By Ron Marsh
“A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.”
– Theodore Roosevelt
“The Battle of Athens” effectively relates bullets to ballots. If you haven’t watched it, you should. If you have, you should watch it again.
The Second Amendment and the Ballot Box: Two major defenses against tyranny and oppression. Both constitutionally guaranteed to We the People. Both under concerted attack by an administration and a Congress and a judiciary hell-bent on denying both to “law-abiding” folks of good character. (It ain’t paranoia when they really are out to get you!)
As to the Second Amendment: registration, a step toward confiscation; move to ban certain firearms and magazines; government buy-up and stockpiling of ammunition to dry up the supply available to the public. To contend that these exercises in futility will disarm people of low character and nefarious intent is to demonstrate the mentality of a moron or a madman – or a tyrant!
As to the ballot box, there are currently four bills in the House and one bill in the Senate that, if enacted into law, would deny a meaningful vote to people of good character (who follow the rules) by opening up the process to people of low – or no – character (who don’t.).
(Faux News Alert: You’re probably not going to hear about them on the MSM – including Fox News.)
H.R. 50: Streamlined and Improved Methods at Polling Locations and Early (SIMPLE) Voting Act of 2013
(60 Cosponsors)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.50:
Note 305(b) “Development and Implementation of Contingency Plans”
Note 401(b) “Private Right of Action”
H.R. 280: Same Day Registration Act of 2013
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr280/text
Self-explanatory.
H.R. 281: Voter Access Protection Act of 2013
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.281:
Would nullify all photo-ID laws of all states!
H.R. 289: Value Our Time Elections Act (50 pages pdf)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr289/text
“To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to modernize State voting systems by allowing for increased use of the Internet in voter registration, and for other purposes.”
S 9: Clean and Fair Elections Act (18 Cosponsors)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s9/text
“To strengthen our Nation’s electoral system by ensuring clean and fair elections.”
Sponsor and (alleged) Author: Harry Reid (Need more be said?)
I have worked the polls off and on for some three decades. Probably the most onerous and disgusting duty of the day is the hanging of the “Voter’s Bill of Rights” – in Spanish! (Not because it’s in Spanish. Because it’s in any language besides English! It just doesn’t happen to be in Mandarin.) Voting is restricted to citizens. It typically takes five to seven years to become a U.S. citizen. If those seeking citizenship can’t – or won’t – learn the de facto language of their allegedly beloved adoptive land in that length of time, they don’t deserve to vote. My opinion. You’re welcome to yours. That’s what this once-great land is supposed to be all about.
It is neither unreasonable nor discriminatory to require voters to prove both their identity and their eligibility, and/or to put measures in place to frustrate fraudulent and/or repeat voting. Not only would the above ludicrous, but dangerous, bills not “strengthen our Nation’s electoral system by ensuring clean and fair elections,” they would ensure that our nation’s electoral system would devolve into absolute chaos and turn election-day results on their heads.
What are the chances that the above five bills will pass the House? Probably, hopefully, slim to none. What is noteworthy is the fact that such have even been introduced and, to any degree whatever, seriously considered. We intend to follow their progress.
Chaos and anarchy may not, however, be the greatest concern. A more fundamental and troublesome issue is the constitutional authority of Congress to enact such laws. The following is excerpted from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/14722-is-america-in-danger-of-a-federal-takeover-of-our-elections and is presented, in closing, for your careful and prayerful consideration:
Constitutionality of Federal Election Laws
When the U.S. Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification in 1787, one of the objections was the wording in Article I, Section 4:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing [sic] Senators.
This specific grant of power was not listed amongst those in Article I, Section 8 and the verb used is “may” rather than “shall.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 59 that the intent was that Article I, Section 4 be used only to address specific situations and was not authorization for widespread or permanent federal regulations of elections:
They have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary
circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.
Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to
regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as
an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State
governments?
The Anti-Federalists proposed the following amendment to ensure Article I, Section 4 wouldn’t allow for federalizing elections:
Hamilton’s explanation of Article I, Section 4 became the generally accepted understandingof its intent. The amendment proposed by the Anti-Federalists was never ratified because the states felt it was unnecessary.
(End of excerpted material)
Contact me here or add your comment to this post.
Comments are posted after they are reviewed. All comments that are relevant to this post will be posted. Spam, and other posts we deem inappropriate will NOT be posted.