Monday, September 30, 2013

NC's Voter ID Legislation prompts Justice Department Lawsuit

During the last presidential election, Philadelphia - in fact - changed it's laws to require potential voters to have a state mandated driver's license or I.D.  The central government allowed this change, however - only after the election had been held.

Now, due to it's leading role in conservative politik, North Carolina has been targeted by the regime - specifically the Justice Department - for attempting the sensible imposition of voter I.D. laws.  Much has been made on the left about the travesty of justice that is basically preventing voter fraud.  I would have to assume it is due to the sociological slant of this administration that the numbers on whom is less likely to vote should an I.D. card be required at the polls are proffered as discriminatory.

Farcical sophomoric idealism has no place in the unequivocally legitimate use of state mandated identification cards for verification that voter's rights aren't being quashed.  Let's break this line of tyrannical logic down:

1) NC (according to the NY TIMES) is a stain on all intellectual people's civilized discourse.
2) NC is discriminatory, intrinsically.
3) Studies show that poor blacks and ethnics are hindered by voter I.D. laws.
4) NC is rascist by enacting these laws.
5) Action must be taken by big gov'ment to stop these, apparently, liable actions of a sovereign state.

It's like my young, pretty, liberal Sociology went from dissertation to the wheel of Big Gov'ment.  From sociology textbook to application in government.  They can't be serious.

I will make this short, as obviously I'm peeved in a way at the moment.

The objective fact of voter's rights follows:

1) Civilians have the right to elect representatives in government.
2) This election process must be a legitimately lawful practice.
3) Voter I.D. laws such as those in Philadelphia and NC prevent voter fraud.
4) The fact that the poor are less likely to vote under these laws is, irrevocably and absolutely, an effect of keeping the law in order rather than a cause of the intentionality of the legislation.
5) i.e. Philadelphia's laws.
6) The tampering in the affairs of these sovereign state's attempts to enact reform at the polls indicates a far more problematic intent.  An intent to intimidate and manipulate state's into being more prone to election fraud.

The constitution clearly limits the powers of the Federal Government.

This act by the Administration's Justice Department are, as such, unconstitutional.

Wrapping up, here is a quote from serious *snigger* constitutional scholar, Barack Obama:

"What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our future.  All of it's elaborate machinery - its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist principles and Bill of Rights - are designed to force us into a conversation, a deliberative democracy in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of test their idea's against an external reality, persuading others of their point, building shifting alliances of consent.  Because power is so diffuse, the process of making law in America compels us to entertain the possibility that we are not always right... it challenges us to examine our motives and our interests constantly, and suggests that both our individual and collective judgements are at once legitimate and highly fallible."

- Barack Hussein Obama

I digress.

No comments:

Post a Comment