Constitutional Rights Open Thread

If requiring an ID to vote is a violation of someone’s right to vote, then requiring a background check is a violation of someone’s right to bear arms.

Discuss.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Constitutional Rights Open Thread

  1. neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 7:39 am

    Mark
    the two are not the same thing, ID is just that personal identification, and can not be denied to any one once it is proven who you actually are.
    A background check is an invasive government inquiry about you, your attitudes, friends. family, life’s history and can result with your second amendment being denied you. ( which to me is impossible as long as you are a citizen.)
    We have been in the warm water with the heat being turned up a degree at a time and now we are about to be boiled by these lying leftists.

    • M. Noonan August 15, 2013 / 1:28 pm

      What we have to get as a test case is a black man living in a high crime neighborhood who attempts to legally purchase a weapon – given outright bans in some areas and high fees and bureaucratic hurdles in others, I think that a “disparate impact” case can easily be made – that gun control laws are racist in nature because they tend to have an outsized impact on minority communities. Background checks, in a sense, are racist.

  2. neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 7:40 am

    PS
    DD roadblocks are unconstitutional as well.

  3. neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 7:41 am

    PPS
    I presented a check to a cashier yesterday for items purchased and HAD to produce a PICTURE ID.

  4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) August 15, 2013 / 10:41 am

    Objections to requiring an ID to vote is a complete red herring. A valid ID is required for receiving welfare, cashing a check, receiving social security or SS disability, renting a movie, you name it. If there are those who don’t do ANY of those things who still want to vote, let them step forward and explain how they can exist without valid identification.

    • percybeezer August 15, 2013 / 2:01 pm

      My very own Oma (Grandmother) lives her life in my brother’s guestroom without any government issued identification cards or troubles, the liqueur store clerk never asks for her photo ID to purchase her Ten High every Sunday, she uses the Bank Debit Card to pay.

      Her Social Security checks are deposited into her bank account which supplies her with her bourbon money. The account was opened by my late Opa many years ago.

      She once had a driver’s license, but after turning 70 she gave it up.

      Oh, and she votes in every election whether she knows who or what she’s voting for or not.

      -Percy Beaser

      • Amazona August 15, 2013 / 2:27 pm

        Yeah, and if she had to have an ID to vote and still wanted to vote, she could have that old license reissued with little or no delay. It’s a choice to not have an ID, if you are a citizen, and it’s irresponsible to let people without IDs vote.

      • neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 2:53 pm

        percy

        I throw the BS flag…..

      • neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 2:57 pm

        Oh, and she votes in every election whether she knows who or what she’s voting for or not.
        WOW and WHO takes her for this??? 70 yo and that addled? she shouldn’t vote EVER!!
        sounds like she has dementia or alzheimers and should not be 1000 ft from a voting booth.

      • percybeezer August 15, 2013 / 4:59 pm

        Really harsh neocon, Oma would never speak that way about you. She doesn’t have dementia, she suffers from CRS (Can’t Remember $hit!) She’s in her 90s, giver her a break!

        I’ve got a touch CRS myself.

        Oma would gladly have one of us drive her to get new ID if that were necessary for her.She can produce her birth certificate from Oklahoma and her Social Security card to get a State ID. My only point is that there are people that survive quite well thank you without government issued identification cards.

      • neocon01 August 16, 2013 / 7:57 am

        Percy
        Really harsh neocon, Oma would never speak that way about you. She doesn’t have dementia, she suffers from CRS (Can’t Remember $hit!) She’s in her 90s, giver her a break!
        My sincere APOLOGY!! the way I read it she was 70 yo….(2.5 years older than my self)…..My reply was based on that…..My BAD!!

      • percybeezer August 16, 2013 / 7:09 pm

        I see it; Oma gave up her driver’s license twenty-odd years ago when her eyesight began to fail her.

        It was also about the time the grand-kids wanted her to chauffeur them to the movies, the mall, the park etc.

        A Coincidence I’m sure.

  5. Amazona August 15, 2013 / 2:25 pm

    I don’t believe that any but the most gullible of the lemmings actually believes there is a malignant motive for requiring ID to vote. But the leaders of the Left understand that this is another of the emotion-driven ISSUES they can use to generate suspicion, distrust, and paranoia, and discredit the Right.

    Just look at the crap the Left has gotten away with, such as their complaints about not having enough translators in polling places. A foreigner whose parents were going through their citizenship process asked me why translators would be necessary when you are either a native born citizen (presumably speaking English) or have to pass an English proficiency exam to become a citizen, and you have to be a citizen to vote. All I could say is that people from other countries obviously have a better understanding of our laws than we do.

    If the Left is really so worried about a few people not having IDs, they can spend their money paying to have these people taken to the proper agencies to get IDs issued. It would be more productive and would cost less than their lawsuits, etc.

    • neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 2:59 pm

      I don’t believe that any but the most gullible of the lemmings actually believes there is a malignant motive for requiring ID to vote

      seems to be @ 47% of the population…… could there be a correlation between who pays…..? nah couldnt be.

  6. j6206 August 15, 2013 / 4:42 pm

    I have nothing against voter ID as long as indigent people can get one for free. But what I can’t understand is why the rush to limit early voting and voting on weekends as has been done in some states particularly FL and now NC. Can someone explain to me why this is necessary?

    • neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 4:52 pm

      I have nothing against voter ID as long as indigent people can get one for free.
      WHY?? do you buy the “indigent” drugs? beer? cigarettes? clothes? why then should I have to pay anything for them?? UNLESS I CHOOSE to do so through charity.

      If you are THAT poor then what are you voting for??

      • percybeezer August 15, 2013 / 6:23 pm

        “If you are THAT poor then what are you voting for??”

        A Bigger share of OPM? They don’t want to be poor forever.

    • M. Noonan August 16, 2013 / 11:46 am

      j6206,

      My general gripe against early voting is that it does open up more opportunities for fraud and, also, it indicates a lazy indifference to voting. And election day is an election day – its not like they sneak up on you and go “boo!”, its time to vote. Now, I’d move our voting to the first Saturday in November instead of the first Tuesday, but, still, if you can’t get off your duff to vote on election day, then maybe you shouldn’t be voting? The only people who should be allowed to vote absentee are active duty service members.

      • dcobranchi August 16, 2013 / 4:13 pm

        We work 12 hour shifts at my plant: 6:30 – 6:30. 24/7. The folks assigned to days on Election Day would not have the opportunity to vote were it not for early/absentee voting.

      • percybeezer August 16, 2013 / 5:37 pm

        That’s interesting; employer mandated “Time Off to Vote” is state law in 31 States. Which state are you in? And why doesn’t your State have such a law?

      • neocon01 August 17, 2013 / 11:53 am

        percy

        you caught the troll flat footed

  7. neocon01 August 15, 2013 / 4:48 pm

    I’ll ask you why after 200 years of same day voting do we now have to change the rules??
    Ill tell you why, so they have time to round up bums, mentally handicapped, clueless people, handicapped etc etc etc …register them, and vote for them….
    it is a form of cheating.

    • j6206 August 15, 2013 / 5:09 pm

      I am sure you would like voting laws to go back 200 years. You answered my question exactly how I expected. The only reason they limit early voting is because people who take advantage of early voting generally do not vote for you candidates. You need to win elections by appealing to more people not limiting who votes.

      • percybeezer August 15, 2013 / 6:21 pm

        “people who take advantage of early voting generally do not vote for you candidates.”

        Generally?

        It has only been in the last two presidential elections that more democrats than republicans voted early and only by a smaller percentage than the general public’s’ voting trend.

        In fact, as recent as 2010 the early voting by Republicans outpaced their State-by-State representation significantly. And the numbers from 2004 and 2006 are not dissimilar.

        Percy Beaser

      • Amazona August 15, 2013 / 7:16 pm

        Remember, Percy, js is a knee-jerk Lib who only regurgitates Lefty talking points.

        Voting was, traditionally, a community involvement kind of thing, one where you saw your friends and neighbors at the polling places, where you joined with them in participating in the most important process of citizenship. It conveyed with it a sense of importance of the action, a message that you were doing something significant.

        Mail in ballots not only make voting no more significant than paying a phone bill, not to mention making it easier to engage in voter fraud. Early voting makes late discoveries about a candidate irrelevant—so what if the Prez makes a serious blunder two weeks before the election, if you have already cast your ballot for him? I don’t understand defending a system that encourages people to vote without complete information.

    • percybeezer August 15, 2013 / 6:01 pm

      I think I believe that opening voting to multiple days will involve more citizens to vote. the more the better.

      Personally, I would insist that a quorum of 50% +1 be required for any federally held position; President-Vice President, Senator of Representative. If only 35% of the eligible registered voters decide it’s worth their time, then another election is scheduled. Hit the taxpayers up for a few multiple elections and they’ll get off their lazy a$$e$ and Vote!

      Percy Beaser

      • Bob1 August 15, 2013 / 11:13 pm

        Percy, How would you feel if only 51% of the organs in your body were functioning as they should? I don’t think that you would be satisfied by 51% of the conditions in your life being good. Why should we be satisfied with this poor standard of approval for our elected officials and their legislative processes? This is not an acceptable standard for any jury verdic, except that of the supreme court. Too much of the serious business of this country is conducted in accord with this poor standard for effectiveness.

  8. j6206 August 15, 2013 / 9:33 pm

    Amazona that is a quaint picture of small town voting, but now most people live in cities and suburbs and don’t really know their neighbors and still want to exercise their franchise. They take it just as seriously as those people in small towns who know their fellow voters. In many cases people can’t take a tuesday off to vote especially when they have to wait in line for hours to vote as some did in FL. Having extra days, particularly weekend days, for legal ID bearing voters to vote just makes sense.

    • neocon01 August 16, 2013 / 8:05 am

      j1360

      BS flag…….VOTING DISTRICTS = neighborhoods…..I see MANY of my neighbors when I and my surrounding community vote.
      and distant police sirens and dogs barking mean NOTHING to me…why does it to some??
      now a big NBBP with a billy and combat regalia? he may get tra von”ed.

    • neocon01 August 16, 2013 / 8:10 am

      In many cases people can’t take a tuesday off to vote especially when they have to wait in line for hours to vote as some did in FL.

      wait in line for hours??
      yes in a FEW DONK DISTRICTS where derelicts were bussed in off the streets, whole bars transported, and nursing homes emptied of zombified elderley who thought they were on a field trip, and the pole “watchers” Assisted” them pulling the lever…..SCAM, and rampant FRAUD.Plain and simple.

      • neocon01 August 16, 2013 / 8:16 am

        percy

        “A Bigger share of OPM? They don’t want to be poor forever.

        A *****BIGGER SHARE***** of **OPM** finally some one speaks the TRUTH!!

        Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

        Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

        When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.

    • Amazona August 16, 2013 / 10:46 am

      When I lived in Denver, a fairly large metropolis, I didn’t see most of my neighbors on a daily basis. No one sat on a front porch and chatted with Andy and Opie when they walked by. My district included some high-rise apartment buildings. But there was still a nice feeling, seeing the same volunteers checking my ID every time, chatting with people I recognized but did not really know, etc.

      But hey, if you are suggesting opening polling places on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday in high-population areas, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. It is mail-in ballots for everyone and really early voting that I object to.

      And if we are talking about some voter reform, I have a couple of ideas. One is that we make it the highest priority to assure that our military have the opportunity to vote and that their votes be counted. Another is along the same lines—that we count every vote. Now, if someone declares a statistical probability that the uncounted absentee ballots will not change the outcome, they are simply not counted.

      The integrity of our voting system depends on a few simple criteria:

      1. Only citizens who are alive and mentally competent enough to understand what they are doing and who can make decisions, can vote.
      2. Every vote has to clearly and unambiguously state the intent of the voter—no second party can interpret intent.
      3 Every properly executed ballot is counted
      4. Every possible precaution to eliminate voter fraud is taken
      5. Voter fraud is severely punished

      And what I find interesting is that objections to voting reform tend to focus on weakening at least one of these criteria.

      • percybeezer August 16, 2013 / 12:48 pm

        1. Only citizens who are alive and mentally competent enough to understand what they are doing and who can make decisions, can vote.

        Kinda like a Poll Tax for the brain? And what is “competent enough”? And who decides? The Poll Workers where I live would deem me a heretic if I were to challenge anthropogenic global warming. No Soup for YOU!

