“We the People”…what a concept! When the Founding Fathers were working tirelessly with relentless savvy putting this nation together they knew much about human nature and the lengths that humans would go to achieve power albeit, legally or illegally.
Moreover, the Founding Fathers knew to what degree humankind would flex, sway, or bend any law – anywhere to see to it that man would get his way. Early in the Constitution ratification process they were very concerned about factions; either a majority faction or a minority faction that could disrupt the normal flow of governance.
Therefore our question for our reader’s today is the following:
How does the governed go about redressing a minority faction who seems to rear its ugly head every time something happens that doesn’t go their way?
Again in Federalist 10 James Madison writes about defining the faction, curing the faction (basically removing causes that fuel the faction), destroying the faction by either destroying the faction’s liberty or to equalize its passions, and removing all associated causes that have caused the faction.
This all sounds great for cleaning up a mess – especially during the time that the mess was created. If there is any difference between the original drafting of the Constitution and starting at the Fourteenth Amendment and henceforth, the two distinct parts almost work as a faction itself. Suffice it to say that the original 10 Amendments were ratified after the Constitution itself; therefore additions such as the Fourteenth Amendment – written a century later have been worked and tooled by lawyers, scholars, judges and litigators that really acts as a faction rather than anything otherwise.
Allow us to illustrate. The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new Texas law requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot out of concerns it could harm some Hispanic voters who lack such identification.
The state law approved in May 2011 required voters to show government-issued photo identification, which could include a driver’s license, a military identification card, a birth certificate with a photo, a current U.S. passport, or a concealed handgun permit.
The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, just over 300,000, did not have a driver’s license or state issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete.
“Hispanic registered voters are more than twice as likely as non-Hispanic registered voters to lack such identification,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in a letter to the Texas director of elections outlining the objection.
This is the second state voter identification law blocked by the Obama administration, which earlier objected to a strict new law in South Carolina that it prevented from taking effect. South Carolina then sued in federal court seeking approval of its law.
Under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, certain states like Texas must seek approval from the Justice Department or the federal courts for changes made to state voting laws and boundaries for voting districts which the State’s Attorney General had already done through the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Obama administration has already challenged the state’s attempt to re-draw congressional districts and that fight is now before the courts. Texas has also sued to get approval for its voter identification law.
Several other states, including Kansas and Wisconsin, have adopted stricter new voter identification laws, arguing that they were necessary to prevent fraud at the ballot box. However some civil rights groups have said that the laws threatened to suppress minority voters. How we wonder?
In Texas, the Justice Department said that potential voters would have to have two other identification documents to get a certificate allowing them to vote, which could require paying expensive fees for copies of legal documents such as birth certificates. This is just plain false; Texas has guaranteed – at the state’s expense – that voters lacking photo identification could – free of charge be issued a “voting certificate.”
Efforts to educate voters about the new identification requirements were also incomplete and the state did not submit any evidence of voter impersonation not already addressed under existing state laws, the administration said.
“The state has failed to demonstrate why it could not meet its stated goals of ensuring electoral integrity and deterring ineligible voters from voting in a manner that would have voided this retrogressive effect,” Perez said.
Dished up and smoldering in flames of bull squat, Obama, Holder, and Perez have started this action and just as any other factious excrement should be dealt with and flushed.