort of insincerity I spoke of in their backing this bill, while opposing the Voting Rights Enforcement Act. It seems clear enough that on such a hypocritical position for reasons of illegitimate gain, which is to say I believe this proposal is intended to acerbate the issues brought about by the refusal end ongoing the breech of 15th amendment and as such, I'd that say that it's a duty of the supporters of our constitution, those who understand that if one allows any part of the constitution to be voided, outside of legitimate constitution processes risks all of the constitution, to oppose this bill, at least until the hypocrisy of supporting federal impositions on elections without an explicit constitutional basis, while opposing federal impositions on elections intended to bring the country in line with it's constitution, is rectified.

[Emazia]

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Firstly, my response to the idea that abolishing poll taxes is unconstitutional, is that the process of changing the constitution by following it's amendment process, is by definition constitutional. Senator Turner must know this, for it is obvious his concern is doing away with poll taxes. I appreciate the Senator going on record on this, as it'll be sure to follow him from this day forward whenever he makes reference to being on the side of the poor whites that these poll taxes disenfranchise.

Secondly, this body contains individuals who opposed the Voting Rights Enforcement Act and failed to overcome a filibuster on it's behalf, on the erroneous argument that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating elections, even to enforce that which is promised through the constitution, despite the fact it is explicitly in the power of the federal government to do so as provided before for Article Six of the constitution, which declares federal laws has having precedence over state law provided such federal laws don't contravene the constitution, as reaffirmed by the 10th amendment, which states that powers not delegated the the united states are reserved through to the states and people. It is notable that the 10th amendment says power, rather than rights, as while the people can exercise rights individually, the people exercise power through their representatives and of course the people pick their representatives with federal representatives being those with supreme law making power, again, provided again, that said laws are not in contravention of the constitution.

However, that is beside the point, as the VREA was written to operate on the powers provided for it under section 2 of the 15th amendment, which explicitly gives congress the power to enforce prevention of the denial of the right to vote on the basis race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As such, the legitimacy of the VREA was unassailable even when one applied originalist, textualist or strict constructionist interpretations to the constitution. The only argument against the legitimacy of the VREA on those grounds would be a peculiar form of loose constructionism which insists that state law has primacy over federal law, even in cases where amendments explicitly empower the federal government to act. Such a position would, of course, be utterly incompatible with support for Fusion Voting Bill. This is made more explicate by the fact that the 15th amendment makes an explicit command that race, color, or previous condition of servitude shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State and tasks the congress with enforcing it, while Article 1, Section. 4 of the constitution, which I assume the fusion voting bill is operating under the power of, merely says that congress may alter the laws and regulation of elections.

The difference is that failing to enforce the 15th amendment is an explicit breech of it, while this fusion voting bill simply permissible under the constitution. Any theory that says that the VREA is unconstitutional, would certainly make this fusion voting bill unconstitutional. Any principle that says the VREA is an infringement on some abstract states' rights that idea that exists outside of the constitution, must also see this Fusion voting bill as an infringement. Any one in this body who opposed the VREA on the grounds of infringement on state sovereignty, while support the VREA, is admitting to operating on acting on blatant hypocrisy that'd put to bed a notion, that sits at the foundation of the defense of the filibuster, that this senate is a place of reasoned deliberation rather than a body that shifts with partisan whims.

As for my part, my opposition to this Fusion Voting Bill rests on a severe distrust of effects of this bill, as proposed and supported by those who are engaged in the sort of insincerity I spoke of in their backing this bill, while opposing the Voting Rights Enforcement Act. It seems clear enough that on such a hypocritical position for reasons of illegitimate gain, which is to say I believe this proposal is intended to acerbate the issues brought about by the refusal end ongoing the breech of 15th amendment and as such, I'd that say that it's a duty of the supporters of our constitution, those who understand that if one allows any part of the constitution to be voided, outside of legitimate constitution processes risks all of the constitution, to oppose this bill, at least until the hypocrisy of supporting federal impositions on elections without an explicit constitutional basis, while opposing federal impositions on elections intended to bring the country in line with it's constitution, is rectified.

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "Could I ask you yield your time to me, Madame Senator?"

