10th Amendment? What’s that?
In case you are as confused as President Obama seems to be on what the 10th Amendment is. Here is the text of it.
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.
December of last year, 3 days after Christmas in fact, I wrote a post about Voter Fraud and Voter ID laws for elections.
Texas recently passed a law that would require the use of a photo ID to vote in their state. One would tend to think that this would be a state issue, that the federal government would stay out of. There is nothing in the constitution (or any law or amendment passed since) that I have found that allows the federal government to interfere in voting laws such as this. (While the Civil Rights act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 do restrict racial restrictions on voting, this law does not prevent voting based on race or any other inherent quality, such as race, age, wealth or intelligence.*)
But to the current DoJ and the current President, things like the 10th amendment and the constitution are less rules and more guidelines. So they decided that Texas’ new law will put an undue burden on Hispanic people in Texas, because they are disproportionately more likely to not have (or be able to get) a photo ID.
The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 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, head of the department’s civil rights division, said in a letter outlining the objection to the Texas director of elections.
- Reuters
And so they are blocking Texas from instituting the law, similar to the actions taken against South Carolina in December of last year.
So why is it that so many Hispanic voters don’t have or can’t get a photo ID that allows them to vote?
Hispanic registered voters in Texas are 47 percent to 120 percent more likely to lack the required identification than non-Hispanic voters, the Justice Department said in its letter. Texas has 12.9 million registered voters of whom 2.81 million are Hispanic.
I mean, you need a State ID or passport to buy alcohol, get a library card, buy cigarettes, or buy a gun…and this is Texas (my mom’s side of the family is from there) at least 3 of those things are common place in Texans (which 3 is up to you) and I haven’t heard liberals complaining about that…in fact they want more protections and controls on at least one of those (I hope you know that I mean gun control, because I’m quite sure they aren’t pushing for more control on library cards).
Well…it might have something to do with the fact that, according to the most recent numbers on StateMaster.com, there are an estimated 1,041,000 illegal immigrants in Texas. Now, I’m sure they aren’t all Hispanic, we do get illegal immigrants in America from all over the world, but given the geographical location of Texas and Mexico, I think we can be fairly certain that a good portion of the 300,000 Hispanic voters (11% of Hispanic voters) who do not have a state identification card (or any other form of legitimate photo ID) and can’t get one have one thing in common.
They aren’t here legally.
So they aren’t allowed to vote and they aren’t allowed to go get a state ID card, because they don’t have the documentation to receive one.
And guess what, they shouldn’t be voting at all then.
And now for something completely different, here’s a video (and article) proving that America has the coolest Navy ever.
*though sometimes I wish we could restrict voting based on intelligence…
Posted on 03/13/2012, in conservatives, democrats, illegal immigration, liberals, politics, republicans, voting and tagged 10th amendment, 2012 presidential election, amendment, conservative, constitution, democrats, Department of Justice, Gay Republicans, Liberal, Obama, Politics, Republican, voter fraud, voting. Bookmark the permalink. 22 Comments.
You know, 10th Amendement. Hmmm? I think I’ve heard of it!! I’ve said the word moronic 20 times today at least!
Well it’s not like we didn’t already know that the DoJ and Barack were idiots who have a severe distaste for the founding documents of the country…but this is just getting ridiculous.
The 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause combined with the Federal Supremacy Clause would make the principle basis for the case. Whether or not that is enough to warrant the specific judgements at hand is a fair question. But this is hardly evidence that anyone has missed the point of the10th Amendment, unless it would be those that consistently use it to ward off civil rights advocates,
Except that their are already 8 other states that have voter ID laws which the DoJ has yet to contest and the Federal Supremacy clause would only work if there was a specific federal law which stated that States cannot require ID to receive a ballot and vote.
And by the 14th amendment, I assume you mean section 1, which says:
I don’t see how a voter ID law goes against anything in that amendment. Please explain if you do.
The Voter ID is to prove citizenship, it does not stop a citizen from voting as long as they can prove they are a citizen. If you can prove citizenship, which you must do for any other number of “privileges” in this country (like having a job or getting on an airplane) then they can’t stop you from voting for the color of your skin, your gender, or any other reason.
If that were the case then the 24th Amendment banning poll taxes would needed to have just been a federal law, not an Amendment. The reason it needed to be an Amendment is that courts ruled that the Supremacy clause does not give the federal government the right to interfere with internal state matters like elections.
Of course- as a true american- you do realize that in order to REGISTER to vote- one must prove they are a citiznen, of age, not a felon, etc etc? And this is exactly why requirning an id to vote is wrong.
Study after study has shown that voter impersation fraud is in the thousandths of a percent- it just doesn’t happen. So once someone has proven thenselves elgible to vote by registering- what good does forcing them to show a state issued ID do?