        2. Every vote has to clearly and unambiguously state the intent of the voter—no second party can interpret intent.

        That would put the kibosh to a manual re-count wouldn’t it?
        Under certain conditions the loser (sorry, politically incorrect) second place finisher (Yea! —He FINISHED – give him a medal) has the right to challenge the results of an election and ask for an independent examiner to recount the votes. Simple human nature dictates that the examiner is going to try to divine the intent of an ambiguous ballot.

        Where I vote they use huge paper ballots, the voter uses a black pen to connect both sides of an arrow pointing to the candidate or measure of choice. If the voter draws two lines, or the line doesn’t connect to one side of the arrow the vote won’t be counted by the machine requiring a human to look at it and say, “Oh, what a jerk, he can’t draw a one-inch line for squat. This vote counts.”

        3 Every properly executed ballot is counted

        Gimme a break! How many court cases have we been through over ballots from servicemen and women overseas without a “Properly Postmarked Date” on the envelope? And how many bags of ballots suddenly found in automobile trunks might actually be real honest to Buddha ballots that someone actually honest to Buddha forgot to turn in? *More on this at the end.

        4. Every possible precaution to eliminate voter fraud is taken
        5. Voter fraud is severely punished

        That should read “Every reasonable precaution …” There will be fraud, you can’t stop it; the dishonest are more motivated than the honest to ply their craft. Prosecute the offenders, let society send the message that we won’t tolerate anyone who seeks to derail our rights granted by the Lord Almighty and Our Constitution! But, this means we won’t tolerate anyone that tries to subvert our Rights; regardless of political party or how much of a hound-dog he might be.

        This government and this system is messy. Every Democracy failed, every Republic faced almost insurmountable challenges. But this Republic has succeeded so far because we value the voice of the people-while not giving in to the will of the mob.

        Our vote is our voice; we speak at the ballot-box, then stay informed and engaged while our representatives go about deciding what’s best for our country and our business. We try our best to properly execute our means to our voice but it isn’t easy, it isn’t absolute and it isn’t always what we thought it was going to be. It’s still the best possible method crafted from the mind of man.

      • Amazona August 17, 2013 / 10:27 am

        Counting is not the same thing as interpreting. Surely you remember the theatrics of people holding Florida ballots up to the light to see if there might have been a slight indentation somewhere on the ballot that might have been a hint that the voter might have considered marking it there.

        Nope.

        I suggest that there is a big sign over every voting machine, booth, table or whatever, that states in big capital letters that it is the responsibility of the voter to make his intent clear and that if his ballot is not properly executed it will be discarded.

        “Simple human nature dictates that the examiner is going to try to divine the intent of an ambiguous ballot. ” Which is precisely why process is so essential. Process mitigates the impact of “simple human nature” by applying the same standards to something and not allowing individual bias to intervene. Process does not guarantee a great outcome—the 18th Amendment was passed by due process, and it was a mistake—but it does provide a mechanism to limit the amount and degree of personal or individual action.

        So the process here would be to have a rule that if a ballot is “ambiguous” it is not interpreted, it is discarded.

        “And what is “competent enough”? ”

        Well, if someone is not competent enough to understand that he can only vote for one person for an office, and that if he marks more than one spot he has to ask for a replacement ballot, he is not competent enough to have his ballot counted. If he cannot answer the question “Who are the people running for office?” he is not competent enough. If he is tied into a chair, wearing diapers, and does not recognize his children, he is not competent enough to have a ballot cast in his name because it was filled out, along with others, by the head nurse. The competency issue is most often seen in nursing homes, where residents don’t even realize they have ballots sent to them, and whose votes are cast by a third party. The occasional wino who staggers into a polling place and announces that he is there to vote for the guy with the most letters in his name is not much of a threat to our system, but the ability for people to accumulate thousands of votes allegedly cast by people who are institutionalized and mentally incompetent is.

        Clearly, this criterion could not extend to people who vote based on skin color, religion, or “issues”, as great a threat as they pose to the system. This kind of incompetence could not be considered a disqualifier. We just have to live with them and try to educate the educable.

