More Judicial Activism

FROM FOXNEWS 08/30/12

A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

A three-judge panel in Washington ruled Thursday that the law imposes "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

The decision involves an increasingly contentious political issue: a push, largely by Republican-controlled legislatures and governor's offices, to impose strict identification requirements on voters.

The ruling comes in the same week that South Carolina's strict photo ID law is on trial in front of another three-judge panel in the same federal courthouse. A court ruling in the South Carolina case is expected in time for the November election.

Now more than ever, our State legislators and the Governor's office need to step up and do what's right. Three unelected morons have said that Texas cannot use any ID requirements to limit voter fraud. This is apalling and unconscionable. These thugs in black need to go take a dip ... in the nearest sewer. That's where their partisan "ruling" belongs. Perhaps ruling is the wrong word. It imparts a legal standing to the OPINION that it probobly doesn't deserve. The federal judiciary has no business telling the State of Texas how to run an election. The Constitution (remember that pesky instrument guys) says that the State has the say on when and where and under what terms elections will be held. Article 1, Section 4 says:

"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 Places of chusing Senators." Nuff said.....

Yes, the Voting Rights Act might get in the way, but the State has the authority and means to impose nullification. The voting Rights Act effectively takes away the "States Rights" in the above section and confers them on the federal government, as if they need any more fingers in State business. It is time for Texas to nullify the judges OPINION and get on with having an election. If the feds don't like it ... tough. WE MUST PUT THE FEDERAL MINIONS IN THEIR PROPER PLACES! NO EXCEPTIONS!

Comments

Richard Anderson August 30, 2012 at 3:16pm

When the heck are we going to stop the Voter Fraud perpetrated by the Progressive Democrats and The New Acorn called "Project Vote" and other names. This is a no brainer. Anyone that wishes to exert their "RIGHT" to vote should have proof that they are who they say they are. Photo ID's should be madatory for anyone wishing to vote. The only reason to not want a Photo Voter ID is to commit Fraud, Period. We need Congress to DEMAND that the Supreme Court rule on this before the November 6th Elections.
Mangus Colorado August 30, 2012 at 3:08pm

Again,

we return to the subject of the courts continually citing the CASE LAW THEORY which is law school thinking - they live in the world of State Constitutions and not the Federal Constitution. In the Constitution there is ZERO support for using the British common law case precedent; ie: there is zero language that would support the theory of Settled law or Stare decisis.

Most continue to defeat themselves by posting case law without a foundation in the actual Constitution and its language - what the founders said in letters and papers helps explain some opinions they debated but none are even attempts to override the actual language of the Founders/Framers/Ratifiers. As explained in the Federalist papers - they Founders used everyday simple language in the construction of the constitution so that even a common man of the time could read and understand what the document said and what it meant - ie: no parsing or redefining the meaning of words. These men were highly educated and most could read and write in Latin [the legal language of the time] but they chose to keep it simple - all go to extreme efforts to extend the powers not granted.

This is what all that desired to change the Constitution have done since the Court gave itself powers not granted by anyone. All have not yet provided a single item that extends the powers to redefine "CLAUSES" which are simply preambles or explanations of the preceding list list of enumerated powers. Neither grant any additional powers above and beyond the Article I section 8 enumerated powers. Not congress and not the courts or the executive branch have the power to redefine limits and powers.

The Founders did how ever provide a way to do what has been done by usurping it is called the Article V amendment process. This has been used 27 times. Now all that being said - I will agree that the Supreme court has the power to hear cases on Constitutionality of laws passed by Federal or State legislatures. What then are the duties and powers of the Court in these cases? IMO they can have two findings - either the law is constitutional by listing the language in the Constitution [not case law precedent] or they can find it in violation of the Constitution citing the language to support that finding.

Again there is no authority in the Constitution that I can find that would grant the courts to be able to build a foundation of case upon case until they have created a power where none existed. Example of this would be the use of the 14th amendment to reach through and make findings that allows the courts to run school policy, redistricting, equal rights laws, direct State or local governments to do as ordered. This is clearly LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH and there is again no support in the language of the Constitution. Marbury V. Madison created the concept of Judical Review out of the think air.

Many believe that first usurped power was the Issue of a National Bank under the necessary and proper clause which Hamilton argued, won and Washington signed.
Adolfo O. Perez August 30, 2012 at 2:53pm

Have the governor of Texas take some advice from the governor of Arizona, NOT N MY STATE with out voter I.D. my 2 dogs may be able to vote ,I know riducoulos bu you get my point. You need I. D. to go to see Michele speak I have heard but would never go,wiout voter I.D. requirements how do you stop voter fraud. O'vomit has to be taken out,call the seals,only wishfull thinking there guys
Terrence D. Durrill August 30, 2012 at 2:50pm

BY MAKING SUCH INSANE RULINGS, THESE "JUDGES" ARE ACTUALLY INVITING THE DEAD, MULTIPLE VOTERS AND ILLEGALS TO VOTE OBAMA INTO OFFICE FOR A SECOND TERM. THIS IS TOTALLY INSANE! WE MUST BE SURE WHO IS CASTING A VOTE IN ANY ELECTION. HOW CAN WE BE ASKED FOR ID IN A THOUSAND OTHER SITUATIONS OF DAILY LIFE, BUT LET BOGUS VOTERS DESTROY OUR ELECTORIAL PROCESS.....AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE AMERICA TO A MARXIST/SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY WHICH CANNOT BE UPROOTED IF WE FAIL TO DO IT IN 2012. WE HAVE TOO MANY ACTIVIST JUDGES IN FEDERAL COURTS WHO ARE BENT ON WRITING LAW FROM THE BENCH. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE OR WE ARE FINISHED AS THE EXCEPTIONAL NATION AND WORLD POWER WE HAVE BEEN FOR WELL OVER 100 YEARS.
Tim Burkett August 30, 2012 at 2:48pm

ok - gotta fix for this

everyone will leave a set of fingerprints on the ballot.

those identified as duplicate voters will be placed into plots right next to those identified as dead.

no cost - no mess - no stress

best guess
Raymond Lippitt August 30, 2012 at 2:41pm

It is time to take action
Healani August 30, 2012 at 2:38pm

Gee why am I not surprised

of 3