Sunday, October 12, 2014

Trey Gowdy Flashback Obliterates Federal Court Rulings That Voter IDs in Wisconsin & Texas ‘Racist’

By Kyle Becker

Following upon a defeat for election integrity advocates in the state of Wisconsin, a federal court in Texas has ruled that the voter ID requirements passed into law are unconstitutional because they represent a“poll tax.” South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy obliterated such lines of argument against voter ID laws, logical step by logical step, in a House hearing in 2013…..
TheHuffington Post reported today on the federal court striking down the Texas law:
A federal judge in Texas struck down the state’s voter ID law on Thursday, calling it an “unconstitutional poll tax” intended to discriminate against Hispanic and African-American citizens that creates “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”
In a 147-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama confirmed to the bench in 2011, ruled that the law passed by Texas legislators and signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) took an “unorthodox” approach they knew would have a disparate impact on minority voters. The law requires voters to produce government-issued identification before casting a ballot.
While Ramos found no “smoking guns” of racist intentions in passing the legislation, she said the state legislature’s 2011 session was “racially charged.” She concluded that the sponsors of the measure “were motivated, at the very least in part, because of and not merely in spite of the voter ID law’s detrimental effects on the African-American and Hispanic electorate.”
A spokeswoman for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the state would “immediately appeal.”
While providing exactly zero evidence of racial motivation to implement a uniform voter ID requirement, the court nonetheless asserted that the law was racist in intention and discriminated against Hispanics (including illegal immigrants who have no political right to vote in U.S. elections) as well as against blacks......To Read More......
My Take - I would like to recommend a book by Larry Klayman titled, "WHORES: Why and How I Came to Fight theEstablishment", which shows the federal judiciary is full of viperous and incompetent political hacks. It's time that nest of vipers was reformed.
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. It's time they exercised it! Then they need to end this lifetime appointment claptrap. That has become a festering sore that allows judges to become laws unto themselves, and the idea that it’s the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) that decides what the Constitution says and means. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers, and it’s time the SCOTUS learned it.
It’s time to start impeaching these people for “high crimes and misdemeanors”. What “high crime” or “misdemeanor” did this judge commit? She failed to follow her oath to support the laws of the land. She made a decision in favor of one side where that side failed to prove a prima fascia case. She made a decision in favor of one side by supplying an unsupported assumption with no supporting evidence. There's nothing in the law that gives the court that kind of intuitive power. All their decisions are supposed to be based on facts - facts presented by one side or the other - and not make decisions based on politics with preconceived conclusions.
High crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t mean the crime is high smelling and low down, it means the crimes or misdemeanors were committed by someone of high rank. The term was well known and well understood by the founding fathers since it came from English law. By failing to perform the duties they swore to perform under oath, it was then and is now, considered a‘high crime or misdemeanor’ that justifies their removal from office.
I cover this in my article, “The Post Constitutional Era! Part XV”noting that Jon Roland of the Constitution Society states that it had meaning and understanding to the Framers stating;
“to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.”
He further states;

“Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.”

He notes the same values applies today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where civilian could not be punished, those with “sworn” duties are held accountable for their failure to perform, and their “offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform”, are punishable.

Once all the facts of impeachment are understood we have the correct understanding –once we have the correct understanding there is only one conclusion any rational person can arrive at. U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos is as guilty as sin!

The Congress just has to do what it has failed to do for decades - have the guts to do the job they all swore to do, which is uphold the Constitution - which is an argument for impeachment in itself.

No comments: