On August 30, the Ninth Circuit upheld a federal law that won’t permit a U.S. citizen living in Guam to vote as an absentee voter from his or her former residence inside one of the fifty states. Borja v Nago, 22-16742. Here is the opinion.
The vote was 2-1. The decision is by Judge Milan D. Smith, a Bush Jr. appointee. It is also signed by Judge lucy H. Koh, an Obama appointee. Judge Richard A. Paez, a Clinton appointee, dissented and wrote that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lower court had also upheld the law.
A quirk of federal law lets U.S. citizens who live in foreign countries vote, assuming they had in the past lived in one of the fifty states. They are absentee voters in the last state in which they had lived, even if they hadn’t lived in the U.S. for decades. An even stranger quirk lets U.S. citizens who live in the Northern Mariana Islands do the same.
The Ninth Circuit frequently grants rehearings en banc, and this case has a fair chance of getting a rehearing.
WHEN IS A RESIDENCE *PERMANENT* ???
HAVE TO TAKE A LOYALTY OATH TO PRECINCT RESIDENCE REGIME ???
VOLUNTARY CHANGE OF PRECINCT RESIDENCE — TO DIFFERENT NATION-STATE ???
INVOLUNTARY CHANGE OF PRECINCT RESIDENCE — IN JAIL DUE TO LEGAL CONVICTION / BEEN KIDNAPPED – FORCED TO MOVE / GOT SHIP-WRECKED / ETC. ???
DURATIONAL RESIDENCE IN CURRENT NATION-STATE / PRECINCT ???
MAJOR REASON TO HAVE UNIFORM DEFINITION OF ELECTOR-VOTER IN A-L-L OF USA –
STATES / DC / COLONIES
IE — USA CITIZEN / 18 PLUS YEARS OLD / BE REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE E DAYS
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2024/08/28/sarah-palin-libel-lawsuit-new-york-times/74985067007/
PALIN V NY TIMES – LIBEL CASE – 1 AMDT
TO SCOTUS IN 2025 ???
—-
MY OPPONENT IS A SPY / TRAITOR / CHILD MOLESTER AND EATS BABY CATS/DOGS AT MIDNIGHT WITH GANG MEMBERS
=== LIBEL [IF NO *PROOF*] ???
“A quirk of federal law lets U.S. citizens who live in foreign countries vote, assuming they had in the past lived in one of the fifty states. They are absentee voters in the last state in which they had lived, even if they hadn’t lived in the U.S. for decades.”
It’s even quirkier than that. Their children, having inherited their US citizenship, can vote absentee from abroad without ever even having set foot, much less lived, in the US.
It is very odd though, that federal law treats US territories as foreign countries – or in several cases worse, e.g. Guam and Puerto Rico. Remember how Guam was stolen from the Spanish by Captain Henry Glass violating the truce with Governor Juan Marina? If we aren’t going to treat Guam as American anyway, can we finally return it back to its rightful owner, King Enrique V of Spain?
The King of Spain is Felipe VI, so whoever Enrique V must be one of the claimants to the crown who doesn’t actually have it. It’s pointless to argue which is legitimate, since nothing about monarchy is legitimate at all.
The only basis for any monarch’s claim to any authority is their own word, bullshit they made up about being chosen by or in some cases themselves being god(s), the willingness of enough people to believe this bullshit, or, more commonly, being the spawn or alleged spawn of long dead con artists and or thugs who played this game better than their con artist and or thug competitors.
21st century European “monarchs” are a useless, parasitic vestige of past centuries when their ancestors were actual (absolute) monarchs. Until fairly recently in human history there were virtually never any other kind, and the word monarch itself implies absolute.
Arguing which one is the “legitimate” successor to a cosplay throne is pretty stupid, so to the extent that any of them are legitimate, that vestigial or ceremonial smidgen of authority can only come from the official recognition of civil government as such. Any other claim is not worth whatever time it could take to examine.
Guam was no more or less stolen from Spain than it was stolen by Spain from some one else, by those people from someone before them, etc, most likely going back to well before recorded history unless it’s of more recent volcanic origin.
The king of Spain and pretenders to king of Spain don’t own Spain, much less areas Spain conquered and then lost through conquest in past centuries. He owns his personal property, and that’s it.
Royal property is mostly the fruits of past looting, pillaging and raping by agents of his ancestors. He probably has an income from licensing royal trinkets and merchandise, which is an indirect fruit of the poison tree from that looting and pillaging. He might have an income from Spanish taxes, the modern and more polite equivalent of what his ancestors used to do. He may have put some of his income into legitimate investments, thus laundering the ill gotten gain.
Lastly, at least some monarchs have actual legitimate jobs, since their modern day royal duties don’t necessarily take up so much time as to preclude that, and some people actually prefer to have jobs even though they can afford not to.
But since divesting kings of any property amassed through centuries of family looting and grift is practically difficult and unlikely, I’ll say any kings and pretend kings own their personal or royal property.
They no longer own countries, except in places like the Arabian peninsula. And certainly not countries or territories their crown’s past owners couldn’t manage to hold on to after gaining them in equally immoral fashion.
Haha, funny guy.
“The King of Spain is Felipe VI”
Wrong. The only way Felipe could have been king of Spain, would be if Salic Law had been legitimately abolished before Ferdinand VII’s death. But instead it was illegitimately “abolished” after his death by the ineligible usurper Isabella.
“Enrique V must be one of the claimants to the crown who doesn’t actually have it.”
Wrong. Enrique V is the only current King of Spain. There is no other.
“It’s pointless to argue which is legitimate, since nothing about monarchy is legitimate at all.”
Wrong. Like it or not, monarchy can be, and in the past frequently have been legitimate.
For example, constitutional monarchies where the monarch is elected, are no less legitimate than republics and other types of democracies, and arguably a good deal more (cf. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Janusz Korwin-Mikke).
The Divine Right of Kings or Mandate of Heaven, while often falsely claimed by autocratic tyrants, when true, as in the case of King Enrique of Spain or Emperor Zera Yacob of Ethiopia, also means that monarch is fully legitimate.
“The only basis for any monarch’s claim to any authority is their own word, bullshit they made up about being chosen by or in some cases themselves being god(s), the willingness of enough people to believe this bullshit, or, more commonly, being the spawn or alleged spawn of long dead con artists and or thugs who played this game better than their con artist and or thug competitors.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your use of the word “bullshit” is very ironic here.
“21st century European ‘monarchs’ are a useless, parasitic vestige of past centuries when their ancestors were actual (absolute) monarchs.”
Most of them, yes. But then most of them are not legitimate, having been neither elected/popularly acclaimed, not bearing a Divine Mandate. But there are notable exceptions even today, such as King Enrique V of Spain, Emperor Zera Yacob of Ethiopia and Shah Reza Pahlavi III of Persia.
“Until fairly recently in human history there were virtually never any other kind, and the word monarch itself implies absolute.”
Wrong. This implies complete ignorance of the history of the entire Catholic and Orthodox world where monarchs answered to the Church in all moral and ethical matters. Furthermore, in Poland and in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the monarch has long answered to the Sejm in secular matters. There is nothing “fairly recent” about that.
“Arguing which one is the “legitimate” successor to a cosplay throne is pretty stupid, so to the extent that any of them are legitimate, that vestigial or ceremonial smidgen of authority can only come from the official recognition of civil government as such. Any other claim is not worth whatever time it could take to examine.”
Wrong. Ignorant. And arrogant.
“Guam was no more or less stolen from Spain than it was stolen by Spain from some one else, by those people from someone before them, etc, most likely going back to well before recorded history unless it’s of more recent volcanic origin.”
Wrong. Guam was absolutely more stolen from Spain by the US during the Spanish-American War. Not only was the war started by the US on false pretenses (the sinking of the USS Maine) as an excuse to poach possessions from the Spanish Crown, but in the particular case of Guam, the theft happened by a deliberate violation of the terms of truce, i.e. an internationally recognized war crime, by Captain Henry Glass.
“The king of Spain and pretenders to king of Spain don’t own Spain, much less areas Spain conquered and then lost through conquest in past centuries. He owns his personal property, and that’s it.”
Wrong. Read up on your history. All public land in a kingdom, including overseas territories, is the personal property of the king. So if there is a legitimate king, as in the case of King Enrique V of Spain, all public land legitimately belonging to Spain, as in the case of Guam, is that king’s personal property.
“Royal property is mostly the fruits of past looting, pillaging and raping by agents of his ancestors. He probably has an income from licensing royal trinkets and merchandise, which is an indirect fruit of the poison tree from that looting and pillaging. He might have an income from Spanish taxes, the modern and more polite equivalent of what his ancestors used to do. He may have put some of his income into legitimate investments, thus laundering the ill gotten gain.”
Wrong. King Enrique V of Spain does not license any “royal trinkets and merchandise”, does not raise any taxes, and does not possess any “ill gotten gain”.
“Lastly, at least some monarchs have actual legitimate jobs, since their modern day royal duties don’t necessarily take up so much time as to preclude that, and some people actually prefer to have jobs even though they can afford not to.”
King Enrique V of Spain works incredibly hard. Including working his way up through the ranks of the Spanish Foreign Legion and the Portuguese Armed Forces to the rank of Colonel. That does not make him any less the only current King of Spain.
“But since divesting kings of any property amassed through centuries of family looting and grift is practically difficult and unlikely, I’ll say any kings and pretend kings own their personal or royal property.”
Which in the case of legitimate kings includes all public lands.
“They no longer own countries, except in places like the Arabian peninsula. And certainly not countries or territories their crown’s past owners couldn’t manage to hold on to after gaining them in equally immoral fashion.”
Wrong. Yet again. You got almost every single fact objectively wrong throughout.
Don’t embarrass yourself by airing all of your ignorance and arrogance in one place like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Spain
SPAIN – STILL HAVING PROBLEMS FROM 1492-1931 MONARCHY — 1931-1936 CRISIS — 1936-1939 CIVIL WAR
HOW MANY SPANISH SPEAKING INVADERS INTO USA SINCE 1776 / 1931 / 1936 ???
https://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke/documents/first-treatise-of-government
LOCKE — 1ST TREATISE
TOTAL BLAST OF ALL MONARCHS — ESP BRIT KING JAMES II
—
SEE ALSO LOCKE 2ND TREATISE 1690- SUPPORT FOR BRIT REGIME AFTER JAMES II
Military members get to vote back home.
ONE MORE PATCHWORK — DUE TO CIRCA 1900 COLONIAL STUFF IN SCOTUS — INSULAR CASES
MATCHING CENTURIES OF EURO COLONIAL STUFF
Nuna,
Nothing about what I said was funny. It was both accurate and honest. Whatever bullshit you contrived in response isn’t worth my time to read. You will not get back whatever time you wasted writing it. I’m not taking the bait.
If you are playing to an audience, good luck. There’s a chance (my guess is somewhere between 0 and 1%) that it consisted of more than yourself. There is also a chance that someone in that audience was persuaded by how clever you think your arguments are. My guess is that adding a few more zeroes after the decimal point might yield a reasonable estimate of the chances.
I don’t know who you think you might be fooling, or why you would think that. I doubt you are so unselfaware to think you might fool yourself into believing your own bullshit, but I suppose anything is possible. Good luck with that.
You always manage to find the most pathetic way of admitting that you got your ass handed to you. 😏
As I have explained to you before: when you don’t know even the first thing of what you are talking about, clearly you should not be talking about it at all. But you are so addicted to the sound of your own voice that you just can’t help yourself. And so you will continue to embarrass yourself time and time again, by showcasing your colossal ignorance and even greater arrogance.
The nonentity is still bubbling, and I’m still not reading its flatulence. I strongly suspect it’s addressing only itself, but if anyone is wasting their time: the joke’s on you.
Yet despite claiming that you are not even willing to read why you are wrong, much less learn something or engage in a dialectic – a purposeful state of ignorance and arrogance which you bizarrely take pride in – nonetheless you are still taking the time and energy to compose rude spam devoid of any actual content in the face of having your ignorant and arrogant lies debunked… It’s abundantly clear who is both the butt of the joke and the joke itself.
If anyone ever wastes their time reading your inaccurate and dishonest bullshit – to use your own words – then they will also read my response dissecting and exposing it, and thus the time you wasted will be made up to them with interest – they might even learn something new and interesting.
And in the – frankly much less likely event – that nobody ever reads my unmasking of your vile drivel yet, then it was worth doing so – yet again – in its own right, because truth and erudition are their own rewards. That is something which you will never understand, much less enjoy, because you are incapable of either.
Somebody is still talking to see themselves talk. I’m still not reading it. I’m still pretty sure no one else is either. I hope she’s enjoying whatever she’s wasting time typing.
QED
Indeed. The person above who points out the Spaniards stole whatever lands they claimed is correct. You can’t really complain when what you stole gets stolen from you. Since all god’s are fictional, so is the “divine right of kings.” She is absolutely correct about all that, whoever she is.
