Posted on 07/27/2013 1:00:43 PM PDT by Innovative
After a key provision in the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in June, the Obama Administration turned to another tactic to seek pre-clearance for changes to election laws, starting with the Lone Star State.
In Texas, following Holder's announcement, the DOJ claimed clear evidence of discrimination both in the past and present, and asked a federal court to impose at least 10 years of required pre-clearance.
Holder also pledged to block a Texas voter ID law passed in 2011 that state Attorney General Greg Abbott had green-lighted immediately following the Supreme Court’s Shelby County ruling
By choosing Texas, the largest and most Republican of all the states, the Obama Administration is signaling to its base and key minority constituencies that it is doing "everything possible" to uphold the VRA...
“Once again, the Obama administration is demonstrating utter contempt for our country’s system of checks and balances, not to mention the U.S. Constitution,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry...said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.time.com ...
Gotta love the doublespeak. When they’re against voting rights, the media claims they’re “for voting rights”.
He’s fighting for voting rights so says Time Magazine.
Texas needs to offer its more liberal residents a free home in Detroit. I think it would be awesome and be worth it to give them a $1000 house and a free ticket on Greyhound to get them out of Texas. Plus Detroit needs to replenish its dwindling population.
We could mail out the anouncements to the Obama voters mailing list “Congratulations, You Are A Winner!”...
The libs in Austin would only want them for “summer vacation homes” or suchlike . . . or try to be a slum landlord; yeah, that’s the ticket . . .
Yep, we need to make it “your occupation is required” or its null and void.
Plus Detroit needs to learn that high walls and sniper towers are the only way to keep people in a Workers Utopia. Once those abandoned and distressed properties are filled with new liberal residents, the walls go up!
Everyone wins.
TRANSLATION: 0bama and Holder will turn Texas “blue” even if it means vote fraud through ANY means, under the guise of enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
“Voting rights” is not all that big a thing. Just keep recounting the ballots, throwing out the “undesirable” ones, until you get the outcome you want....
Like those precincts that turned in a margin of 108% for the Current Occupant of the White Hut, to 0% for Romney, in the 2012 election.
108%? How is that even possible? Even Josef Stalin could not get those results in the former Soviet Union.
bump
“108%? How is that even possible? Even Josef Stalin could not get those results in the former Soviet Union.’
But you remember what Stalin said, which still applies:
“It’s not who casts the votes, it’s who counts the votes”... or something along those lines.
The Obama Administration.
Supreme Court rules in your favor. It is the right thing and want the “people” wanted.
Supreme Court rules against you. Cry, whine, bitch, claim it goes against want the people want and then go screw with someone...
Come on Texas. Hand them their asses..........
The Obama Administration.
Supreme Court rules in your favor. It is the right thing and want the “people” wanted.
Supreme Court rules against you. Cry, whine, bitch, claim it goes against want the people want and then go screw with someone...
Come on Texas. Hand them their asses..........
just like abortion is “reproductive rights” .
“108%? How is that even possible? Even Josef Stalin could not get those results in the former Soviet Union.”
It’s not possible. There were some initial reports of precincts/counties with over 100% turnout, but they have all, to my knowledge, been debunked (the Ohio county that was alleged to have 108% turnout actually had something much lower, like 58%). Are you aware of any verified instances of > 100% turnout?
And, when you think about it, it wouldn’t make sense for there to be > 100% turnout. It’s the easiest way to get caught stealing an election. Say what you will about the 0bama team, but they’re not amateurs when it comes to dirty tricks.
We could learn a lesson from the left. They never, ever give up. If the law doesn’t work, they take it to the courts. If they lose in court, they try to find another way to get what they want.
Leftists are NOT good losers.
We will. Don’t mess with Texas - it really isn’t just a saying.
Holder is obviously vindictive. Though the House is out to lunch too.
How much is finally too much?
Wouldn’t Holder need to have voting rights violations, before he could ride in for the rescue?
It’s as if he’s all decked out astride his stick pony, with no place to go.
Just ONE example... there seem to be many more:
BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud in St. Lucie County, Florida
Heather Ginsberg | Nov 10, 2012
“On Tuesday only one precinct had less than 113% turnout. “The Unofficial vote count is 175,554 registered voters 247,713 vote cards cast (141.10% ). The National SEAL Museum, a St. Lucie county polling place, had 158.85% voter turn out, the highest in the county.”
The Supervisor of Elections, Gertrude Walker, had this to say concerning the 141% voter turnout: “They may have had something like that in Palm Beach County, but we’ve never seen that here.”
Prediction: Perry will call the legislation into emergency session to pass a law making it a serious felony to try to enforce a law in Texas that has been stricken down by SCOTUS.
