I often go to the various Cato Institute's web sites for links to posts I feel are important to gain clarity of thought. I came across a link to the cases the Cato Institute has positioned themselves on...either for or against. Most of what they stand for is rational, but they often remind me of the ACLU in their approach to the Constitution....all rhetoric and no values.
Here is the first in my series called Cato's Court, including My Take on the subject.
Shelby County v. HolderBy Ilya Shapiro and Matt Gilliam
January 2, 2013
It is long past time to declare victory over Jim Crow and move on to a healthier stage of race relations, particularly with respect to how the American people elect their government representatives. This term the Supreme Court has a chance to do that in a case examining the continuing constitutionality of an important but now outmoded part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Shelby County, Alabama is challenging Section 5 of the VRA, which requires that certain states and counties — as determined by a decades-old formula — receive approval (“preclearance”) from the Department of Justice or a federal district court in Washington before implementing any change to their election regulations, no matter how modest....To Read More....
My Take - This whole voting rights issue will come up a couple of more times in this series. One thing that will become abundantly clear is this: This issue has nothing to do with voting rights at all! It has a great deal to do with an attempt to continue a system of corruption in these states by officials of the federal government to rig the election outcome. There is another thing that will become clear. The desire to turn the Constitution on its head by federal officials in order to gain more power over every aspect of our lives is frightening, and can only be construed as corruption.