I'm so mad, I'm nearly incoherent.
According to this Bloomberg News article, a US District Court in Washington threw out the Texas Redistricting map because "Texas used an 'improper standard or methodology' when determining whether minorities had the ability to elect their preferred candidates."
Let's take this apart, shall we? In the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, redistricting was done such that good, solid Republicans had to run against each other in the primaries, and Eddie Bernice Johnson still skated by unopposed. Yeah, that sounds real harsh on "minorities." And that ignores the new "Majority Minority" district created that encompasses parts of Tarrant and Dallas Counties stretching from Fort Worth, through Arlington and Grand Prairie, and into Dallas. So what the real problem here is that Republicans didn't just hand away their majority to the Democrats with redistricting.
The article does not mention which specific map was rejected. Was it the map already rejected by the court in San Antonio? If so, that's still not good, but it could be worse. We're already operating under a court-imposed "interim" map.
However, if what the Court threw out was that interim map, the US District Court in Washington just disenfranchised every voter in Texas. If those maps aren't valid, then, even if the court makes new maps and just says "yeah, if you ran for district 33, you're still in district 33, even if we moved that 200 miles to the south," then the people who voted for one candidate don't have that candidate to vote for in the general. Worse than that is that and emergency appeal would almost have to be heard, given the fact the primaries have already been heard, which means it would take the Supreme Court who-knows-how-long to return a decision, imperiling our ability even to get ballots printed for the November election.
Let's not beat around the bush here. The people of Texas elected a legislature to represent us. We elected people we believed would best represent our interests. It should be for that legislature, and that legislature alone, to decide on new districts after each census. The Voting Rights Act deprives us, unconstitutionally, of our Republican form of government and imposes a de facto Judicial Oligarchy upon us.
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Protecting our Liberties: I Said Not SCOTUS
For those unaware, the card game Munchkin, is designed to parody old D&D games. Almost every table-top gamer at some point goes through a phase that we call "Kill the monster, takes it's treasure, search for secret doors." Munchkin gets straight to the point though with it's motto, "Kill the monsters, steal the treasure, stab your buddy."
Well, Chief Justice Roberts did not kill the monster. I sincerely doubt he took it's treasure. But he certainly stabbed his buddies.
Much ink has been spent, and many pixels used, trying to figure out why the Chief Justice acted as he did. There are reports that he "voted for repeal before he voted against it." I don't know if those are true, or sour grapes, or the opposition sowing dissent. The fact is his motives don't matter.
When faced with the opportunity to limit the Government once and for all, and begin re-establishing the balance between the Federal Government and the States, the Chief Justice stood with the Federal Government. This is only surprising because Conservatives were fairly certain he was "one of us." Certainly he had voted conservatively in prior cases, so what's different about this one?
And, again, it doesn't matter. He did what he did. The Chief Justice has cast his lot with the Statists. In a previous post, I was worried about Justice Kennedy on this issue; it turns out that worry was misplaced. The heart of that post remains the same, however. Our liberty should not be in the hands of seven (or five, or nine, or nineteen) men and women selected, vetted, and confirmed by Washington Elites.
The States must stand up against this tyrannical overreach. Even those Liberal States which support Government-Run Health Care must step back and see the damage this will do to them, too. As of now they do not have any but the most tenuous authority over health care in their own borders. As of now, they are mere regents or proxies for a all-powerful Federal Government.
I've used the slave reference more than once in this space. I use it because its apt, as well as because I believe that it is fundamentally True. Well, if the Federal Government is the slave owner, and the American People are the slaves, that makes the States the overseers. By not standing up to the Federal Government, by not asserting their Constitutionally guaranteed authority, the States are enabling the slavery of their residents.
Well, Chief Justice Roberts did not kill the monster. I sincerely doubt he took it's treasure. But he certainly stabbed his buddies.
Much ink has been spent, and many pixels used, trying to figure out why the Chief Justice acted as he did. There are reports that he "voted for repeal before he voted against it." I don't know if those are true, or sour grapes, or the opposition sowing dissent. The fact is his motives don't matter.
When faced with the opportunity to limit the Government once and for all, and begin re-establishing the balance between the Federal Government and the States, the Chief Justice stood with the Federal Government. This is only surprising because Conservatives were fairly certain he was "one of us." Certainly he had voted conservatively in prior cases, so what's different about this one?
