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 ...
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.