Breaking: Eric Holder Blocks SC Voter ID, Texas Next
Eric Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter ID law. Hans von Spakovsky and I have been predicting this was going to happen for over eight months here at PJ Media. The only surprising thing is that no halftime adjustments were made after it became even clearer an objection was on the way. Texas now faces the same dilemma. Sadly, I’m not convinced Texas understands the battlefield or the stakes involved.
Attorney General Abbot says on Twitter that “Texas will be next. We’ll fight to the end for ballot integrity.”
If true, then pull the Texas voter ID submission now, tonight, by fax, and go to federal court now, on your terms.
I don’t believe these state officials understand the effect of an objection by the Justice Department. Anybody who has been around these issues regularly, as compared with dabbling in them from time to time, knows the effect of the Scarlet O, the objection.
The first thing that happens is the civil rights industry goes crazy. They hold a victory celebration in the media, and change the litigation environment if the state ever decides to go to court. Secondly, the de novo review is a fiction. People in the civil rights industry, and inside Justice, know that once the attorney general has objected, the rules of the game have changed in any future court fight.
Lawyers in Austin and Columbia might have thought an objection carries zero widgets of weight in a subsequent federal court effort to obtain preclearance. They think a de novo review means a de novo review. Instead, an objection has about 100 widgets of weight – political, public relations, perception weight, and yes, even silent legal weight.
Therein lies the tragedy. Watching these states submit voter identification to the Justice Department, instead of going to court where they can get a more impartial review, reminds me of the Polish horsemen rushing toward German tanks in September 1939. Unlike the brave Polish cavalry, these states actually think they stand a chance.
The way to save Texas voter ID is to withdraw the objection, immediately, and file in federal court on Tuesday. The way to save South Carolina voter ID is to file in court immediately. Stop wasting time with the corrupt leftist bureaucrats at the Justice Department. In case you haven’t read my book Injustice, the people reviewing voter ID literally had Obama campaign posters hanging on their walls at the Justice Department. I have photos of their offices in my book.
There is nothing “honorable” about sacrificing voter integrity on the altar of process. File in court. The law says you can, and there is nothing “dishonorable” about it. Attorney General Eric Holder came to Austin and told you precisely what he was going to do. Don’t give him a chance.
Think it is obvious voter ID should be approved? Think again.
To those people who think the issue is so easy, including Tabella at my own blog Electionlawcenter.com, this issue is not as simple as you think, and Republicans are to blame. In 2006, Congress changed the standard that governs the reviews. I will have more on this another day. In 2006, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) led a charge to alter the standard of review that both shifts burdens on the state to prove a negative, but also allows any discriminatory effect to support an objection. Read the word “any” three times over. Any means greater than zero, and that’s precisely the approach this Justice Department is taking.
Republicans who only see Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act through the lens of redistricting supported Sensenbrenner’s change. They figured it would lead to more Republican seats in Congress. Here is roll call vote. A few Republicans like Steve King, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland, and Joe Barton opposed it. It was one thing simply to extend the law which was set to expire, it was quite another to do what Sensenbrenner insisted upon and that is the change of the standard to “any.” DOJ is using ”any” to block voter ID.
Now the nation reaps the whirlwind ahead of 2012.
As a Texan who worked to help pass our Voter ID law, and who urged legislators and Attorney General Abbott to bypass DOJ and submit it to federal court (even sent excerpts from/links to “Every Single One”), I feel SICK! Not surprised, given that Holder and DOJ have made no secret of their intentions, but still quite sick.
Maybe the only path forward now is to challenge Section 5 preclearance requirements?
TexasTea,
I would love to send this on to everyone in Austin. Could you tell me how to accomplish that? I’m sick like you of this craziness and we must stop Holder by going on the offensive. Our legislature needs to MOVE IT!
I can’t understand this. I live in one of the most blue states there is . I know the voting officials by name. When I vote in any election I have to show an ID showing local residence . The ONLY reason to be against this is allow voter fraud .
Not really. See the discussion above and in the comments. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as amedned in 2006, makes this objection somewhat sound. The word “any” was added in 2006, so any discrminatory effect greater than zero can justify an objection. Plus, the state has the burden of proof.
You cite legal technicalities and poorly written legislation to justify evil.
There’s no evil here. Voter fraud was aggressively investigated by the Bush administration and they came up with nothing. It just isn’t happening.
The only reason for voter ID is to make it harder for poor people, minorities, and the elderly to vote. These laws usually coincide with closures of offices in historically Democratic districts that would issue these voter IDs. Stop with the hyperbole and just admit you don’t want to allow Democrats to vote.
It is a false statement to say “Voter fraud was aggressively investigated by the Bush administration and they came up with nothing. It just isn’t happening.” This is false on so many levels I don’t have the time to address them all. Lets mention “came up with nothing.” Suggest you read a case I tried and won that was infested with voter fraud. You can read it at 494 F. Supp. 2d 440 (2007), 561 F. 3d 420 (2009). A librarian can help you decode the secret code to find it.
That is absolutey absurd. I guess old people and minorities have no ID? How do you ascertain that this is about keeping anyone from voting but those who are not legally eligible. Please stop with the propaganda.
According to your logic, these “poor minorities” would probably be the same people requiring public assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. One must have photo ID to apply for both. What say you now?
Additionally, since it is FREE to obtain a state issued photo ID, don’t you think if one of these “poor minorities” received a call from the state telling them there was a $10,000 check being held in their name but they would have to present PHOTO ID as proof before the check would be released…do you not think they would find a way to obtain a PHOTO ID?
Stop making excuses. The only reason for opposing this is because it would limit your ability to commit fraud… PERIOD!!! Honest people welcome this.
The leftists need to explain how residents, without proper photo identification, drive cars, cash checks, borrow books from libraries, travel, use credit cards for expensive purchases, obtain a fishing license, operate a boat, open a bank account, enroll in college, or buy liquor, guns, and ammunition.
Voter ID is an excellent idea to stop “graveyard” voters and also I fully believe you MUST be a citizen of USA to vote in USA elections. You cannot even cash a check without ID ……. ID is just part of being an adult . I also truly believe you are only entitled to vote ONCE per each election. And also each and every candidate must be validated legal to requirements to be on the ballot. The enforcement of this validity is up to the sheriff of the county where election is held …… Some sheriffs believe Obama is not QUALIFIED for running because his father was never a citizen therefore that disqualifies him. He may be a citizen but his birth certificate shows his father was not citizen. That blocks him from running for president with his own documents !!!