And, again, it doesn't matter. He did what he did. The Chief Justice has cast his lot with the Statists. In a previous post, I was worried about Justice Kennedy on this issue; it turns out that worry was misplaced. The heart of that post remains the same, however. Our liberty should not be in the hands of seven (or five, or nine, or nineteen) men and women selected, vetted, and confirmed by Washington Elites.
The States must stand up against this tyrannical overreach. Even those Liberal States which support Government-Run Health Care must step back and see the damage this will do to them, too. As of now they do not have any but the most tenuous authority over health care in their own borders. As of now, they are mere regents or proxies for a all-powerful Federal Government.
I've used the slave reference more than once in this space. I use it because its apt, as well as because I believe that it is fundamentally True. Well, if the Federal Government is the slave owner, and the American People are the slaves, that makes the States the overseers. By not standing up to the Federal Government, by not asserting their Constitutionally guaranteed authority, the States are enabling the slavery of their residents.
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Senate? No. Try the States
In the wake of the terrible Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, ACA), many politicians have been telling us "We must retake the senate!" In fact, you could probably add some more exclamation marks and an "eleventy" or two in, just to get the feeling. The Senate, we are told, is the key to overturning Obamacare.
With all due respect, I call bull. The last time I can find that a law was just repealed was in the 1920s. Prohibition was repealed in the '30s, which did require the senate, but it had the force of the American people so far behind it that they were able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a previous Constitutional Amendment. I don't think we have that level of outrage; there are just too many people who don't mind being slaves to the State, as long as the State "takes care of" them.
The problem with anyone running for national office is that they want to hold national office. They want the power that august office brings, and they want to wield it. The possibility that the Senate would repeal the entirety of Obamacare is remote at best. Even House Republicans keep talking about "Repeal and Replace," when the only Conservative option is "Repeal and Remand(to the states)."
If we truly want to stop the ever growing behemoth that is the Federal Government, we must use the Federalist System put in place by the Founders of the Constitution. The States must wrest their authority back from the Federal Government. And "wrest" is the correct word; it will be a fight of epic, perhaps cataclysmic proportions.
Three essential steps that the States must take to begin taking their authority back:
1) Declare that any resident of the state is exempt from the requirements of ACA. This will require the refusal of any state resources (money or personnel) for enforcement, as well as refusal to allow Federal Officials to enforce the law.
2) Begin weaning themselves off the governmental cocaine that is "Federal Matching Funds." From Medicaid to Highway funds, the Federal Government exerts too much influence because of these funds. Texas has already begun leading the way here, with our refusal to provide State Funds to Planned Parenthood, and finding a way to continue to fund women's services without Federal funds.
3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 with all Federal Laws which overreach Federal Authority. From "Environmental Laws" to Abortion law, and, in fact, almost every facet of life, the Federal Government is reaching where it has no authority, whatever the Supreme Court has said. The States must decide to take that authority back.
Bear this in mind: the cost must be counted. The term "Constitutional Crisis" is not an exaggeration. Of course, I would argue we're already in one. This would be a violent upheaval, at least in the political sense. It might cause a violent upheaval in the physical violence sense
While it is, indeed, vital that we retake the Senate, far more important are your State and Local races. It is your States which must stand up to the Federal Government, and it is your cities which must then stand up to your State. The Senate will not, cannot, save us from Federal Expansion. As part of the Federal Government, it is an intrinsic part of the problem. The Founders of our Nation were wise enough to see this, and so they instituted a Federalist system of government. We need to return to that system.
Two hundred and 26 years ago, on Wednesday, our Forefathers swore to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat tyranny. I don't think it's too much to ask that we swear our convenience, our baubles, and our luxuries to do the same.
With all due respect, I call bull. The last time I can find that a law was just repealed was in the 1920s. Prohibition was repealed in the '30s, which did require the senate, but it had the force of the American people so far behind it that they were able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to repeal a previous Constitutional Amendment. I don't think we have that level of outrage; there are just too many people who don't mind being slaves to the State, as long as the State "takes care of" them.
The problem with anyone running for national office is that they want to hold national office. They want the power that august office brings, and they want to wield it. The possibility that the Senate would repeal the entirety of Obamacare is remote at best. Even House Republicans keep talking about "Repeal and Replace," when the only Conservative option is "Repeal and Remand(to the states)."
If we truly want to stop the ever growing behemoth that is the Federal Government, we must use the Federalist System put in place by the Founders of the Constitution. The States must wrest their authority back from the Federal Government. And "wrest" is the correct word; it will be a fight of epic, perhaps cataclysmic proportions.
Three essential steps that the States must take to begin taking their authority back:
1) Declare that any resident of the state is exempt from the requirements of ACA. This will require the refusal of any state resources (money or personnel) for enforcement, as well as refusal to allow Federal Officials to enforce the law.
2) Begin weaning themselves off the governmental cocaine that is "Federal Matching Funds." From Medicaid to Highway funds, the Federal Government exerts too much influence because of these funds. Texas has already begun leading the way here, with our refusal to provide State Funds to Planned Parenthood, and finding a way to continue to fund women's services without Federal funds.
3) Repeat steps 1 & 2 with all Federal Laws which overreach Federal Authority. From "Environmental Laws" to Abortion law, and, in fact, almost every facet of life, the Federal Government is reaching where it has no authority, whatever the Supreme Court has said. The States must decide to take that authority back.
Bear this in mind: the cost must be counted. The term "Constitutional Crisis" is not an exaggeration. Of course, I would argue we're already in one. This would be a violent upheaval, at least in the political sense. It might cause a violent upheaval in the physical violence sense
While it is, indeed, vital that we retake the Senate, far more important are your State and Local races. It is your States which must stand up to the Federal Government, and it is your cities which must then stand up to your State. The Senate will not, cannot, save us from Federal Expansion. As part of the Federal Government, it is an intrinsic part of the problem. The Founders of our Nation were wise enough to see this, and so they instituted a Federalist system of government. We need to return to that system.
Two hundred and 26 years ago, on Wednesday, our Forefathers swore to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat tyranny. I don't think it's too much to ask that we swear our convenience, our baubles, and our luxuries to do the same.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
In Defense of Liberty
The Honorable Rick Perry
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Dear Governor,
As you are no doubt aware, the United States Supreme
Court just upheld one of the most egregious usurpations of State and Individual
Liberty in American History. By declaring
the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the
Act) a tax, they did not merely uphold this tyrannical statute, they did so
while directly contradicting themselves (if it were really a tax, rules state
they cannot rule on the law until the tax has gone into effect) as well as the
law itself (the word “tax” never occurs regarding the Mandate).
By upholding the Act, the Supreme Court has effectively
decided that it is within the purview of the Federal Government to levy a tax
on breathing. The individual mandate, as
you know, is not a tax on voluntary economic activity. Rather it is a tax on voluntary economic
inactivity. Simply being alive and
choosing not to carry an insurance policy is enough to force you to pay the
tax. This is not true of any other tax. Income taxes are not owed if you make no
income; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity. Sales taxes are not owed if you do not
purchase anything; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity. Cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes are
similar examples; to avoid the taxes, do not engage in the proscribed economic
activity.
This is a perversion of everything our forefathers fought
to achieve. It is tyrannical and
unjust. The Act is blatantly
unconstitutional, and the Court has ignored the constitution in deference to
its precious “precedent.”
Mr. Governor, we, the people of Texas, have nowhere else
to turn. Our congressional leaders have
failed us. The Courts of the United
States have failed us. I humbly beseech
that the State of Texas defend us from this tyrannical overreach.
To that end, I would ask that the State of Texas act in
the following ways:
1)
That no State resources be used to enforce this
act of tyranny.
2)
That the State would officially affirm, via
legislation, the same.
3)
That the State act to shield those persons who
refuse to comply with this tyranny from the Federal Authority.
Mr. Governor, I understand what I’m asking. I understand that this would be a huge and
possibly irreversible step. I understand
that it is a gamble and, to some extent, “asking for trouble.” Nevertheless, I believe it to be the right
course. I believe that the Natural
Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not outmoded
ideas. I believe the rights upheld in
the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not antiquated notions. And I believe that they must be vigorously
defended.
With Sincere Respect,
Monday, June 25, 2012
So Now They Can Issue a 'Sternly Worded Letter?'
