Tag Archives: constitution

Opinion

U.S. Myths Busted: The Right to Vote, Supreme Court declares it unConstitutional? Use it before you lose it! 4.1-million U.S. territorial residents already have lost it!

01 November 2014 (04:35 UTC-07 Tango)/08 Muharram 1436/10 Aban 1393/09 Yi-Hai 4712

How many times have you heard civil rights groups say we have a “fundamental right to vote”?   I’ve even heard political science professors claim there is a U.S. Constitutional right to vote.

In a classic example of ignorance of their own federal United States Constitution the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens believe they have a right to vote.  But wait, I checked the Bill of Rights (the first ten inalienable Rights in the U.S. Constitution) and there is no mention of any ‘right’ to vote!

Mention of a “right to vote” is only found in revokable amendments, I believe starting with Amendment 15.  This is key, the first ten “inalienable” Rights are not revokable (a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred), this is what makes them true Rights.  Supposedly it would take a meeting of a ‘Continental Congress’ to write a completely new Bill of Rights in order to revoke the one we have (there are ‘western’ countries out there that change their constitutions every freaking year! And never mind that your ‘elected’ officials and the Supreme Court has circumvented the Bill of Rights many times).   All other amendments starting with number 11 are revokable at anytime, and in regards to the ‘right’ to vote the U.S. Supreme Court did just that in 2013.

In 2013, the U.S. Supreme court declared the federal 1965 Voting Rights Act to be “unconstitutional”!  But that’s my point, since the end of the War between the States, there have been several revokable amendments regarding the privilege of voting (even though it’s referred to as a ‘right’ in the amendments).  If there was an inalienable right to vote why are there so many revokable additions to that ‘right’?  These federal amendments do not actually create a federal right to vote, but are focused on making sure that each state that allows voting does so without discrimination.

Yes, the Bill of Rights makes no mention of any right to vote, all other ‘rights’ are delegated to the member states to decide.  The history of the U.S. states and voting is convoluted, many states granted the privilege to vote to women and former slaves, only to revoke those ‘rights’ just a few years later.

Prior to the middle 20th century many former slaves who were granted the privilege of voting were counted as only three fifths human.  Many former pro-slave states required that former slaves had to prove literacy before they could vote, of course most couldn’t read.  States got away with this because there is no federal right to vote!

Current state level voter ID laws do not violate any federal right to vote because there is no federal right to vote.  The only way voter ID laws can be challenged is if they are proven to violate the revokable federal anti-discrimination amendments.

Here’s a history of revokable federal voting laws, and U.S. states granting and/or revoking the privilege of voting:

1776: The majority of the original 13 states limited the ‘right’ to vote to only ‘white’ landowning men.  After all, the Bill of Rights does not dictate a ‘right’ to vote.

1787: The federal government officially delegates the decision to grant the privilege to vote to the states.

1789: Elitist George Washington elected by only 6% of the population!

1848: Former Mexican citizens now living in the territory captured by the United States (during the Mexican American War) are denied the privilege to vote!

1856: The states ratify a new law giving all ‘white’ men, regardless of income, the privilege to vote!

1868-1870: Federal 14th & 15th amendments passed to give former male slaves the privilege of voting, however many states create restrictions such as their vote counts as only three fifths that of a ‘white’ man, they must prove literacy and even pay a tax to vote!

1876: U.S. Supreme Court denies the privilege of voting to Native Americans!

1887: New federal law (Dawes Act) allows Native Americans the privilege to vote, if they officially deny their heritage!

1890: The Indian Naturalization Act adds the additional requirement of ‘becoming’ a U.S. citizen before Native Americans can vote!

1919: Native Americans who serve in the U.S. military can apply for citizenship.

1922: U.S. Supreme Court denies U.S. residents of Japanese heritage the ability to become citizens, thus denying them the privilege to vote!  (this also shows you that the Japanese living in the United States and placed into U.S. concentration camps during World War 2 were never considered ‘Japanese Americans’, but alien immigrants)

1923: U.S. Supreme Court denies Indians (from India) the ability to become U.S. citizens, thus denying them the ability to vote!

1924: Federal government allows Native Americans to become citizens, however many states still refuse them the privilege of voting.

1947: A lawsuit brought by a Native American (and ex-Marine) forces states to allow American Aborigines to vote!

1952: People with Asian ancestry are allowed to become U.S. citizens, and vote!

1964: Revokable 24th Amendment passes barring the charging of voting taxes, in federal elections.

1965: Federal Voting Rights Act passed.

1971: Voting age dropped to 18.  This is the result of public protests pointing out that a male who turns 18 years of age is considered an adult and is drafted against their will to fight in Vietnam, yet they were not allowed to vote!

1993: Federal Voter Registration Act passed.  The intent is to make registration easier for “eligible” citizens.  Note that the key word used is “eligible”, revealing that not every U.S. citizen has the ‘right’ to vote, proving my point that it’s a privilege.  Many U.S. states deny the privilege of voting to citizens convicted of felonies.

