I quit AOPA this past Friday and here's why

That's a sticky one. IIRC, there is not specific "right" to vote even though what constitutes a right is debatable.

From The Atlantic:
Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

And besides that, where do you have to pay or ask permission to vote? I've lived in 5 states and never had to do either.
Any state that requires identification and does not provide an avenue for those that cannot afford it, or limits hours so those which cannot afford time off.

Beyond that, would get political.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
I disagree that it is my responsibility to help to preserve aviation. In the big scheme of things, it is not that important.
Preserving freedom is not important?
 
Well written post although I think AOPA is doing a good job.

For some bizarre reason pilots just love to hate AOPA. Not sure if they are aircraft owners or renters or what. Must be a guy thing or some bizarre side-effect of being anal...

Sometimes some articles come across incorrectly. To each his own regarding quitting for that reason.
 
Any state that requires identification and does not provide an avenue for those that cannot afford it, or limits hours so those which cannot afford time off.

Beyond that, would get political.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
Oh, please... who of legal age in the Year of Our Lord 2017 does not have a government issued ID?
 
Oh, please... who of legal age in the Year of Our Lord 2017 does not have a government issued ID?
Actually a lot. Hence NC voter ID law that was overturned. There is a significant portion of society which is unbanked and has no ID.
There are many examples in the courts whixh provide evidence.
Until I was involved in writing an application for this market segment, I thought ithe whole concept of living without id was more myth then reality. The size and value of that market is just staggering, but I doubt you would ever find them on POA.

I think I am gonna bow out. This discussion has started to migrate from an academic perspective discussing merits and current legal perspectives to political opinion and the associated jaundiced answers when additional thought is not wanted.

Tim

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk
 
Seriously Man, you need to lay off the koolaid.
flat,1000x1000,075,f.u4.jpg
 
Oh, please... who of legal age in the Year of Our Lord 2017 does not have a government issued ID?

You mean an acceptable government issued ID, every govt. issued ID is not acceptable. Here are some examples.

In my state if I change address. I must notify BMV, but I have to pay a license fee to get a new card with the new address if I want it. But I can't use a DL without my current address as an ID to vote. So unless I want to stand inline at the BMV to pay an additional fee, I can't vote.

A college student in my state will have a govt issued ID, but they have to pay a fee to get an ID card to vote. Expired IDs are invalid, so back to the BMV you have to go.



It is voter suppression.
 
You mean an acceptable government issued ID, every govt. issued ID is not acceptable. Here are some examples.

In my state if I change address. I must notify BMV, but I have to pay a license fee to get a new card with the new address if I want it. But I can't use a DL without my current address as an ID to vote. So unless I want to stand inline at the BMV to pay an additional fee, I can't vote.

A college student in my state will have a govt issued ID, but they have to pay a fee to get an ID card to vote. Expired IDs are invalid, so back to the BMV you have to go.



It is voter suppression.
What state do you live in? I'll bet there is a provision for free voter id.
 
Politically I come down more on the side of gun ownership and use as a privilege than a right, ...


Yes. That's why gun ownership is enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Privileges, along with other privileges such as the privilege to worship or the privilege of free speech.

Wait, maybe I'm confused.....
 
None.

It's a weak rebuttal.

Not a political statement here, just a statement of fact: Constitutional challenges to voter ID laws are generally filed in federal district courts. The district court across the street from my office requires that you show your ID to the federal marshals providing building security in order to enter.

Draw your own conclusions.
 
For some bizarre reason pilots just love to hate AOPA.

It's fashionable lately.
Plus, pilots are a group of very critical individualists. Need proof? Read POA.
We would harm our mutual cause to maintain our individuality or appearance thereof, rather than band together against the true enemy.
 
So unless I want to stand inline at the BMV to pay an additional fee, I can't vote.

Are you telling me that they won't waive that fee if you are indigent? What state are you talking about?
 
He lives in one of the People's Republics.

Oh, the irony!

