Non-citizen voting.

Non-citizens shouldn't be able to vote in Federal elections.

This is a local election for a school board it has nothing to do with federal government. There is no reason why a community shouldn't be able to open this right to anyone they choose.

Why should someone who is not a citizen of San Francisco be able to tell San Francisco citizens what to do?

For the same reason people who are not in San Francisco got to tell San Franciscans that they could not legally sanction same sex marriages.

This is a perfect example of the Liberal mind-set: We get all the benefits of association, but demand the right to be independent when it suits us!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

For the same reason people who are not in San Francisco got to tell San Franciscans that they could not legally sanction same sex marriages.

Except there is no comparison. The State of CA collectively decided to handle the issue of regulation of marriages and created state laws to do so. They haven't done so for this level of regulation for local elections.

How is there no comparison? Are all citizens of California citizens of San Francisco? E-brown has made the argument that people who are not members of a given community should not be able to influence the public decisions and actions of that community. Fair enough, but that is not our system of government, nor do I think E-brown really endorses it. Should a less enlightened community than San Francisco decide that all illegal immigrants should be put to death, will E-Brown similarly call into question the right of other Americans to intrude upon that community's decision? I seriously doubt it.

The simple logic behind a federation is that the local component parts give up some degree of autonomy to gain certain benefits from being part of a larger union. Surely Liberals should appreciate it this since they so consistently rely upon the Federal government and judiciary to promote and enforce their ideas.

E-brown and othe Liberals have and will continute to argue, more often than not, that the greater good of the whole trumps the parochial wishes of the few. It's hypocritical on his part to now champion the independent rights of citizens of a city because they seem to have chosed to express those rights in a manner with which he agrees.

Quote:

This is a perfect example of the Liberal mind-set: We get all the benefits of association, but demand the right to be independent when it suits us!

This is probably the most absurd thing I've seen posted here on A2K in quite some time.

Really? Then you are easily impressed or seldom come to A2K. In any case I am please to have made my mark with you.

Since this is "a perfect example of the Liberal mindset" do you then disagree with the ability of States and local communities to create laws and regualtions? Are you trying to tell me that you think the only laws that should exsist should be at the Federal level? That's not very conservative of you.

Clearly you have missed my point. I have not attempted to argue in favor of or against the autonomy of local governments. E-brown asked a question and I answered it. The question, was reflective of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Mindset that relies so heavily upon the largess and power of the Federal government, but now I'm repeating myself.

I am all for local communities controlling their lives, and it follows that I am also in favor of reduced involvement by the Federal government whether it be in the form of control or relief. This is very conservative of me. If E-brown cares to join me, than he is most welcome, but I suspect that this isn't the case.