Today, the Supreme Court released their decision on the Arizona Illegal Immigration law. The part of the law that got the most press was the provision where Arizona police could request immigration documents in the course of "legal contact" (traffic stops, mainly, but also criminal investigations and such) and all departments were required to request immigration information before allowing any arrested person for whom there was cause to believe they were in the country illegally. Other provisions, though, specified exactly what the police were supposed to do if they did, indeed, find an illegal alien.
Per the Supreme Court decision, all the enforcement provisions were "preceded" by current Federal Provisions. The documentation check provision was left in place, pending some future challenge. So, the police in Arizona can check your immigration status, but if you're an illegal alien, they can't actually do anything about it.
I'm not going to discuss whether the decision was right or wrong Constitutionally. I tend to think it's right, on paper, but wrong based on facts on the ground. What I want to look at, though, is why it was necessary in the first place.
It is simply true that border states have bigger trouble with illegal immigration than non-border states. This is especially true along the southern border, meaning Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These illegal aliens often really are just looking for opportunity, but any job they take is one that could have been filled by a legal resident. Any housing they occupy, any medical or other social service they receive drains resources that could have been used by a legal resident. Whatever your "empathy" for illegals, you have to see that allowing them in is detrimental to those who play by the rules.
Additionally, many of these illegals are criminals. Well, they're all criminals; that's what "illegal" means. But, more specifically, these are criminals in the sense of committing other active crimes- robbery, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, slavery, and so forth. These people are not only here illegally, but they are actively preying on others here and most of their victims are legally here.
All of this is to say that our Federal Government has a responsibility to control the border as much as possible, and to punish those who violate it. Even the best behaved illegal alien is drawing from a limited pool of resources which would be better spent on legal residents. For the Federal Government to do nothing, or, worse, to grant amnesty and a "path to citizenship" is a betrayal of that responsibility, and a blow against those who would follow the law. It encourages illegals while discouraging legal immigration.
The States are writing laws, like the one in Arizona, because the Federal Government has decided to do nothing. This is real harm from which citizens and resident aliens deserve protection, and the Federal Government is not protecting them as it should. States like Arizona and Texas believe they have little or no choice; they must do something because someone has to, and the Federal Government isn't.
It is my hope that Arizona will go back to the drawing-board and find a way to re-write the enforcement provisions of their law to pass Supreme Court muster. Until then, I guess they'll have to be satisfied with issuing the illegals in their state Strongly Worded Letters.
Per the Supreme Court decision, all the enforcement provisions were "preceded" by current Federal Provisions. The documentation check provision was left in place, pending some future challenge. So, the police in Arizona can check your immigration status, but if you're an illegal alien, they can't actually do anything about it.
I'm not going to discuss whether the decision was right or wrong Constitutionally. I tend to think it's right, on paper, but wrong based on facts on the ground. What I want to look at, though, is why it was necessary in the first place.
It is simply true that border states have bigger trouble with illegal immigration than non-border states. This is especially true along the southern border, meaning Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These illegal aliens often really are just looking for opportunity, but any job they take is one that could have been filled by a legal resident. Any housing they occupy, any medical or other social service they receive drains resources that could have been used by a legal resident. Whatever your "empathy" for illegals, you have to see that allowing them in is detrimental to those who play by the rules.
Additionally, many of these illegals are criminals. Well, they're all criminals; that's what "illegal" means. But, more specifically, these are criminals in the sense of committing other active crimes- robbery, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, slavery, and so forth. These people are not only here illegally, but they are actively preying on others here and most of their victims are legally here.
All of this is to say that our Federal Government has a responsibility to control the border as much as possible, and to punish those who violate it. Even the best behaved illegal alien is drawing from a limited pool of resources which would be better spent on legal residents. For the Federal Government to do nothing, or, worse, to grant amnesty and a "path to citizenship" is a betrayal of that responsibility, and a blow against those who would follow the law. It encourages illegals while discouraging legal immigration.
The States are writing laws, like the one in Arizona, because the Federal Government has decided to do nothing. This is real harm from which citizens and resident aliens deserve protection, and the Federal Government is not protecting them as it should. States like Arizona and Texas believe they have little or no choice; they must do something because someone has to, and the Federal Government isn't.
It is my hope that Arizona will go back to the drawing-board and find a way to re-write the enforcement provisions of their law to pass Supreme Court muster. Until then, I guess they'll have to be satisfied with issuing the illegals in their state Strongly Worded Letters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)