      • percybeezer August 19, 2013 / 5:33 pm

        Amazona,

        “Process” is neither human nor mechanical, meaning it can be absolute in intent and deeply flawed in execution. Without an appeal process which involves messy humans with all their messy emotions and opinions we are subject to the person or persons controlling the “process”.

        As messy as Florida was with hanging chads, pregnant chads, deadbeat chads, chads & jeremys etc. it was still better than blindly accepting any ballot counted by machine as being beyond question.

        Mentally competent is an issue for me; as you know when a lawyer has a client that is fighting conservatorship the lawyer must ask the client if the client wishes for the conservatorship to happen. If the client is able to respond “no” or indicate that (write it down or shake their head) the lawyer is obligated to accept that the client is able to coherently express their wish which is protected by law. If that is the threshold so something as significant as a person’s property and control over their own body, any type of competency test beyond that, such as in “do you know the names of the people running for office?” would not pass constitutional muster.

        So we are left with the truly incapacitated; if they are under another’s care (conservatorship) the conservator does not have the legal right to vote for them; that’s already unlawful. Ditto nurses and caretakers in facilities. Elections boards are charged with verifying voter rolls; they randomly check person’s names and addresses. when they find a case like the one that sent the poll worker to prison they report it and the offenders (nurses caretakers etc) should be prosecuted. This is the voter fraud the liberal say never happens.

      • percybeezer August 19, 2013 / 7:00 pm

        Sorry, i forgot one;
        “I suggest that there is a big sign over every voting machine, booth, table or whatever, that states in big capital letters that it is the responsibility of the voter to make his intent clear and that if his ballot is not properly executed it will be discarded.”

        No postmark on ballots sent from an APO. Arrived after the cutoff from a war zone. Ballots damaged by salt water from a battleship.

        Even the best laid schemes o’ mice and men sometimes gang aft agley.

      • Amazona August 19, 2013 / 9:36 pm

        Percy, the things you mention regarding military ballots are all easily dealt with. If there is any group whose ballots should be considered it is the military, and those ballots ought to be given every possible leeway, regarding when they are delivered, etc.

        Now if a box of ballots arrives late, and is waterdamaged, and then upon examination the person has not executed the ballot property, THEN the ballot should be discarded. But if the problem is not only not the fault of the voter but is directly related to the fact that the voter is personally off serving his or her country, then every effort should be expended to make sure that his or her vote is counted.

        As for being able to say “no” to a conservatorship, I could not disagree more. It is quite common for people who simply cannot be on their own, who suffer from dementia or have other problems, to resent the fact that their situations have changed, to want to cling to the old times when they were capable of making decisions, etc. My late stepfather-in-law was dying of emphysema, would pass or nearly lose consciousness without exertion, but still thought he was capable of driving, and smoked in a room full of oxygen bottles while taking oxygen. Just because he was capable of saying he wanted to do these things did not mean he was not putting himself and others at risk.

        A vote is serious business and should be restricted to people who, at the very least, have a level of understanding that they want to vote a party line even if they do not know who is on the ballot. But to say that being able to shake ones’ head when asked if he wants to give up his sense of independence and allow someone else to take over his life is adequate comprehension to vote for the leader of the country is simply something with which I cannot agree.

        I never said that any vote counted by a machine should be considered above questioning—please do not rico me. But when people have to gather together to compare opinions on a ballot, and a decision is made because there is a tiny shadow that might indicate a slight indentation which might indicate a consideration of a vote which was then never actually fully marked, that is not a properly executed ballot. And it is not that hard to figure out. If you can’t tell within a few seconds what the intent was, the intent is not clear enough to be counted.

        Voting is also a responsibility, and every voter has the responsibility to make sure his or her intent is clear, unambiguous, and definite.

      • percybeezer August 20, 2013 / 6:11 pm

        Amazona,
        Every vote must be given the same deference; a water-soaked ballot from an aircraft carrier in the south China sea or a water soaked bag delivered during a torrential downpour, or in the bottom of a canoe delivered from a remote island in the Great Lakes has to be considered a citizen’s vote, and must be counted equally.

        One person, one vote, one counts the same as another. Seriously, would the soldier, sailor, or airman want his vote to be of more value than yours?

