RSSEven Stevens Agrees – States Have Right To Know Who Votes
In a blow to perpetrators of voter fraud everywhere, the Supreme Court has settled the issue of identifying voters as they head to the polls to cast their votes.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.
When someone as liberal as Stevens agrees, you know you made a strong case. This will certainly not sit well with liberals who have been flooding the polls with illegitimate dead and multiple vote casting voters for years in order to mess up our Republic.
States and their citizens, as members of this Republic, certainly have a vested interest in making sure that the system of elections works properly and is not tampered with by fraudulent votes and there is nothing wrong with identifying people who come to vote an verify they are who they say they are. By extension they naturally have the right to ask that voters identify themselves as they enter the polls.
The only people that disagree with this fact are people who are trying to commit fraud in the system. And you can bet they are going to yell quite loudly and stomp their feet.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an interest in identifying voters as who they say they are, expect States that were holding back on such regulations, out of fear that the liberals on the Court would win out, to move forward.
53 Organizations Warn Congress
For Release: April 9, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110
or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act
Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power
Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.
The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.
The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.
“The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as ‘waters of the United States,’” said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. “This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972.”
The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress’ authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.
“Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts,” said Ridenour.
This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.
The letter and list of signers is available online at www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA_Letter2_040908.pdf. The October letter can be found at www.nationalcenter.org/Clean_Water_Restoration_Act_Letter_100907.pdf.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.
Get Out Of The Way Say 48%
Rasmussen’s new poll shows that most Americans with an opinion on the topic say that the “best thing the government can do to help the economy is get out of the way by reducing regulation and taxes.”
While the economy has emerged as the top issue of Election 2008, politicians are still scrambling to find out how to address the topic. The challenge is highlight by a new nationwide telephone survey showing that 48% of voters say the best thing the government can do is get out of the way by reducing taxes and regulations. The Rasmussen Reports poll found that 36% disagree with that approach while 16% are not sure.
Now, again, remember to take this with a grain of salt.
Count on half of that 48% not wanting taxes that support their government programs of choice cut and that most of the 16% who are “not sure” because they aren’t paying enough attention to have an opinion will vote with the 36% who think it really is government’s job to regulate the Hell out of Americans.
Here We Go! More Tax Payer Dollars Redistributed Unconstitutionally!
The Department of Labor is still at it, sending your tax dollars all over the place to pay for things the Constitution doesn’t allow. As always, I’ll give anyone that actually wants to try to argue that any of these expenditures are constitutional a chance to look like an idiot.
All of these are right out of the DoL from their news releases:
U.S. Department of Labor announces $250,000 grant to assist Iowa’s Cedar Valley region in establishing successful economic development strategies
U.S. Labor Department reaches $1 billion paid in Part E benefits under Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
U.S. Department of Labor announces $250,000 grant to Missouri to develop four-state talent development strategies
U.S. Department of Labor announces $250,000 grant to Minnesota to develop interstate economic development strategies with Wisconsin
U.S. Labor Department unveils online resource to help Americans chart retirement finances
U.S. Department of Labor awards $125 million in third competition for President’s Community-Based Job Training Grants
U.S. Labor Department’s MSHA issues increased funding for state health and safety training grants
Database of more than 1,700 job candidates with disabilities to be made available to employers
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao announces $5 million grant to assist Georgia in base realignment and closure transition
U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA seeks applications for $6.7 million in new safety and health training grants
U.S. Department of Labor awards $2.3 million to aid Greensburg, Kan., in continued tornado recovery
U.S. Labor Department’s MSHA fines Utah coal operator $420,300
Anyone want to take a stab at arguing for these things under the Constitution? Anyone?
Your tax dollars at work here folks.
How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
Washington, D.C. - As the U.S. Supreme Court considers its first major case involving the definition of the 2nd Amendment’s protection of gun rights in almost 70 years, black activists with the Project 21 leadership network assert that government should not be allowed to pick and choose what constitutional protections are honored and enforced.
“As a black American, I would be horrified to hear a state or local government enacted legislation or regulation that gutted the 13th Amendment’s prohibit on slavery or the 15th Amendment’s guarantee that all races could vote. Why aren’t more people outraged when the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee that individuals can protect themselves is infringed?” asks Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “Besides violating the 2nd Amendment, this case involving the District of Columbia’s gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law as well as immorally denying citizens the right to protect themselves.”
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, to be heard at 10:00 am Eastern on March 18, the justices will consider arguments about a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last spring that struck down the 1976 law that banned most gun ownership in the nation’s capital. This particular case is important from other recent gun rights cases heard by the Court because the nature of the case touches the core 2nd Amendment protection of an individual’s right to own a firearm.
“In Washington, criminals know that an unarmed citizen is easy prey. Right now, the criminals are winning because the city’s gun ban is effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner,” added Project 21’s Borelli. “The lower court verdict to restore power to the people to legally possess a suitable firearm will make criminals think twice about their actions, and it is something the Supreme Court should affirm.”
Borelli’s column on the case is available at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html.