Actually, I did read an article about how impossible it is to get a driver's license in one particular state that satisfy the TSA requirements because the state has chosen to make it so easy for illegal immigrants to obtain licenses that the TSA only accepts special licenses issued from that state that require additional proof of citizenship. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/being_legal_in_new_mexico.html
 
Actually, I did read an article about how impossible it is to get a driver's license in one particular state that satisfy the TSA requirements because the state has chosen to make it so easy for illegal immigrants to obtain licenses that the TSA only accepts special licenses issued from that state that require additional proof of citizenship. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/being_legal_in_new_mexico.html
I think the whole thing is summed up by the statement: "a frenzy of political correctness and deference to illegal aliens"
 
Not a political statement here, just a statement of fact: Constitutional challenges to voter ID laws are generally filed in federal district courts. The district court across the street from my office requires that you show your ID to the federal marshals providing building security in order to enter.

Draw your own conclusions.
REAL ID is an interesting one, but I can't think of a state that doesn't offer free (or damn near free) state IDs for low income persons. The fact of the matter is that they can't and won't refuse to issue a legal resident an identification card. The feds can and will refuse to allow a person to exercise their 2A rights.
 
Sheesh. Don't like the article, don't read it. The title was incorrect though. It should have been "Something jkaduk couldn't be less interested in".
 
What state do you live in? I'll bet there is a provision for free voter id.
Is there free Gas money and paid time off to stand at the BMV to replace an otherwise total valid ID to drive, bank, fly an airplane etc?
 
Is there free Gas money and paid time off to stand at the BMV to replace an otherwise total valid ID to drive, bank, fly an airplane etc?
Not everything is going to be handed to you. You have to eventually do something for yourself, even if it's walk and wait in line. Welcome to the real world.
 
Not everything is going to be handed to you. You have to eventually do something for yourself, even if it's walk and wait in line. Welcome to the real world.
I don't ask for anything to be handed to me, but creating barriers to qualified voters is suppressio to appease a few people who dislike people of color and the poor.

Maybe the law should require everybody to get a new voter ID every year so everybody is equally burdened. That way you can go stand in line.
 
Last edited:
You have to try lots of different things to write a monthly periodical. Some work better than others. And at all times, writing for a large audience, you just can't please everyone. If you don't believe me try looking up some of the comments about me on rate your professor.
I was responsible for processing symphony musicians' evaluations of conductors for a while, and there was always a wide variety of opinions on any conductor.
 
I don't ask for anything to be handed to me, but creating barriers to qualified voters is suppressio to appease a few people who dislike people of color and the poor.

Maybe the law should require everybody to get a new voter ID every year so everybody is equally burdened. That way you can go stand in line.
How is it suppression? What is the barrier? I already have to go stand in line to get my REAL ID compliant paperwork every x number of years. It's no different for anybody else. Next you'll tell me that going to the grocery store is an unnecessary burden being artificially imposed upon us.
 
...From The Atlantic:
Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests...
I'm thinking that author may have overlooked the Ninth Amendment. :rolleyes1:
 
It's fashionable lately.
Plus, pilots are a group of very critical individualists. Need proof? Read POA.
We would harm our mutual cause to maintain our individuality or appearance thereof, rather than band together against the true enemy.

It is really pretty interesting. I have NEVER met anyone in person at my airport who wasn't very friendly and interested in sharing or helping a fellow pilot. For some reason, you meet a group of people on this forum who are the complete opposite. Although, I would bet those same individuals wouldn't be so critical in person. There is something to be said for being able to hide behind a screen name on a online forum.
 
Well I guess I'm just sick of casual gun play. I don't watch shoot 'em up movies and shows any longer. I don't play 1st person shooter games. I don't need magazine articles highlighting helicopter gunships and target shooting that smacks of people plinking. Just sick of it. And if this organization's editors don't get that, I don't need to be a member.
How would the organization's editors know that?
 
Getting the lead out, AOPA Pilot magazine, July 2017
"What's not to like about the smell of spent gun powder mixed with turbine exhaust? It's an eclectic(?) and unique elixir, says AOPA Editor in Chief Tom Haines who got to experience it first hand while playing door gunner... Cue the Fill Metal Jacket soundtrack..."