        Let me answer that conservatorship question from a point of expertise; if a person can say, write, sign or indicate “No” when asked by a legal counsel, that person is afforded the protection of due process of law and then the state must prove by compelling interest that the individual’s rights to person and property should be/will be terminated.

        A court of law must decide the fate of the conservatee, a test of any kind is not sufficient to short circuit the individual’s rights, and voting is a right. Your father-in-law was being protected from irrational actions; harm could come to him and others were he not. No one is ever in eminent physical danger from a vote. And please don’t go off on an esoteric tangent about being governed by idiots elected by idiots. Your voting right can be terminated only in the same way your right to own property can be terminated; by your own decision or by a court of law.

        As you know my “friend’s” wife has many clients who should have someone looking after them ~ in her opinion ~, but as their attorney it’s her legal obligation is to represent to the best of her ability her client’s wishes. The loss of one’s freedom and property are far more serious than making a stupid decision at the ballot box; my own sweet mother voted for Bill Clinton twice because the Republican candidate was going to take away her Social Security.

        A machine is the only method of counting votes that won’t involve human discretion. A “few seconds” means there is doubt, any doubt must be resolved before the vote is counted, the only way to remove all doubt is to not allow human eyes to see the ballot. rico should be so clever!

        I see the question remains unanswered; who decides what is competent when it comes to a vote? what is the recourse should some government bureaucrat decide my constant talking to myself constitutes an incompetent voter? Is there a possibility that using any type of competency test might be abused to prevent the right every American has in a voice?

  9. Amazona August 16, 2013 / 1:08 pm

    Referring to a move to have Congress examine and perhaps change some laws, Charles Krauthammer says: (emphasis mine)

    ” Traditionally — meaning before Barack Obama — that’s how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement, which is ratified by Congress and signed by the president.
    That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder, a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence — e.g., about the amount of dope involved.

    In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. “If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases” did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, “they could be charged with a felony.”

    But such niceties must not stand in the way of an administration’s agenda. Indeed, the very next day, it was revealed that the administration had unilaterally waived Obamacare’s cap on a patient’s annual out-of-pocket expenses — a one-year exemption for selected health insurers that is nowhere permitted in the law. It was simply decreed by an obscure Labor Department regulation.

    Which followed a presidentially directed 70-plus percent subsidy for the insurance premiums paid by congressmen and their personal staffs — under a law that denies subsidies for anyone that well-off.

    Which came just a month after the administration’s equally lawless suspension of one of the cornerstones of Obamacare: the employer mandate.

    Which followed hundreds of Obamacare waivers granted by Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius to selected businesses, unions, and other well-lobbied, very special interests.

    Nor is this kind of rule-by-decree restricted to health care. In 2012, the immigration service was ordered to cease proceedings against young illegal immigrants brought here as children. Congress had refused to pass such a law (the DREAM Act) just 18 months earlier. Obama himself had repeatedly said that the Constitution forbade him from enacting it without Congress. But with the fast approach of an election that could hinge on the Hispanic vote, Obama did exactly that. Unilaterally.

    The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health-care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients — an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996.

    The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend, and/or amend the law at will.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355932/barack-lawgiver-charles-krauthammer

    • Amazona August 16, 2013 / 1:16 pm

      Krauthammer does not even address this blatant admission of the intent to, as the Cabinet member admits, bypass Congress.

      The Washington Times reported: (emphasis mine)

      “BOULDER, Colo. | EPA chief Gina McCarthy said Wednesday that the Obama administration is finished waiting for Congress to act on climate change and plans to bypass the legislative branch in developing a federal response.

      Ms. McCarthy, who was confirmed last month as Environmental Protection Agency administrator, cited President Obama’s June 25 speech at Georgetown University, in which he unveiled his Climate Action Plan and vowed to make combatting climate change a priority of his second term.

      Mr. Obama gave “what I really think is a most remarkable speech by a president of the United States,” said Ms. McCarthy in remarks at the University of Colorado Boulder.”

      Well, Barry got a pass when he simply announced, by royal presidential edict that the EPA suddenly had unlimited powers to first define something as pollution and then to decide what to do about it. This is just the next logical step.

      “Essentially, he said that it is time to act,” she said. “And he said he wasn’t going to wait for Congress, but that he had administrative authorities and that it was time to start utilizing those more effectively and in a more concerted way.”

      She insisted that reducing greenhouse-gas emissions could be accomplished without harming economic growth, calling the tension between the two priorities a “false choice.”

      – See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/epa-chief-promises-to-bypass-congress-in-responding-to-global-warming/#sthash.vbCYroIM.dpuf

      • Amazona August 16, 2013 / 4:40 pm

        Thank you for pointing out that in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the President could unilaterally give nearly unfettered power and control to a government agency, allowing it to determine both the definition of pollution and ways to deal with it.

        I didn’t know that. (sarc off)

        Or are you saying that the Supreme Court, in 2007, gave the EPA the authority to bypass the legislative branch of government to make its own rules?

        Your link to the wiki site doesn’t make it clear just what you are claiming was “otherwise”.

        And, just curious, do you have something to say or are you just one of those lurkers who lie in wait for a chance to run out and put a stick through the spokes of whoever is actually out there participating?

        For example, you seem to be supporting early voting, after I already said I have no problem with extending voting hours and days to some extent but that my problem is with mail in voting. Are you aware of the fact that people have always been able to request absentee ballots if they have a good reason for needing them? Are you confusing this with the general anyone-can-vote-by-mail issue I am addressing? Are you claiming that explaining the inability to get away from work to vote would not be considered a valid reason for needing an absentee ballot?

        Are your posts supposed to be relevant to something?

      • Amazona August 16, 2013 / 4:43 pm

        I guess you are impressed that a 3-judge panel “……… unanimously upheld the EPA’s central finding that GHG such as carbon dioxide endanger public health and were likely responsible for the global warming experienced over the past half century.”

        Gee, unelected political appointees expanding the role of a government agency and also arriving at scientific conclusions. What’s not for a Lib to love?

      • tiredoflibbs August 16, 2013 / 5:18 pm

        “The SCOTUS says otherwise:”

        So what forker?

        The SCOTUS made bad decisions before….
        ….slavery comes to mind.

        Bad decisions…… Not to mention exceeding their authority by legislating from the bench.

  10. 02casper August 16, 2013 / 11:12 pm

    Many of you want to limit voting to those that have “skin in the game”, meaning those who pay federal taxes. Personally, I believe we all have “skin in the game”. Government isn’t just about taxes, it’s about air quality, fighting wars, education, etc. The decisions made by our leaders affect all of us. Voting is about the only act where all of us are equal. We should be doing everything we can to make sure everyone votes.

    • Amazona August 17, 2013 / 10:10 am

      “We should be doing everything we can to make sure everyone votes.”

      Why?

      What is the value of sheer numbers?

      I suggest that we should do everything we can to make sure that everyone who WANTS to vote, WHO IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO VOTE, who is capable of making his or her own decision on how to vote and not merely doing what someone else is telling him or her to do, is not only allowed to vote, encouraged to vote, but also has his or her vote protected by making sure than no one else steals it, or has it canceled out with an illegal vote.

      If you value your vote, then you should want to be confident that it will not be canceled out by someone who has voted several other times, or by someone who is not legally allowed to vote. You should want to know that when you go to the polling place to cast that valuable vote, no one has gotten there ahead of you and cast a vote in your name, because he was not required to prove who he is.

      Voting is, or should be, serious business. It has been trivialized to the level of calling in your fave on American Idol or Dancing With The Stars, with votes being cast not for the best form of government for the nation but for single social issues such as gay “marriage” or “I don’t like that brand of Christianity” or “Gee, wouldn’t it be cool to have a black president”. Adding to that diminishment of the importance and value of voting by claiming that adding to the number of people casting votes is, in and of itself, a good thing is simply silly.

    • dbschmidt August 17, 2013 / 11:21 pm

      Casper,

      Even after going through all of them Hillsdale courses you still do not seem to understand. Please explain to me where the following are dicated to the Federal Government as part of the Constituition;
      Government isn’t just about taxes, it’s about air quality, fighting wars, education, etc.