For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Huckabee’s Change Of Heart On Smoking Ban
This is why I am not a Huckabee fan. The man, I believe, will say and do whatever he thinks will get him votes. And we’ve already had one president like that from Arkansas.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has reversed his position on a federal ban aimed at workplace smoking and now believes the issue should be addressed by state and local governments.The about-face is apparent in a Huckabee campaign statement, sent to The Hill Tuesday evening in response to questions about the smoking ban proposal. It clashes with the stance Huckabee has taken during his race for the White House and with his record as governor of Arkansas, when he signed into law a measure prohibiting smoking in most indoor public places.
I’ll say it again. Congress has no power granted to it under the Constitution to regulate smoking. At least Mike Huckabee seems to have figured this out finally. And I’ll pose the same challenge I have for years for anyone to show where such power is if they erroneously believe that they do.
Liberty should be embraced. If you don’t like smoking then don’t go to work for a company that allows it in the workplace. Or are you such a child that you need big daddy government to help you get your way?
What the Supreme Court has said on Treaties and Immigration
P.A. Madison:
Could Congress use its treaty making power to force States to submit to accepting other nation’s citizens? Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases said it was not open to dispute that the federal government had no such authority under the Constitution to force States to suffer from the introduction of foreigners from other countries via its treaty making power, nor would the States be bound to submit to such an unlawful act of Congress:
The first inquiry is, whether, under the Constitution of the United States, the federal government has the power to compel the several States to receive, and suffer to remain in association with its citizens, every person or class of persons whom it may be the policy or pleasure of the United States to admit. In my judgment, this question lies at the foundation of the controversy in this case. I do not mean to say that the general government have, by treaty or act of Congress, required the State of Massachusetts to permit the aliens in question to land. I think there is no treaty or act of Congress which can justly be so construed. But it is not necessary to examine that question until we have first inquired whether Congress can lawfully exercise such a power, and whether the States are bound to submit to it. For if the people of the several States of this Union reserved to themselves the power of expelling from their borders any person, or class of persons, whom it might deem dangerous to its peace, or likely to produce a physical or moral evil among its citizens, then any treaty or law of Congress invading this right, and authorizing the introduction of any person or description of persons against the consent of the State, would be an usurpation of power which this court could neither recognize or enforce. I had supposed this question not now open to dispute.
http://thevoice.name/
Socialism Threatens America’s Credit
Well DUH! Spending obscene amounts of money on government programs and soaring debt is eventually going to catch up to the United States.
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating - granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 - reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.
It’s ok though liberals from both major political parties have the answer. Increase taxes! It’s so simple. Dumb and flawed … but simple.
Black Leader Urges Pardon for Incarcerated Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean
For Release: December 20, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
Black Leader Urges Pardon for Incarcerated Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean
Washington, D.C. - Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is asking President George W. Bush to pardon jailed U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
“This is Christmas, and in the spirit of Christmas, it is time for President Bush to show some compassion and pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean,” said Massie. “Earlier this month, the President saw fit to pardon drug dealers, a moonshiner and thieves. It is time to give similar but more deserved relief to two men who have put their lives on the line in their service to our nation.”
Ramos and Compean are serving federal prison sentences of 11 and 12 years, respectively, after being convicted of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations related to the shooting of suspected drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in 2005. Davila was shot by the agents during a chase in February of 2005 in which Davila was allegedly smuggling 743 pounds of marijuana worth an estimated $1 million. Because federal prosecutors gave Davila immunity in exchange for his testimony against the agents, jurors were never told of Davila’s alleged smuggling activity.
Davila was arrested last month in connection with his involvement in marijuana smuggling in September and October of 2005.
Ramos and Compean appealed their convictions to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. During their December 3 hearing, Judge E. Grady Jolly criticized the actions of the prosecution in the case, saying, “For some reason, this one got out of hand, it seems to me.” It is not clear when the court will rule, and observers expect U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton to appeal the decision if the agents’ convictions are overturned.
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators and congressman has already appealed to President Bush to commute the sentences of the agents.
“I am appalled and sickened by the President’s heretofore obstinance and apparent preference to protecting the questionable rights of a foreign criminal juxtaposed to government agents and the citizenry that are charged with safeguarding,” added Massie. “His failure to do so can only be viewed as a flagrant abrogation of support for the superior and dangerous work Americans in uniform are doing throughout the world to protect our freedom.
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Readers Polled, Open Up The Drilling!
On our sister site, The Land of the Free, we have just concluded polling on the question:
“The U.S. Government should allow more domestic oil and natural gas resources to be developed”
* Strongly Agree (78%)
* Somewhat Agree (11%)
* Strongly Disagree (8%)
* Somewhat Disagree (3%)
Total Votes: 1138
The results were not even close with 89% agreeing that the United States government should stop prohibiting Americans from drilling foil oil in the United States.
Will things change? Nope. Because there are far too many people that like the idea of the government controlling the means of production. So watch for continued dependence on foreign oil for years to come. But don’t worry. Because the government will save us from themselves by mandating fuel economy standards and unconstitutionally using money to fund research into alternative fuels which they deem worthy.
Loading ...
-
-
Recommended Reading:
