[TheRealThing]

"On June 25 the Supreme Court radically altered the legal framework on which a large part of America bases its voting laws. In nullifying Section 5 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965, the court ruled that nine states which had been required to "preclear" any changes to voting laws with the federal government were no longer required to do so. The decision will immediately affect a large part of America’s South, which once employed practices such as literacy tests and poll taxes to prevent African Americans from voting. However, the social and political implications reach far beyond the borders of in the states to which the ruling specifically pertains."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/52891/...e-on-texas



In this day in time, when nobody does without the finer things of life thanks to Washington DC which, more closely resembles the politics of Robin Hood's Sherwood Forrest, than the land of equality of opportunity. The argument highlighted above is absurd on it's face. Nobody will be denied the right to vote based on income or literacy. These voter ID cards will be issued free of charge to those who are legally registered to vote.

Section 5 is indeed a cornerstone for democrats to garner votes from those who prefer to live life in the shadows. Illegal immigrants, those who manage to vote even though they have been dead for years, even decades in some cases. To suggest that we must let everybody who shows up at the polls to vote is decidedly un-American and there is no way to justify the practice. If somebody cannot even prove who they are, they couldn't serve in the military or get a driver's license. How then are they going to collect social security or how do they get welfare? :igiveup: The idea we could have millions of people lurking about in the shadows who we are forced to house and feed but, who cannot even prove who they are, is stupid beyond belief. But, that's the liberal mindset for you.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Does Holder represent all citizens of the United States or does he represent only minorities in general and blacks in particular? As he now starts his attack on Texas and its voting laws and after his partisanship in the Zimmerman matter, I believe this is a legitimate question. And, of course, Obama is right there with him.

Whatever is said about the "Obama Years", it will not be called a positive time for Caucasians.

This post is not politically correct. It is, instead, honest and truthful. If these boys want racial harmony, which I suspect they do not, they are failing miserably with their agenda which stresses their own racism.

[Bob Seger]

Obama must have really hated his mother.

[TheRealThing]

Does Holder represent all citizens of the United States or does he represent only minorities in general and blacks in particular? As he now starts his attack on Texas and its voting laws and after his partisanship in the Zimmerman matter, I believe this is a legitimate question. And, of course, Obama is right there with him.

Whatever is said about the "Obama Years", it will not be called a positive time for Caucasians.

This post is not politically correct. It is, instead, honest and truthful. If these boys want racial harmony, which I suspect they do not, they are failing miserably with their agenda which stresses their own racism.

Looks like the constitutional concept of state sovereignty is under attack too. Might as well, right?

[TheRealThing]

Obama must have really hated his mother.

LOL, or vice versa. Long time no see and welcome back.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Looks like the constitutional concept of state sovereignty is under attack too. Might as well, right?

You raise a legitimate concern. Holder seems to have no respect for the Tenth Amendment and, therefore, he ignores it. Unfortunately, no one, including Republicans and other conservatives, open their mouths to oppose Holder or Obama.

[Hoot Gibson]

You raise a legitimate concern. Holder seems to have no respect for the Tenth Amendment and, therefore, he ignores it. Unfortunately, no one, including Republicans and other conservatives, open their mouths to oppose Holder or Obama.

Very few politicians have any respect for the Tenth Amendment. Scalia's vote with liberals on the Court a few years in the case of a California woman raising marijuana on her own property and for her own use convinced me that the undermining of the Tenth Amendment is a bipartisan effort. The Commerce Clause cannot apply where there is no commerce and yet that is the basis for much of the abuse of power by our federal government. Scalia's vote could have been a game changer and instead he handed another blow to the Tenth Amendment. IMO, it is all but dead.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Very few politicians have any respect for the Tenth Amendment. Scalia's vote with liberals on the Court a few years in the case of a California woman raising marijuana on her own property and for her own use convinced me that the undermining of the Tenth Amendment is a bipartisan effort. The Commerce Clause cannot apply where there is no commerce and yet that is the basis for much of the abuse of power by our federal government. Scalia's vote could have been a game changer and instead he handed another blow to the Tenth Amendment. IMO, it is all but dead.

Although the media deceives otherwise, the conservatives on the Court are not as stringent in their votes as are the liberals. The three witches and Breyer are rubber stamps. Conservatives can count on Thomas and Alito and usually, though not always, on Scalia. However, Kennedy waivers and Roberts has sadly proven to be a bit of a jellyfish. Scalia is clearly the smartest member of the Court but he tends to be too smart for his own good sometimes.