An estimated 10% of americans have no state issue ID- mostly minorities, the poor, college age citizens, and the elederly. All of which except for the elderly overwhelmingly vote democratic. So who did texas exempt from this law- the one group that votes republican- the elderly.
Yes you have to prove citizenship to register, but if the citizen has already registered and you use their name and they aren’t around to notice (dead) then I guess you can vote at every polling place using a different name of a deceased person still on the roles…
Like these folks in New Hampshire did.
So what if voter impersonation is a very small problem (consensus on that varies WILDLY depending on which study you look at and who you talk to) you should still have to prove that you are who you say you are (same as you do when you use a credit card, buy alcohol, get on an airplane, or get a job) before you receive a ballot to vote.
“Study after study has shown that voter impersation fraud is in the thousandths of a percent- it just doesn’t happen.” Okay quote a study. One not done by a liberal think tank. Go one quote one. Just give me a name and/or a link.
I’ll do one better- just go to scholar.google.com – the version of google that only returns results from evidence based/ peer reviewed research- not opinion pieces, blogs, or “news”.
Just go there and type in “Voter fraud” or “Voter impersonation fraud”
I’ll be eagerly awaiting to hear what you have learned.
Nope, you made the claim, you must provide the evidence.
It is not my, or crisap444′s, responsibility to do your research for you. You have, apparently, read a few unbiased studies on this or you wouldn’t have made the claim originally…I hope.
So what studies did you base your opinion on. C’mon, shouldn’t be hard to cough up the links.
I learned this idiot doesn’t actually have anything.
But I’ll do some research, how about liberal Justice John Paul Steven in upholding Indiana’s Voter ID law wrote, Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd.: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/BasileFinal.pdf But I will be more than willing to hear the evidence you have that the was not filed with the Supreme Court…although one wonders why is was not submitted in an amicus curiae brief if it showed so conclusively that no voter fraud was going on.
Ok- so “we aren;t going to bother doing OUR research- we will rely on the talking heads is a valid arguement these days???
So…Ok- and before you think that heinonline is some liberal thinktank- it is not. it as an online service for legal information like Westlaw and LexisNexis –
Some- or even possibly many of these you will not be able to access unless your lawfirm- or university, has journal access.
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/harlpolrv3&div=12&id=&page=
http://poli375engage.pbworks.com/f/Politics_of_Voter_Fraud_Final.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00422.x/abstract;jsessionid=CF7E0EE724E056DA57CB110C4EA7F220.d03t04?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13569775.2011.597146
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/stflr60&div=9&id=&page=
http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/385.short
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/VoterID_Missouri_Demos.pdf
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/APSA2011.pdf
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/wmitch34&div=19&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/tempcr6&div=12&id=&page=
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/NYT-4-07-no-voter-fraud.pd
fhttp://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/hcrcl44&div=4&id=&page=
Thank you, that wasn’t so hard was it?
I’ll read those after I study for my next test. Yes, my university gives me access to the majority of those publications and I regularly use them for research for papers.
It’s not that I can’t do my own research, I do a lot of research for this blog and for school. However if you make a claim it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of that claim, not my job to prove your claim for you.
Wait a second. Now I’m not going to respond to your links right now because that’s going to take some time to read…but did you actually call a Supreme Court Justice, and a link to the Supreme Court decision a “talking head.” That kind of massive idiocy alone makes me doubt what I’m going to find in these links.
Cris, they are always just “talking heads” if they disagree with the liberals.
Okay so that took less time than I thought. Your “proof” breaks down into 3 categories (1) broken links (2) heinonline and other legal journal review which are literally lawyer talking heads just writing for legal journals. They in no way constitute any legitimate proof for or against the reality of whether or not voter fraud is a serious problem. So remind me who is quoting talking heads and people’s opinions. (3) One sorta kind study that looks at voter fraud…but when you actually read it, they put in less work to find instances of voter fraud as than O.J. put in to find the “real killer”.
Here rather than listening to lawyers argument (a source we have all learned to trust implicitly I’m sure) how news, real new. Granted I was did this rather quickly but…
“The new statewide database of registered voters contains as many as 77,000 dead people on its rolls, and as many as 2,600 of them have cast votes from the grave, according to a Poughkeepsie Journal computer-assisted analysis.”
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061029/NEWS01/610290381/1006/NEWS01&nclick_check=1 Granted the source isn’t a major newspaper, they have these things called FACTS. And I think 2,600 people voting under the names of dead people constitutes VOTER FRAUD! And if one little paper can find it in one state…want do you want to bet there is larger problem here?
In reference to the latter part of your article…I can’t wait for the Chinese Navy to meet our rail gun.
Oh yes, I really can’t wait. I showed my dad that video and he just looked at it in awe and said “I want one”.
Reblogged this on The Conservative New Ager.
Pingback: Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom. « The Snark Who Hunts Back
Pingback: Keep your personal opinions out of my bedroom. « OutRight Patriots