2000: A federal court revokes the ‘right’ of people living in U.S. territories (like Guam & Puerto Rico) to vote for U.S. president, even if they are full fledged U.S. citizens!  This court decision came one month before federal elections, and affects at least 4.1-million residents living in the Territories!

2013: U.S. Supreme Court declares parts of 1965 Voting Rights Act to be “unconstitutional”!

Alaska U.S. Territory: 1913, grants women the privilege of voting.

Alabama: 1929, ‘Black’ women are beaten by ‘white’ election officials for trying to vote.

Arizona: 1912, grants women the privilege of voting.

California: 1911, grants women the privilege of voting.

Colorado: 1893, grants women the privilege of voting.

Idaho: 1896, grants women the privilege of voting.  The Constitution of Idaho states in Article 1 “RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE GUARANTEED.”   But then in Article 6 states “The legislature may prescribe qualifications, limitations, and conditions for the right of suffrage…”  One of those rules is 34-435 which states “…the county clerk shall immediately cancel the registration of any elector who did not vote at any primary or general election in the past four (4) years.”  Vote recounts are rare in The Gem State because Idaho law requires those who are challenging the count to pay for the recount.   This explains the ‘dynastic’ political families and entrenched political parties in the state.

Illinois: 1913, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Indiana: 1917, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Iowa: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Kentucky: 1837, grants women the privilege of voting but only in local school district elections (although not all cities allow it).  1902, revokes the privilege of women voting in school district elections.   1912, grants women restricted voting privilege in local school district elections.

Kansas: 1861, grants women the privilege of voting but only in local school district elections. 1912, grants women the privilege of voting.

Maine: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Michigan: 1918, grants women the privilege of voting.

Minnesota: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Missouri: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Montana U.S. Territory: 1914, grants women the privilege of voting.

Nebraska: 1917, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

New Jersey: 1776, granted the privilege of voting to women who had a minimum of $250 to their name.  1807, revoked the privilege of voting from women.

New York: 1917, grants women the privilege of voting.

Nevada: 1914, grants women the privilege of voting.

North Dakota: 1917, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Ohio: 1894, grants women the privilege of voting but only in local school district elections.  1917, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Oklahoma: 1918, grants women the privilege of voting.

Philippine U.S. Territory: 1925, Filipinos must serve three years military service before becoming citizens and being able to vote!

Puerto Rico U.S. Territory: 1929, grants women the privilege of voting.

Oregon: 1912, grants women the privilege of voting.

Rhode Island: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

South Dakota: 1918, grants women the privilege of voting.

Tennessee: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Utah U.S. Territory: 1870, grants women the privilege of voting.

Washington U.S. Territory: 1910, grants women the privilege of voting.

Washington DC: 1961, residents of the U.S. capital city are allowed to vote for U.S. president for the first time!

Wisconsin: 1919, grants women the privilege of voting but only for the U.S. president.

Wyoming U.S. Territory: 1869, grants women the privilege of voting.

By the way, it was the British empire country of New Zealand which created the first national law granting women the privilege of voting, in 1893.  The revokable U.S. 19th Amendment barring discrimination against women and voting was ratified by 1920.  Notice I used the word “ratified”, that’s because voting is not a inalienable federal ‘right’, each U.S. state had to ratify the 19th Amendment and Tennessee was the holdout finally accepting the anti-discrimination law in 1920.

This isn’t meant to dissuade you from voting (there are many other reasons for that) but to instill in you the realization that voting in the U.S. is not an inalienable right, but a privilege that could be (and has been) revoked.  In other words, “Use it before you lose it”!

However, I agree with the Great George Carlin: “I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who did not even leave the house on Election Day, am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that YOU created.”

12 Myths of Western Capitalist “Democracy”

U.S.

U.S. Civil War 2014: Boston Strong no longer part of the U.S. as it embraces unConstitutional anti-gun martial laws! Bans even paintball, yet praises gun owning police state politicians!

02 April 2014 (12:28 UTC-07 Tango)/01 Jumada t-Tania 1435/13 Farvardin 1393/03 Wu-Chen 4712

The now British Red Coat licking state of Massachusetts is ramping up its NAZI gun confiscations.  Boston Weak cops claim they’ve “taken” 92 “illegal” guns off the streets.   Under Massachusetts anti-gun laws, any gun that has not been licensed (registered) is an illegal gun!

Boston punk ass cops also said they were able to “buy back” (as if they were the ones who sold the guns in the first place) 136 guns during the last week of March 2014.   The cops admitted that the overwhelming majority of the guns are pistols, which are the type of gun used in most crimes (as opposed to the main stream news media’s claims that it’s assault rifles).  The NAZI cops also admitted that the guns came from all over anti-gun Boston Weak: “….in just about every location, we had somebody turning one in.”-Police Sergeant Michael McCarthy

Gun owners are being paid a paltry $200 gift card for turning them all in.

Boston Weak cops also stated that in 2013 they captured 667 guns!

But it’s not just ‘real’ guns, the town of Wilbraham essentially banned paintball guns.  ‘Officials’ who are afraid of liability lawsuits, are denying store owners from selling paintball guns and supplies, and even edged weapons, on the grounds of pure paranoia: “I am concerned for the town of Wilbraham. Paintball guns can do damage.”-Joanne Scagliarini, who claims her house has been hit with paintballs

The hypocritical anti-gun propaganda machine, known as The Boston Globe, just published an article gushing about a gun owning Filipino politician.  The politician is a pro-government big brother/sisterite who stated nobody should do well “…at the expense of government.”  Apparently The Boston Globe thinks nobody should own a gun except the big brother/sister politicians.

If you understand the U.S. Constitution then you know Massachusetts is no longer ‘American’!

71 guns confiscated and counting

Boston cops preparing to confiscate guns!

 

Opinion

What Democracy? The late great George Carlin was right! If you vote it’s your fault!!!

Video

“I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who did not even leave the house on Election Day, am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that YOU created.“-George Carlin

U.S.

World War 3: Are you a Patriot? Believe in your Constitutional Rights? Member of the Constitution Party? Then you’re offically an enemy of the State! 755% increase in extremism within the United States

“…the federal government is an evil cabal in the hands of bad people. The government is about to impose martial law on the country, very probably with the help of foreign troops, perhaps UN troops. They intend to confiscate all guns from Americans. Those liberty loving Americans who resist will be thrown into concentration camps that have secretly been constructed by FEMA. And ultimately the government will force us all into a socialistic kind of one world government, the so called New World Order.“–Mark Potok, SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has concluded a study of the rise of “hate groups” and “extremists” in the United States.  They claim that since Barack Obama’s election there has been a 755% increase in such groups!

But, if you look at their charts concerning “Hate Groups” you should note that there’s been a steady increase since before the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

The big jump is actually found in their chart concerning “Patriot & Militia Groups”.  In that chart you can definitely see a huge jump from 2008 to 2009.

So, the SPLC doesn’t just count NAZIs and Klansmen, they include groups that believe in their Constitutional Rights!  It also includes members of the political Constitution Party!

So according to the SPLC you are an “extremist” if you believe in the Bill of Rights!!!  So now it’s almost official; if you are a Patriot and believe in your Constitutional Rights, you are a Terrorist!  This is proof that the United States is no longer what the founders intended.  It is an alien country, no longer the United States of America, it is the United Police States of America!!!

Better check their website to make sure your Patriot Group isn’t on their list.

 

 

Opinion, U.S.

Mitt Romney Constitutionally Incompetent. Marriage is actually UnAmerican! Religion based marriage law will violate Constitution.

“…I think that at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman…”-Mitt Romney, candidate for the office of President of the United States

Even if the personal opinions of the founders of the United States were against homosexual marriage, there is nothing in the Constitutional amendments that say anything about marriage!

This was intentional, after all our founders fought a war for Independence from the British Empire, which placed all kinds of qualifiers on citizenship (including belonging to the church of england).  The founders did not want any qualifiers on U.S. citizenship, other than being born here, or becoming ‘naturalized’.

The founders knew that many of the qualifiers of citizenship in the British Empire were based on the personal opinions of the holier than thou crowd.  The founders knew that, like ass holes, personal opinions should be left out of sight out of mind!

It is true that since marriage is not covered in the U.S. Constitution then it is within the States’ rights to create definitions of marriage.  But then you might have conflicts at tax time.

This brings us to the real reason why both sides are trying to push for a Constitutional amendment regarding marriage.  Both sides don’t like seeing some States for, while other States oppose.

If a anti-homosexual marriage law is passed at the Federal level then it will violate the basic reason for the creation of the United States: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Notice it does not say the United States was being created to promote one religion, or any religion, or for the sole purpose of 1% Elitists who want more more more money, or for control freaks and insecure paranoids!

But guess what, from my own personal experience, and witnessing others’ experiences, marriage actually conflicts with Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

But here’s why efforts by the religious front to create a anti-homosexual law at the Federal level will fail.  Amendment One: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

By creating a law that is obviously the result of religious beliefs, Congress will be in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America!

Religion freaks can argue all they want. Religion, any religion, does not jive with the Constitution. That’s what was so revolutionary about our Constitution, it created the first secular (government not controlled by religion) country in modern history!

(The modern concept of separation of church and state can be traced back to Martin Luther’s doctrine of two kingdoms)

U.S.

Ron Paul says Barack Obama’s inaction is the result of his ignorance, inaction is intentional default mode of our government, office of President now closer to becoming a dictatorship

Ron Paul posted on his RonPaul.com site that President Barack Obama’s seeming inability to get anything done is a result of Obama’s ignorance for how our government works.

Paul says the founders of this country meant for it to be that way, they didn’t want any one person to wield too much power: “Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system.   It was designed that way.  The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction.”

Paul also states that our Federal government was never meant to get big: “The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.”

Ron Paul says President Obama’s use of Executive Orders has gone past Constitutional rules, pushing the office of the President even closer to becoming a dictatorship:  “Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation… …Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.”

The same can be said of the President’s increased use of the War Powers Act to go to war without Congress declaring war, but, Obama is not the first President to do so.  In fact, Ron Paul blames Obama’s predecessors as well: “Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon.”