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "Senator Sharp, as Senator Turner's comments did not mention you, nor did you specify that you wished to rebut what he'd say, I must ask you to sit down. You have no time remaining, nor did the chair designate any to you. Therefore, unless either Senator Turner or Senator Fraser wishes to yield a portion of their time to you. Senator Turner, you have 29 minutes remaining, Senator Fraser, you have 24 minutes remaining. I will also add, I apologize for any confusion that was made, by Senator of Mississippi, I meant Mr. Turner. If the madam from New York is finished, she may yield her time to either Senator Turner or Sharp or anyone else in the chamber, or reserve it for herself for later."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY): I reserve my time for myself later.

[Emazia]

President Pro Tempore: "Seeing as there are no objections, there shall be an allotted time of one hour for debate, which will be divided amongst the speakers. Seeing as the Gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Turner, motioned for the debate, he has an allotted time of 30 minutes in debate. The standard debate procedure is as follows, each speaker will receive thirty minutes, assuming there are just two, during which they may speak on the topic at hand using parliamentary language. After the said speaker is done speaking, he or she may reserve their time for future debate, after which, the chair will recognize the next speaker. Here's some advice, don't use the whole thirty minutes at once. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized to open debate."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Firstly, my response to the idea that abolishing poll taxes is unconstitutional, is that the process of changing the constitution by following it's amendment process, is by definition constitutional. Senator Turner must know this, for it is obvious his concern is doing away with poll taxes. I appreciate the Senator going on record on this, as it'll be sure to follow him from this day forward whenever he makes reference to being on the side of the poor whites that these poll taxes disenfranchise.

Secondly, this body contains individuals who opposed the Voting Rights Enforcement Act and failed to overcome a filibuster on it's behalf, on the erroneous argument that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating elections, even to enforce that which is promised through the constitution, despite the fact it is explicitly in the power of the federal government to do so as provided before for Article Six of the constitution, which declares federal laws has having precedence over state law provided such federal laws don't contravene the constitution, as reaffirmed by the 10th amendment, which states that powers not delegated the the united states are reserved through to the states and people. It is notable that the 10th amendment says power, rather than rights, as while the people can exercise rights individually, the people exercise power through their representatives and of course the people pick their representatives with federal representatives being those with supreme law making power, again, provided again, that said laws are not in contravention of the constitution.

However, that is beside the point, as the VREA was written to operate on the powers provided for it under section 2 of the 15th amendment, which explicitly gives congress the power to enforce prevention of the denial of the right to vote on the basis race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As such, the legitimacy of the VREA was unassailable even when one applied originalist, textualist or strict constructionist interpretations to the constitution. The only argument against the legitimacy of the VREA on those grounds would be a peculiar form of loose constructionism which insists that state law has primacy over federal law, even in cases where amendments explicitly empower the federal government to act. Such a position would, of course, be utterly incompatible with support for Fusion Voting Bill. This is made more explicate by the fact that the 15th amendment makes an explicit command that race, color, or previous condition of servitude shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State and tasks the congress with enforcing it, while Article 1, Section. 4 of the constitution, which I assume the fusion voting bill is operating under the power of, merely says that congress may alter the laws and regulation of elections.

The difference is that failing to enforce the 15th amendment is an explicit breech of it, while this fusion voting bill simply permissible under the constitution. Any theory that says that the VREA is unconstitutional, would certainly make this fusion voting bill unconstitutional. Any principle that says the VREA is an infringement on some abstract states' rights that idea that exists outside of the constitution, must also see this Fusion voting bill as an infringement. Any one in this body who opposed the VREA on the grounds of infringement on state sovereignty, while support the VREA, is admitting to operating on acting on blatant hypocrisy that'd put to bed a notion, that sits at the foundation of the defense of the filibuster, that this senate is a place of reasoned deliberation rather than a body that shifts with partisan whims.

As for my part, my opposition to this Fusion Voting Bill rests on a severe distrust of effects of this bill, as proposed and supported by those who are engaged in the sort of insincerity I spoke of in their backing this bill, while opposing the Voting Rights Enforcement Act. It seems clear enough that on such a hypocritical position for reasons of illegitimate gain, which is to say I believe this proposal is intended to acerbate the issues brought about by the refusal end ongoing the breech of 15th amendment and as such, I'd that say that it's a duty of the supporters of our constitution, those who understand that if one allows any part of the constitution to be voided, outside of legitimate constitution processes risks all of the constitution, to oppose this bill, at least until the hypocrisy of supporting federal impositions on elections without an explicit constitutional basis, while opposing federal impositions on elections intended to bring the country in line with it's constitution, is rectified.

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I never said anything about the poll taxes themselves, Madame Senator. I agree they are ill-advised, but we must respect the rights of the states on this matter, as we must on all matters. Regardless, while you may not trust me, it is about the outcome of this bill - I think both liberals and conservatives here will find common ground in the strengthening of our democracy, despite what you may think. There is no hypocrisy, Madame Senator, and I'd like you to please calm down.

If the 15th Amendment already provides what you want, why don't you get it through the courts and stop wasting our times with provisions that, according to you, already exist? My quarrels with the VREA aside, we must allow political parties and other political actors to operate as they will, because to do otherwise would be to subvert the very principles of democracy. Surely you are not against democracy, my friends?

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Firstly, my response to the idea that abolishing poll taxes is unconstitutional, is that the process of changing the constitution by following it's amendment process, is by definition constitutional. Senator Turner must know this, for it is obvious his concern is doing away with poll taxes. I appreciate the Senator going on record on this, as it'll be sure to follow him from this day forward whenever he makes reference to being on the side of the poor whites that these poll taxes disenfranchise.

Secondly, this body contains individuals who opposed the Voting Rights Enforcement Act and failed to overcome a filibuster on it's behalf, on the erroneous argument that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating elections, even to enforce that which is promised through the constitution, despite the fact it is explicitly in the power of the federal government to do so as provided before for Article Six of the constitution, which declares federal laws has having precedence over state law provided such federal laws don't contravene the constitution, as reaffirmed by the 10th amendment, which states that powers not delegated the the united states are reserved through to the states and people. It is notable that the 10th amendment says power, rather than rights, as while the people can exercise rights individually, the people exercise power through their representatives and of course the people pick their representatives with federal representatives being those with supreme law making power, again, provided again, that said laws are not in contravention of the constitution.

However, that is beside the point, as the VREA was written to operate on the powers provided for it under section 2 of the 15th amendment, which explicitly gives congress the power to enforce prevention of the denial of the right to vote on the basis race, color, or previous condition of servitude. As such, the legitimacy of the VREA was unassailable even when one applied originalist, textualist or strict constructionist interpretations to the constitution. The only argument against the legitimacy of the VREA on those grounds would be a peculiar form of loose constructionism which insists that state law has primacy over federal law, even in cases where amendments explicitly empower the federal government to act. Such a position would, of course, be utterly incompatible with support for Fusion Voting Bill. This is made more explicate by the fact that the 15th amendment makes an explicit command that race, color, or previous condition of servitude shall not be denied or abridged by United States or by any State and tasks the congress with enforcing it, while Article 1, Section. 4 of the constitution, which I assume the fusion voting bill is operating under the power of, merely says that congress may alter the laws and regulation of elections.

The difference is that failing to enforce the 15th amendment is an explicit breech of it, while this fusion voting bill simply permissible under the constitution. Any theory that says that the VREA is unconstitutional, would certainly make this fusion voting bill unconstitutional. Any principle that says the VREA is an infringement on some abstract states' rights that idea that exists outside of the constitution, must also see this Fusion voting bill as an infringement. Any one in this body who opposed the VREA on the grounds of infringement on state sovereignty, while support the VREA, is admitting to operating on acting on blatant hypocrisy that'd put to bed a notion, that sits at the foundation of the defense of the filibuster, that this senate is a place of reasoned deliberation rather than a body that shifts with partisan whims.

As for my part, my opposition to this Fusion Voting Bill rests on a severe distrust of effects of this bill, as proposed and supported by those who are engaged in the sort of insincerity I spoke of in their backing this bill, while opposing the Voting Rights Enforcement Act. It seems clear enough that on such a hypocritical position for reasons of illegitimate gain, which is to say I believe this proposal is intended to acerbate the issues brought about by the refusal end ongoing the breech of 15th amendment and as such, I'd that say that it's a duty of the supporters of our constitution, those who understand that if one allows any part of the constitution to be voided, outside of legitimate constitution processes risks all of the constitution, to oppose this bill, at least until the hypocrisy of supporting federal impositions on elections without an explicit constitutional basis, while opposing federal impositions on elections intended to bring the country in line with it's constitution, is rectified.