Thank you. Nun A, like many nuns, is off her rocker. She also seems to think I’m a guy for some weird reason. As if!
True, nuns are pretty wacky when you think about it. Did you know why witches are said to fly on broomsticks? During the inquisition, nuns who masturbated with broomsticks were accused of being witches. You know when you look at a broom and get sexually excited, something is clearly off.
I agree with everyone else here except the one wacko bitch. Gods are bullshit, and so is whatever legitimacy kings or slavemasters claim by claiming to be gods or imbued with special rights by a god or gods.
Every piece of land property on the planet has been stolen multiple times, so no title is legitimate anywhere.
Men have no legitimate authority over us either. They have very limited uses, and we all know what those are. Otherwise, sisters are doing it for ourselves.
Ladies, speaking as a man (not proud of it and hope to transition one day): I agree with each and every single word you all said!
I don’t know if you are Marxists, but if not, you certainly have the beginnings of scientific socialist understanding. The white man’s religion is bullshit, and so is his bullshit idea of property ownership. Everything he brought to our continents should be rejected. Whites and their ways must be driven out, and will be, soon.
So the “Perun” worshipping banderite does not actually believe in its professed idolatry at all. Yet it does believe the unscholarly post-modern revisionist myth about the cultural origin of witches’ broomsticks.
And, as if to really drive that irony home, it also subscribes to the neo-marxist fable of “Christian colonialism”. A fairy-tale in which missionaries are falsely accused of “stealing” land from the pagan “first nations”, which were in fact themselves invaders and occupiers who had killed off the original so-called “archaic humans” indigenous to the New World.
What droll incognizance, in a Schadenfreude kind of way.
Taran,
We can forgive you for having a penis and testicles for now. Please do everything you can to transition as soon as possible.
Certainly, anyone as astute as you knows that the European colonizers, their evil ways, evil religions, patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy, pernicious ideas of property ownership, and all the rest of their crap must be driven back to Europe and then throttled there in their cradle, along with their descendants, not only from every other continent, but also from islands, Guam no less than any other.
Thank you. I am working to get there as fast as I can. And, of course, yes.
Juche and the left hand path fit quite well with native spirituality and traditions and intersectional justice and Earth First. We are on the path to restoring balance. Our ancestors will be avenged soon, along with our Mother Earth and all of her creatures the European pestilence has ravaged.
Yes was to the islands. We are only Turtle Island here in “America,” after all.
Taran = Robert K St0ck.
This Robert K St0ck guy love to troll. Is that why his name is blocked?
Be quiet, child. Adults are talking.
Does anyone have any clue what Nunya is talking about at 9:16 last night above?
As for the nuns and their broomsticks, the reason witches “fly” is that they were dipping the broomstick handles in psychedelic ergot – unrefined LSD – before masturbating.
Even the wikipedophiles are uncharacteristically hesitant to spread that unscholarly post-modern revisionist lie which you so eagerly repeat:
“CERTAIN RESEARCHERS HAVE SPECULATED that the stereotypical image of the witch ‘flying’ astride the broomstick of a besom may derive from traditions concerning the use of broomsticks or other staves by women to apply psychotropic ointments to their vaginal or anal mucosa.”
“SOME SOURCES HAVE CLAIMED that such an ointment would best be absorbed through mucous membranes, and that the traditional image of a female witch astride a broomstick implies the application of flying ointment to the vulva.”
Emphasis mine.
Upon inspection, it quickly becomes apparent that those “certain researchers” and “some sources” are post-1960 sex-obsessed ideologues engaged in historical revisionism to push their degenerate agenda, rather than any actual researchers or scientific sources.
As for the bizarre fabrication that attempts to somehow tie nuns into this myth, not even those “certain researchers” and “some sources” make any such claim. That particular invention can be entirely attributed entirely to the unbelieving Perun worshipper and your sick minds.
Taran, of course not. I won’t ask what she was babbling about this time, but the chances of her or anyone else knowing what it might be seem too astronomically remote to consider seriously.
Nuns are insane from religious hallucinations and sexual deprivation or perversion. Looking at brooms gets them wet. That’s really all we need to know about them.
Looking at mops usually does it for me.
Although, usually they have to touch me.
Flo,
I only get wet when they make it rain. No money, no honey.
Roof
Ruth,
#metoo