Well I guess I'm just sick of casual gun play. I don't watch shoot 'em up movies and shows any longer. I don't play 1st person shooter games. I don't need magazine articles highlighting helicopter gunships and target shooting that smacks of people plinking. Just sick of it. And if this organization's editors don't get that, I don't need to be a member.

With that said, I'm okay with gun sport enthusiasts and hobbyists. Politically I come down more on the side of gun ownership and use as a privilege than a right, but we allow such disagreement in our politics.

I'm also a believer in the AOPA mission as it has to do with promotion and lobbying. I've found their pilot services valuable in the past. Maybe a bit less impressed with the organizations leadership now than 10 years ago but it is still making the decision of walking away troubling.

But I just couldn't get past the imagery and first person shooter joy conjured up by the article. I feel better now and can return to some Flying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wait a minute...is your real name Gersh Kuntzman? LOL.

But in all seriousness, I think it is a "glass half full/half empty" scenario. From my point of view, I don't see enough of articles like this, and I'm tired of all the sissy writers that are afraid to offend.
 
It is really pretty interesting. I have NEVER met anyone in person at my airport who wasn't very friendly and interested in sharing or helping a fellow pilot. For some reason, you meet a group of people on this forum who are the complete opposite. Although, I would bet those same individuals wouldn't be so critical in person. There is something to be said for being able to hide behind a screen name on a online forum.
Agreed. I much prefer when forums require a person's name, verified. This has its downsides too I realize; I have done it - large labor input to verify everyone.
 
I'm thinking that author may have overlooked the Ninth Amendment. :rolleyes1:

The US Supreme Court reiterated that there is no federal constitutional right to vote for the presidential electors in Bush v. Gore.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S. Ct. 525, 529, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388, 398, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430, *8, 69 U.S.L.W. 4029, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2000)
 
Last edited:
I disagree with giving up on an organization that is one of our only fighting chances at preserving our remaining aviation freedoms, because of an article or activity that does not interest me or which I dislike. Or, abandoning AOPA for any of the other reasons posted on POA.
Baby, bathwater and all that!

There is no one who is going to fill that void (I don't buy that the EAA has the interest or political connections) so we are going to be a whole lot better off in the long run to lobby AOPA to change the things we don't like.
Yeah, I'm afraid I did a baby/bathwater thing here. Few aviation magazine articles stick in my mind (and certainly very few if any in AOPA's) but that one did. Rationally I have to agree with you but it got me on some emotional level... I guess I was 'triggered', pun intact.

So, once my mind clears I may go back. The magazine sucks compared to Flying, Kitplanes and Sport Aviation but they are pressing issues important to me. My emotional response is more about allusions of violence and less about the guns.

In the mean time I think I'll toss all my AOPA mags just to recover some space, give it some time and see if I can go back to supporting them.
 
How is it suppression? What is the barrier? I already have to go stand in line to get my REAL ID compliant paperwork every x number of years. It's no different for anybody else. Next you'll tell me that going to the grocery store is an unnecessary burden being artificially imposed upon us.
What about actually having to go to the polls and vote. Sounds like voter suppression to me. :rolleyes:
 
The US Supreme Court reiterated that there is no federal constitutional right to vote for the presidential electors in Bush v. Gore.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S. Ct. 525, 529, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388, 398, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430, *8, 69 U.S.L.W. 4029, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2000)
They're not wrong. The electors are appointed by the State to represent the State. For those States who dictate how electors must vote, the elections are held by the State, ergo it's on the State to ensure the right to vote.
 
The US Supreme Court reiterated that there is no federal constitutional right to vote for the presidential electors in Bush v. Gore.

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104, 121 S. Ct. 525, 529, 148 L. Ed. 2d 388, 398, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430, *8, 69 U.S.L.W. 4029, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9879, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6606, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 26 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2000)
I thought we were talking about whether there is a right to vote in the context of a discussion about voter ID, fees, etc., not whether a particular government official is subject to direct election by the voters.
 
I'm thinking you didn't read the article.
OK, I've read the article now. The author didn't mention the Ninth Amendment, so it is still true that he may have overlooked it.
 
Back
Top