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I never said anything about the poll taxes themselves, Madame Senator. I agree they are ill-advised, but we must respect the rights of the states on this matter, as we must on all matters. Regardless, while you may not trust me, it is about the outcome of this bill - I think both liberals and conservatives here will find common ground in the strengthening of our democracy, despite what you may think. There is no hypocrisy, Madame Senator, and I'd like you to please calm down.

If the 15th Amendment already provides what you want, why don't you get it through the courts and stop wasting our times with provisions that, according to you, already exist? My quarrels with the VREA aside, we must allow political parties and other political actors to operate as they will, because to do otherwise would be to subvert the very principles of democracy. Surely you are not against democracy, my friends?

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

"The 15th amendment specifically tasks congress with creating appropriate legislation to guarantee the right to vote regardless of race or color, it is a constitutional responsibility for congress to give guidelines on this that courts can make decisions with, it is not up to courts to make legislation.

This nation and it's constitution was founded on the principle that individual rights ought to triumph over the rights of governments, with the right to vote being paramount to those rights. Since then, this nation has expanded the definition of those deemed worthy of voting rights. First poor white men, then black men, then women, though notably, only black men and women have amendments guaranteeing the right to vote. Senator Turner, I have an amendment that guarantees my right the vote, the 19th, blacks have an amendment that guarantees their right to vote, the 15th, why is it that you don't believe that poor whites ought to have an amendment securing their right to vote?

The only logical conclusion is that you are in opposition to the 19th and 15th amendment as well and as such fundamentally oppose democracy in this country, further reinforcing that you'd only make a proposal such as this fusion bill if you believed it was harmful to democracy. Given the context, it seems clear enough to me that those that support this bill, while opposing the VREA, do so with intent to introduce a fraudulent element into our elections to undermine them and in doing so, remake our democracy in their image.

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

[Louisianan]

President Pro Tempore: "Mr. Turner, you have 27 minutes remaining, Senator Fraser, you have 22 minutes remaining."

[Emazia]

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I never said anything about the poll taxes themselves, Madame Senator. I agree they are ill-advised, but we must respect the rights of the states on this matter, as we must on all matters. Regardless, while you may not trust me, it is about the outcome of this bill - I think both liberals and conservatives here will find common ground in the strengthening of our democracy, despite what you may think. There is no hypocrisy, Madame Senator, and I'd like you to please calm down.

If the 15th Amendment already provides what you want, why don't you get it through the courts and stop wasting our times with provisions that, according to you, already exist? My quarrels with the VREA aside, we must allow political parties and other political actors to operate as they will, because to do otherwise would be to subvert the very principles of democracy. Surely you are not against democracy, my friends?

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

"The 15th amendment specifically tasks congress with creating appropriate legislation to guarantee the right to vote regardless of race or color, it is a constitutional responsibility for congress to give guidelines on this that courts can make decisions with, it is not up to courts to make legislation.

This nation and it's constitution was founded on the principle that individual rights ought to triumph over the rights of governments, with the right to vote being paramount to those rights. Since then, this nation has expanded the definition of those deemed worthy of voting rights. First poor white men, then black men, then women, though notably, only black men and women have amendments guaranteeing the right to vote. Senator Turner, I have an amendment that guarantees my right the vote, the 19th, blacks have an amendment that guarantees their right to vote, the 15th, why is it that you don't believe that poor whites ought to have an amendment securing their right to vote?

The only logical conclusion is that you are in opposition to the 19th and 15th amendment as well and as such fundamentally oppose democracy in this country, further reinforcing that you'd only make a proposal such as this fusion bill if you believed it was harmful to democracy. Given the context, it seems clear enough to me that those that support this bill, while opposing the VREA, do so with intent to introduce a fraudulent element into our elections to undermine them and in doing so, remake our democracy in their image.

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I would like to urge you to calm down, Madame Senator. Throwing around such accusations is very temperamental of you, and I would again ask you to calm down. We must have civilised debate in this chamber. There is no fraudulent element here, Madame Senator. There is only the legalisation of a method of voting that is used in your state and in mine.

It is very simple - if you believe the 15th Amendment is being violated, then why don't you take it up with the Supreme Court? And if you believe the court doesn't have 'the ability to make legislation' then you severely misunderstand the purpose of our Court - it is here to enforce our values, and our constitution, even if it means enshrining certain things in law that cannot be changed except by the consideration of the court and by constitutional amendment - we call that precedent.