      Remember that with the Tenth Amendment, the Constitution also recognizes the powers of the state governments. Traditionally, these included the “police powers” of health, education, and welfare. So many states feared the expanded powers of the new national government that they insisted on amendments during the Constitution’s ratification. The most popular of these proposed amendments, which became the Bill of Rights in 1791, was a protection of state power. The new Tenth Amendment stated: “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.” [from a PBS site but double URLs get one into limbo — try pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/federalism/state-powers/]

      Now, I cannot predict what your version of “etc.” means but you are already 1 for 3 in the Constitutional arena. Wanna double down? When I get the time–my next book is The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic by Mark Levin. Maybe it would be a good follow-up for you and others.

      http://www.amazon.com/dp/1451606273/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=25650030918&hvpos=1t2&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=1799908193168384356&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_4jhmgsctx4_b

      • M. Noonan August 17, 2013 / 11:42 pm

        What the Caspers of the world miss is that a government which tries to do much will end up doing is everything very badly – they even oppress badly (meaning that they’ll as often as not miss the real threats while coming down heavy on non-threats). At best, governments can fight a war, police a street, fix a pothole – once you get beyond that you are burdening it beyond its capability. To give a liberal a bit of food for thought, this is also why we can’t allow a theocratic government – religion has in its care our souls, and that is quite enough…trying to do government at the same time means that both government and souls will be badly cared for.

        This mania on the left for uniformity and everyone getting the same thing is the root cause of all our modern problems. People don’t work like that and if you try to make it so, you’ll just make a hash out of it…and a bankrupting, corrupt and oppressive hash, in to the bargain. I love my fellow citizens of San Francisco, California and I’ll die in the last ditch defending their right to be as bizarre as they want to be…but they, too, must be willing to so lay down their lives for me and my people in my area of the country to be as non-bizarre as we wish to be. It is what works best, for them and for us. Our common bond is not that we do everything alike, but that we commit our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to the defense of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. Beyond that, its really just a massive “live and let live” proposition…and if you or a group of you want to attack the problems of poor education, poverty and lack of medical care then by all means, get off your asses and get busy…but don’t ask everyone to join in on this project (not everyone will want to) and for goodness sakes don’t get government involved…it will just screw it up as being outside the proper sphere of the power which can kill in war and execute in peace.

      • dbschmidt August 18, 2013 / 12:11 am

        Mark,

        It was less than 30% (some say much less) that freed this country from tryanny and I have the feeling it will be that number again. I am not counting on the slacker or the low-information folks to help at all.

        It will take along time to correct the wounds from Wilson to Obama towards progresive agendas but I have to believe that, as a nation, we will. Being hammered via this administration–I may sell my house and go all Airsteam for a while with ND, TX, and a few other states on the radar. I am not afraid of work and prefer it to sucking at the government teat–which I helped fill for others.

        I will pack what is left of my books, yours inclusive, in an effort to truly educate the folks that are willing to listen–which happens to be growing day-by-day. As I heard earlier, how can anyone be happy that at the end of the day of work (if you have a job) that the government, like the mob, just took 40% plus without due course?

        I will leave it there because otherwise I would be facing being banned for my thoughts…oh, thought police–let me pay more in taxes. 😉

      • M. Noonan August 18, 2013 / 12:48 am

        db,

        It is always a minority which drives things – most people just want to go along and get along. But, we’ll have them – the left is trying to destroy this nation but I don’t think our story has been quite told, yet.

      • dbschmidt August 18, 2013 / 12:13 am

        BTW, I, for one have done it before and am ready again to ” we commit our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to the defense of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.”

      • Amazona August 18, 2013 / 3:32 pm

        I truly believe that the minority will become either the majority or at least a far larger proportion of the population than it may be now, if and when the conservative movement can figure out how to get it across to people that the real decision is not about some issue but about how best to govern the nation. Remember, something like 57 million people voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, and since then a lot of those who voted for Obama have rethought that decision—and that was an election controlled, in the public square, by the Left and its Complicit Agenda Media,with its trumped-up “issues”. Even with that kind of brainwashing, it was not a blowout for the Left.

        The Left does not focus exclusively on “issues” without a reason, and the reason is that if they ever let themselves get drawn into a comparison of government, they stand no chance. Their only hope is to appeal to emotion, to divide according to pet “issues” and to keep people’s thinking as unconnected to government as possible.

  11. neocon01 August 19, 2013 / 6:18 am

    communism a stupid lazy mans dream…..

Comments are closed.