Hopefully the Texicans can play a little "Cowboys and Marxists" to welcome him properly.
Should Perry call an emergency session to protest the Holder justus department, the Texas legislature should also add a recommendation to the US House to begin impeachment proceedings as well. I can dream can’t I?
Someday in the Wikipedia article on Holder I would like to see the phrase “shot while trying to escape”.
Until the Federal Suspect Eric Holder releases the information on the International Crime of Gun Running to the drug cartels in Mexico, frankly I just do not give a damn what he has to say.
The guy is a murdering crook and needs to be in prison.
vote cards != votes.
Can you point to a link? It's my understanding that in many precincts in Philadelphia the count was Romney - 0% and Obama - 100% with the totals more than the registered count. But if you can point me to where it was 'debunked' I'll sleep better.
“Just ONE example... there seem to be many more:
BREAKING: Massive Voter Fraud in St. Lucie County, Florida”
The reports of 140%+ turnout in St. Lucid County were based on a simple misreading of the data. The 100% turnout numbers were based on dividing the number of vote cards cast by the number of registered voters. Problem is, the ballot in St. Lucie County had 2 vote cards. So, to get the actual turnout % (voters/eligible voters), you need to divide the “vote card”-based number in half (roughly - some voters may have only turned in one card, etc.)
Look, I agree that 0bama and the Dems are capable of, and have committed, massive amounts of voter fraud. But, I also believe that they are sophisticated enough to do so in a way that does not lead to anomalies like > 100% turnout, since that’s an easy way to get caught.
The problem is, they are not trying to enforce a law that has been struck down by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS struck down section 4 of the VRA - this lawsuit is being brought under section 3, which has not (yet) been struck down. Certainly an end run around the SCOTUS decision, but technically using a part of the law that remains on the books.
Regarding federal powers to protect voting rights for example, the only voting rights that the feds have the constitutonal authority to protect are evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution. These amendments expressly give the feds the powers to protect voting rights on the basis of race, sex, tax issues and age, and nothing more.
In other words, the feds cannot prohibit the states from requiring voters to show valid photo ID in order to vote because the states have never amended the Constitution to make not having to show such an ID a right.
In fact, given that the states have never amended the Constitution to prohibit the states from not allowing otherwise qualified citizens to vote if they cannot demonstrate a basic knowledge of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, either by a written test or orally, there is nothing to stop the states from making laws to require voters to pass such a test before being allowed to vote imo.
The purpose for having citizens pass a voter constitutional proficiency test would be the following. Preparing for such a test would get low-information voters up to speed on the federal government's constitutionally limited powers. Such voters would then be more aware when slimeball candidates for federal office make vote-getting promises for entitlement programs which the federal government has no constitutional authority to tax and spend for.
In fact, here's such a test. (Only 6 frigging questions, less questions than a driver's test, and the correct answer for all of them is true.)
1 (true or false) The federal government has only those limited powers which the states have expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution.
A) True <B) False
2 (true or false) Most of the federal government's powers are enumerated in the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I.
A) True <B) False
3 (true or false) If you want to pay taxes for "government" services such as retirement and healthcare, you should first look at the 18 clauses of Section 8 to see if such a service is listed.
A) True <B) False
4 (true or false) If "the government" program that you want is not listed in Section 8, Section 8 only showing postal services in Clause 7, then based on Justice John Marshall official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes shown below, federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend for such a program.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
A) True <B) False
5 (true or false) If Section 8 indicates that Congress has no power to address the entitlement program that you want, the Founding States made the 10th Amendment to clarify that you actually need to work with your representatives in your local and state governments to establish a state taxing and spending program for "the government" service that you want.
A) True <6 (true or false) So if you hear a candidate for federal office promising "government" programs which are not reasonably indicated in Section 8, such as healthcare, then you know that they are trying to get elected so that they can rip-off both you and your state.B) False
A) True <B) False
His Black-Robed Pedophile Brigade will be spearheading his blitzkrieg against Texas.
Holder, when asked about the contempt of Congress resolution issued against him for lying to Congress, stated that since he had no respect for those voting for it, it made no difference to him. Looks like the same for the Supreme Court and rulings going against him.
The court of original jurisdiction, I think, in a major beef like that between the Feds and a State is the Supreme Court.
The Supremes need to prorogate and bitch-slap the bejeezus out of Barky and the Thugboys, and kick Barky's beef to the curb with prejudice, for trying to bullsteer a State on a bad beef.
Right now he’s only got one pervert on the SCOTUS, doesn’t he? — Diesel Kagan? Unless it turns out Kennedy is a closet case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.