Before you reply, I would once again urge you to maintain civility, and stop accusing people of being enemies of the Republic or anti-democracy simply because they have differing views on your voting bill. We must maintain reason in our politics, and I think it would be rather unbecoming of a Senator to throw around such fiesty accusations at their opponents."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

:

"The 15th amendment specifically tasks congress with creating appropriate legislation to guarantee the right to vote regardless of race or color, it is a constitutional responsibility for congress to give guidelines on this that courts can make decisions with, it is not up to courts to make legislation.

This nation and it's constitution was founded on the principle that individual rights ought to triumph over the rights of governments, with the right to vote being paramount to those rights. Since then, this nation has expanded the definition of those deemed worthy of voting rights. First poor white men, then black men, then women, though notably, only black men and women have amendments guaranteeing the right to vote. Senator Turner, I have an amendment that guarantees my right the vote, the 19th, blacks have an amendment that guarantees their right to vote, the 15th, why is it that you don't believe that poor whites ought to have an amendment securing their right to vote?

The only logical conclusion is that you are in opposition to the 19th and 15th amendment as well and as such fundamentally oppose democracy in this country, further reinforcing that you'd only make a proposal such as this fusion bill if you believed it was harmful to democracy. Given the context, it seems clear enough to me that those that support this bill, while opposing the VREA, do so with intent to introduce a fraudulent element into our elections to undermine them and in doing so, remake our democracy in their image.

I would like to yield now, and reserve further time for myself later."

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I would like to urge you to calm down, Madame Senator. Throwing around such accusations is very temperamental of you, and I would again ask you to calm down. We must have civilised debate in this chamber. There is no fraudulent element here, Madame Senator. There is only the legalisation of a method of voting that is used in your state and in mine.

It is very simple - if you believe the 15th Amendment is being violated, then why don't you take it up with the Supreme Court? And if you believe the court doesn't have 'the ability to make legislation' then you severely misunderstand the purpose of our Court - it is here to enforce our values, and our constitution, even if it means enshrining certain things in law that cannot be changed except by the consideration of the court and by constitutional amendment - we call that precedent.

Before you reply, I would once again urge you to maintain civility, and stop accusing people of being enemies of the Republic or anti-democracy simply because they have differing views on your voting bill. We must maintain reason in our politics, and I think it would be rather unbecoming of a Senator to throw around such fiesty accusations at their opponents."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):


Senator Turner, courts interpret laws, not make them. Courts only 'enforce our values', by staying true to the division of powers in our constitution. They can't make up laws when congress acts in breach of the constitution by refusing to pass appropriate legislation, nor do they have the power to punish congress for acting in breach of the constitution.

Ignoring constitutional mandates aside, it is correct that New York, as a state, has chosen fusion voting, but that's precisely the point, it was a decision by the state, not the federal government. The case against the VREA was apparently that the commitment to the principle of states rights' in the senate is so strong, many senators are willing to risk operating against the plain text of the constitution in it's protection. To support a different type of federal imposition on the states, one that is definitely not constitutionally mandated, would make it clear that their concern was never a principle of states rights, leaving the only option an opposition to democracy and a belief that this law would help them undermine it.

[Emazia]

Frank Turner (WPP-MS): "I would like to urge you to calm down, Madame Senator. Throwing around such accusations is very temperamental of you, and I would again ask you to calm down. We must have civilised debate in this chamber. There is no fraudulent element here, Madame Senator. There is only the legalisation of a method of voting that is used in your state and in mine.

It is very simple - if you believe the 15th Amendment is being violated, then why don't you take it up with the Supreme Court? And if you believe the court doesn't have 'the ability to make legislation' then you severely misunderstand the purpose of our Court - it is here to enforce our values, and our constitution, even if it means enshrining certain things in law that cannot be changed except by the consideration of the court and by constitutional amendment - we call that precedent.

Before you reply, I would once again urge you to maintain civility, and stop accusing people of being enemies of the Republic or anti-democracy simply because they have differing views on your voting bill. We must maintain reason in our politics, and I think it would be rather unbecoming of a Senator to throw around such fiesty accusations at their opponents."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Senator Turner, courts interpret laws, not make them. Courts only 'enforce our values', by staying true to the division of powers in our constitution. They can't make up laws when congress acts in breach of the constitution by refusing to pass appropriate legislation, nor do they have the power to punish congress for acting in breach of the constitution.

