Obama and Attorney General Seek to Quash States Rights, again.

© ignoranceorapathy.com 12/24/2011

This story, found on MSN, one among many, just serves to illustrate how far the Obama administration and the puppet Eric Holder Justice dept. will go to prop up the reelection hopes of Obama.
It also casts a brilliant light on exactly what this administration is willing to do and how much of the Constitution it is willing to shred in order to protect itself from the will of the voters.

First off lets be clear, there is no RIGHT to vote. Voting is not a right it is a privilege.
States rights as to how voting is to be done and who is eligible to vote is protected in the Constitution.
Firstly according the the text of the U.S. Constitution:

Article I Section I establishes the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article I Section III establishes the U.S. Senate.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,
(then the 17th amendment abidges the means from appointment by the legislature to chosen by popular vote.)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Article II section I establishes the office of the President and Vice President.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

Not one statement up to now is made about the right of voting.
Nowhere is the method of selection to be governed by the Federal government. When the selection process is mentioned it is always marked as “chosen by the people of the several states” except in reference to the executive branch where it is enumerated as “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,”

Follow up:

The 10th amendment to the Constitution then goes the extra step.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So by the rule of law, matters of voting and who is eligible to vote are matters for the states and not the federal government.

South Carolina is seeking to reduce vote fraud by requiring a picture ID. Identification, hmmm, what a radical concept. Require someone to present a photo ID before they can enjoy a privilege. A privilege like driving a car, consuming alcohol, purchasing a firearm(no wait that one really is a right), or any number of other daily activities we pursue in this country where someone asks us for ID. Wait, the democrats will not hear of it. They claim requiring a photo id to vote WILL present an undue hardship on minority voters.
Question: how did they get to the polls?
How did they get a voter registration?
How do they cash checks?
If they do not already have a photo id of some sort.

The article found on MSN dot com(South Carolina voter ID law blocked by Justice Department)

The Obama administration on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that requires voters to have photo identification because of concerns it would hurt minorities' ability to cast a ballot.

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley in May signed into law a measure that says voters must show a driver's license, passport or military identification along with their voter registration card in order to vote.

Under the law, anyone who wants to vote but does not have a photo identification must obtain a new voter registration card that includes a photo. A birth certificate or passport can be used to prove identity.

The article then points to:

1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like South Carolina must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts.

It could be held that this section of the law is unconstitutional as these powers are not granted to the congress, the executive nor the judicial branch, but are reserved for the states. One could go a step further and argue that this portion of the law violates the Equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as it has be applied to the federal government as part of the 5th amendment. As few but not all states must seek federal approval to change voting laws and districts.

The article also states:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this month said his team was reviewing changes to voting laws in other states including Florida and Texas...

Another over reach by this administration and the puppet Eric Holder.

Article I section II also states:

...and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,...

But it does not establish federal authority to draw the lines for districts that contain the requisite 30,000 citizens. This clause establishes the census and requires the number of representatives and the districts to change as the population changes.

Now the congress does not act exactly in accordance with this provision, currently the number of representatives to persons is about 1:700,000. The number of house seats remains fixed at 435 and congress uses the Equal Proportions Method to determine how the seats are distributed among the states.

That being said, there is no federal authority to determine what district a particular seat must represent. Once again this authority is protected to the states.

In the case of Texas, the duly elected legislature after much deliberation redrew the map to allow for 4 new house seats due to the 2010 census. Since the minority party in Texas at the moment is the Democratic Party, they of course are using the sore loser approach and tying up the process in the courts. They have used every excuse in the play book to delay the legal process established by law and enacted by the elected legislature and signed by the duly elected Governor. Now it would seem the Attorney General and the Justice(?) Dept. must weigh in. So they can speak now, but when it came to prosecuting the thugs in Philadelphia who were threatening and intimidating voters at the polls they refused to speak?

The federal government has no say in these matters, but are attempting to inject themselves anyway. The only reasons I can fathom, is to protect voter fraud and boost the chances for Obama’s reelection and his allies to wrest control of the states from the people. What Obama and the Democrats cannot win at the ballot box they seek to steal by executive order and activist judges.

Once again we the people are left with a decision to make. Are we a free people who are governed by the consent of the governed or are we slaves to the growth and power of the omnipotent authoritarian, totalitarian federal authority?

Bookmark this article at ...