“How to Apply for a Welfare Program
To apply for a welfare program one must contact the local Human Service Department located in the government pages of the phone book. It may be listed as Human Services, Family Services or Adult and Family Services. An appointment is made with a case worker. The case worker will give a list of required documents needed at the appointment. Common documents asked for are proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency.”
http://www.welfareinfo.org/
So how are all these poor people and minorities getting welfare?
No, you’re wrong. Since the Bush administration we have had unprecedented levels of voter fraud. You might remember that congress de-funded ACORN for rampant corruption and voter fraud and they were banned from voter-related activities. Obama re-funded them as soon as he could. Just recently 12 people, all democrat, were just indicted for voter fraud.
The most ridiculous part of your argument is this: under South Carolina law anyone who requests a state drivers or non-drivers license or state identification card will be provided with one free if they can not afford one. The kicker is that they have to prove that they actually live in that state. Are you telling me that there are tons of minority people who have never attended school, cashed a check, applied for a job, rented an apartment, boarded an air plane, driven a car or applied for a library card? Because all of those things require proof of i.d.
No, the DOJ is using legal technicalities and poorly written legislation to justify evil. The site is just reporting it.
I would bet your blue state is very far north. I live is a very blue state with an implemented and enforced Voter ID policy. But we have hardly any illegal aliens in comparison with most.
Since Texas Republican politicians seem partial to illegal aliens, I would suspect that’s the reason for a course of action which superficially looks good but is actually ineffectual.
There is no shortage of RINOs in Texas.
Big surprise. Democrats have ALWAYS tried to rig elections, using every trick in the book, up to and including political terror and mass murder.
Why would anyway think they’ve changed their spots?
Democrats are the same thing they’ve always been…the scum of the earth.
Don’t confuse Democrats with Leftists. The Democratic party as a very long history and predates its relatively recent descent into the pit of Marxism.
There was a time, within living memory no less, when the Democratic party was legit.
Funny. I can’t remember any time in my lifetime when the Dem. party had ANY redeeming qualities whatsoever. Political pornography from top to bottom.
“There was a time, within living memory no less, when the Democratic party was legit.”
This is not entirely correct. Within living memory, (I’m 72 years old) Texas Democrats have always been deeply involved in election voter fraud. Lyndon B. Johnson won a critical election in 1948 by 87 votes. It was later revealed that many of those 87 voters resided at the time in a Uvalde county cemetery. Votes were also bought for as much as $5.00 each by the Democrat party bosses on election day right in front of the polling place. Party bosses and union bosses also routinely took out loans to pay for it’s members Poll Tax (about $1.75 per, big money in those days), so that they would insure the necessary block of Democrat voters turned out on election day.
Texas Democrats were as dirty then as they are now.
Right you are! And where I live in NYC you know how they’re collecting names now? They walk up to people on the street to ask them to support Green Peace, Planned Parenthood, Save the Children, etc. You have to put your name on a petition. Those names will be used in the future to pad ballots. Don’t think so? I had someone from our local ACORN spin-off(New York Communites for Change on Nevins Street in Brooklyn)tell me just that. Gotta love those Communists, they never stop trying.
The correct term is Democrat Party. The irony is that is is anything BUT democratic.
Let’s not be too hard on Mr. Reynolds, sometimes it’s hard to tell the players without a program. “Democratic” almost sounds like a synonym for “Democrat”, however it is also true that being a Democrat has nothing to do with being democratic. Is there an oxymoron laying there waiting to hatch? (sigh).
Mr. Adams brings up valid points regarding the finer edges of the law that would otherwise escape us lesser mortals, he just shows us how easily we are fooled by those whom we mistakenly believe we have elected to represent our best interests.
And I’m starting to doubt the existence of Santa Claus.
Clearly there is a war going on and most republicans fail to recognize that. They think it’s “business as usual” and like all governmental overthrows, they won’t realize it until it’s too late and we’re all having to follow in the state-required pablum of existence, “for our own good”.
It’s truly and remarkably sad. When truth is needed, it rarely ever comes from anyone able to do anything. Those of us who were raised to think critically and properly get it and are frustrated. I am reminded of Michael Douglas in the movie “Falling Down” which is a timeless rendition of the pent up frustration that most of us feel.
Largely, this frustration is due to the lack of any republicans making any efforts to stall and/or curtail this socialist overthrow of our government. In simple terms, the cowardice displayed by our political “leaders” is glaring. Most (but not all) are truly afraid they will be criticized in the press for calling these clowns out on their craptacular legislation and activities. So it’s not so much the socialists doing what socialists do, it’s the other party that is letting them. So, we have arrived at one-party rule whether we care to admit it or not.
Hey Mr. Nobody – I suspect you’d REALLY enjoy my book, Injustice. If you haven’t read it yet, you are missing out.
Thanks, Mr Adams. I have it, just haven’t gotten to reading it yet. I’m sure I will but when is the question. And, I’m sure steam will come out of my ears when I do.
All in all, I waffle between complete frustration at a society that has half of its members thinking they deserve it all vs. hope for those of us who “do it old-school” and have a job, pay taxes and defend our personal liberties as much as we can.
Personally, I am “between generations” having been born in ’61 and watching as the first flowers of political correctness started to bloom and the US becoming a victim society. I have hated the increase in governmental abuse of power and more bureaucracy every day of my life and I have grown to hate it. it is crippling this nation and you can’t do anything without having some sort of governmental permission. In that regard, I must side with Shakespeare when he wrote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” as they have the advantage of the biggest wordgame around known as legalese. By inserting a word here, omitting another there, they can manipulate things and make an obvious ridiculous notion seem to make sense.
It’s what they’ve done here and the intent is now clear.
Between which generations? As the baby boom generation covers those born from 1946 to 1964, you belong to this very large group.
No, I don’t. Given that the accepted statistic is as you state, the previous generations had either WWII, Korea or (especially) Vietnam to face. I had no such risk, though I served anyhow, largely thanks to Jimmah’s leveling of the economy in through the 70′s.
My point though about being “between” generations has more to do with the social context. I wasn’t a hippie, and I’m not a gen-X’er either. When I went to high school, Vietnam wasn’t being discussed (at all) and my biggest worry was how I was going to spend the weekend, not that I could get drafted after I graduated.
Along those lines,certain societal characteristics also differentiate my generation, such as it is, from the previous. Largely, as I noticed while active duty, the people ten years ahead of me in age felt my age-group had nothing to whine about since “nobody forced you to enlist”. A kind of “eat your peas” mentality which is not exclusive to Obama-esque arrogance; It comes in many forms from people who look down their noses at others.
