Comment Last Three
July 29, 2010
As a retired US Army officer, I find the Obama administration and all Democrats are interested in blocking the votes of members of the military. This problem has been around for several years and President Bush tried to correct the situation, but liberal Democrats blocked his efforts since they do not want the military voting--since they usually vote "conservative". The Obama Department of In-Justice wants felons and illegals voting in our elections, but not the members of our military.
Obama Justice Department outrages never cease. The politically charged gang led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is more interested in helping felons vote than in helping the military to vote. Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, has put a legislative hold on the already troubled nomination of James M. Cole to be deputy attorney general until the attorney general ensures full protection for voting rights of our military (and associated civilian personnel) stationed abroad. The senator is right to raise a ruckus.
Mr. Cornyn co-authored a 2009 law mandating that states mail absentee ballots to military voters at least 45 days before the election. Yet, as former Justice Department lawyer Eric Eversole first reported in The Washington Times last week, the department seems to be encouraging states to apply for waivers so they won't have to follow that law. More than 17,000 Americans serving overseas were denied the vote in 2008 - but, presumably because military personnel are thought to lean conservative, the liberal Obama administration is in no hurry to correct the situation.
The Justice Department is so unenthusiastic about military voting that its website still lists the old requirement for a shorter 30-day military voting window, rather than the current law mandating 45 days. On the other hand, the Justice Department has no legislative mandate whatsoever to involve itself with helping felons to vote, but its website devotes a large section - 2,314 words - to advising felons how to regain voting privileges.
As confirmed by The Washington Times last week, Justice Department official Rebecca Wertz told a Feb. 1 conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State that the new law's requirements are somehow open to interpretation. On July 28, an attendee at that conference - heretofore uninterviewed - told The Washington Times that Ms. Wertz's message was "totally undermining" the law. The earlier reports actually underplayed the effect of Ms. Wertz's comments. "It was even more pronounced at the meeting," said the source. "She undermined [the law] right in front of everybody. When I heard what she was saying, I thought: 'You've got to be kidding!' ... It was a clear reversal of roles for Justice to no longer be enforcing the law."
The voting rights for members of the military who are in harm's way and are deployed to protect our freedoms should be top priority, but under a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, do not want our military voting due to politics. If black or Hispanic voters were treated in this manner, the ACLU, NAACP, and other social organizations would be suing the federal government and targeting our elected leaders. Is race and social justice better now with Obama's hope and change? Guess not.
Protect our military voters so they right to vote is protected.
July 06, 2010
Obama and the DOJ have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to enforcing our borders and protecting legal American citizens. They are are the side of illegal aliens---not law abiding US citizens.
The federal government took a momentous step into the immigration debate Tuesday when it filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants, calling it a law that blatantly violates the Constitution. The Arizona law enforced federal law and Obama is paying back all of the illegals and Hispanics that voted for him--what an idoit for a President. Where is DHS in securing the border?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash over states rights at a time when politicians across the country have indicated they want to follow Arizona's lead on the toughest-in-the-nation immigration law.
The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona's action, declaring that the law will "cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents" while altogether ignoring "humanitarian concerns" and harming diplomatic relations.
Supporters of the law say the suit was an unnecessary action by the federal government after years of neglecting problems at the border. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer called the lawsuit "a terribly bad decision."
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking, kidnappings and murders. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
Other states have said they want to take similar action — a scenario the government cited as a reason for bringing the lawsuit.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.
The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government is seeking an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved. It ultimately wants the law struck down.
State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents.
"It's outrageous and it's clear they don't want (immigration) laws enforced. What they want is to continue their non-enforcement policy," Pearce said. "They ignore the damage to America, the cost to our citizens, the deaths" tied to border-related violence.
The lawsuit is sure to have legal and political ramifications beyond Arizona as the courts weigh in on balancing power between the states and the federal government and politicians invoke the immigration issue in this crucial election year.
Reflecting the political delicacy of the issue, three Democratic members of Congress in Arizona asked the Obama administration not to bring the suit in a year when they face tough re-election battles. On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain is locked into a tough primary fight as his right-leaning GOP challenger takes him to task for his earlier promotion of comprehensive immigration reform, which he has since abandoned in favor of a message to "Complete the danged fence."
The case focuses heavily on the legal argument called pre-emption — an issue that has been around since the Founding Fathers declared that the laws of the United States "shall be the supreme Law of the land."
The Obama administration's reliance on the pre-emption argument in the Arizona case marks the latest chapter in its use of this legal tool.
Within months of taking office, the Obama White House directed department heads to undertake pre-emption of state law only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states.
The 2009 directive was aimed at reversing Bush administration policy which had aggressively employed preemption in an effort to undermine a wide range of state health, safety and environmental laws.
"The case strikes me as incredibly important because of its implications for the immigration debate," said University of Michigan constitutional law professor Julian Davis Mortenson. "The courts are going to take a close look at whether the Arizona law conflicts with congressional objectives at the federal level."
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
Obama is playing Chicago style politics and is attacking the voters and US citizens who did not vote for him. Just like the Black Panther case, he is siding with the criminals. Mr. Obama---be a real President and enforce the laws for US citizens.