Ignoring constitutional mandates aside, it is correct that New York, as a state, has chosen fusion voting, but that's precisely the point, it was a decision by the state, not the federal government. The case against the VREA was apparently that the commitment to the principle of states rights' in the senate is so strong, many senators are willing to risk operating against the plain text of the constitution in it's protection. To support a different type of federal imposition on the states, one that is definitely not constitutionally mandated, would make it clear that their concern was never a principle of states rights, leaving the only option an opposition to democracy and a belief that this law would help them undermine it.

Frank Turner (APP-MS): "I do understand, but if the constitution already provides the law that you seek to push with your VREA by the 15th Amendment, then there is no point to passing the VREA - simply call upon the courts to enforce the 15th Amendment in the way you wish to interpret it. Of course, I disagree with your interpretation, and I will stand against any attempt to pervert the constitution of this nation by social anarchists and radicals like yourself, but there it is. Our Congress is not an appropriate forum for something that must clearly be decided by the courts.

This is not a 'federal imposition' - laws regarding the rightful practice of segregation affect the states themselves, while laws regarding federal elections affect the federal government. The Fusion Voting Bill is no less legitimate than any other federal election bill, and I do hope you understand that. I once again ask my fellow Senators, and my fellow Americans, to stand before this bill, as a measure to strengthen our democratic system within the bounds of the law. Do not listen to the rage-filled diatribes of Senator Fraser, for she is wrong. Listen to reason, listen to your own thoughts. Our democracy is not a plaything by which we must enforce personal interests, but to which we must obey the values of our republic.

We will not let our democracy be held hostage. We must let it be free."

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

Senator Turner, courts interpret laws, not make them. Courts only 'enforce our values', by staying true to the division of powers in our constitution. They can't make up laws when congress acts in breach of the constitution by refusing to pass appropriate legislation, nor do they have the power to punish congress for acting in breach of the constitution.

Ignoring constitutional mandates aside, it is correct that New York, as a state, has chosen fusion voting, but that's precisely the point, it was a decision by the state, not the federal government. The case against the VREA was apparently that the commitment to the principle of states rights' in the senate is so strong, many senators are willing to risk operating against the plain text of the constitution in it's protection. To support a different type of federal imposition on the states, one that is definitely not constitutionally mandated, would make it clear that their concern was never a principle of states rights, leaving the only option an opposition to democracy and a belief that this law would help them undermine it.

Frank Turner (APP-MS): "I do understand, but if the constitution already provides the law that you seek to push with your VREA by the 15th Amendment, then there is no point to passing the VREA - simply call upon the courts to enforce the 15th Amendment in the way you wish to interpret it. Of course, I disagree with your interpretation, and I will stand against any attempt to pervert the constitution of this nation by social anarchists and radicals like yourself, but there it is. Our Congress is not an appropriate forum for something that must clearly be decided by the courts.

This is not a 'federal imposition' - laws regarding the rightful practice of segregation affect the states themselves, while laws regarding federal elections affect the federal government. The Fusion Voting Bill is no less legitimate than any other federal election bill, and I do hope you understand that. I once again ask my fellow Senators, and my fellow Americans, to stand before this bill, as a measure to strengthen our democratic system within the bounds of the law. Do not listen to the rage-filled diatribes of Senator Fraser, for she is wrong. Listen to reason, listen to your own thoughts. Our democracy is not a plaything by which we must enforce personal interests, but to which we must obey the values of our republic.

We will not let our democracy be held hostage. We must let it be free."

Senator Sofia Fraser (R-NY):

"Senator Turner, the 15th amendment I'll have to remind you of the text of the 15th amendment. quote 'Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.' end quote. It could not be clearer that the congress is forum to discuss and enforce the 15th amendment.

As for the question of whether or not this is a federal imposition, the relevant part of section 4 of article 1 of the constitution makes it abundantly clear, quote 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations,' end quote

The states are expected to decide upon the upon how to go about electing congress, but congress may interfere if it choses. For good and for bad, if the federal government is taking over from what would otherwise be under the control of the states, it is a federal imposition.

Which returns to the original point, if one is committed to not allowing federal interference in the decision of states and is willing to go against the 15th amendment on that grounds, you'd expect them to oppose the fusion bill on the same grounds, given that there is no amendment requiring it and in fact states are expressly expected to run congressional elections within constitutional bounds unless congress. interferes. Unless their aim was not opposing federal control but to harm democracy, on the assumption that this bill would do just that."