My generation….those of my age, haven’t had massive protests, identified themselves or been identified by any media market, or otherwise singled out as anything in particular. And, for the record, I hate disco music, which I had to listen to whenever I went to a reunion and the organizers thought it would be just swell to hear it again.
My age group has done nothing of note, good or bad, except perhaps ride the coattails of the hippies, as captain zero is doing. All my life I’ve carved out my own existence but curiously, people expect me to act and speak a certain way, rather than the way someone of the Korean era might, like my own father. I’m “supposed” to be sensitive to all races and their “struggle” and always be “fair” to women and recognize their “struggle” as well.
Screw. That.
PC began when I was in HS and grew into a three-headed monster. I’ve lost friends of my own age for dismissing PC nonsense. But to quote Homer J Simpson, that bastion of wisdom, my response was and still is, “Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t understand”. It’s not that I go around using racist terms or having a chauvinistic attitude (as set forth in the liberal rule-book), it’s just that I won’t put up with the nonsense. Like I told one guy on active duty who said, “You don’t like me ‘cuz I’m black” and I responded, “No, I don’t like you because your an a-hole. I don’t care about your background, your race, your upbringing, what you wear, what you drive or any and all of that. I care how you treat others and how much self respect you have.” I could hear his eyes blinking while he processed that.
Being between generations means that, my own peers think I’m supposed to pick sides. That is, adopt the wonky left-leaning and ridiculous attitudes that they have, in order not to be “left out” (another subject that takes a long time to discuss) or if I’m a right-winger, prepare to be ostracized. So I guess I have picked and it surprises people who think my age group collectively should act like Obama does.
They are mistaken (and surprised)every time. I hope that more clearly defines what I mean by “between” generations. Sure, tail-end of the baby boom…but I don’t identify with the large portion of that bell-curve and find most of the nonsense my own generation supports is crap. I find they do so because their big brother or big sister does.
I HAVE read your book, Mr. Adams. And I was so impressed with it, I bought three more copies to send to my friends, with a suggestion that they induce all of THEIR friends read the book as well. In my estimation, it is one of the most honest and hard hitting sources of information that one can obtain. It is well written and well vetted. Thank you, ever so much, for revealing the TRUTH!
I’m trying to read your book. The problem is I can only read for short periods of time — I get so angry at what’s going on, I have to stop until my blood pressure goes down. How in the heck did we come to this state of affairs? Thanks for your integrity.
I hear this a lot about the book. The people who experienced it were somewhat immune to the blood pressure rise – the behavior was commonplace. Consider this, the book was edited down from 115,000 words to 75,000. Lots hit the cutting room floor. To make it less nerve racking, I tried to make it funny in places. Wait until you get to the Through the Looking Glass chapter.
MR NOBODY I’m with you. We actually do have two political parties – the party of the corrupt and the party of cowards. Although in the end they work togather to increase their own advantage, power, and privlidges. At some point it might come down to everyone for himself and the Second Amendment. I am 71 and fed up and “mad as hell” and ready to sign on to an organized revolt to march on DC. About 30 million of us packing heat could make a difference but nothing short of that will. A clean slate is needed.
It’s not the WHOLE Republican Party that fails to see that there is a true civil war going on here – just the RINO elites who still think that somehow Nobless Oblige and Fraternie’ will prevail over any partisan rancor so long as they can keep the Conservative Peasantry (“Teabaggers”, Christianists/Evangelical Taliban, and Libertarian looneys) from opening their mouths to object to the machinations of their betters.
Stinking moron RINO’s don’t get that they are facing an eventual violent confrontation with a cabal of Mexican ReConquista’s, Black Panthers, and 1960′s retread Stalin-worshipers – ALL of whom want every Cracker on the planet who doesn’t breathe Saul Alinsky in a camp followed by an oven.
There is a reason why the Democrat Party is called “the evil party” and the GOP is called “the stupid party.”
Barack Obama will do anything to win in 2012. The problem is that Republicans don’t seem to understand this.
Can’t get The Wan re-elected without pumping fraudulent votes through the system.
SC and Texas should arrest all TSA agents who have done a “patdown” for rape. They should issue warrants for arrest of Holder and Napolitano for ordering rapes. There can be no justification for rape.
It is racist and a violation of civil rights to expect an African American to obtain a valid ID and present said ID to vote. VB
the issue is far more complicated than that. Nobody says it is “racist.” The question is whether it has a racially discrminatory effect. That is not the same as “racist.” Section 5 puts the burden on the state to prove it doesn’t, and thanks to the 2006 GOP, allows “any” discriminatory effect to justify an objection. The additon of the word “any” in the law was a sop to the left by certain GOP leaders, and has unleashed this mess now.
These same black and hispanic residents have to have an ID to drive a car, cash their welfare checks, buy liquor, etc so what is the hardship that showing said ID at the voting booth is creating?
There is no hardship. If the individual is a legal American of voting age they will have an ID.
No this is about two things both related to the 2012 election: 1. It is about allowing illegal aliens to vote for Zero. and 2. It is about setting up a false claim of voter intimidation and the denile of the black/hispanic vote in order to set the table for the real illegal vote fraud done by them.
As far as I’m concerned the DOJ has been radicalized by progressives especially the civil rightrs division and should be defunded.
The left has known for nearly 50 years that it is the judiciary where the power lies and they have fully corrupted it to the advantage. What they cannot get passed legislatively they get around by using the courts.
Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. There is no conceivable good-faith justification for the DOJ’s actions. The Supreme Court has already ruled that voter-id laws are perfectly constitutional. This is sheer gangsterism of the type we’ve unfortunately had to come to expect from Eric Holder’s highly racist DOJ.
Is it? Is it racist and a violation of civil rights to expect an Caucasian
American or a Asian American to obtain a valid ID and present said ID to vote? How is it any harder for a specific “tribe” to get an ID than another?
Not sure whether to reply to this, but because the issue is so complicated, I will. First, this ground has been covered here over and over. “Racist” isn’t the standard. Scroll around and smell the glove. (please someone get the joke). Second, the relevant data is what the situation IS, not what it OUGHT to be. Do blacks have fewer photo ID’s than whites as a matter of fact? I am oversimplifying. But again, this question has been covered all over this comment section.
“Do blacks have fewer photo ID’s than whites as a matter of fact?”
Do blacks receive more government “services” that require proof of identification than whites as a matter of fact?
I can see why Obama admires Abraham Lincoln. He obviously wants to preside over his very own civil war. And, at the rate Eric Holder is pulling electoral shenanigans, President Downgrade is going to get it sooner rather than later.
He’s conducting a scorched earth campaign, so that is the entire idea. The Cloward and Piven strategy works just as well for legislation as it does for finance and now he is getting around to controlling by fear. This man is a Communist, not a Socialist – though there is really very little difference between the two. Having a racist, anti-Christian, anti-Jew Communist president who has eliminated the Posse Commitatus Act and virtually nullified the Constitution is a bit of a problem, no? He will find his enabling act soon.
We conservatives never understand the real rules of the game. We continue to think the other side will fight fair, will follow the law, will use rational arguments. And we continue to lose this country.
Funny how the ID requirement at airports is not racist. Nor are the ID requirements to enter the USA.
More seriously, this administration is just taking advantage of all the overstepping done in the past by the federal government. We no longer have even the semblance of federalism. And with the cowards in this country, it is gone forever. Enjoy the complete dominance by the apparatchiks within the beltway.
The TSA ID requirement does not affect a right in the 15th Amendment of the Constitution.
And as the United States Supreme Court has already ruled, voter I.D. laws do NOT materially affect anyone’s rights under the 15th amendment. Why do you omit this dispositive fact?
Because Manfred, your “dispositive fact” isn’t accurate. The Crawford case did not do as you suggest; it did something, but not what you suggest.
What about just refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the Justice Department objections. Implement the law, ignore federal interference and use state law enforcement and national guard units if necessary to enforce the law and protect the elected state officials that actually do represent the interests of Texans from the illegitimate federal interference.
Tahametgo: As a lawyer who took an oath to support the law and Constituion, I’m not there. The Supreme Court has held Section 5 as Constitututional. It is the law of the land, even if administered by a lawless Attorney General. What you describe, particularly the national guard, is George Wallace style lawlessness. Though it would be interesting to see, and dangerous at the same time, what would happen if, for example, poll workers around the state asked for voter ID anyhow, but didn’t stop anyone from voting. Is DOJ going to flood the state with thousands of marshalls to stop the precinct workers from asking? Obviously not a place where we want to go in a nation of law.
You assume we are a nation of laws. How many laws has the zero administration broken…going to war in Libya without Congressional authority, buy private companies, loaning money to companies who have ties to his elections only for them to go bankrupt, Fast and Furious, etc….
What part of, “This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” does requiring an ID violate? If an ID is equivalent to a hardship then illegal aliens should also be able to vote. Then what? Where is your nation of laws?
“What you describe, particularly the national guard, is George Wallace style lawlessness.” Using the national guard is under the purview of a state governor so why is this lawless? It was dumb but not lawless. What do you have to say about the Congress giving Odummer the power to detain an American citizen based on his say so without proof of any wrongdoing… Talk about lawlessness. We have entered totalitarian sphere-Chavez/Stalin would be proud…
So what you are saying, and I have the greatest respect for you and your courage, is that we give up. They, the left, now control the law…our courts…our DOJ… and we are powerless. We fought a civil war because of the overstepping of our fledgling government. I am prepared to fight another versus the left for my country.
As for a Nation of Laws, I am curious as to your thoughts on Fast and Furious?
Were US laws violated in that case?
If so, which ones?
If so, who broke them?
Don – a few clicks around PJ Media and I’m sure you can find my views on fast and furious. Hint: start at the Rule of Law blog and scroll down.
Only one side of the conflict between the totalitarians and those who would conserve liberal american law and tradition observe a bogus set of political Marquess of Queensberry rules for political battle. That is why the totalitarians are winning. It is not a sign of strength or integrity to concede victory your enemies because one lacks the determination or moral self confidence to use the same weapons and tactics as are used against you. I think the larger issue is if the US is sustainable as a 50 state union at this point. I don’t think it is anymore. I think everyone will be better off in the end if the US disintegrated to into smaller nations. What that will / would look like I’m not sure but the federal government has assumed so much power that the ability of states to enact laws that reflect the will of its citizens is intolerably compromised.
The Supreme Court has also held that voter id laws are perfectly constitutional, J. Christian. Holder’s move is simply part of a long-planned campaign of fraud and intimidation that is perhaps the primary reason that Holder will never be fired regardless. First make it clear that Black Panther intimidation and threatening of whites will not be punished, then do everything possible to promote fraudulent voting (which is almost always democrat and always has been). This latest move is another overt act in a conspiracy to ensure that, abysmal record notwithstanding, the first anti-American president of the United States is re-elected. As we’ve seen with the 300+ dead Mexicans, neither laws nor potential consequences are of any concern to our current thug administration.
That isn’t accurate Manfred. See the article at Big Government. http://biggovernment.com/jcadams/2011/12/24/eric-holder-blocks-south-carolina-voter-id-for-racial-reasons/
“Those on the right like to say that the Supreme Court already upheld voter ID as constitutional. Wrong. In the Crawford vs. Marion County case the Supreme Court merely held that voter ID was not per se unconstitutional. It did not say it was per se constitutional, there is a big difference and proponents of voter ID should not argue bad law. Plus, under Section 5, the burden is on the state to prove a negative, an absence of discrimination. Crawford was brought under a different law and the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that Indiana discriminated.”
I understand how SC can (potententially) file in court; but, I’m not fully understanding how TX can at this point. Is this a case where TX files to force a decision now before the DoJ can issue their ‘opinion’? I’m seeing this as another case that the DoJ would argue that the appropriate path is through the DoJ until all ‘internal’ appeals are exhausted, then moved into the court of appeals – where as you allude, DoJ has the upper hand far and away as they’ve set the ‘allowable evidence’ and limited the parameters that can be appealed.
As you did work in the DoJ, I’m more than inclined to believe you – just asking for a little education to help cure my ignorance of the process you have suggested the states take.
[As I know the appeals route is the approach that TSA, DHS, and the DoJ have taken in regards to TSA matters in an effort to limit what can be litigated.]
Simple. Texas had the choice in the first place. There is a fork in the road in the law. Texas chose the Holder fork instead of the neutral-detached-possibly-Bush-appointed fork. Hope Andrade did it.
Dilligas – suggest you read the law. Your assumptions are totally wrong.
It’s weird how much the current shenanigans of the [sic] Civil Rights industry resemble those of the segregationsit back in the 1950s. It’s the same sort of, “of course we’re following the law! wink-wink, nudge-nudge” attitude.
I think this really reveals the Left’s highly elitist view of society. I don’t think they really believe elections to be all that important in deciding how the country should be run. I think Leftists are so disdainful of ordinary people that they can’t conceive of them having any real input on major decisions. They don’t see elections as vital feedback to the process of democratic government. Instead, they view elections a more of a moral ritual we go through that simply anoints the proper elites.
That’s why they don’t consider voter fraud to be a big deal. The collected opinions of millions of ordinary don’t actually mean anything so tinkering with the numbers to get the “right” outcome is a moral or practical problem. As long as we have the ritual and everyone thinks they had their say, everything is kosher in the eyes of Leftists.
Leftists can never really respect democracy because they believe that technocratic elites know better about everything (except sex) than ordinary people. How can they really emotionally and intellectually invest in democracy when they don’t really believe in the wisdom of the people?
It’s weird how much the current shenanigans of the [sic] Civil Rights industry resemble those of the segregationsit back in the 1950s.
No, it isn’t weird at all if you understand the underlying logic of it all. The Left is not “liberalism”; it co-opted liberalism, slowly inverting all of its signature movements into their own opposites. The “civil rights” movement is now effectively neo-segregationist, but at the cultural level rather than physical. Feminism used to be about the individual rights of women, but is now a movement seeking special treatment by gender — a notion its liberal form lived and breathed to eliminate.
Many people have observed how race questions went away, and then came back. We were once told to seek race-blindness, but now what is taught is race-consciousness at every level. How obvious does it have to get that something’s been flipped around, substituted, inverted here?
Contra Jonah Goldberg, it’s less “Liberal Fascism” than it is “Invasion of the Ideology Snatchers”. Those pods in the basement of academia are not a mere research project.
As to – iconoclast –
“Funny how the ID requirement at airports is not racist. Nor are the ID requirements to enter the USA.”
Correct.
However extend that legal argument -and include EVERYTHING that requires ID and flood the courts with legal challenges to:
Purchase alcohol – need ID? Racist.
Purchase cigarettes – need ID? Racist.
Purchase drugs at pharmacy – need ID? Racist.
Set-up bank account – need ID? Racist.
Driver’s license – need ID? Racist.
Pilot’s license – need ID? Racist.
Dentist license – need ID? Racist.
Doctor’s license – need ID? Racist.
Et cetera…
Purchase alcohol – not in the constitution.
Purchase smokes – not in the constitution.
Purchase druges – not in the constitution
Set up bank account – not in the constitution
The rest of your examples – not in the constitution
Vote free from racial discrimination – 15th Amendment
So if it’s not specified “in the constitution,” ‘racism’ is okey-dokey. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. (These legal minutiae sure are confusing sometimes.)
As a general and oversimplified matter, the 14th amendment outlaws, generally speaking, state racial discrmination, and through the civil rights act of 1964, many private instances of it.
So… the litigious tsunami is a go?
Mr. Adams how about securing the blessings of liberty and such (as an umbrella for all the above listed actions)? Too arcane for you? You are a tool of our oppressors , as are most of your legal colleagues. It is precisely the sort of dissembling crap exemplified by this action of the DOJ that should cause every patriot to rise up, grab the musket, and rush to Lexington. Alas our best days are behind us and we march quietly into the night. My only comfort is that the end is near for our once great nation, and whatever lies on the other side of the approaching storm will surely be preferable to our present slow decay. Perhaps a rebirth of liberty? Either that or a very dark future indeed. Stop tilting at the windmills of progress in our utterly broken system.
I am a tool for the “oppressors!?” You DEFINATELY haven’t read my book Injustice then. Please let the oppressors know that I am one of their tools. They’ll laugh as hard as I just did.
But will they be laughing with you or at you?
Probably both.
Now that should have been an easy question for any first year law student to answer.
You are not reading what Zexufang is writing. How come requiring an ID for any of the above is not challenged by blacks/DOJ for racism. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word racism appear-only equal protection. Requiring an ID for any on the list should be a hardship for anyone.
If proving you are a legal citizen of the US is now considered racism then what does the word citizen mean?
Equal protection appears in the 14th and 5th amendments. SC Voter ID was objected to under powers derived from the 15th amendment. The 15th amendment has very very different standards for enforcement statutes than does the 14th. For starters, a nice simple one for you, the 15th applies only to state actors, or those enforcing state powers such as primaries. (Lets ignore for a moment Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act). Buying smokes and beer doesn’t usually involve state actors. Nice simple difference.
Some more complicated differences. The right to vote free from racial discrimination is a FUNDAMENTAL (lawyers activate alarm bells and red flags) right. Buying smokes is not. So there is no credible legal theory that asking for ID to do something that is not in the constitution as a fundamental right would be actionable.
I believe Smokes and Alcohol ARE licensed and regulated by the State, and here in NJ, if you are suspected of being under 21, for example, the purveyor asks for ID. Failure to provide it, will result in NO SALE.
Am I wrong that these convenience store folks are in effect, agents of , and actors for, the state?
certainly,if they sell to minors, the sellers are subject to fines, and the license of their establishment is subject to review and revocation.
In that case, how are they “NOT” “state” actors?
State actors/action is a term of art. It means the Government is the one acting. For elections, it means they run it. Regardless, this line of attack on Holder is a waste of time. It is full holes and duct tape.
You shouldn’t need ID to purchase a firearm, then. That would be a burden on the poor and minorities– the people most likely to need a firearm!– to own one, thus making it hard for them to exercise their Constitutional right to own one.
How about firearms purchases then, you currently have to show ID to buy one? Would the 2nd Amendment cover that?
Now that you mention it… it *would* be nice to be able to bare my arms from time to time… without being carded all the, um… time.
This is Holder fulfilling his purpose and why Obama will stick with him until the liabilities of Fast and Furious revelations outweigh the advantages of tilting close states on Nov. 2 with Holder’s help. This is why it will be very difficult for Republicans to succeed in forcing Holder’s removal. For Obama, it’s worth almost anything keeping him on.
Also not in the Constitution: the delegated power to force people to stand for warrantless searches every time they get on an airplane.
Prohibited by the Constitution: unreasonable searches or seaizures, and searches without warrants based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
All ignored by the government every single day of the week.
The lawlessness of an Eric Holder doesn’t surprise me a bit, since lawlessness is SOP for the entire government.
We’re not a nation ruled by law, but a nation ruled by expediency.
Dave,
I’ve pretty much given up on the federal government and believe that at this point a return to federalism is our only way out. A return to the primacy of the states as envisioned by the founders.
Read my commentary here: http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Obama wins again.
Mr. Adams,
Where in the Constitution des it say that the SCOTUS has the final word on constitutionality?
What if the TX legislature were to vote on the constitutionality of Section 5 and found it unconstitutional?
The Federal government is a construct of the states so it seems to me that they have as much right to determine constitutionality as SCOTUS. This is the essence of federalism.
Read my commentary on the subject.
http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Well, I’m not going get into a discussion that was largely settled in 1803 and 1865. But the reality is that the SCOTUS is going to rule on the Constitutionality of Section 5 in the next few years. And all those people who say they will stay home or go third party in November better not be one of the people incensed about the Voter ID and Section 5 issue, because this is one area where who is in the white house matters. A Gingrich DOJ would not have made this objection today. It was all political in how they handled the mitigating factors in SC.
Well nothing will keep me home and anyone who does so is a fool.
I believe the secession question was settled but the constitutional jurisdiction of the states is a separate issue. As far as I know the 10th Amendment hasn’t been repealed. At this point I think, and of course it’s just my opinion, that only the states are capable of neutering the federal government. The bureaucracies have been taken over by leftist weevils who will never be rooted out.
Well we can root them out, but that would take courage. Fire the whole lot of them! Explicitly declare the firings to be arbitrary. Tell them there’s nothing they can do about it, because the entire department is shut down.
Eric,
The 10th Amendment has not been repealed, but is effectively irrelevant.
Mr Adams,
Why would you suggest a Gingrich DOJ would rule any differently, without ignoring the law? Based on what I understand of Section 5 from your piece here, AG Holder had little choice but to object. “Any” means “any”, end of story. I can’t really see the SCOTUS ruling Section 5 unconstitutional, either, considering previous rulings that have surprised and disappointed Conservatives and Libertarians alike. Scalia and Thomas might, and maybe Alito, but that is all.
A Gingrich DOJ would have viewed the mitigating evidence, most likely, differently. If you read the objection letter, the Obama DOJ essentially dismissed all mitigating efforts entirely. In the Georgia Voter ID review, the Bush DOJ took that evidence very seriously, efforts to make ID’s available to everyone. This is the weak point of the objection, the part that a court may view things differently than Eric Holder.
Regarding the Court count, suggest you go read Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder. The majority of the court indeed said Section 5 was on shaky ground, but ruled on another issue first. It suggested Congress fix the defect. Congress didn’t.
Thanks for your response, Mr Adams.
You note that the Court suggested that Congress fix the problems with Section 5, and I strongly suspect the Court will do so again – after all, it IS Congress who should deal with it, and I believe it IS Congress who should fix bad law and not wait for the Court to do their job for them.
James,
It is only irrelevant because we’ve allowed it to become so. It is still the law of the land and can therefore be revived if we elect the right people to state offices. The federal government won’t return power to the states and restore the proper balance of power, the states must seize it back. At this decisive point in our history no option should be left off the table.
Read Congressman Bishop’s (R-UT) comments on the subject. http://ipi.org/IPI/IPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullText/68195409CDE1E4B18625772800654353
A short note about the 10th Amendment. It is virtually irrelevant in this discussion. Why? Because Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was passed pursuant to Congressional enforcement powers under the 15th Amendment. The 15th Amendment expanded federal power to include power over the states to erradicate racial discrimination in voting. If for no other reason, the powers of the 15th curtail state powers under the 10th because it was ratified most recently. But as a matter of history, we all understand the bloody context that gave rise to the 15th. So the 10th amendment, with all due respect to Governor Haley’s comments in the New York Times, is not the magic bullet here.
P.S. thanks for the response Mr. Adams
So there are not three co-equal branches of the government. The SCOTUS is THE power in our nation. The 10th Amendment was what..a sop to Jefferson and Madison? Perhaps we need to start impeachment proceeding on our federal courts and the SCOTUS. Or an amendment to limit their time on the bench.
Can the Supreme Court initiate laws?
No.
Can the Supreme Court execute laws?
No.
How then is it “THE power”?
Can the Senate refuse to pass a law the House passes because enough Senators feel it is unconstitutional?
Yes.
Can the House refuse to pass a law the Senate passes because enough Congressmen feel it is unconstitutional?
Yes.
Can the President veto a bill the House and Senate both pass because he feels it is unconstitutional?
Yes.
Why is it that only when the Supreme Court decides a law is unconstitutional does it suddenly transform that body into “THE power”, rendering the other two branches of government irrelevent, but if Congressmen or Senators or the President feel a law is unconstitutional and refuse to sanction it they are merely doing what little they are allowed to do?
tricksey is at it again.
the commies are mobilizing to steal the elections. that’s what commies do. if we object and swords are drawn, that is what the little marx is waiting for, to declare martial law, and never have another free election.
there is no doubt that $$$ is being (illegally) fed to acorn and others to subjugate us all, via our own taxe$, no doubt.
if we ever do get our country back, it will be imperative to remember how we almost lost it, who helped do what, and just what prison to put them in.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/
The court in crawford only held that voter ID is not per se unconstitutional. It was also a case brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act with very different legal standards than a Section 5 subsmission.
Thanks Cristian for the quick reply.
I’m not an attorney and don’t presume to know the law except for what I read. It sounds to me just a small technicality with the law that SC is trying to implement. If they (SC) bring their law into the requirements that the supreme court stipulated then (SC) would have passed the law regarding ID’s and it would pass muster in becoming law of this state.
Question: So now, does this go back to the supreme court for an understanding? or does DOJ Holder do the interpreting for the state that wants to implement their own laws for ID’s.
Maybe just a clear simple interpretation would do. If possible.
Maybe if there are many, or all the states that want to implement the ID law, it can become an amendment. I think there is a total state adoption for the amendment part.
I look at it this way, not being an attorney, that We The People are taken out of the loop. I consider myself above average in intelligence and have a good since of reason but this doesn’t sound reasonable. The State doesn’t have the right to make laws governing this mater, when the supreme court has ruled. Who is right?
You are an attorney and I’m sure that you specialize in a certain type of law. It is imposable for even you to know every law. I just recently went to the Law library to do some research for a law suit. The volumes of case study is HUGE, and the referencing after referencing of laws and case studies was over whelming. I know Attorney’s make mistakes all the time with their arguments so who is right DOJ Eric Holder or South Carolina? will it go back to the supreme Court for interpretation or to an appellate court for theirs?
I can’t imagine that the administration doesn’t think that they are at risk of loosing the election next year. Are they just thinking win the battles one at a time regardless of what the people think. It is known by most Polls that this administration isn’t doing well and is not healthy.
What do you think?
Just me
I would just like to add:
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is article 15 and is very simple and easy to understand which was my point in the previous reply. Is Congress the solution and not Eric Holder to enforce this law?
Congress passed a law that gives Nike Katzenbach/John Mithchell/Ed Meese/Dick Thornburg/Janet Reno/John Ashcroft/Eric Holder etc the power to enforce it under Section 2.
The SC law is dead. Holder objected. Dead. No appeal.
The only course of action is for SC to file in USDC DC for preclearance, something that could have been done 6 months ago.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 5 is constitiutional.
S’cuse me Attorney Dipshit General Eric Holder, but where do you get off not upholding the law? And you’re supposed to be the Attorney General? (Spit!)
This is a trend I have been observing for a long time: Persons in authoritative positions prefer advancing their careers (or ideology) to doing their duty! Think about Nifong and the fake soccer player rape case!
Nothing is too good for them.
Charlie (thinks the stake isn’t too good for them)
Mr. Adams, thanks for everything you do and particularly for your efforts in Texas.
From a fifth generation Texan.
Thank you sir. So nice not to be accused of being the “tool of the oppressor!” (See the posting, somewhere around here.)
I would also like to say thank you for participating in the conversation. Not every writer does, and your comments are helpful and generally elucidating. Not being an attorney myself, your on-going input in the conversation helps to keep things clearer for me.
I work in the midst of the federal establishment (State Department, career diplomat), and know the similar frustrations you must have felt at DOJ.
I found interesting your comment about a “Gingrich administration” responding differently in this context. I’m sure that would apply to most of the other Republican candidates, as well. I would be curious about your thoughts along this line regarding a Romney administration.
Great question. I’m pretty sure a Bachmann and Santorum and maybe a Perry administration would have acted as I predicted the Gingrich adminstration would have. Ron Paul has problems acknowledging the legitimacy of the congressional legislation enacted pursuant to the 14th and 15th Amendments – and for that reason I think he is hypocritical when he talks about there needing to be a Constitutional basis for federal legisaltion. In the case of these amendments and the Voting Rights Act and other laws he opposes, there IS, but he ignores it. For that reason, and the reason there will never be a Paul administration, I won’t address him. Romney, of course, is who you really want to know about. I’ll just say this. I address this in the last chapter of my book. Note that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) is largely responsible for the change in law in 2006 that gave rise to this objection in South Carolina. Bush signed it and his administration supported it. I address how to deal with this in 2013 in the last chapter of Injustice.
It is good to see I am not the only foreign service officer that reads the articles and analysis by Christian. It is publically and painfully clear our DOJ really has some rot right now, and the president seems to be willfully ignoring it.
I also have felt frustrations with my career in DOS, as I often feel a square peg in a round hole within the Fed Gov/DOS culture. I actually lobbied AFSA against the OCP upgrades, as I felt it exactly the wrong thing to do in these times of huge deficit, which was growing at exponential rates from our elected Keynesians. Yes, OCP is just a drop in the bucket overall, but the blatant entitlement mentality we wallow in within the DOS is maddening to me.
Of course my emails to AFSA went unanswered. I guess there are opinions the association do not want to hear.
Christian, one favor please? I enjoy your educated input at PJ immensely, but can you back off of touting your book so much? It detracts from the message (in my humble opinion).
Sorry. I can’t back off touting the book. Two reasons. The book decodes all of these issue for people who care to read more. And secondly, my publisher won’t let me. Here is the link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596982772/pajamasmedia-20
What the Left seeks to get away with, they will first relentlessly accuse their enemies of it. Eventually they create a stench of suspicion regardless of whether any wrongdoing actually happened.
That way, when they finally get caught at it, they just wave their hands and declare “They did it first, and everyone’s doing it now anyway” and the ever more cynical and weary population just react numbly, if at all.
Al Gore opened that door in 2000, and what was once fringe conspiracy theory became mainstream cynicism among rank-and-file Democrats. The next step is to make it fact.
Democracy was the first Leftist subterfuge in America; they worked to substitute it for the limited-government principle of the Founders. It is by means of this substitution that the Left first works to expand government in “popular” ways, such as throwing shackle after shackle upon “greedy” private enterprise, until the entire country is forever “running late” with economic friction in the form of regulatory strangulation creating the “new normal” of high unemployment and stagnation.
Now that “democracy” is a long-established mainstream buzzword and actual “liberty” (i.e. capitalism) largely unknown except to a few on the fringe, the Left is readying us for the next step — to undercut democracy at its core, by mainstreaming doubt about the integrity of the voting process itself.
They don’t want to “steal the elections” — they want you and everyone to lose confidence in elections as such. It’s the same as they are doing to the media: they don’t want to control it, they want YOU to stop trusting it. A functional media is the eyes and ears of a free society; if you can’t trust it, you are blind to all but local events because that’s all that you’ll be able to verify as real.
They seek to wear you down, to destroy your ability to trust anyone or anything, reduce you to cynicism so thick that you’ll see the rise of the Dear Leader as a relief, finally someone to make the damn trains run on time and stop the chaos of all that broken glass.
Yes, this is a rerun.
They’re trying to steal the election.
This voter ID requirement doesn’t seem inherently racist. That majority of non citizens without a valid photo ID, Social security cards, and other legal documents are “minorities” is reality. They would prevented from voting by the virtue of their decisions, not race.
If you cut sports programs in programs, blacks would stand to lose the most. But it doesn’t mean such measures is racist.
But apparently (if I understand Mr. Adams correctly) it’s possible for the DOJ to block laws that merely appears to be “discriminatory”?
Suggest a healthy read of the comments, and all the stuff I’ve written about it at PJM, but yes, the law says if the state fails to prove there is no “discriminatory effect” then DOJ can object. “Racism” has essentially nothing to do with the inquiry. Nor does the inquiry have anything to do with “noncitizens.” It is all focused on citizens.
“Moral neutrality or passive acceptance isn’t going to cut it anymore.” – David Cameron (England).
Holder should have been ousted a long time ago … Obama’s criminal connections and lawlessness should be front and center … but there ya go; we have allowed these bozos to go unchecked and unchallenged and we get more of the same ‘ol DC corruption, but in real time. This attempt to steal our future has to be stopped in its tracks …. … Calling all warriors!!
I live in S.C. and some agency(forget which) was actually giving them rides to obtain these IDs, but the liberals were still crying.
If having to show ID constitutes a denial of civil rights, what aboout having to show ID, proof of income, residency,etc. to obtain needed government assistance.
Someone should force Holder to produce some real life examples of qualified voters who are being prevented from voting by ID requirements.
“It is precisely the sort of dissembling crap exemplified by this action of the DOJ that should cause every patriot to rise up, grab the musket, and rush to Lexington.”
Unfortunately, I am coming to the conclusion that this may be the only lasting solution. “The system” no longer works.
Nonsense. Elections have consequences, particularly the one in 10 months.
“Nonsense. Elections have consequences, particularly the one in 10 months.”
While I agree wholeheartedly and fervently believe one of the most patriotic thing a citizen of this great nation can do is to vote, I think the underlying reaction to your bold (and blessed) truths is the deep concern that all of the conservative effort is simply going to be a moot point in 10 months. All signs are pointing to the use of blatant massive voter fraud as the final nail in the coffin to tip the percentage of tax takers to tax payers over the magic 50% point and thereby give the progressives their much-anticipated banana republic.
Have you signed up with truethevote.org? That’s one answer to the concern.
So is being in close contact with our SOS to encourage their continued conservative stance about such matters. (An election that was won in spite of facing a Soros-funded candidate in one of the blue cesspools in the Midwest, btw.)
I think the states should ignore the DOJ and enforce their own state laws in reference to the elections in their own states. Tenth Amendment Rights–use ‘em or lose ‘em.
See previous discussion about 10th Amendment. Some powers granted by the 10th were curtailed by the 15th.
Unfortunately, Mr. Adams, the GOP re-upped the sections of the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, not to long ago. Really serving the interests and liberty of the states that the GOP rides to power.
With representatives like that, who needs enemies.
I’m pretty sure I cover that in the article, right? Didn’t I link to the roll call vote? The chief GOP advocate of the reauthorization, especially the new standards, was Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconisn when he chaired Judiciary.
Thanks for the clarification, I commented before reading your article.
I will be picking up your book, and will request that our library system also acquires it.
I am so glad that you are writing for PJ Media, and have spoken out on these issues.
The GOP is really is a pathetic institution. Let’s hope the Tea Party can lurch it in an effective direction.
I’ve read the comments of posters here, and the responses of Mr. Adams, with a mixture of interest and disgust. While we find the DOJ’s action shocking, Mr. Adams has deftly pointed out that the tenuously shaded nuances of the law appear to be on Holder’s side.
We seem to have forgotten that justice is not begotten of the law. And Holder’s actions, while arguably lawful, are inarguably unjust! To a just people, justice and injustice are easily discerned. But an unjust people requires the law to protect and enforce justice (not create it!) and it takes skillful and highly trained lawyers to twist the plain law into injustice.
When does the revolution begin?
“…it takes skillful and highly trained lawyers to twist the plain law into injustice.”
Actually, “skilled” bureaucrats do pretty well too! And it takes equally skilled lawyers to write and defend law to keep it from working injustice.
“And it takes equally skilled lawyers to write and defend law to keep it from working injustice.”
Very true – and thank God for those good men like Mr. Adams. I’m afraid I’ve come to hold a very cynical view of our legislators and lawyers.
This is strange I wen to the store this afternoon and purchased a few beers and was asked for my ID (a photo ID) which I have five of including a carry permit after going to the gun range and shooting 150 rounds of 9mm 115 grain and 50 rounds of 124 grain ammunition through my favorite pistol with no questions asked, what is the big deal here?
I can shoot my weapons or rent them but then I must produce my license if I rent one to ensure I return the weapon after use but if I look too young to a clerk I must present an ID to buy a pack of cigarettes or knife or a pack of beer?
But if I want to vote then asking me for an ID is wrong? No it is a requirement and should stand just as all other ID validation requirements such as boarding an aircraft or any number of everyday matters, it’s purpose is to stop voter fraud, and both you and I know it as well as the Democrats which is all the more reason to vote against them at any opportunity!
“WE CARD—IT’S THE LAW”
And who exactly are those people that don’t have a photo ID in today’s world.
And how is asking all people to prove their identity with photo ID racist?
Only in the liberal world, is asking all people to conform to the same standard racist.
Get Holder out, and there should be enough with Fast and Furious and voter intimidations that he omits.
It is only a racist that can say with a straight face that racism can’t be anything except white on black.
That gives free rein for blacks to keep calling anything they don’t like racist, such as Holder telling people that disagree with him or Obozo, our clown in chief, that an honest disagreement on policy is racist.
Conservatives don’t buy it, only liberal useful idiots and the lame stream lap dog media believe it.
Barry – sounds like you need to read my book Injustice.
Holder is picking and choosing states that are flush with radical judges, plain and simple. Everyone has to prove they are who they say they are before voting. Holder and the Democrats are using the minorities and poor as their excuse for fighting the id cards. 2012 elections will determine the course of our nation for a long time, and the elections will be watched very closely. Voter fraud is a felony and requires prison time, folks.
Well, if it’s possible violation of civil rights to require photo ID to vote, then it should be a violation of civil rights to require photo Id to drive a car, board a plane, a train, a tramp steamer to bum fu–Egypt. If the five dollars to get a state ID card is too much of a burden for people on food stamps hanging out at the local stop and rob, then the State Department should be handing out expensive passports like candy to every Bevis and Butthead and Trixie the trailer trash so they can tour the sights in the city of the dead and cruise the Nile.
In his last Afterburner of 2011, Bill Whittle takes a look at the state of this country three years into Obama’s rule and has amassed a list of breathtaking failures bound to stun and/or depress champions of smaller government. Solyndra, Fast Furious, the Keystone Pipeline and the deficit are just a handful of the scandals that make Bill’s blood boil. So what do we need to do in 2012 to counteract Obama’s policies? Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWmsoAP-HoE
I noticed that Mr Adams did not address the issue of id requirements in order to purchase a firearm. This is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Why would it be different?
I don’t know the 2nd amendments as well. But I suspect it relates to levels of scrutiny and the power of the state to ensure felons don’t obtain. Your arguement is more likely to justify voter ID than it is to justify removing id requirements for firearms.
It’s different because Obama, Holder, etc. don’t want conservative Americans to own firearms but they Dem sure do want liberals to freely engage in voter fraud. Selective adherence to the Constitution and selective enforcement of laws, i.e. a lawless nation with no Constitution. Unlawful ignoring of States’ rights. We’re there.
The Texas State Attorney Generals office needs to issue a warrant for the arrest of Eric Holder for conspiracy to commit premeditated capitol murder and obstruction of justice.
The other morning on the local radio show a NYC councilwoman decried asking people going into a shelter for ID saying most of the people applying for shelter did not have photo ID because they didn’t drive. But if they are receiving any type of public assistance they already have ID.
When my daughter was going to look at colleges she need to fly and needed ID. She was over 17 and did not drive we took her info to motor vehicle and they gave her a photo ID.
Having ID just guarantees one man one vote.
Holders actions on anything seem to be his attempt to prevent America from taking charge of itself. He is against any state that tries to contain their costs imposed by illegal aliens. He is also against any state that is trying to insure that voting is on the up-an-up. He is doing the bidding of our Marxist president.