Let's be clear-----both right wing Republicans and left wing Democrats have been shouting ELECTION FRAUD AND RIGGING these few decades of ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA -----whether Democratic primary election frauds or general election frauds the 2016 elections in US were the most corrupt in US history. As we fight to get rid of those 5% global Wall Street pols and players creating these frauds---black, brown, and white US 99% of citizens-----we certainly do not see any value for a OPEN BORDER VOTING FOR OUR 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL. This is why Maryland----steeped in cronyism, extreme wealth control of all elections would open elections to our immigrant 99%----
WE ENCOURAGE OUR 99% OF IMMIGRANTS TO WORK TO FIX US ELECTIONS SO THEY DO NOT REFLECT ONLY GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%.....THIS IS NOT HOW US ELECTION LAW IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
We want to be clear----none of the national media and many of the organizations tied to talking about election fraud in US ever mention from where the REAL election fraud is coming----THE STATE BOARDS OF ELECTIONS/CITY COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTION----not Russia----not from over-zealous immigrant voters----not from ballot box stuffing by citizen voters----it stems from the electronic ballot box machines installed in 2000 by Bush-friendly DIEBOLD. The frauds occur in the coding and recording of ballots done by election staff. NOT RUSSIA----NOT OVER-ZEALOUS IMMIGRANT VOTERS.
How Charges of Voter Fraud Became a Political Strategy
By MICHAEL WINESOCT. 21, 2016
In asserting that the presidential election has been rigged against him and casting accusations of widespread voter fraud, Donald J. Trump has tapped deep into an increasingly prevalent theme of Republican Party politics: that Democrats try to steal elections, not win them.
It is the culmination of roughly two decades of alarms, investigations and political gamesmanship in which remarkably little voter fraud has been documented, but the conviction that it is widespread has gone from a fringe notion to an article of faith for many Republicans.
The Republican focus on voter fraud dates to the late 1990s, when the 1993 National Voter Registration Act — the “motor-voter” law — was put in place. Republicans in particular, but some election administrators as well, began to complain that registering had become too easy and ill supervised to spot ineligible voters.
The stakes for both parties in election rules and who gets to vote became glaringly clear in 2000, when a 537-vote court-challenged victory in Florida’s presidential election sent George W. Bush to the White House.
In the same election, accusations of voter fraud became a volatile issue in Missouri. Republicans claimed that Democrats in St. Louis were trying to steal that state’s Senate election after lawyers for Al Gore’s campaign won a court order keeping the city’s polls open late to accommodate voters who had been wrongly removed from the rolls.
And issues of race, often a subtext in Republican charges of fraud, were accentuated by the election of the nation’s first black president in 2008. Republican accusations of voter fraud, as in St. Louis, have frequently been directed at minority groups in cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago. The issue now thrives in the hothouse of the internet, where corrections of fact and debunkings rarely catch up with the claims they address.
Mr. Trump’s pronouncement “did not come out of thin air,” Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. “It is, in fact, an often-repeated theme by those on the right who have been claiming, especially since 2000, that Democrats are stealing elections with voter fraud.”
The notion of widespread fraud has also become a potent political weapon: Since 2010, 16 states have placed new identification requirements on voting in the name of security. Increasingly, they have required voters to produce proof of identification that young, poor and minority voters — often Democrats — disproportionately lack.
None of that is to say that American elections are flawless. On the contrary, the national election system is a hodgepodge of outdated voting machines, underfinanced election offices and voter registration lists riddled with errors and insufficiently groomed to remove the dead and people who have moved away. And experts say a new and growing worry is the possibility of the hacking of election rolls, including by foreign interests.
A 2014 report in the journal Electoral Studies — roundly criticized by other researchers as methodologically flawed — suggested that registration procedures are lax enough that as many as one in 15 non-United States citizens living in the country could have mistakenly cast ballots in the 2008 election. A 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States, cited by Mr. Trump on the campaign trail, concluded that 24 million registrations were outdated or invalid, 1.8 million registrants were dead and 2.75 million were registered in more than one state.
But even the study that Mr. Trump cited pointed to inefficient administration, not fraud. In a series of tweets, David Becker, the primary author of the study, said the study found no evidence of noncitizen voter registration or voting, and no evidence of voter fraud because of out-of-date records or deceased people still on voting rolls. He said voter rolls are more accurate now than when the study was done in 2012.
And, perhaps most important, the principal fraud that Mr. Trump and most Republicans assail, and the only one that voter identification laws address -- voters who intentionally misrepresent themselves at polling places — is exceedingly rare, experts say. They add that it is almost impossible to perpetrate on a scale that would affect the results of a national election. Democrats also note that with Republican domination of state governments, voting nationwide is increasingly overseen by Republicans.
No national database of voter fraud cases exists. But a study by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who currently works in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, uncovered only 31 credible claims of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2014, out of one billion ballots that were cast. An Arizona State University journalism project reviewed 2,068 allegations of election fraud between 2000 and 2012 and concluded that only 10 had involved misrepresentation.
Corrupt Officials
More common and largely unaddressed, but still rare, are fraudulent mail-in ballots and corruption among election officials.
Fraud charges are a staple of American politics, and once were frequently true. Terre Haute, Ind., was infamous for a 1914 scandal in which the mayor rigged voting machines, bought off voters, registered thousands of nonexistent voters and arrested nosy poll watchers.
But if thievery has not vanished since then, its scope has shrunk markedly: Four Troy, N.Y., officials and party workers were convicted in 2011 of creating false absentee ballots that may have swung local elections. And the next year, Indiana’s chief elections official, Secretary of State Charlie White, was convicted of six felonies involving voter fraud, including submitting a false ballot.
The possibility that fraud or incompetence could change the outcome of a close presidential contest, as some claim happened when John F. Kennedy took the White House on the strength of an 8,000-vote margin in Illinois, is at least conceivable, experts say. But even other Republicans have scoffed at Mr. Trump’s claims that this year’s election could be rigged by voter fraud. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a Republican primary opponent, likened them on Wednesday to “saying we never landed on the moon, frankly. That’s how silly it is.”
PhotoA St. Louis police officer guarding the entrance to the city Board of Election Commissioners office as voters waited outside in November 2000. Credit James A. Finley/Associated Press
Yet the charges by Republicans that fraud is pervasive have grown in the last 15 years, driven both by the party’s rightward shift and by national events.
Since the 2000 presidential election underscored the crucial role of voting rules in close races, allegations of widespread fraud have also figured in high-stakes political strategies. Increasingly, voter identification laws and other restrictions advertised as election security measures help determine who votes, and who does not.
“Suddenly, it became clear that in very close elections, manipulating the rules could potentially matter,” said Mr. Hasen, the election law expert. “And so voter fraud became an excuse for making it harder to register and to vote.”
And as the notion of pervasive fraud gained political value, keeping it in the public eye became smart politics as well.
During the administration of George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Republican, directed United States attorneys to aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases after Mr. Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove, called for a focus on the issue. By 2007, five years after the fraud crackdown began, the attorneys had brought just 120 cases nationwide — many involving mistakes or petty violations like completing more than one registration form — and won 86 convictions out of about 200 million votes cast.
THIS IS THE SAME GEORGE BUSH THAT WON 2000 ELECTION AMIDST ELECTION FRAUD CLAIMS TIED TO DIEBOLD ELECTION MACHINES---DIEBOLD WAS TIED TO BUSH AS A FRIEND.
President Obama’s general-election opponent in 2008, Senator John McCain, savaged him over allegations of voter-registration fraud by a left-leaning neighborhood organizing group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, that had run registration drives in 21 states. Mr. McCain said Acorn was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”
Republicans accused Acorn’s voter-registration workers of falsely enrolling voters on a vast scale, sometimes with names like Mickey Mouse. Some workers did submit false registrations, but the group said it regularly worked to detect such fraud and fired those involved. A 2009 inquiry by the Congressional Research Service found no evidence that anyone registered by the group had cast a fraudulent ballot.
Investigations suggested that the group’s greatest crime may have been sloppiness, not intended fraud. But the charges added to a snowballing public conviction that fraud is rife. Nearly half of Americans believe voter fraud happens at least somewhat often, and 70 percent think it happens at least occasionally, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released last month.
Then and now, Republican leaders have said repeatedly that the requirements are sorely needed to rein in ballot-box misrepresentation, largely by Democrats. “Leaders of the other party are against efforts to crack down on voter fraud,” Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, said in March. “The fact is that voter fraud is rampant.”
Few Confirmed Cases
Among many Republicans, fraud’s ubiquity remains evident. “There are instances all over southeast Missouri,” said former Senator Kit Bond, one of those who raised accusations of fraud in the St. Louis voting in 2000 and is now a St. Louis lawyer. “A lot of people tell tales of buses being loaded up and visiting numerous polling places. And there’s some instances this year. It’s a small percentage that we discover.”
But few of the claims have been confirmed.
After investigations of the fraud allegations in St. Louis, only six of the 2,361,586 Missouri votes cast in the 2000 election were conclusively found to have been ineligible, either deliberately or inadvertently.
The Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach — a Republican, self-proclaimed Trump adviser and ardent advocate of a voter-fraud crackdown — asserted in an interview this year that he had uncovered a score of foreigners in just one Kansas county who had illegally registered to vote or had been stopped from registering. A list of the 17 noncitizens cited in a federal lawsuit showed that only one had ever cast a ballot; five had notified authorities of erroneous registrations on their own or through relatives.
In Lee County, Fla., a 2012 television news report that claimed to find over 100 foreigners illegally registered to vote prompted a criminal inquiry and cries for reform. But while officials did uncover some wrongly enrolled foreigners, few had actually voted, and error or confusion, not fraud, was the culprit, the county supervisor of elections, Sharon L. Harrington, said.
“There has never been any prosecution in Lee County of anyone who registered and/ or voted illegally, even though information has been submitted to our state’s attorney’s office,” she said in an email. “This is not a widespread issue.”
A conservative advocacy group made headlines in 2014 when, days before the November election, it filed a lawsuit alleging that thousands of Frederick County, Md., voters were actually illegally registered foreigners. But the suit was withdrawn two weeks later after the headlines faded. Maryland’s chief investigator of election corruption, James Cabezas, said the allegations were unsubstantiated. “Whoever’s saying all these people falsely voted, that they’re illegals, that’s just not true,” he said.
Indeed, most voting experts say threats of disenfranchising voters are far more worrisome than widespread fraud.
“The frame is being controlled here by those who are promoting the idea that fraud is the problem,” said Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University professor of political science and author of the book “The Myth of Voter Fraud.”
“If we shifted the framework to people who are trying to vote but don’t get their votes counted,” she said, “we’d be having a different discussion.”
___________________________________________
It is an INSULT to 99% of WE THE PEOPLE OF US to listen to the very Clinton global Wall Street 1% neo-liberals pretending to be fighting for the enfranchisement of our global labor pool 99% when THEY are the ones having played ROBBER BARONS defrauding and degrading all that is a first world, freedom, liberty, US Rule of Law, having citizens with rights and access to justice---if you hear someone as this pol below-----RASKINS FROM MONTGOMERY CO, MARYLAND pretending they care about justice and enfranchisement-----
TAKE THE HEEL OF YOUR BOOT AND COME DOWN VERY HARD ON THEIR TOES.
Raskins is global banking extreme wealth extreme poverty lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law, no God's natural law----CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL AND NIHILIST. He is literally married to the US FED which we have discussed is top gun in all that was ROBBER BARON FRAUD and moving all US 99% of citizens wealth and assets to the global 1% all through fraud, corruption and funded the global human capital distribution system we call global labor pool 99%.
Raskins is the typical voice for the far-right wing Clinton/Obama global banking neo-liberals-----while our far-right wing Bush neo-cons are making these same voices using different talking points.
Remember that Maryland's Montgomery County was worst in voter turnout-----seems Raskins is not very interested in the VOTING RIGHTS OF THE 99% OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY US CITIZENS black, white, and brown. He uses all the right talking points----21st century progressives fighting for a strong democracy. By progressives he means FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY ECONOMIC NEO-LIBERALS-- and not left social progressives who fight for the rights of VOTING FOR 99% OF CITIZENS.
Raskins reveals what these goals are when he uses that same ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE term we see in all public policy these days UNIVERSAL RIGHTS TO VOTING. So, this is not a fight to allow global labor pool 99% the right to vote----it is the right of those foreign corporations brought to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones to have an elected representative in that INDEPENDENT CITY STATE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE inside US.
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY----if it sounds right wing---it is---far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberal---nothing left or 99% happening with this policy think tank.
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY
Jamie Raskin:
The Right Wing Takes Aim at
Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act
February 26, 2013
The Right Wing Takes Aim at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
While the Roberts Court Considers Turning the Clock Black,
21st Century Progressives Need to Fight for Strong Democracy
By Jamie Raskin
“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
--
William Faulkner
The
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the monumental statutory achievement of Congress in the last century, is under attack this week in the Supreme Court by Shelby County, Alabama, backed by much of
the legal infrastructure of the American right.
When Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow
“color blind” arch-conservatives take up the ominous
Shelby County v. Holder
Despite the painstaking rejection of Shelby County’s arguments below in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the far right is salivating because
Chief Justice Roberts,in a near-miss decision on the same subject in 2009, has already expressed the sentiment of his colleagues in the majority that the Act now “raises serious constitutional questions.”
Of course, John Roberts was never much of a fan--
as a lawyer, he tried to kill the implementation of a
“results” test for voting rights violations under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act when it came up for reauthorization in 1982.
Today, the whole conservative movement is gunning for
the pivotal Section 5 of the Act, which requires covered states and jurisdictions to “pre-clear” changes affecting voting with the Department of Justice or the federal district courts in Washington.
Justice Clarence Thomas has already written that
he would strike down Section 5 as unconstitutional.
Right-wing ideologues at the Cato Institute who think that
widespread disenfranchisement is “ancient history”
and hardball Republican activists who seek to do nothing more subtle than depress the minority vote and reclaim their edge in
completely or partially covered states with fast-changing demographics, like Virginia, Florida and Arizona, all agree that
this case is their best chance to take down the most effective part of the strongest pro-democracy law in American history.
The case against Section 5 turns on neither constitutional text
nor precedent nor the facts of political life on the ground, but on
political and constitutional myth.
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment clearly gives Congress the “power to enforce” voting rights“ by appropriate legislation,”
and the Court has four times—in South Carolina v. Katzenbach
(1966), Georgia v. U.S.(1973),
City of
Rome v. U.S.
(1980),
and
Lopez v. Monterey County
(1999)
--
rejected invitations by recalcitrant states to declare Section 5
as outside of Congress’ powers under the 14th and 15th
Amendments.
The lower courts in this case reviewed more than 15,000 pages of Congressional findings and testimony demonstrating the continuing need for preclearance to deal with the ingenious
disenfranchising and diluting schemes in the covered areas, including voter photo ID laws, tightening restrictions on registration and at the polls, and racist gerrymanders.
But ideologues trying to cut out the heart of the Voting Rights Act
skip over both law and facts in favor of this free-floating right-
wing fallacy:
that a nation which twice elects an African-American
president simply cannot contain any states or counties where minority voters face actual barriers to participation. Backing up
this non-sequitur intuition are constitutional myths: that Congress
is not permitted to differentiate among the states because of Equal Protection principles and that the pre-clearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act and its “coverage formula” impose far too high “federalism costs”on covered areas. All of these nebulous suggestions are supposed to lead the Court
to find that Section 5 is no longer a “congruent” or “proportional” remedy, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment, for threats to voting rights.
The arguments against Section 5 are as thin as the paper they are written on, but they appeal nicely to the long-suffering racial fatigue of Supreme Court arch-conservatives, who also seem
set this Term to enlist Justice Kennedy in their drive to bring down the hammer on what is left of affirmative action in public higher education. You can feel in these dynamics the same
kind of political and juridical undertow that washed away Reconstruction after the Civil War.
But, if the decades-old Section 5 does fall, it forces progressives to rethink the political democracy agenda in creative ways and makes the development of universal voting rights and enforcement mechanisms a national imperative.
A Landmark Achievement Paid for in Struggle and BloodThe Voting Rights Act was paid for in blood by Medgar Evers, Mickey
Schwerner, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Viola Liuzzo, and many thousands of other civil rights
heroes. The great Bob Moses, who defied the sheriffs and Ku Klux Klan to register voters in Mississippi in the early 1960s, was beaten nearly to his death when he walked an aspiring voter to a courthouse. Traveling the dusty back roads of Dixie, Moses
developed the phrase “one person one vote” to express
his conviction that politics belongs to everyone. The phrase re
appeared in Justice William Douglas’ 1963 opinion in Gray v. Sanders, which struck down representation by county rather than people, and became the touchstone of the Supreme Court’s
pivotal jurisprudence knocking down malap portioned legislative
districts
But the ideal of a strong, participatory and universal democracy
did not become anything close to reality until
President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress on March 17, 1965
to pass the Voting Rights Act, just days after “Bloody Sunday” when the Selma, Alabama police officers unleashed their fury on
600 civil rights marchers.
By invalidating racist “devices” that thwarted voting rights across the country, the Act finally made the buried century-old promise
of the Fifteenth Amendment(1870)come alive:
the promise that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
For the first time since the end of Reconstruction, the national government threw its weight behind the voting rights of disenfranchised African-American citizens.
Shifting the Burden:
Section 5
and the Preclearance Breakthrough
The strong medicine
provided by the Act was Section 5, which obligated the covered
jurisdictions—all or specific parts of 16 states that had a history of both using discriminatory “devices”
and disenfranchising a majority of citizens—to “pre-clear” any
future changes in election administration,
process and rights through the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.
Ever since, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina,Texas,Virginia and later Alaska
(along with certain jurisdictions in California, Florida, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota) have had to prove that proposed
changes in election laws do not disadvantage minority voters.
Hundreds of plans and thousands of proposed changes
have been rejected, preventing backsliding in the project of
strong interracial democracy, even as more than 99% of submitted plans are approved routinely after submission.
What made Section 5 such a breakthrough event for American democracy was that it flipped the script on the endlessly inventive
managers of electoral racism at the state and local level.
Before, the lords of white power could respond to political pressure and successful civil rights litigation simply by
introducing new and seemingly neutral techniques of electoral domination: grandfather clauses, literacy tests, character tests, constitutional quizzes, white primaries, Jaybird primaries,
winner-take-all at-large elections, single-member districts gerrymandered to submerge the African-American vote
with techniques of packing, stacking, and cracking,”
inaccessible registration procedures, limited registration
hours, inaccessible and gerrymandered polling places, vote-
stealing,shifts from elective to appointive office, and so on,
ad infinitum.
There was no way for African Americans, Hispanics and other targets of electoral manipulation to keep up with and
challenge, much less defeat, the versatile managers of public
elections. But the pre-clearance procedures of Section 5 meant that all of the madcap hijinks of Jim Crow politics were doomed because they had to be submitted in advance to federal judges or DOJ civil rights lawyers for approval.
Rather than placing the burden on African-Americans and other minority voters to find lawyers and make the case against the government, the covered jurisdictions had to affirmatively
show that their innovations were not discriminatory or “retrogressive.”
As the Supreme Court put it approvingly in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, “
After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to
the Fifteenth Amendment,” Congress chose “to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.”
The object of broad cross-partisan support until now, the Act has been reauthorized by Congress four different times, in 1970, 1975, 1982, and most recently in 2006, when no less a reactionary than President George W. Bush signed it into law for 25 years.
In attendance at his signing ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House were not only many of the 98 Senators and 390 House Members who voted to reauthorize the Act, but Reverends
Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton and members of Martin Luther
King’s family. But, today, the right has turned on Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act with a vengeance, depicting it as a threat to racial neutrality, color-blindness and equal rights under law.
Some of the activists, like Abigail Thernstrom, the neo-
con Vice Chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, believe that
Section 5 has given rise to “a rigid scheme of racial preferences.”
The self-proclaimed “libertarian” Cato Institute says of
“those who can’t forget Jim Crow” that “the South they remember is gone,” and the Koch Brothers-controlled think tank now seeks
to dismantle “the segregated districts that racial gerrymandering creates.”
(Has anyone seen a “segregated” district recently?)
Many perceive in Section 5 a threat to the sovereignty of the southern states which are disproportionately covered by it.
At a more practical level, hard-nosed Republican operatives despairing of the nation’s rapid demographic changes and the apparent racial and ethnic isolation of the Republican Party,
are desperately seeking to depress the non-white vote and
hope to remove
Section 5 as an obstacle to their schemes.
Shelby County v. Holder: A Thin Legal Case
The meticulous legislative record assembled by Congress in 2006, which contains thousands of pages documenting ong
oing threats to voting rights in covered jurisdictions, clearly
refutes the claim that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is
unnecessary. Just last year, the Department of Justice had to
use its Section 5 powers to object to discriminatory voter identific
ation laws in Texas and South Carolina, the rollback of early voting practices in Florida, and an egregious gerrymander of majority-minority districts and elected officials in Texas.
But the far right insists that the high rates of election of African
-Americans to local and state offices in covered southern states
prove that the Voting Rights Act and Section 5 are unnecessary. Of course, these significant gains have come about only
because of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, even with the election of African-Americans from majority African-American districts, dramatic levels of racial polarization still exist in statewide, countywide and district-wide elections in covered areas.
Whites vote overwhelmingly in Southern states for Republicans, and African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. There are no African-American Governors or elected United States
Senators in the covered jurisdictions. Furthermore, even though southern legislatures are now integrated, since 2011 more than 95% of elected African-American state legislators in the South serve in the minority legislative party as white voters and legislators have deserted the Democrats.
Thus, taking Alabama itself as an example, the State Senate today has 22 white Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators, seven of whom are African-American.
The pre-1965 conditions of racial
polarization are alive and well even if the Democrats and Republicans have traded places:
those in power have an incentive to suppress
the vote based on race in order to retain their hold on power. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But the supporters of the petitioner in
Shelby County argue that Congress may not differentiate
among the states the way that the coverage formula does,
suggesting that it somehow violates equal protection principles
if Alabama has to pre-clear its voting changes but Minnesota
, for example, does not. They say that this discriminatory treatment exacts “federalism costs” on covered areas
that are far too high to be constitutionally sustainable.
Thus, Section 5 no longer meets the City of Boerne v. Flores
test of “congruence” and “proportionality” for remedial legislation under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. However, Equal Protection is a right that belongs to “persons” under the Constitution, not to states, which is why the Supreme Court has upheld on at least four different occasions direct attacks on
application of the pre-clearance provision to selected covered s
tates and jurisdictions. The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution, nor does the opaque and mysterious phrase
“federalism costs,” so it is hard to know why mention of these
words should override the clear enforcement powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress in Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
There is nothing non-congruent or disproportionate about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Even if the continuing use of the original coverage
formula may not be a perfect way to ferret out the worst voting rights violators today, the Voting Rights Act has both meaningful
“bail-out” procedures under Section 4(b), which allows jurisdictions that can show they have not violated voting rights for at least a decade to “bail out”of the preclearance process, and “bail-in” procedures under Section 3[c] for jurisdictions that become violators of voting rights.
Increasing numbers of jurisdictions are asking for bail-outs from the Act, and not a single one has been turned down. The “bail
-out” and “bail-in” provisions easily smooth over any incongruence that has crept into the statute over the years.
Indeed, the Supreme Court itself, in City of Boerne v. Flores
(1997), invoked the finely tailored provisions of the Voting Rights Act to demonstrate what it considered the right way for Congress to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments.
Justice Kennedy identified the limited geographic focus of the
covered jurisdictions in the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, the limited time focus of the Act, the careful pre-clearance process, and the opportunity for covered jurisdictions
to “bail out,” all as statutory features that make the Voting Rights Act a finely chiseled legislative enactment responding to
demonstrably profound threats to voting rights.
Ironically, this week, it is the closely targeted application and narrow focus of the Voting Rights Act that the right-wing
Justices on the Court are threatening to use as the basis upon which to strike the Act down.
After the Voting Right Act, Ambition for a Universal Democratic Agenda
To be clear, there is no need to make a fetish of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and there are doubtless many ways still to be written to enforce the voting rights of the people on a national basis. But this is a matter of public policy, not constitutional dictate. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments make it Congress’ job to enforce Equal Protection and the voting rights of racial minorities.The Roberts Court has shown no interest
either in voting rights on the ground or in maintaining
doctrinal coherence in constitutional law. It is interested
in making grand ideological gestures.
At least some and possibly all of the hard-right Justices may
find it irresistible to decide that Section 5 is too “costly” to “federalism” or that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) is obsolete and discriminates against those poor states that once disenfranchised and discriminated but are now victims of
overweening federal power. Such a decision would mesh well with the possible wipeout of college-level affirmative action in the Court. At a superficial level, it would be argued that, across the board,“neutrality” rules. What is really ruling is racial backlash.
A decision against Section 5 preclearance or the Section 4(b) coverage formula would likely spell the political demise of the Voting Rights Act, even if it is theoretically salvageable by an updated coverage formula or an even more relaxed preclearance procedure.
Our paralyzed, deadlocked Congress will never come to terms on how to revive and renovate it if the Court knocks it down or puts
it in to a tiny little straitjacket.
Win, lose, or draw, progressives should reckon with the prospect that the days of this landmark statute might be numbered. This means that we need to take up an ambitious democracy and voting rights agenda of our own for the new century, this time with explicitly universalist aims and general terms that deal with the complex suppression of democracy today.
The voting rights struggles of the new century relate not just to old-fashioned racial trickery in Alabama and Texas but new-
age vote suppression in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio; they involve not just traditional vote dilution in the South but the increasingly untenable disenfranchisement of 600,000
Americans in Washington, D.C and 3.6 million Americans in Puerto Rico.
Many ideas have been floated as to what this democracy agenda would look like. Some are advocating for a constitutional amendment declaring that every citizen has a right to vote at every level of government over him or her. Some of the conversation involves the development of national vote-counting and electoral machinery standards. Several states have passed
the National Popular Vote plan,which would ensure that the Electoral College result would reflect the actual popular vote.
Other possible components of a democracy agenda include
the transformation of political gerrymandering in all of its guises.
Our nation must have a thoughtful conversation on how to continue the effort to defend and expand our electoral democracy. In short, to continue the project of the activists,
organizers, citizens, and leaders who dared to bring America the Voting Rights Act, we need to be thinking big right now, and engaging huge numbers of people to act to strengthen government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Democracy just can’t depend on that elusive fifth vote on the Roberts Court.
* * * * * * *
Jamie Raskin, a Senior Fellow at People for the American Way
Foundation, is a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law and a State Senator in
Maryland
____________________________________________
Here is the far-right wing global banking Bush neo-cons creating the same talking points around VOTERS RIGHTS for 99% of right wing voters using terms those voters have used for decades------WE NEED A NATIONAL ID TO ASSURE WHO IS VOTING. This goes back to the polling tax/literacy testing et al having a goal to keep population groups targeted from the polls. We are shouting to our right wing 99%-----
THIS IS WHAT CREATED TODAY'S PROBLEMS IN VOTING FRAUDS, RIGGING. IT IS 'STATE'S RIGHTS'---ANOTHER RIGHT WING TALKING POINT THAT WILL BE USED TO INSTALL OPEN BORDERS VOTING.
So, our right wing 99% must WAKE UP-----stop trying to disenfranchise US citizens when our US Constitution clearly states who votes in national elections. Again, state elections for state officials are not covered in US Constitution ----99% of citizens must make sure their STATE CONSTITUTIONS cover sovereign citizens as voters. We showed the Maryland Constitution uses both terms----INHABITANTS and CITIZENS when talking about who those voters are.
We discussed the MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE SMART CITIES AND THAT BRINGING A CITY STATE ID----that is what global banking Bush neo-cons are promoting in this NATIONAL ID CARD. The right wing has not recognized anything Federal ---so they are pushing for those CITY STATE IDs now MOVING FORWARD as IMPLANTED MICROCHIPS.
THAT IS A VERY, VERY, VERY FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN METHOD TO ID 99% OF CITIZENS---AND THEY ARE TYING IT TO VOTING.
This is not only about an attack on VOTING RIGHTS for citizens of color----as the Southern right wing states are MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global corporate factories filled with global labor pool faster than other regions. The VOTER ID policy is tied to implanted identity microchips and that will be scanned when a person comes to vote----whether black, white, or brown US citizens or 99% global labor pool citizen.
A national ID card that protects voting rights
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
Updated 12:16 PM ET, Mon March 26, 2012
In December, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened under the Voting Rights Act to stay a South Carolina voter ID law.
Controversy rages over similar laws in Georgia and Texas. Many expect Justice Department action against the Texas law. (The Georgia law was approved in 2005 by the Bush administration Justice Department.)
The argument against voter ID goes as follows:
The most common form of ID in the United States is a driver's license. Nonwhite registered voters are somewhat less likely than whites to have driver's licenses. In South Carolina, for example, the gap is nearly 20%. Therefore, voter ID will have a discriminatory effect.
David Frum
But then we're left with a question: What happens when those minority South Carolinians need social services? How do they identify themselves then? Then, of course, they rely on a Social Security number. But Social Security numbers are notoriously prone to theft, fraud and tampering.
The IRS counted more than 400,000 cases of theft of Social Security numbers in the 18 months from mid-2009 to the end of 2011. Surely that is only the tip of the iceberg. You don't sustain a population of 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens without lots and lots of fake Social Security numbers.
80-year-old voter shares ID troubles 02:07
In other words, the U.S. has created two forms of de facto ID: one (Social Security) that is universal, but not reliable; another (state-issued driver's licenses) that is reliable, but not universal.
Obvious question: Why can't we have a system of personal identification that is universal and reliable?
Modern technology enables the design of just such a card while also protecting and even enhancing personal privacy.
Imagine you are a 22 year old who wants to buy a case of beer. (Or a 66 year old who wants to buy a discount movie ticket.) You present your driver's license that shows on its face your date of birth, and the cashier computes whether you qualify. But that card actually discloses more information than the cashier requires. The cashier is asking a "yes" or "no" question: 21 or older? 65 or older?
Or imagine that you are an employer who wants to check a job applicant's eligibility for work. Again, the card the employer will see presents more information than required. The employer doesn't care whether you are a citizen or a permanent resident or where you were born or when you became a resident alien. He just wants a "yes" or "no" to the question: Eligible to work?
Same thing at the polls. The poll watchers don't need to know whether today is your birthday. They don't need to know your height or weight. They just need to know: Are you who you say you are? And are you eligible to cast a ballot?
On its face, it would carry only your name and image. That's all most people need most of the time to confirm your identity; for example, when checking the name on your airline ticket against the person bearing the ticket.
But none of the other information that now appears on your driver's license needs to appear there. Not the address. Not the date of birth. No the height or weight.
Information beyond face and name would be encrypted inside the card and would be divulged only to specific scanners. Liquor store owners would have machines that could read only the answer to the "21 or older?" question. Employers would have machines that could read only the "eligible to work?" question. Voting places would read only "eligible to vote?"
Departments of Motor Vehicles in each of the states could encrypt motorist information onto the card. If you moved to another state, you would not need a new card. A visit to the DMV in the new state would wipe out the obsolete motorist information and substitute the new.
Police might have more sophisticated scanners that could read more exactly your address or date of birth or citizenship status.
The card would have encrypted information useful to prevent social service fraud; for example, the number of children you have so you can't enroll for more benefits than for which you qualify.
The card might also carry encrypted medical information useful in case of emergency such as blood type and allergies to medicines.
None of this information would be visible to the casual observer. None would be available except to those with a right and need to access it.
The card need not be compulsory. Even in France, supposedly the homeland of Big Government statism, the national ID card is noncompulsory. But the card would add so much convenience to life that most people would want it: one ultrasecure document that smoothed your way through the modern world -- and guaranteed no-questions asked about your rights to vote, work, drive and purchase alcohol.
Such a card, available for free to all, should obviate all objections to the seemingly commonsense requirement that we not just "take your word for it" when you vote or apply for social benefits.
___________________________________________
While Clinton/Obama global Wall Street 5% neo-liberals run around pretending to be HELPING THOSE SAME POOR citizens with VOTING RIGHTS----our Bush global Wall Street neo-cons are hiding from their 99% right wing voters this NATIONAL ID is the same as the implanted microchip ID tied to holding all individual human capital data.
THIS IS NOT A NATIONAL ID CARD AS OUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD----AND WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ID REQUIREMENT IN PLACE AT MOTOR VEHICLES WHERE OUR 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL ATTAIN THAT ID.
A national ID card could reshape the irrational way Americans vote
By Editorial Board April 11, 2014
CIVIL RIGHTS activists might not be able to stop Republicans from seeking electoral advantage by passing unnecessary voter ID laws. Sixteen states already require photo identification at the polls. But this week, Andrew Young, the former mayor of Atlanta and a one-time associate of Martin Luther King Jr., has been promoting a new response: Offer to put people’s photos on their Social Security cards. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was among those to push back, warning that the idea would lead to a national ID card system. To which we say, all the better if it were so.
A free, easily obtainable national ID card would offer the benefits of official identification — help with boarding planes, entering government buildings and cashing checks, among many other things — to people who do not have driver’s licenses or passports. A uniform system could also help reshape the irrational way Americans vote: Simply present your card and cast a ballot. No need for registration, no confusion about what ID you need at polling places, shorter lines on Election Day. Simple rules could manage the relatively small privacy concerns: barring authorities from demanding to see an ID before letting you drive from state to state, say, or prohibiting police from hassling people simply because they left their card at home.
Mr. Young’s proposal, backed by the voting activist group WhyTuesday?, does not go nearly that far. It would merely allow people the option of adding photos to their Social Security cards, making them more effective as government-issued identification. Pretty much every citizen, after all, has a Social Security card, and the Social Security Administration has offices around the country with staff dedicated to properly identifying Americans seeking government benefits. People who do not drive or travel abroad would have another way to get a useful government ID. The idea’s backers also say that President Obama could establish the policy by executive order, at a cost of about a dime per card, short-circuiting the ideological fuming of some in Congress.
People who want to get a photo Social Security card would still have to show, somehow, that they are who their card says they are, which would require some kind of documentation. The Social Security Administration has a flexible set of criteria for identifying people, accepting church records, for example, when hospital birth records do not exist. But documentation requirements would still be a hurdle for some of the poorest and most vulnerable voters. So, too, might be the distance from Social Security Administration facilities.
The ideal would be a comprehensive, well-funded program approved by Congress and designed to make obtaining and keeping federal ID cards as easy as possible. Given the past effectiveness of lawmakers such as Mr. Paul at blocking that sort of initiative, the ideal seems unlikely anytime soon. In the meantime, given GOP determination to crack down on the virtually nonexistent problem of voter impersonation, there is a good case to use infrastructure that already exists to maximize the number of options people have to obtain proper IDs.
__________________________________________
Baltimore City has already begun pushing CITY STATE IDs and as we see all that is OPEN BORDERS in voting MOVING FORWARD in Maryland we can look at the progression of this public policy of implanted microchip IDs to KNOW our right wing Bush neo-cons are not pushing a NATIONAL ID for voting---they are looking for a way to sell MICROCHIP IMPLANTS to their 99% of voters so they tie it to race and class.
The article below is from Clinton-era 1990s where these implanted IDs were first installed in pet ID-----the technology is ready for human capital ID------
Microchip implants show potential as a form of ID
February 08, 1992|By Gina Spadafori | Gina Spadafori,McClatchy News ServiceLAS VEGAS -- Microchip implants are revolutionizing efforts to reunite lost pets with their owners.
As we see below-----NO ONE WANTS IMPLANTED MICROCHIP IDs ---whether tied to SMART CITIES or to VOTER RIGHTS. It is our low-income 99% black, white, and brown citizens FIRST to be pushed towards these implanted microchips----and this will be what NATIONAL ID =====VOTER ID will have as a goal.
All those smiling white collar professionals now required to be chipped for employment in some global corporations---NOT REALLY SMILING.
THIS UNIVERSAL VOTING RIGHTS WILL COME WITH UNIVERSAL MICROCHIP ID FOR VOTING.
'John Jay sophomore Andrea Hernandez says that the instructors there have ignored her pleas to respect her privacy. She says that they have told her she cannot participate in school elections if she refuses to comply with the tracking program'.
Students who refused microchip surveillance at Texas school punished
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
10/10/2012 (5 years ago)
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Student likens the card to 'the Mark of the Beast' in the Book of Revelations
Students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School in San Antonio, Texas who refuse to carry microchip-embedded ID cards with them at all times - in an effort to stem truancy which is costing the schools money - say they are being barred from activities and are being ostracized as a result.
Students are required to carry the card in their pocket or wear them around their necks. Students who refuse to wear the cards now say they are being tormented by instructors are barred from participating in certain school functions.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The policy went into effect at the beginning of this month. Students are now required to wear photo ID cards that are equipped with radio-frequency identification chips. If successful, the cards would become mandatory in 112 schools for 100,000 students.
Students are required to carry the card in their pocket or wear them around their necks. Students who refuse to wear the cards now say they are being tormented by instructors are barred from participating in certain school functions. Some say they were turned away from common areas like cafeterias and libraries.
John Jay sophomore Andrea Hernandez says that the instructors there have ignored her pleas to respect her privacy. She says that they have told her she cannot participate in school elections if she refuses to comply with the tracking program.
In an interview, Hernandez says that subjecting herself to constant monitoring through an RFID chip is like being branded with the "mark of the beast" - a reference to the Bible's apocalyptic Book of Revelations.
She said that she was threatened with not being allowed to vote for her school's homecoming king and queen for disobeying the student ID rule.
"I had a teacher tell me I would not be allowed to vote because I did not have the proper voter ID," Hernandez says. "I had my old student ID card which they originally told us would be good for the entire four years we were in school. He said I needed the new ID with the chip in order to vote."
Deputy Superintendent Ray Galindo issued a statement to the girl's parents which said "We are simply asking your daughter to wear an ID badge as every other student and adult on the Jay campus is asked to do."
Galindo says that the repercussions will only become harsher than just revoking voting rights for homecoming contests once the school makes location-monitoring mandatory.
"I urge you to accept this solution so that your child's instructional program will not be affected. As we discussed, there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card as we begin to move forward with full implementation," Galindo wrote.
Steve Hernandez, Andrea's father says that the school was somewhat willing to work with his daughter, but said that the family is unwilling to "agree to stop criticizing the program" and publically endorse it.
"I told him that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district's policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong," Hernandez says.
_____________________________________________
The STATE"S RIGHTS stance in Clinton's Executive Order FEDERALISM ACT is when election frauds soared as no enforcement of Federal election laws occurred these few decades....Bush and Obama continued this Clinton-era Executive Order ergo election frauds became more open as in 2016 elections.
We mentioned to our right wing 99% how STATE'S RIGHTS are MOVING FORWARD OPEN BORDER voting as fast as any other policy. Our right wing voters were MIS-INFORMED as to the goals of STATE'S RIGHTS and anti-Federalism these few decades thinking it was only to end all those PESKY US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS geared to EQUAL PROTECTION for all 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens. Indeed, that is how it has worked during ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---all Federal agencies, laws, and US Constitutional rights were NOT ENFORCED including our Federal ELECTION LAWS ergo the widespread election rigging and fraud these few decades. When our groups fighting election fraud NEVER MENTION Clinton's FEDERALISM ACT as the policy that must end to FIX ELECTIONS----we see that 5% FAKE ALT LEFT pretending they are trying to fix elections.
WE CANNOT FIX US ELECTION FRAUDS AND RIGGING IF WE KEEP ALLOWING OUR FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS BE IGNORED.
The word FEDERALISM is not mentioned directly------that word is not used and this is why right wing say ---there is no US Constitutional standing on a Federal government over state government. This battle has raged since beginning of our nation---it is morphing into ending NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY to be replaced by US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CITY STATE SOVEREIGNTY to a global corporate tribunal. WAKE UP RIGHT WING 99%-----FIGHTING OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS WHAT LEADS TO OPEN BORDERS ONE WORLD.
The US Constitution does in fact speak to FEDERALISM----it simply uses different terms as shown below. Why would our global labor pool 99% want to support this US CONSTITUTION over a policy giving them the vote TODAY? Because our US freedoms, liberties, access to justice for all are tied to our US CONSTITUTION----absent from OPEN BORDERS.
'The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws'
History of Federalism
Federalism has evolved over the course of American history. At different points in time, the balance and boundaries between the national and state government have changed substantially. In the twentieth century, the role of the national government expanded dramatically, and it continues to expand in the twenty-first century.
Dual Federalism (1789–1945)
Dual federalism describes the nature of federalism for the first 150 years of the American republic, roughly 1789 through World War II. The Constitution outlined provisions for two types of government in the United States, national and state. For the most part, the national government dealt with national defense, foreign policy, and fostering commerce, whereas the states dealt with local matters, economic regulation, and criminal law. This type of federalism is also called layer-cake federalism because, like a layer cake, the states’ and the national governments each had their own distinct areas of responsibility, and the different levels rarely overlapped.
The Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment (1861–1868)
Part of the disputes that led to the Civil War (1861–1865) concerned federalism. Many Southerners felt that state governments alone had the right to make important decisions, such as whether slavery should be legal. Advocates of states’ rights believed that the individual state governments had power over the federal government because the states had ratified the Constitution to create the federal government in the first place. Most Southern states eventually seceded from the Union because they felt that secession was the only way to protect their rights. But Abraham Lincoln and many Northerners held that the Union could not be dissolved. The Union victory solidified the federal government’s power over the states and ended the debate over states’ rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws
Industrialization and Globalization (1865–1945)
The nature of government and politics in the United States changed dramatically in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The national government assumed a larger role as a result of two major events:
Industrialization: The economy became a national, industrial economy, and the federal government was much better equipped than the states to deal with this change. For much of the nineteenth century, the government pursued a hands-off, laissez-faire economic policy, but it began to take a stronger regulatory role in the early twentieth century.
Globalization: Because of its vast economy and its extensive trading networks, the United States emerged as a global economic power. The federal government assumed a greater economic role as American businesses and states began trading abroad heavily.
Although these events played out over many decades, they reached their high points during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945). The Great Depression, brought about by the crash of the stock market in 1929, was one of the most severe economic downturns in American history. Many businesses failed, roughly one-third of the population was out of work, and poverty was widespread. In response, Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, a series of programs and policies that attempted to revive the economy and prevent further depression. The New Deal included increased regulation of banking and commerce and programs to alleviate poverty, including the formation of the Works Progress Administration and a social security plan. In order to implement these programs, the national government had to grow dramatically, which consequently took power away from the states.
Cooperative Federalism (1945–1969)
Federalism over much of the last century has more closely resembled a marble cake rather than a layer cake as federal authority and state authority have become intertwined. The national government has become integrated with the state and local governments, making it difficult to tell where one type of government begins and the other types end. State and local governments administer many federal programs, for example, and states depend heavily on federal funds to support their own programs. This type of federalism is called cooperative federalism, or marble-cake federalism.
New Federalism (1969–present)
Since the 1970s, political leaders and scholars of the New Federalism school have argued that the national government has grown too powerful and that power should be given back to the states. Although the national government remains extremely important, state governments have regained some power. Richard Nixon began supporting New Federalism during his presidency (1969–1974), and every president since Nixon has continued to support the return of some powers to state and local governments. Although political leaders disagree on the details, most support the general principle of giving power to the states.
New Federalism has taken concrete form in a variety of policies. New Federalists have argued for specific limits on federal power, as well as devolution, a policy of giving states power and responsibility for some programs. For example, the 1996 welfare reforms gave states the ability to spend federal dollars as they saw fit. Supporters claim that local and state governments can be more effective because they understand the circumstances of the issue in their state. They argue that a one-size-fits-all program imposed by Washington cannot function as effectively.
Advantages and Disadvantages of New Federalism
New Federalism appeals to many people because of its emphasis on local and state governments. Many Americans feel that the national government has become too intrusive and unaccountable. These people champion state and local government as closer to the people and thus more accountable. However, Americans often want a single seat of power for some tasks. Competing local and state governments can cause more problems than they solve, especially during emergencies. For example, the terrible hurricanes of 2005 led residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to demand a better, more unified national response.
The Supreme Court and New Federalism
The Supreme Court has played a New Federalist role by siding with state governments in a number of cases. Perhaps the most well known of these cases is United States v. Lopez (1995), in which the Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in creating gun-free school zones. More controversially, in 2000, the Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) for much the same reason in United States v. Morrison. In other cases, the court has ruled that state governments cannot be sued for violating rights established by federal law. Overall, the Supreme Court in the 1990s reduced the power of the federal government in important ways, particularly in relation to the commerce clause.
______________________________________________
While right wing voters tried to kill EQUAL PROTECTION----some citizens were tied to ORIGINALIST CONSTITUTION which they feel goes back to only rich-landed gentry having the rights to vote----meanwhile our far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals with the same goals in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% never mentioned ignoring these vital 14th Amendment rights for 99% of citizens black, white, or brown---these global Wall Street 5% PLAYERS PRETENDED to be allowing these rights.
'The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws'
Our global labor pool 99% of citizens should be fighting to protect these US Constitutional rights and not worry so much with OPEN BORDER ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE policies that will kill 99% of global citizens.
Summary of Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 - Federalism - was issued by President William J. Clinton in 1999.
The E.O.'s objective is to guarantee the Constitution's division of governmental responsibilities between the federal government and the states. It furthers the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
To the extent practicable and permitted by law, the Agency cannot promulgate two types of rules unless we meet certain conditions as described below. The two types of rules are:
The Agency cannot promulgate the first type of rule unless we:
For these two types of rules, we also must:
Here is Obama using FEDERALISM ACT to ignore 14th Amendments et al civil rights gained by 99% of WE THE PEOPLE this past century------it is this stance which kept Obama and his US Justice Department from interceding in police brutality issues-----it is what creates the ability to openly rigged and create cronyism and fraud in our elections-------
All rights for immigrants coming to America are found in our US Constitution and these AMENDMENTS----so we don't want to replace these rights with DACA which is only that same OPEN BORDERS ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE policy taking US strong democracy to third world developing nation status---most immigrants are trying to escape.
WE CANNOT FIX ELECTION FRAUDS WITHOUT ENDING FEDERALISM ACT EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH WAS ALWAYS USED ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.
OBAMA'S stance on Federalism Act MOVED FORWARD towards goals of US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones becoming those INDEPENDENT CITY STATES tied to global corporate tribunal rule and thus global 1% and their 2% having VOTING RIGHTS.
Executive Order on Preemption
New Federal Initiatives Project
Sponsors:Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Brought to you by the Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group
On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies on preemption.1 The purpose of that Memorandum was to declare the new Administration’s “general policy” to be that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.”2 The President explained that, even though the Federal Government’s role in promoting the general welfare is “critical,” the States play a concurrent and often more aggressive role in protecting the health and safety of their citizens and the environment.3 He stated that overreaching by the Federal Government with respect to preemption limits the ability of the States to “apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect the[ir own particular] circumstances and values.”4
Accordingly, the President directed the recipients not to include preemption statements in “regulatory preambles . . . except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation” or in “codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption, including the principles outlined in Executive Order 13132.”5 The President also instructed the recipients to “review regulations issued in the last 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended . . . to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption.”6
Executive Order 13132 is a Clinton Administration order that, among other things, identifies policymaking criteria that are to be applied to agency actions that have federalism implications. More generally, Executive Order 12988, another Clinton Administration order which the Obama Memorandum does not cite, requires agencies that are formulating regulations to “make every reasonable effort . . . specif[y] in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation.”7
Executive Order 13132 instructs agencies to take national action limiting the prerogatives of the States “only when there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national significance.”8 With respect to preemption, agencies are instructed that they should construe a Federal statute to preempt State law only where (1) the statute expressly preempts State law; (2) “there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law”; or (3) “where the existence of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.”9 Implied preemption is appropriate only where there is a direct conflict or Congress intended that the agency have the power to preempt State law. Finally, the scope of regulatory preemption is limited to the “minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute” that supports preemption.10
The Obama Memorandum’s focus on the preamble to regulations speaks to one of the issues in the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine.11 There, the Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the warning label for Phenergan, an anti-nausea drug, did not preempt a state law claim that the warning was defective. The Court rejected Wyeth’s reliance on the preamble to a 2006 FDA regulation governing the content and format of prescription drug labels. In that preamble, the FDA characterized its controlling legislation with respect to labeling as a “ceiling” and a “floor” and stated that its approval of labeling preempted conflicting State law.12 In addition, the FDA asserted that certain state-law actions, like failure-to-warn claims, “threaten FDA’s statutorily prescribed role as the expert Federal agency responsible for evaluating and regulating drugs.”13
The controlling legislation, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, does not expressly preempt state-law actions, so the FDA was asserting a form of implied preemption.14 In Wyeth, the Court gave short shrift to the preamble. It explained that while it had previously “given ‘some weight’ to an agency’s views about the impact of tort law on federal objectives when ‘the subject matter is technical[l] and the relevant history and background are complex’”, its deference to an agency’s conclusion that state law is preempted is limited.15 In this case, the preamble had not been subjected to the notice-and-comment process of administrative rulemaking and, according to the Court, was inconsistent with the FDA’s “own long-standing position. . . .”16
The Obama Memorandum discourages Federal agencies from asserting that their actions preempt state law claims. Some, like the Bush Administration’s FDA, see that discouragement as inconsistent with the expertise agencies have developed over time. That expertise is consistent with Congress’ creation and assignment of responsibilities to the FDA. Justice Alito noted in his dissent in Wyeth, that the FDA’s action involved consideration of the costs and benefits of the uses of Phenergan,17 and a state court lawsuit like Levine’s considers only the costs of a catastrophic injury. The FDA might conclude that the benefits of the use of a drug outweigh the risks of harm. In the case of Phenergan, which has been taken off the market in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the decision of the jury in Vermont trumped the agency’s balancing and affected the rest of the country.
Critics of Wyeth argue that preemption has a constitutional grounding just as federalism interests do. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.”18 When Congress exercises that power, the Supremacy Clause makes its enactments “the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the . . . laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”19
They assert that the preemption of multiple independent state court lawsuits and the potentially conflicting standards they may create aid in the development of a uniform national market. Uniform national standards can make it more efficient and less costly to manufacture and distribute products because the same product can be sold in more markets. Economies of scale may produce lower costs and more consumer choice may be two of the products of such a uniform market. These broadly distributed benefits are not considered in a state court failure-to-warn lawsuit like Levine’s.
Even so, as it noted in Wyeth, the Court’s analysis of preemption cases begins with a presumption against preemption that is grounded in the Constitution. It explained that “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ leads us to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’”20 Justice Thomas would go farther. In his Wyeth opinion concurring in the judgment, he argues that consideration of the purposes and objectives of Congress as part of the analysis of implied preemption claims lacks Constitutional grounding.21 The presumption against preemption also has policy support. As the President notes, preemption may choke off the benefits of experimentation in policy approaches in the several states.22 In essence, although a national rule results, the opportunity to explore new and perhaps better policy approaches may be lost.
The President’s Memorandum discouraging regulatory preemption comes against a backdrop of calls from Congress and others for increased regulation in a variety of areas. If put into law, market participants will have to shoulder greater regulatory burdens, but they will not receive immunity from state court lawsuits by doing so unless Congress provides for such immunity.
Its general inclination against preemption notwithstanding, the Administration will not be immune from the need to make difficult decisions. On June 8, 2009, for example, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General’s Office for its views regarding the scope to which the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts state court lawsuits against the manufacturers of vaccines.23 In pertinent part, that law states that “[n]o vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action” if the injury “resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”24 The Administration’s decision is complicated by the fact that, in the 1980s, the costs and risks of product liability litigation drove several vaccine manufacturers from the market and caused shortages of some vaccines, and Congress passed the Act in response.
For their part, with the President’s Memorandum in effect, producers and distributors can expect their compliance with any new regulatory requirements to be seen as a “floor” but not a “ceiling” if they are sued in s ate court and will have to deal with the resulting uncertainty.
___________________________________________
Here we see REAGAN as the first GLOBAL ONE WORLD EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY NEO-LIBERAL -----ran as right wing CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN when he was that far-right wing neo-LIBERAL.
Global Wall Street 1% pols in both parties have these few decades simply created a BACK AND FORTH in MOVING FORWARD these same global policy issues. REAGAN needed to tie RACE to his STATE'S RIGHTS stance running as right wing-----Obama TIED strengthening VOTER RIGHTS to his STATE'S RIGHTS stance having the goal of bringing rights to global 1% and their 2%----
WHICH WAS REAGAN'S GOAL IN STATE'S RIGHTS AS WELL. HE WOULD NOT HAVE BE ABLE TO RUN AS A REPUBLICAN WITH THAT GOAL.
Please think how our US Constitution was best in WORLD HISTORY in providing for rights, liberty, justice, control of public policy with voting rights ----we are NEVER going to get a better government format for the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. Indeed, this document started off tied to race and class but all legal standings advanced the rights to 99% of citizens----
WE SIMPLY MUST FIGHT FOR THOSE RIGHTS! GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% POLS AND PLAYERS!
Our right wing 99% of voters became tied to STATE'S RIGHTS for this reason----NOW these same right wing 99% are mad at the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE INDEPENDENT CITY STATES ---ruled by a global corporate tribunal.
Meanwhile our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE OPEN BORDERS VOTING WILL be replaced by global 1% and their 2% as those 5% white, black, and brown US citizens go under the bus.
Dog-Whistling Dixie
When Reagan said "states' rights," he was talking about race.By David Greenberg
Ronald Reagan
An academic journal would seem a more likely place than the New York Times op-ed page for a pitched debate about a 27-year-old political speech. But the speech that David Brooks, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and guest contributor Lou Cannon have been arguing about for the last two weeks deserves the broader airing it's getting.
The bone of contention, as readers of "Chatterbox" know, is Ronald Reagan's 1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. This matters because Reagan's election to the presidency that year hinged on bringing into the GOP fold several new groups—including the rank and file of white Southerners, the bulk of whom, for generations after the Civil War, wouldn't dare check a Republican name on a national ballot. Ever since, Dixie, once "solidly" Democratic, has been more or less solidly Republican.
The current row is about interpreting Reagan's defense of "states' rights" and his choice of venue. Was this language, in this place, an endorsement of the white South's wish to reverse the 20-year-old trend of using federal laws (and troops when necessary) to protect the rights of African-Americans? Or was Reagan's remark just an expression of his well-known disdain for "big government"—and his choice of Neshoba County an unhappy blunder? In the ambiguity lies the answer.
The first point to emphasize is that the claim that Reagan was not personally bigoted—the linchpin, for example, of Cannon's defense of the man whose life he has chronicled five times—isn't central. Personal prejudice is far from the only or most pernicious kind of racism, and politicians who don't think ill of blacks can still exploit racist aspects of our society for their own gain.
You have to understand that point to understand the conservative movement's triumph. After all, by 1980 or so, the civil rights movement had for the most part established racial equality as an undisputed good. Only in the farthest reaches of American political culture did public figures dare to make nakedly racist appeals anymore. Even segregationist standard-bearer George Wallace famously renounced his racist past in 1982 en route to re-election as governor of Alabama. These new social norms left no room for the rank white supremacism that once flowed easily from the mouths of many Southern (and non-Southern) leaders.
That doesn't mean, however, that America had attained "the end of racism," as right-wing polemicist Dinesh D'Souza claimed in a 1995 book. For one thing, bigotry continued to fester privately, in sentiments and stereotypes that people were loath to share with reporters or pollsters. Even more important, though, racial inequities had become intricately woven into many policies and structures of American life—from housing patterns to popular notions about crime and welfare—and any discussion of these issues invariably carried a racial subtext. It's against this matrix of racialized social policy that Reagan's rhetoric and ideology, and that of the conservative movement more generally, has to be seen.
In histories of the contemporary right, as historian Michael Kimmage has noted, a dichotomy exists. The conservative movement, which is highly self-conscious about its own history, has generated a library of triumphalist in-house chronicles, most of which deny that racism played a significant role in the success of Reagan or the right. In their telling, ascent stems from "ideas" such as small government, individual freedom, and anti-communism. This account, it should be noted, ignores that conservatives defined the first two of those ideas (if not the third) in ways that, intentionally or not, served to countenance racism. Conservatives spoke of "individual freedom," for instance, but they approached the concept from the perspective of a white businessman, not a black job-seeker.
On the flip side, academic historians have put race at the center of their explanations of the right's rise. These histories tend to stress the migration of the white South from the Democratic Party to the GOP. Such history sometimes shortchanges the role of the Cold War, the Great Society, and the loosening of social mores—as well as factors like the evolution of Dixie's economy. The focus is on Republican opposition first to the civil rights movement and then to later, more controversial efforts to achieve racial equality like busing and affirmative action. At its most tendentious, the argument comes close to stating that Reagan came to power because America, or at least the South, is racist at heart.
Both accounts, obviously, are overdrawn. But there are a few more nuanced histories out there, including Chain Reaction by Tom and Mary Edsall (which Krugman cites in his latest column) and In Search of Another Country by Emory University historian Joe Crespino (who has weighed in on the Reagan-in-1980 controversy here). These credit the way that race has worked as an unspoken subtext in unlikely places. The key to the argument is that Reagan's successhinged on forging messages to Americans—not just Southern whites, incidentally, but also Catholic blue-collar workers and neoconservative intellectuals—that eschewed explicit racism while still tapping into sublimated resentments of blacks or anger at racially fraught policies like busing, welfare, and crime.
In its simplest form, this multitiered message relied on code words. No one who used the phrase "states' rights" in living memory of the massive resistance movement against forced desegregation could be unaware of the message of solidarity it sent to Southern whites about civil rights. (The phrase, of course, had been bound up with racism at least since John Calhoun championed it in his defense of slavery in the 1830s.) But because the term also connoted a general opposition to the growth of the federal government's role in economic life, nonracist whites could comfort themselves that politicians like Nixon and Reagan were using it innocently—and thus shrug off any guilt they might feel for being complicit in racist campaigning. It was a dog whistle to segregationists. In the same vein, Reagan's use of phrases linked to insidious racial stereotypes—his talk of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, or "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps—pandered to bigots while making sure not to alienate voters whom starker language would have scared away.
More important, even where code words weren't at work, Reagan's very ideology contained a strong dose of racial conservatism. On one issue after another, Reagan's image and appeal was shot through with a hostility to assisting minorities with positive measures—affirmative action, legal protections for criminal defendants, welfare programs (which mainly helped whites but were perceived as mainly helping blacks). As a standard-bearer of the conservative movement, the Edsalls have written, Reagan in 1980 "revived the sharply polarized racial images of the two parties … with racial conservatism contributing decisively to the GOP advantage."
As Crespino notes, the triumph of the civil rights movement and its assumptions about racial equality forced conservative Southerners to find other issues with which to galvanize voters. On these fronts, too, racial politics nonetheless shaped the debate. Southern candidates created private religious schools, for example, that could escape court-ordered integration, thus recasting the fight as one of religious freedom. In my own research, I've found that today's right-wing attacks on the "liberal media" have roots in George Wallace's relentless war in the early 1960s against the national news agencies whose reporters, he and other Southern whites believed, distorted the terms of their struggle to maintain Jim Crow.
The upshot was that by 1980, race and ideology had become so commingled that one's stand on racial issues served as a proxy for one's partisan preference. Previously, economic issues had been the chief dividing line between the parties. By 1980, though, according to the Edsalls, the changes that followed the civil rights movement had crystallized, and racial politics figured just as strongly. Almost 69 percent of the public, for example, thought the Democrats were likely to aid minorities, compared with just about 11 percent who thought the same of the Republicans. Conversely, roughly 66 percent thought the GOP "unlikely" to aid minorities, while about 12 percent said the same of the Democrats. Even talking about domestic government spending carried a tacit racial message, since public opposition to spending was highest and most intense when it came to programs devoted to the needy and to blacks. By contrast, support for government spending on Social Security, education, health care, and the environment remained robust even during the heyday of Reaganism.
Building on the efforts of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon before him, as well as of a generation of Southern Republican leaders, Reagan succeeded in altering the terms of political debate when it came to race. Stripping away the crude bigotry that had cost the white South the rest of nation's sympathy in the 1950s and 1960s, he and other conservative political leaders fashioned an ideology in which racial politics were implicit, and yet still powerful. Ever since, their followers have been able to indignantly claim that any allegations of racism are smears and slurs—and discredit the entire discussion by making it about personal prejudice rather than public policy.
__________________________________________
This brings us back to those dastardly global 1% buying their citizenship and being able to run for office in only a few years -----creating a STACKED DECK OF ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE in our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
So, not only Chinese global 1% and their 2% are filling our US Foreign Economic Zones-----it is that global rich and they will displace our LATINO immigrant citizens first as the minority population and then as a voting block.
Who is voting for OPEN BORDERS voting in Maryland's Montgomery County? Montgomery County is that WASHINGTON DC SUBURB filled with global corporate campuses that feed off our US Treasury and create most of the massive corporate frauds and movement of US wealth out of US. Over these few decades Montgomery County has become that RICHEST COUNTY status pushing working, middle-class US citizens out---just as in San Fran. The 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown citizens are heavily represented and pushing these policies in Maryland.
This is the point on voting------leaving what was a immigration policy creating a global list of global citizens wanting to come to America for citizenship----which allowed all 99% of global citizens to attain that right-------and going to a BUY YOUR US CITIZENSHIP with the price to go higher and higher was done under OBAMA----this is how MOVING FORWARD will make what is already a rigged system for only global Wall Street pols become that global 1% VOTING RIGHTS. That is the goal---don't think because all 99% of immigrants are started in voting that they will have any power in getting that candidate for their community needs.
THIS IS HOW THE 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE BLACK, WHITE, OR BROWN END VOTING FOR THE LEAST WORST.
How Chinese millionaires buy U.S. citizenship
World May 14, 2015 11:07 AM EDT
Millions each year apply for U.S. visas, hoping it will be the ticket to a better life. The process often takes years, and there are few guarantees of success.
But what if you could buy your way to the front of the line? One visa allows investors willing to dish out half a million dollars a fast pass to a green card.
To qualify for the so-called EB-5 visa, an investor must inject $500,000 into a project or business that will create 10 new jobs in a high unemployment or rural area. The visa has become so popular among Chinese millionaires looking for a ticket to citizenship that for the first time since it was introduced 24 years ago, the government has run out of available slots… until October.
But since the EB-5 visa was created in 1990, some have seen it as selling citizenship to the highest bidder. Supporters of the visa argue it is a painless way to employ U.S. workers, stimulate the economy and create funding for American businesses. In fact, the program has generated $8.6 billion in investment and created more than 57,000 jobs since 1990, according to the State department.
Still, critics say the government needs to keep a closer eye on investors applying for the visa to ensure they have met the employment requirements adequately. Investments built in high-end neighborhoods that employ workers from poorer areas often fulfill the visa’s rural and low-income job quota. With vthe isa up for renewal this September, some are urging Congress to reconsider.
For more, check out this week’s Shortwave Podcast with P.J. Tobia.
_____________________________________________
We showed last week in discussing Spanish public policy their 99% of citizens are being shipped off to being that EX-PAT. Well, if global 1% of Chinese buy their US citizenship and enter US elections they need that global labor pool 5% citizens as their voting base. US voters openly support our new immigrant candidates but there is always a base of support from communities. This is why our US cities are filling with global labor pool along with global 1%------as we said---these low-skilled and high-skilled foreign workers are not better than our US workers ---they are building that broad voting constituency needed to make global 1% feel their ability to affect policy protecting their foreign corporations is there.
This same thing is happening in Spain----as it is happening in China -----the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in China recruits 99% of Spanish citizens as will a US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE recruit 99% of US citizens to live and work in China and all other Foreign Economic Zones.
ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE OPEN BORDER VOTING NEEDS TO HAVE THAT POPULATION DYNAMIC GEARED TO THAT 1% AND THEIR 2% TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN CREATING THAT DARK AGES OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE 'SENATE'----
'And the next decade and a half will see that gap grow. OECD projections are that by 2030 more than a quarter – 27% - of all 25-34-year-olds with a degree will be in China, while another 23% will be in India, with the U.S. languishing on 8%'.
Keep in mind---these stats of 27% of US young adults will be in China do not reflect these percentages in all other Foreign Economic Zone nations-----so we see the goal of MOVING FORWARD is moving US 99% of citizens out as EX-PATs ======do we really think all that EX-PAT population are going to vote in US elections as has been the case?
OF COURSE NOT.
Only the global 1% and their 2% will vote inside that Foreign Economic Zone no matter what the current NATION.
By 2030 when we feel global corporate campus building in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will be mostly completed ----we will see the movement away from OPEN BORDERS 99% of global labor pool voting to only that global 1% and their 2%----they need to fill these US cities first then move voting to only that global 1%.
Apr 26, 2015 @ 10:42 AM 1,827 2 Free Issues of Forbes
The Global Talent Pool Will Have A Different Face by 2030
Nick Morrison , Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
For anyone interested in global trends in education, a report published this week shows evidence of a decisive shift in the balance of power.
The dominance of the U.S. and Europe in both the quantity and quality of higher education has been so overwhelming that sometimes it is difficult to imagine it could be any other way.
But a report by the OECD shows just how far and how fast that is changing, as well as holding some ominous lessons for the West.
According to the report, in 2005 60% of the 25-34-year-olds with a tertiary education were in OECD countries. By 2013, the division between OECD and non-OECD G20 countries was about even, and by 2030 the picture will have reversed, with 70% of all graduates in non-OECD G20 countries.
Membership of the non-OECD G20 group consists of the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, plus Argentine, Indonesia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
China and India have been at the vanguard of this expansion. By 2013, China had outstripped the United States in its share of the global graduate talent pool, with 17% of all young people with a degree, compared to the U.S.’s 14%.
And the next decade and a half will see that gap grow. OECD projections are that by 2030 more than a quarter – 27% - of all 25-34-year-olds with a degree will be in China, while another 23% will be in India, with the U.S. languishing on 8%.
In other words, half of all recent graduates will be divided between two countries, a far more comprehensive stranglehold than anything previously achieved.
_______________________________________________
The global Wall Street 5% players CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have been very good at hiding policies tied to these regions designated as Foreign Economic Zones. As this article states this FEZ designation happened during FDR and it mainly allowed US businesses to ship and receive global market goods ----these policies are what took our US corporations which were not MONOPOLIES to becoming those MONOPOLIES all while global Wall Street pols shouted WE NEED FREE MARKET POLICIES.
What happened during Clinton/Bush/Obama is they stopped talking about new FEZ policies MOVING FORWARD a completely new status inside these global zones. Here we see that right wing media outlet------beginning to use that TERM SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE--- same as Foreign Economic Zone. While these global 1% claim they are rebuilding manufacturing in America---MADE IN US----they are really bringing Asian Foreign Economic Zones filled with global labor pool workers to US creating a COLONIAL STATUS.
IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW MOVING FORWARD WE WILL HAVE THAT OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE VOTING AND CONTROLLING OF ALL PUBLIC POLICY BY ONLY THAT GLOBAL 1%.
JUST STOP MOVING FORWARD.
REFUGEE CITIES is indeed what MOVING FORWARD creates------no voting for that 99% of global labor pool which will include US citizens black, white, and brown------BUT THOSE GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS ARE WORKING HARD TO PROTECT OUR VOTING RIGHTS
'Lotta Moberg is the Director of Economics at Refugee Cities'.
Of course NO sovereign rights to vote will come with all these global labor pool movements of US 99% black, white, and brown citizens-----this is why we KNOW all this talk of VOTER RIGHTS from BUSH NEO-CONS AND CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS has nothing to do with protecting the VOTING RIGHTS enshrined in our US Constitution and Amendments. The word 'PROTECTIONISM' simply means left social progressive want to rebuild local small business economies in US cities by stopping global corporate campus development-----
Is It Time That America Adopted Special Economic Zones?
Lotta Moberg
Director of Economics, Refugee Cities
2:02 PM 03/30/2017
How do you solve a problem like protectionism? With a U.S. president threatening a trade war, populism dominating political headlines in Europe, and decreasing popularity of trade deals, think-tankers and political pundits are scrambling for ways to escape a vicious circle towards ever-higher barriers to trade. Turning this development around may take a long time. In the mean time, though, countries may still create spaces where the barriers do not apply.
Enter the special economic zone, or “SEZ.” An SEZ is a geographical area where investors enjoy tariff exemptions and other kinds of tax breaks. By making particular areas of a country more attractive for investors, the zones can spur production and exports and create numerous employment opportunities. As I write in my book on the topic, “The Political Economy of Special Economic Zones,” SEZs can serve as the economic lifeline for otherwise closed countries.
SEZs come about in many different circumstances, but often in the context of adverse economic conditions. The first modern version emerged in Ireland in 1959 at the Shannon Airport. Thanks to new aircraft technology, planes flying between the U.S. and Europe no longer had to stop in Ireland to refuel. With its declining role in air traffic, the airport introduced an SEZ to attract investments and hence save the local economy.
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzō Abe is using SEZs as a way to get around the country’s infamously rigid labor laws and restrictions on foreign workers. As part of his package of economic policies to revive Japan’s economy, Abe is introducing reforms in SEZs that meet too much popular resistance to be feasible when proposed on a national scale.
Or take the United States. It is a prime example of more-liberalized zones working as a counterweight to protectionism. It introduced SEZs in 1934, in response to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Under this law, tariffs rose to historic levels, which seriously damaged the country’s import-exporting businesses. These responded to their new predicament by convincing lawmakers to create Foreign Trade Zones, an American variation on the SEZ concept.
Since China ushered in economic success with their SEZs, starting in the 1980s, the SEZ scene has been dominated by developing economies. All around the world, countries with an abundance of poor and poorly educated people are attracting multinational manufacturers to invest in their SEZs. So widely spread are the zones that countries without them easily fall behind in the competition for foreign direct investments. As such, zones seem like a must for developing countries, rather than nice-to-have.
Many poor countries are highly protectionist, with no political support for change. As a result, SEZs have established themselves as the policy of choice for numerous governments. Unable to pull back their support for interest groups appealing for trade protection, policy-makers use zones to attract investors and create jobs while keeping trade barriers high for the rest of the country.
Might renewed protectionism in the U.S. usher in the rise of SEZs on a large-scale here? It would be an easy way for the Trump administration to preserve manufacturing jobs while pursuing protectionism.
SEZs are a tool policy-makers can use to point to the jobs their policies created, without accounting for the possible costs. These costs stem from the risk of SEZs wasting resources, as companies move into zones in search of tax breaks. Some zones also allow politicians to deceive the people with what looks like a liberalization policy but is actually a tool to preserve a system of protectionism.
Before the US embarks on the SEZ track, we should ponder the political economy fallacies with SEZs. So for anyone interested in learning about the history, future, and political economy of SEZs, my book is self-recommended. It will also give you an insight into the role of SEZs in international production, with value chains spanning rich and poor countries alike.
The world is enjoying previously unseen levels of prosperity combined with rising protectionism. With international trade under attack, people are rightly worried about inward-looking policies stifling growth and prosperity. SEZs may be our way to prevent protectionism from causing such damage.
Lotta Moberg is the Director of Economics at Refugee Cities.
______________________________________
Here is that example-----As Chinese corporations are given real estate for global corporate campuses inside US Foreign Economic Zones bringing their global 99% labor pool ----how do these global immigrants vote? OPEN BORDER VOTING says MARYLAND POLS O'MALLEY, RASKINS----and all 5% to the 1% pols and players pretending to be fighting for the rights to vote for that global 99% labor pool when the goal is only those global 1% voting.
Michigan is where global FOXCONN is being allowed to build that global sweat shop factory which is the face of 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL ENSLAVEMENT----nothing good coming from this.
China to Build Cities and Economic Zones in Michigan and Idaho
Henry Zheng
Published May 20, 2012
by Henry Zheng
China's meteoric rise has caused much concern in the United States due to its dominating presence in Asia. China has territorial claims in the South China Sea and the South Asian region, and is establishing substantial economic and infrastructural inroads with countries such as Myanmar that have long been neglected by the West.
Now Chinese companies and businessmen are planning to make their home in the United States. The mainland Chinese company Sino-Michigan Properties LLC has paid $1.9 million for 200 acres of undeveloped land in Milan, Michigan.
Currently a city of 6,000 residents, Milan could be the site of a "415-unit housing complex complete with artificial lakes and up to 6,000 square-foot homes, as well as a cultural center" for mainland Chinese. The location is about a 40-minute commute to the industrial centers of Toledo and Detroit, and less than half an hour from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (a hub for international Chinese students).
This "Chinese city" has undoubtedly contributed to local concerns over the uncertainty of allowing such a high concentration of Chinese immigrants who may not integrate with the community and possibly bring a slice of Communist rule onto American soil.
Mayor Mike Bell of Toledo, Ohio, does not seem fazed by this potential political encroachment. Instead, he has embraced Chinese investors from the Dashing Pacific Group, who have already purchased the Docks restaurant complex and offered $3.8 million to purchase 69 acres of the Marina District for residential and commercial development.
Mayor Bell had been on a nine-day trip in China discussing these deals when he made the announcement. As if anticipating concerns back home, Bell reassured that “[t]hese are not folks who are coming to Toledo to do a business deal, generate profits, and bring the money back to China. They are interested in investing in our community and being a part of the community beyond just investing in property.”
And generating profits is certainly at the heart of these developments. Instead of U.S. companies solely going to China to develop, Chinese companies are now eager to build in the United States. This trend reversal is seen in the ambition of companies such as China National Machinery Industry Corp (also known as Sinomach), China's third largest contractor with projects in over 130 countries.
Sinomach is one of the many companies that have expressed an interest in developing a 10,000 to 30,000-acre technology zone for "reinvigoration of the American industrial base." The company proposes to establish a special economic zone like Shenzhen where there would be preferential policies conducive to Chinese businesses such as tax incentives and easing of trade regulations. The Michigan and Idaho projects are still in their preliminary stages and have yet to be approved.
In a more successful maneuver, the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) $2.2 billion investment in U.S.-owned Chesapeake Energy is the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets.
This is not the first time that CNOOC tried to make its foray into the U.S. market. In 2005, political opposition over CNOOC's bid of California-based Unocal led the company to withdraw its $18.4 billion offer.
Now, a faltering U.S. economic climate has resulted in less resistance to the influx of Chinese capital. And the possibility of creating 20,000 local jobs in South Texas doesn't hurt, either. Instead of taking these local jobs, the Chinese energy giant is interested in "gaining technical insight" so they can use the technology to extract "gas and oil locked in [China's] plentiful shale formations."
The United States has displayed increasing caution as China increases its economic power and military strength. A study co-authored by Wang Jisi and Kenneth Lieberthal observes that mutual distrust between both governments is deeper than previously imagined.
Wang Jisi, whose unique position as an advisor to the Chinese Communist Party has generated a rare insider's look into the Chinese position that cuts through the usual official talk, observes a change in the Chinese character.
He writes that Chinese leadership "believes that China's turn in the world has arrived" and that "keeping a low profile" is over. "It is now a question of how many years, rather than how many decades, before China replaces the United States as the largest economy in the world."
Lieberthal of Brookings writes that findings from American intelligence indicate that top Chinese officials have assumed a zero-sum approach when discussing issues related to the two countries' relations, in which China or the U.S. would emerge as the victor with little possibility of co-existence in the top spot. This language suggests that China's growing sense of distrust towards the U.S. risks breaking into open conflict if these antagonistic feelings are not reconciled.
However, these political problems have not hindered Chinese business interests in the U.S. The allure of America's business and industrial climate has drawn Chinese investors and developers who are, among other reasons, avoiding exorbitant real-estate prices in China's metropolitan areas. Exactly why Milan and the other places are being chosen has been largely left to local speculation.
Whether the Chinese government or businessmen have other agenda besides economic development remains to be seen, but for the time being, there are American states and towns willing to embrace an influx of capital, regardless of where it's from. Because as Idaho's Lieutenant Governor Brad Little says, “Asia’s where the money is.”
Henry Zheng
By
Henry Zheng
Interested in healthcare, national security, and domestic and international politics.
______________________________________________
This is what we have been shouting since 2000 Bush era elections and yes it was those elections where DIEBOLD voting machines were installed and as we see it is VERY, VERY, VERY easy to change BALLOT BOX CODING with virus. This is why our elections these few decades have gone only to global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA neo-liberals and neo-cons.
Republicans love to hide the fact that this moved the US from being a majority left social progressive to neo-liberalism being FAR-RIGHT WING----this is why US went further and further right. It was never voter tampering-----it was always done in our state and local Boards of Elections.
In all the VOTER RIGHTS FAKE 5% movements left and right wing----NONE of them are shouting our state BOARDS OF ELECTION are the culprits---they come up with these RUSSIA AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT hacking propaganda. We see in this video how easy it has always been for our local officials to flip our votes.....Republican and Democrat moving to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL PARTY.
This is how those dastardly 5% ROBBER BARON POLS stayed in office these few decades and were able to move GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS into all levels of government.
FOX: Diebold Electronic Vote Fraud Confirmed
Ricarte Rivera
Published on Feb 1, 2008 You Tube
http://www.baldwin08.com We The People Hae Passed Legislation to Guarantee Paper Ballots and an Open Count in the 2008 General Elections. Please comment, pass the message around and favorite this video. Additional information will be added to this page on a regular basis.
WE ENCOURAGE OUR 99% OF IMMIGRANTS TO WORK TO FIX US ELECTIONS SO THEY DO NOT REFLECT ONLY GLOBAL 1% AND THEIR 2%.....THIS IS NOT HOW US ELECTION LAW IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.
We want to be clear----none of the national media and many of the organizations tied to talking about election fraud in US ever mention from where the REAL election fraud is coming----THE STATE BOARDS OF ELECTIONS/CITY COUNTY BOARDS OF ELECTION----not Russia----not from over-zealous immigrant voters----not from ballot box stuffing by citizen voters----it stems from the electronic ballot box machines installed in 2000 by Bush-friendly DIEBOLD. The frauds occur in the coding and recording of ballots done by election staff. NOT RUSSIA----NOT OVER-ZEALOUS IMMIGRANT VOTERS.
How Charges of Voter Fraud Became a Political Strategy
By MICHAEL WINESOCT. 21, 2016
In asserting that the presidential election has been rigged against him and casting accusations of widespread voter fraud, Donald J. Trump has tapped deep into an increasingly prevalent theme of Republican Party politics: that Democrats try to steal elections, not win them.
It is the culmination of roughly two decades of alarms, investigations and political gamesmanship in which remarkably little voter fraud has been documented, but the conviction that it is widespread has gone from a fringe notion to an article of faith for many Republicans.
The Republican focus on voter fraud dates to the late 1990s, when the 1993 National Voter Registration Act — the “motor-voter” law — was put in place. Republicans in particular, but some election administrators as well, began to complain that registering had become too easy and ill supervised to spot ineligible voters.
The stakes for both parties in election rules and who gets to vote became glaringly clear in 2000, when a 537-vote court-challenged victory in Florida’s presidential election sent George W. Bush to the White House.
In the same election, accusations of voter fraud became a volatile issue in Missouri. Republicans claimed that Democrats in St. Louis were trying to steal that state’s Senate election after lawyers for Al Gore’s campaign won a court order keeping the city’s polls open late to accommodate voters who had been wrongly removed from the rolls.
And issues of race, often a subtext in Republican charges of fraud, were accentuated by the election of the nation’s first black president in 2008. Republican accusations of voter fraud, as in St. Louis, have frequently been directed at minority groups in cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago. The issue now thrives in the hothouse of the internet, where corrections of fact and debunkings rarely catch up with the claims they address.
Mr. Trump’s pronouncement “did not come out of thin air,” Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. “It is, in fact, an often-repeated theme by those on the right who have been claiming, especially since 2000, that Democrats are stealing elections with voter fraud.”
The notion of widespread fraud has also become a potent political weapon: Since 2010, 16 states have placed new identification requirements on voting in the name of security. Increasingly, they have required voters to produce proof of identification that young, poor and minority voters — often Democrats — disproportionately lack.
None of that is to say that American elections are flawless. On the contrary, the national election system is a hodgepodge of outdated voting machines, underfinanced election offices and voter registration lists riddled with errors and insufficiently groomed to remove the dead and people who have moved away. And experts say a new and growing worry is the possibility of the hacking of election rolls, including by foreign interests.
A 2014 report in the journal Electoral Studies — roundly criticized by other researchers as methodologically flawed — suggested that registration procedures are lax enough that as many as one in 15 non-United States citizens living in the country could have mistakenly cast ballots in the 2008 election. A 2012 study by the Pew Center on the States, cited by Mr. Trump on the campaign trail, concluded that 24 million registrations were outdated or invalid, 1.8 million registrants were dead and 2.75 million were registered in more than one state.
But even the study that Mr. Trump cited pointed to inefficient administration, not fraud. In a series of tweets, David Becker, the primary author of the study, said the study found no evidence of noncitizen voter registration or voting, and no evidence of voter fraud because of out-of-date records or deceased people still on voting rolls. He said voter rolls are more accurate now than when the study was done in 2012.
And, perhaps most important, the principal fraud that Mr. Trump and most Republicans assail, and the only one that voter identification laws address -- voters who intentionally misrepresent themselves at polling places — is exceedingly rare, experts say. They add that it is almost impossible to perpetrate on a scale that would affect the results of a national election. Democrats also note that with Republican domination of state governments, voting nationwide is increasingly overseen by Republicans.
No national database of voter fraud cases exists. But a study by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who currently works in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, uncovered only 31 credible claims of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2014, out of one billion ballots that were cast. An Arizona State University journalism project reviewed 2,068 allegations of election fraud between 2000 and 2012 and concluded that only 10 had involved misrepresentation.
Corrupt Officials
More common and largely unaddressed, but still rare, are fraudulent mail-in ballots and corruption among election officials.
Fraud charges are a staple of American politics, and once were frequently true. Terre Haute, Ind., was infamous for a 1914 scandal in which the mayor rigged voting machines, bought off voters, registered thousands of nonexistent voters and arrested nosy poll watchers.
But if thievery has not vanished since then, its scope has shrunk markedly: Four Troy, N.Y., officials and party workers were convicted in 2011 of creating false absentee ballots that may have swung local elections. And the next year, Indiana’s chief elections official, Secretary of State Charlie White, was convicted of six felonies involving voter fraud, including submitting a false ballot.
The possibility that fraud or incompetence could change the outcome of a close presidential contest, as some claim happened when John F. Kennedy took the White House on the strength of an 8,000-vote margin in Illinois, is at least conceivable, experts say. But even other Republicans have scoffed at Mr. Trump’s claims that this year’s election could be rigged by voter fraud. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a Republican primary opponent, likened them on Wednesday to “saying we never landed on the moon, frankly. That’s how silly it is.”
PhotoA St. Louis police officer guarding the entrance to the city Board of Election Commissioners office as voters waited outside in November 2000. Credit James A. Finley/Associated Press
Yet the charges by Republicans that fraud is pervasive have grown in the last 15 years, driven both by the party’s rightward shift and by national events.
Since the 2000 presidential election underscored the crucial role of voting rules in close races, allegations of widespread fraud have also figured in high-stakes political strategies. Increasingly, voter identification laws and other restrictions advertised as election security measures help determine who votes, and who does not.
“Suddenly, it became clear that in very close elections, manipulating the rules could potentially matter,” said Mr. Hasen, the election law expert. “And so voter fraud became an excuse for making it harder to register and to vote.”
And as the notion of pervasive fraud gained political value, keeping it in the public eye became smart politics as well.
During the administration of George W. Bush, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, a Republican, directed United States attorneys to aggressively pursue voter-fraud cases after Mr. Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove, called for a focus on the issue. By 2007, five years after the fraud crackdown began, the attorneys had brought just 120 cases nationwide — many involving mistakes or petty violations like completing more than one registration form — and won 86 convictions out of about 200 million votes cast.
THIS IS THE SAME GEORGE BUSH THAT WON 2000 ELECTION AMIDST ELECTION FRAUD CLAIMS TIED TO DIEBOLD ELECTION MACHINES---DIEBOLD WAS TIED TO BUSH AS A FRIEND.
President Obama’s general-election opponent in 2008, Senator John McCain, savaged him over allegations of voter-registration fraud by a left-leaning neighborhood organizing group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn, that had run registration drives in 21 states. Mr. McCain said Acorn was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”
Republicans accused Acorn’s voter-registration workers of falsely enrolling voters on a vast scale, sometimes with names like Mickey Mouse. Some workers did submit false registrations, but the group said it regularly worked to detect such fraud and fired those involved. A 2009 inquiry by the Congressional Research Service found no evidence that anyone registered by the group had cast a fraudulent ballot.
Investigations suggested that the group’s greatest crime may have been sloppiness, not intended fraud. But the charges added to a snowballing public conviction that fraud is rife. Nearly half of Americans believe voter fraud happens at least somewhat often, and 70 percent think it happens at least occasionally, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released last month.
Then and now, Republican leaders have said repeatedly that the requirements are sorely needed to rein in ballot-box misrepresentation, largely by Democrats. “Leaders of the other party are against efforts to crack down on voter fraud,” Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, said in March. “The fact is that voter fraud is rampant.”
Few Confirmed Cases
Among many Republicans, fraud’s ubiquity remains evident. “There are instances all over southeast Missouri,” said former Senator Kit Bond, one of those who raised accusations of fraud in the St. Louis voting in 2000 and is now a St. Louis lawyer. “A lot of people tell tales of buses being loaded up and visiting numerous polling places. And there’s some instances this year. It’s a small percentage that we discover.”
But few of the claims have been confirmed.
After investigations of the fraud allegations in St. Louis, only six of the 2,361,586 Missouri votes cast in the 2000 election were conclusively found to have been ineligible, either deliberately or inadvertently.
The Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach — a Republican, self-proclaimed Trump adviser and ardent advocate of a voter-fraud crackdown — asserted in an interview this year that he had uncovered a score of foreigners in just one Kansas county who had illegally registered to vote or had been stopped from registering. A list of the 17 noncitizens cited in a federal lawsuit showed that only one had ever cast a ballot; five had notified authorities of erroneous registrations on their own or through relatives.
In Lee County, Fla., a 2012 television news report that claimed to find over 100 foreigners illegally registered to vote prompted a criminal inquiry and cries for reform. But while officials did uncover some wrongly enrolled foreigners, few had actually voted, and error or confusion, not fraud, was the culprit, the county supervisor of elections, Sharon L. Harrington, said.
“There has never been any prosecution in Lee County of anyone who registered and/ or voted illegally, even though information has been submitted to our state’s attorney’s office,” she said in an email. “This is not a widespread issue.”
A conservative advocacy group made headlines in 2014 when, days before the November election, it filed a lawsuit alleging that thousands of Frederick County, Md., voters were actually illegally registered foreigners. But the suit was withdrawn two weeks later after the headlines faded. Maryland’s chief investigator of election corruption, James Cabezas, said the allegations were unsubstantiated. “Whoever’s saying all these people falsely voted, that they’re illegals, that’s just not true,” he said.
Indeed, most voting experts say threats of disenfranchising voters are far more worrisome than widespread fraud.
“The frame is being controlled here by those who are promoting the idea that fraud is the problem,” said Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University professor of political science and author of the book “The Myth of Voter Fraud.”
“If we shifted the framework to people who are trying to vote but don’t get their votes counted,” she said, “we’d be having a different discussion.”
___________________________________________
It is an INSULT to 99% of WE THE PEOPLE OF US to listen to the very Clinton global Wall Street 1% neo-liberals pretending to be fighting for the enfranchisement of our global labor pool 99% when THEY are the ones having played ROBBER BARONS defrauding and degrading all that is a first world, freedom, liberty, US Rule of Law, having citizens with rights and access to justice---if you hear someone as this pol below-----RASKINS FROM MONTGOMERY CO, MARYLAND pretending they care about justice and enfranchisement-----
TAKE THE HEEL OF YOUR BOOT AND COME DOWN VERY HARD ON THEIR TOES.
Raskins is global banking extreme wealth extreme poverty lying, cheating, stealing, no morals or ethics, no US Rule of Law, no God's natural law----CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL AND NIHILIST. He is literally married to the US FED which we have discussed is top gun in all that was ROBBER BARON FRAUD and moving all US 99% of citizens wealth and assets to the global 1% all through fraud, corruption and funded the global human capital distribution system we call global labor pool 99%.
Raskins is the typical voice for the far-right wing Clinton/Obama global banking neo-liberals-----while our far-right wing Bush neo-cons are making these same voices using different talking points.
Remember that Maryland's Montgomery County was worst in voter turnout-----seems Raskins is not very interested in the VOTING RIGHTS OF THE 99% OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY US CITIZENS black, white, and brown. He uses all the right talking points----21st century progressives fighting for a strong democracy. By progressives he means FAR-RIGHT WING EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY ECONOMIC NEO-LIBERALS-- and not left social progressives who fight for the rights of VOTING FOR 99% OF CITIZENS.
Raskins reveals what these goals are when he uses that same ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE term we see in all public policy these days UNIVERSAL RIGHTS TO VOTING. So, this is not a fight to allow global labor pool 99% the right to vote----it is the right of those foreign corporations brought to US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones to have an elected representative in that INDEPENDENT CITY STATE FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE inside US.
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY----if it sounds right wing---it is---far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberal---nothing left or 99% happening with this policy think tank.
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY
Jamie Raskin:
The Right Wing Takes Aim at
Section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act
February 26, 2013
The Right Wing Takes Aim at Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
While the Roberts Court Considers Turning the Clock Black,
21st Century Progressives Need to Fight for Strong Democracy
By Jamie Raskin
“The past isn’t dead. It isn’t even past.”
--
William Faulkner
The
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the monumental statutory achievement of Congress in the last century, is under attack this week in the Supreme Court by Shelby County, Alabama, backed by much of
the legal infrastructure of the American right.
When Chief Justice Roberts and his fellow
“color blind” arch-conservatives take up the ominous
Shelby County v. Holder
Despite the painstaking rejection of Shelby County’s arguments below in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the far right is salivating because
Chief Justice Roberts,in a near-miss decision on the same subject in 2009, has already expressed the sentiment of his colleagues in the majority that the Act now “raises serious constitutional questions.”
Of course, John Roberts was never much of a fan--
as a lawyer, he tried to kill the implementation of a
“results” test for voting rights violations under Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act when it came up for reauthorization in 1982.
Today, the whole conservative movement is gunning for
the pivotal Section 5 of the Act, which requires covered states and jurisdictions to “pre-clear” changes affecting voting with the Department of Justice or the federal district courts in Washington.
Justice Clarence Thomas has already written that
he would strike down Section 5 as unconstitutional.
Right-wing ideologues at the Cato Institute who think that
widespread disenfranchisement is “ancient history”
and hardball Republican activists who seek to do nothing more subtle than depress the minority vote and reclaim their edge in
completely or partially covered states with fast-changing demographics, like Virginia, Florida and Arizona, all agree that
this case is their best chance to take down the most effective part of the strongest pro-democracy law in American history.
The case against Section 5 turns on neither constitutional text
nor precedent nor the facts of political life on the ground, but on
political and constitutional myth.
Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment clearly gives Congress the “power to enforce” voting rights“ by appropriate legislation,”
and the Court has four times—in South Carolina v. Katzenbach
(1966), Georgia v. U.S.(1973),
City of
Rome v. U.S.
(1980),
and
Lopez v. Monterey County
(1999)
--
rejected invitations by recalcitrant states to declare Section 5
as outside of Congress’ powers under the 14th and 15th
Amendments.
The lower courts in this case reviewed more than 15,000 pages of Congressional findings and testimony demonstrating the continuing need for preclearance to deal with the ingenious
disenfranchising and diluting schemes in the covered areas, including voter photo ID laws, tightening restrictions on registration and at the polls, and racist gerrymanders.
But ideologues trying to cut out the heart of the Voting Rights Act
skip over both law and facts in favor of this free-floating right-
wing fallacy:
that a nation which twice elects an African-American
president simply cannot contain any states or counties where minority voters face actual barriers to participation. Backing up
this non-sequitur intuition are constitutional myths: that Congress
is not permitted to differentiate among the states because of Equal Protection principles and that the pre-clearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act and its “coverage formula” impose far too high “federalism costs”on covered areas. All of these nebulous suggestions are supposed to lead the Court
to find that Section 5 is no longer a “congruent” or “proportional” remedy, under either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifteenth Amendment, for threats to voting rights.
The arguments against Section 5 are as thin as the paper they are written on, but they appeal nicely to the long-suffering racial fatigue of Supreme Court arch-conservatives, who also seem
set this Term to enlist Justice Kennedy in their drive to bring down the hammer on what is left of affirmative action in public higher education. You can feel in these dynamics the same
kind of political and juridical undertow that washed away Reconstruction after the Civil War.
But, if the decades-old Section 5 does fall, it forces progressives to rethink the political democracy agenda in creative ways and makes the development of universal voting rights and enforcement mechanisms a national imperative.
A Landmark Achievement Paid for in Struggle and BloodThe Voting Rights Act was paid for in blood by Medgar Evers, Mickey
Schwerner, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Viola Liuzzo, and many thousands of other civil rights
heroes. The great Bob Moses, who defied the sheriffs and Ku Klux Klan to register voters in Mississippi in the early 1960s, was beaten nearly to his death when he walked an aspiring voter to a courthouse. Traveling the dusty back roads of Dixie, Moses
developed the phrase “one person one vote” to express
his conviction that politics belongs to everyone. The phrase re
appeared in Justice William Douglas’ 1963 opinion in Gray v. Sanders, which struck down representation by county rather than people, and became the touchstone of the Supreme Court’s
pivotal jurisprudence knocking down malap portioned legislative
districts
But the ideal of a strong, participatory and universal democracy
did not become anything close to reality until
President Lyndon Johnson pushed Congress on March 17, 1965
to pass the Voting Rights Act, just days after “Bloody Sunday” when the Selma, Alabama police officers unleashed their fury on
600 civil rights marchers.
By invalidating racist “devices” that thwarted voting rights across the country, the Act finally made the buried century-old promise
of the Fifteenth Amendment(1870)come alive:
the promise that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
For the first time since the end of Reconstruction, the national government threw its weight behind the voting rights of disenfranchised African-American citizens.
Shifting the Burden:
Section 5
and the Preclearance Breakthrough
The strong medicine
provided by the Act was Section 5, which obligated the covered
jurisdictions—all or specific parts of 16 states that had a history of both using discriminatory “devices”
and disenfranchising a majority of citizens—to “pre-clear” any
future changes in election administration,
process and rights through the United States Department of Justice or the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.
Ever since, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina,Texas,Virginia and later Alaska
(along with certain jurisdictions in California, Florida, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota) have had to prove that proposed
changes in election laws do not disadvantage minority voters.
Hundreds of plans and thousands of proposed changes
have been rejected, preventing backsliding in the project of
strong interracial democracy, even as more than 99% of submitted plans are approved routinely after submission.
What made Section 5 such a breakthrough event for American democracy was that it flipped the script on the endlessly inventive
managers of electoral racism at the state and local level.
Before, the lords of white power could respond to political pressure and successful civil rights litigation simply by
introducing new and seemingly neutral techniques of electoral domination: grandfather clauses, literacy tests, character tests, constitutional quizzes, white primaries, Jaybird primaries,
winner-take-all at-large elections, single-member districts gerrymandered to submerge the African-American vote
with techniques of packing, stacking, and cracking,”
inaccessible registration procedures, limited registration
hours, inaccessible and gerrymandered polling places, vote-
stealing,shifts from elective to appointive office, and so on,
ad infinitum.
There was no way for African Americans, Hispanics and other targets of electoral manipulation to keep up with and
challenge, much less defeat, the versatile managers of public
elections. But the pre-clearance procedures of Section 5 meant that all of the madcap hijinks of Jim Crow politics were doomed because they had to be submitted in advance to federal judges or DOJ civil rights lawyers for approval.
Rather than placing the burden on African-Americans and other minority voters to find lawyers and make the case against the government, the covered jurisdictions had to affirmatively
show that their innovations were not discriminatory or “retrogressive.”
As the Supreme Court put it approvingly in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, “
After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to
the Fifteenth Amendment,” Congress chose “to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims.”
The object of broad cross-partisan support until now, the Act has been reauthorized by Congress four different times, in 1970, 1975, 1982, and most recently in 2006, when no less a reactionary than President George W. Bush signed it into law for 25 years.
In attendance at his signing ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House were not only many of the 98 Senators and 390 House Members who voted to reauthorize the Act, but Reverends
Jesse Jackson,Al Sharpton and members of Martin Luther
King’s family. But, today, the right has turned on Section 5 and the Voting Rights Act with a vengeance, depicting it as a threat to racial neutrality, color-blindness and equal rights under law.
Some of the activists, like Abigail Thernstrom, the neo-
con Vice Chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, believe that
Section 5 has given rise to “a rigid scheme of racial preferences.”
The self-proclaimed “libertarian” Cato Institute says of
“those who can’t forget Jim Crow” that “the South they remember is gone,” and the Koch Brothers-controlled think tank now seeks
to dismantle “the segregated districts that racial gerrymandering creates.”
(Has anyone seen a “segregated” district recently?)
Many perceive in Section 5 a threat to the sovereignty of the southern states which are disproportionately covered by it.
At a more practical level, hard-nosed Republican operatives despairing of the nation’s rapid demographic changes and the apparent racial and ethnic isolation of the Republican Party,
are desperately seeking to depress the non-white vote and
hope to remove
Section 5 as an obstacle to their schemes.
Shelby County v. Holder: A Thin Legal Case
The meticulous legislative record assembled by Congress in 2006, which contains thousands of pages documenting ong
oing threats to voting rights in covered jurisdictions, clearly
refutes the claim that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is
unnecessary. Just last year, the Department of Justice had to
use its Section 5 powers to object to discriminatory voter identific
ation laws in Texas and South Carolina, the rollback of early voting practices in Florida, and an egregious gerrymander of majority-minority districts and elected officials in Texas.
But the far right insists that the high rates of election of African
-Americans to local and state offices in covered southern states
prove that the Voting Rights Act and Section 5 are unnecessary. Of course, these significant gains have come about only
because of the Voting Rights Act. Moreover, even with the election of African-Americans from majority African-American districts, dramatic levels of racial polarization still exist in statewide, countywide and district-wide elections in covered areas.
Whites vote overwhelmingly in Southern states for Republicans, and African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. There are no African-American Governors or elected United States
Senators in the covered jurisdictions. Furthermore, even though southern legislatures are now integrated, since 2011 more than 95% of elected African-American state legislators in the South serve in the minority legislative party as white voters and legislators have deserted the Democrats.
Thus, taking Alabama itself as an example, the State Senate today has 22 white Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators, seven of whom are African-American.
The pre-1965 conditions of racial
polarization are alive and well even if the Democrats and Republicans have traded places:
those in power have an incentive to suppress
the vote based on race in order to retain their hold on power. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But the supporters of the petitioner in
Shelby County argue that Congress may not differentiate
among the states the way that the coverage formula does,
suggesting that it somehow violates equal protection principles
if Alabama has to pre-clear its voting changes but Minnesota
, for example, does not. They say that this discriminatory treatment exacts “federalism costs” on covered areas
that are far too high to be constitutionally sustainable.
Thus, Section 5 no longer meets the City of Boerne v. Flores
test of “congruence” and “proportionality” for remedial legislation under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. However, Equal Protection is a right that belongs to “persons” under the Constitution, not to states, which is why the Supreme Court has upheld on at least four different occasions direct attacks on
application of the pre-clearance provision to selected covered s
tates and jurisdictions. The word “federalism” does not appear in the Constitution, nor does the opaque and mysterious phrase
“federalism costs,” so it is hard to know why mention of these
words should override the clear enforcement powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress in Section 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment and Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
There is nothing non-congruent or disproportionate about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Even if the continuing use of the original coverage
formula may not be a perfect way to ferret out the worst voting rights violators today, the Voting Rights Act has both meaningful
“bail-out” procedures under Section 4(b), which allows jurisdictions that can show they have not violated voting rights for at least a decade to “bail out”of the preclearance process, and “bail-in” procedures under Section 3[c] for jurisdictions that become violators of voting rights.
Increasing numbers of jurisdictions are asking for bail-outs from the Act, and not a single one has been turned down. The “bail
-out” and “bail-in” provisions easily smooth over any incongruence that has crept into the statute over the years.
Indeed, the Supreme Court itself, in City of Boerne v. Flores
(1997), invoked the finely tailored provisions of the Voting Rights Act to demonstrate what it considered the right way for Congress to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments.
Justice Kennedy identified the limited geographic focus of the
covered jurisdictions in the Voting Rights Act’s coverage formula, the limited time focus of the Act, the careful pre-clearance process, and the opportunity for covered jurisdictions
to “bail out,” all as statutory features that make the Voting Rights Act a finely chiseled legislative enactment responding to
demonstrably profound threats to voting rights.
Ironically, this week, it is the closely targeted application and narrow focus of the Voting Rights Act that the right-wing
Justices on the Court are threatening to use as the basis upon which to strike the Act down.
After the Voting Right Act, Ambition for a Universal Democratic Agenda
To be clear, there is no need to make a fetish of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and there are doubtless many ways still to be written to enforce the voting rights of the people on a national basis. But this is a matter of public policy, not constitutional dictate. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments make it Congress’ job to enforce Equal Protection and the voting rights of racial minorities.The Roberts Court has shown no interest
either in voting rights on the ground or in maintaining
doctrinal coherence in constitutional law. It is interested
in making grand ideological gestures.
At least some and possibly all of the hard-right Justices may
find it irresistible to decide that Section 5 is too “costly” to “federalism” or that the coverage formula in Section 4(b) is obsolete and discriminates against those poor states that once disenfranchised and discriminated but are now victims of
overweening federal power. Such a decision would mesh well with the possible wipeout of college-level affirmative action in the Court. At a superficial level, it would be argued that, across the board,“neutrality” rules. What is really ruling is racial backlash.
A decision against Section 5 preclearance or the Section 4(b) coverage formula would likely spell the political demise of the Voting Rights Act, even if it is theoretically salvageable by an updated coverage formula or an even more relaxed preclearance procedure.
Our paralyzed, deadlocked Congress will never come to terms on how to revive and renovate it if the Court knocks it down or puts
it in to a tiny little straitjacket.
Win, lose, or draw, progressives should reckon with the prospect that the days of this landmark statute might be numbered. This means that we need to take up an ambitious democracy and voting rights agenda of our own for the new century, this time with explicitly universalist aims and general terms that deal with the complex suppression of democracy today.
The voting rights struggles of the new century relate not just to old-fashioned racial trickery in Alabama and Texas but new-
age vote suppression in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio; they involve not just traditional vote dilution in the South but the increasingly untenable disenfranchisement of 600,000
Americans in Washington, D.C and 3.6 million Americans in Puerto Rico.
Many ideas have been floated as to what this democracy agenda would look like. Some are advocating for a constitutional amendment declaring that every citizen has a right to vote at every level of government over him or her. Some of the conversation involves the development of national vote-counting and electoral machinery standards. Several states have passed
the National Popular Vote plan,which would ensure that the Electoral College result would reflect the actual popular vote.
Other possible components of a democracy agenda include
the transformation of political gerrymandering in all of its guises.
Our nation must have a thoughtful conversation on how to continue the effort to defend and expand our electoral democracy. In short, to continue the project of the activists,
organizers, citizens, and leaders who dared to bring America the Voting Rights Act, we need to be thinking big right now, and engaging huge numbers of people to act to strengthen government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Democracy just can’t depend on that elusive fifth vote on the Roberts Court.
* * * * * * *
Jamie Raskin, a Senior Fellow at People for the American Way
Foundation, is a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law and a State Senator in
Maryland
____________________________________________
Here is the far-right wing global banking Bush neo-cons creating the same talking points around VOTERS RIGHTS for 99% of right wing voters using terms those voters have used for decades------WE NEED A NATIONAL ID TO ASSURE WHO IS VOTING. This goes back to the polling tax/literacy testing et al having a goal to keep population groups targeted from the polls. We are shouting to our right wing 99%-----
THIS IS WHAT CREATED TODAY'S PROBLEMS IN VOTING FRAUDS, RIGGING. IT IS 'STATE'S RIGHTS'---ANOTHER RIGHT WING TALKING POINT THAT WILL BE USED TO INSTALL OPEN BORDERS VOTING.
So, our right wing 99% must WAKE UP-----stop trying to disenfranchise US citizens when our US Constitution clearly states who votes in national elections. Again, state elections for state officials are not covered in US Constitution ----99% of citizens must make sure their STATE CONSTITUTIONS cover sovereign citizens as voters. We showed the Maryland Constitution uses both terms----INHABITANTS and CITIZENS when talking about who those voters are.
We discussed the MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE SMART CITIES AND THAT BRINGING A CITY STATE ID----that is what global banking Bush neo-cons are promoting in this NATIONAL ID CARD. The right wing has not recognized anything Federal ---so they are pushing for those CITY STATE IDs now MOVING FORWARD as IMPLANTED MICROCHIPS.
THAT IS A VERY, VERY, VERY FAR-RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIAN METHOD TO ID 99% OF CITIZENS---AND THEY ARE TYING IT TO VOTING.
This is not only about an attack on VOTING RIGHTS for citizens of color----as the Southern right wing states are MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global corporate factories filled with global labor pool faster than other regions. The VOTER ID policy is tied to implanted identity microchips and that will be scanned when a person comes to vote----whether black, white, or brown US citizens or 99% global labor pool citizen.
A national ID card that protects voting rights
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
Updated 12:16 PM ET, Mon March 26, 2012
In December, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened under the Voting Rights Act to stay a South Carolina voter ID law.
Controversy rages over similar laws in Georgia and Texas. Many expect Justice Department action against the Texas law. (The Georgia law was approved in 2005 by the Bush administration Justice Department.)
The argument against voter ID goes as follows:
The most common form of ID in the United States is a driver's license. Nonwhite registered voters are somewhat less likely than whites to have driver's licenses. In South Carolina, for example, the gap is nearly 20%. Therefore, voter ID will have a discriminatory effect.
David Frum
But then we're left with a question: What happens when those minority South Carolinians need social services? How do they identify themselves then? Then, of course, they rely on a Social Security number. But Social Security numbers are notoriously prone to theft, fraud and tampering.
The IRS counted more than 400,000 cases of theft of Social Security numbers in the 18 months from mid-2009 to the end of 2011. Surely that is only the tip of the iceberg. You don't sustain a population of 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens without lots and lots of fake Social Security numbers.
80-year-old voter shares ID troubles 02:07
In other words, the U.S. has created two forms of de facto ID: one (Social Security) that is universal, but not reliable; another (state-issued driver's licenses) that is reliable, but not universal.
Obvious question: Why can't we have a system of personal identification that is universal and reliable?
Modern technology enables the design of just such a card while also protecting and even enhancing personal privacy.
Imagine you are a 22 year old who wants to buy a case of beer. (Or a 66 year old who wants to buy a discount movie ticket.) You present your driver's license that shows on its face your date of birth, and the cashier computes whether you qualify. But that card actually discloses more information than the cashier requires. The cashier is asking a "yes" or "no" question: 21 or older? 65 or older?
Or imagine that you are an employer who wants to check a job applicant's eligibility for work. Again, the card the employer will see presents more information than required. The employer doesn't care whether you are a citizen or a permanent resident or where you were born or when you became a resident alien. He just wants a "yes" or "no" to the question: Eligible to work?
Same thing at the polls. The poll watchers don't need to know whether today is your birthday. They don't need to know your height or weight. They just need to know: Are you who you say you are? And are you eligible to cast a ballot?
On its face, it would carry only your name and image. That's all most people need most of the time to confirm your identity; for example, when checking the name on your airline ticket against the person bearing the ticket.
But none of the other information that now appears on your driver's license needs to appear there. Not the address. Not the date of birth. No the height or weight.
Information beyond face and name would be encrypted inside the card and would be divulged only to specific scanners. Liquor store owners would have machines that could read only the answer to the "21 or older?" question. Employers would have machines that could read only the "eligible to work?" question. Voting places would read only "eligible to vote?"
Departments of Motor Vehicles in each of the states could encrypt motorist information onto the card. If you moved to another state, you would not need a new card. A visit to the DMV in the new state would wipe out the obsolete motorist information and substitute the new.
Police might have more sophisticated scanners that could read more exactly your address or date of birth or citizenship status.
The card would have encrypted information useful to prevent social service fraud; for example, the number of children you have so you can't enroll for more benefits than for which you qualify.
The card might also carry encrypted medical information useful in case of emergency such as blood type and allergies to medicines.
None of this information would be visible to the casual observer. None would be available except to those with a right and need to access it.
The card need not be compulsory. Even in France, supposedly the homeland of Big Government statism, the national ID card is noncompulsory. But the card would add so much convenience to life that most people would want it: one ultrasecure document that smoothed your way through the modern world -- and guaranteed no-questions asked about your rights to vote, work, drive and purchase alcohol.
Such a card, available for free to all, should obviate all objections to the seemingly commonsense requirement that we not just "take your word for it" when you vote or apply for social benefits.
___________________________________________
While Clinton/Obama global Wall Street 5% neo-liberals run around pretending to be HELPING THOSE SAME POOR citizens with VOTING RIGHTS----our Bush global Wall Street neo-cons are hiding from their 99% right wing voters this NATIONAL ID is the same as the implanted microchip ID tied to holding all individual human capital data.
THIS IS NOT A NATIONAL ID CARD AS OUR SOCIAL SECURITY CARD----AND WE ALREADY HAVE THAT ID REQUIREMENT IN PLACE AT MOTOR VEHICLES WHERE OUR 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL ATTAIN THAT ID.
A national ID card could reshape the irrational way Americans vote
By Editorial Board April 11, 2014
CIVIL RIGHTS activists might not be able to stop Republicans from seeking electoral advantage by passing unnecessary voter ID laws. Sixteen states already require photo identification at the polls. But this week, Andrew Young, the former mayor of Atlanta and a one-time associate of Martin Luther King Jr., has been promoting a new response: Offer to put people’s photos on their Social Security cards. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was among those to push back, warning that the idea would lead to a national ID card system. To which we say, all the better if it were so.
A free, easily obtainable national ID card would offer the benefits of official identification — help with boarding planes, entering government buildings and cashing checks, among many other things — to people who do not have driver’s licenses or passports. A uniform system could also help reshape the irrational way Americans vote: Simply present your card and cast a ballot. No need for registration, no confusion about what ID you need at polling places, shorter lines on Election Day. Simple rules could manage the relatively small privacy concerns: barring authorities from demanding to see an ID before letting you drive from state to state, say, or prohibiting police from hassling people simply because they left their card at home.
Mr. Young’s proposal, backed by the voting activist group WhyTuesday?, does not go nearly that far. It would merely allow people the option of adding photos to their Social Security cards, making them more effective as government-issued identification. Pretty much every citizen, after all, has a Social Security card, and the Social Security Administration has offices around the country with staff dedicated to properly identifying Americans seeking government benefits. People who do not drive or travel abroad would have another way to get a useful government ID. The idea’s backers also say that President Obama could establish the policy by executive order, at a cost of about a dime per card, short-circuiting the ideological fuming of some in Congress.
People who want to get a photo Social Security card would still have to show, somehow, that they are who their card says they are, which would require some kind of documentation. The Social Security Administration has a flexible set of criteria for identifying people, accepting church records, for example, when hospital birth records do not exist. But documentation requirements would still be a hurdle for some of the poorest and most vulnerable voters. So, too, might be the distance from Social Security Administration facilities.
The ideal would be a comprehensive, well-funded program approved by Congress and designed to make obtaining and keeping federal ID cards as easy as possible. Given the past effectiveness of lawmakers such as Mr. Paul at blocking that sort of initiative, the ideal seems unlikely anytime soon. In the meantime, given GOP determination to crack down on the virtually nonexistent problem of voter impersonation, there is a good case to use infrastructure that already exists to maximize the number of options people have to obtain proper IDs.
__________________________________________
Baltimore City has already begun pushing CITY STATE IDs and as we see all that is OPEN BORDERS in voting MOVING FORWARD in Maryland we can look at the progression of this public policy of implanted microchip IDs to KNOW our right wing Bush neo-cons are not pushing a NATIONAL ID for voting---they are looking for a way to sell MICROCHIP IMPLANTS to their 99% of voters so they tie it to race and class.
The article below is from Clinton-era 1990s where these implanted IDs were first installed in pet ID-----the technology is ready for human capital ID------
Microchip implants show potential as a form of ID
February 08, 1992|By Gina Spadafori | Gina Spadafori,McClatchy News ServiceLAS VEGAS -- Microchip implants are revolutionizing efforts to reunite lost pets with their owners.
As we see below-----NO ONE WANTS IMPLANTED MICROCHIP IDs ---whether tied to SMART CITIES or to VOTER RIGHTS. It is our low-income 99% black, white, and brown citizens FIRST to be pushed towards these implanted microchips----and this will be what NATIONAL ID =====VOTER ID will have as a goal.
All those smiling white collar professionals now required to be chipped for employment in some global corporations---NOT REALLY SMILING.
THIS UNIVERSAL VOTING RIGHTS WILL COME WITH UNIVERSAL MICROCHIP ID FOR VOTING.
'John Jay sophomore Andrea Hernandez says that the instructors there have ignored her pleas to respect her privacy. She says that they have told her she cannot participate in school elections if she refuses to comply with the tracking program'.
Students who refused microchip surveillance at Texas school punished
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
10/10/2012 (5 years ago)
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Student likens the card to 'the Mark of the Beast' in the Book of Revelations
Students at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School in San Antonio, Texas who refuse to carry microchip-embedded ID cards with them at all times - in an effort to stem truancy which is costing the schools money - say they are being barred from activities and are being ostracized as a result.
Students are required to carry the card in their pocket or wear them around their necks. Students who refuse to wear the cards now say they are being tormented by instructors are barred from participating in certain school functions.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - The policy went into effect at the beginning of this month. Students are now required to wear photo ID cards that are equipped with radio-frequency identification chips. If successful, the cards would become mandatory in 112 schools for 100,000 students.
Students are required to carry the card in their pocket or wear them around their necks. Students who refuse to wear the cards now say they are being tormented by instructors are barred from participating in certain school functions. Some say they were turned away from common areas like cafeterias and libraries.
John Jay sophomore Andrea Hernandez says that the instructors there have ignored her pleas to respect her privacy. She says that they have told her she cannot participate in school elections if she refuses to comply with the tracking program.
In an interview, Hernandez says that subjecting herself to constant monitoring through an RFID chip is like being branded with the "mark of the beast" - a reference to the Bible's apocalyptic Book of Revelations.
She said that she was threatened with not being allowed to vote for her school's homecoming king and queen for disobeying the student ID rule.
"I had a teacher tell me I would not be allowed to vote because I did not have the proper voter ID," Hernandez says. "I had my old student ID card which they originally told us would be good for the entire four years we were in school. He said I needed the new ID with the chip in order to vote."
Deputy Superintendent Ray Galindo issued a statement to the girl's parents which said "We are simply asking your daughter to wear an ID badge as every other student and adult on the Jay campus is asked to do."
Galindo says that the repercussions will only become harsher than just revoking voting rights for homecoming contests once the school makes location-monitoring mandatory.
"I urge you to accept this solution so that your child's instructional program will not be affected. As we discussed, there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card as we begin to move forward with full implementation," Galindo wrote.
Steve Hernandez, Andrea's father says that the school was somewhat willing to work with his daughter, but said that the family is unwilling to "agree to stop criticizing the program" and publically endorse it.
"I told him that was unacceptable because it would imply an endorsement of the district's policy and my daughter and I should not have to give up our constitutional rights to speak out against a program that we feel is wrong," Hernandez says.
_____________________________________________
The STATE"S RIGHTS stance in Clinton's Executive Order FEDERALISM ACT is when election frauds soared as no enforcement of Federal election laws occurred these few decades....Bush and Obama continued this Clinton-era Executive Order ergo election frauds became more open as in 2016 elections.
We mentioned to our right wing 99% how STATE'S RIGHTS are MOVING FORWARD OPEN BORDER voting as fast as any other policy. Our right wing voters were MIS-INFORMED as to the goals of STATE'S RIGHTS and anti-Federalism these few decades thinking it was only to end all those PESKY US CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS geared to EQUAL PROTECTION for all 99% of citizens black, white, and brown citizens. Indeed, that is how it has worked during ROBBER BARON CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---all Federal agencies, laws, and US Constitutional rights were NOT ENFORCED including our Federal ELECTION LAWS ergo the widespread election rigging and fraud these few decades. When our groups fighting election fraud NEVER MENTION Clinton's FEDERALISM ACT as the policy that must end to FIX ELECTIONS----we see that 5% FAKE ALT LEFT pretending they are trying to fix elections.
WE CANNOT FIX US ELECTION FRAUDS AND RIGGING IF WE KEEP ALLOWING OUR FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS BE IGNORED.
The word FEDERALISM is not mentioned directly------that word is not used and this is why right wing say ---there is no US Constitutional standing on a Federal government over state government. This battle has raged since beginning of our nation---it is morphing into ending NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY to be replaced by US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE CITY STATE SOVEREIGNTY to a global corporate tribunal. WAKE UP RIGHT WING 99%-----FIGHTING OUR NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS WHAT LEADS TO OPEN BORDERS ONE WORLD.
The US Constitution does in fact speak to FEDERALISM----it simply uses different terms as shown below. Why would our global labor pool 99% want to support this US CONSTITUTION over a policy giving them the vote TODAY? Because our US freedoms, liberties, access to justice for all are tied to our US CONSTITUTION----absent from OPEN BORDERS.
'The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws'
History of Federalism
Federalism has evolved over the course of American history. At different points in time, the balance and boundaries between the national and state government have changed substantially. In the twentieth century, the role of the national government expanded dramatically, and it continues to expand in the twenty-first century.
Dual Federalism (1789–1945)
Dual federalism describes the nature of federalism for the first 150 years of the American republic, roughly 1789 through World War II. The Constitution outlined provisions for two types of government in the United States, national and state. For the most part, the national government dealt with national defense, foreign policy, and fostering commerce, whereas the states dealt with local matters, economic regulation, and criminal law. This type of federalism is also called layer-cake federalism because, like a layer cake, the states’ and the national governments each had their own distinct areas of responsibility, and the different levels rarely overlapped.
The Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment (1861–1868)
Part of the disputes that led to the Civil War (1861–1865) concerned federalism. Many Southerners felt that state governments alone had the right to make important decisions, such as whether slavery should be legal. Advocates of states’ rights believed that the individual state governments had power over the federal government because the states had ratified the Constitution to create the federal government in the first place. Most Southern states eventually seceded from the Union because they felt that secession was the only way to protect their rights. But Abraham Lincoln and many Northerners held that the Union could not be dissolved. The Union victory solidified the federal government’s power over the states and ended the debate over states’ rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws
Industrialization and Globalization (1865–1945)
The nature of government and politics in the United States changed dramatically in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The national government assumed a larger role as a result of two major events:
Industrialization: The economy became a national, industrial economy, and the federal government was much better equipped than the states to deal with this change. For much of the nineteenth century, the government pursued a hands-off, laissez-faire economic policy, but it began to take a stronger regulatory role in the early twentieth century.
Globalization: Because of its vast economy and its extensive trading networks, the United States emerged as a global economic power. The federal government assumed a greater economic role as American businesses and states began trading abroad heavily.
Although these events played out over many decades, they reached their high points during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945). The Great Depression, brought about by the crash of the stock market in 1929, was one of the most severe economic downturns in American history. Many businesses failed, roughly one-third of the population was out of work, and poverty was widespread. In response, Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, a series of programs and policies that attempted to revive the economy and prevent further depression. The New Deal included increased regulation of banking and commerce and programs to alleviate poverty, including the formation of the Works Progress Administration and a social security plan. In order to implement these programs, the national government had to grow dramatically, which consequently took power away from the states.
Cooperative Federalism (1945–1969)
Federalism over much of the last century has more closely resembled a marble cake rather than a layer cake as federal authority and state authority have become intertwined. The national government has become integrated with the state and local governments, making it difficult to tell where one type of government begins and the other types end. State and local governments administer many federal programs, for example, and states depend heavily on federal funds to support their own programs. This type of federalism is called cooperative federalism, or marble-cake federalism.
New Federalism (1969–present)
Since the 1970s, political leaders and scholars of the New Federalism school have argued that the national government has grown too powerful and that power should be given back to the states. Although the national government remains extremely important, state governments have regained some power. Richard Nixon began supporting New Federalism during his presidency (1969–1974), and every president since Nixon has continued to support the return of some powers to state and local governments. Although political leaders disagree on the details, most support the general principle of giving power to the states.
New Federalism has taken concrete form in a variety of policies. New Federalists have argued for specific limits on federal power, as well as devolution, a policy of giving states power and responsibility for some programs. For example, the 1996 welfare reforms gave states the ability to spend federal dollars as they saw fit. Supporters claim that local and state governments can be more effective because they understand the circumstances of the issue in their state. They argue that a one-size-fits-all program imposed by Washington cannot function as effectively.
Advantages and Disadvantages of New Federalism
New Federalism appeals to many people because of its emphasis on local and state governments. Many Americans feel that the national government has become too intrusive and unaccountable. These people champion state and local government as closer to the people and thus more accountable. However, Americans often want a single seat of power for some tasks. Competing local and state governments can cause more problems than they solve, especially during emergencies. For example, the terrible hurricanes of 2005 led residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama to demand a better, more unified national response.
The Supreme Court and New Federalism
The Supreme Court has played a New Federalist role by siding with state governments in a number of cases. Perhaps the most well known of these cases is United States v. Lopez (1995), in which the Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority in creating gun-free school zones. More controversially, in 2000, the Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) for much the same reason in United States v. Morrison. In other cases, the court has ruled that state governments cannot be sued for violating rights established by federal law. Overall, the Supreme Court in the 1990s reduced the power of the federal government in important ways, particularly in relation to the commerce clause.
______________________________________________
While right wing voters tried to kill EQUAL PROTECTION----some citizens were tied to ORIGINALIST CONSTITUTION which they feel goes back to only rich-landed gentry having the rights to vote----meanwhile our far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberals with the same goals in ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% never mentioned ignoring these vital 14th Amendment rights for 99% of citizens black, white, or brown---these global Wall Street 5% PLAYERS PRETENDED to be allowing these rights.
'The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified a few years after the Civil War in 1868, includes three key clauses, which limit state power and protect the basic rights of citizens:
The privileges and immunities clause declares that no state can deny any citizen the privileges and immunities of American citizenship.
The due process clause limits states’ abilities to deprive citizens of their legal rights.
The equal protection clause declares that all people get the equal protection of the laws'
Our global labor pool 99% of citizens should be fighting to protect these US Constitutional rights and not worry so much with OPEN BORDER ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE policies that will kill 99% of global citizens.
Summary of Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 - Federalism - was issued by President William J. Clinton in 1999.
The E.O.'s objective is to guarantee the Constitution's division of governmental responsibilities between the federal government and the states. It furthers the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
To the extent practicable and permitted by law, the Agency cannot promulgate two types of rules unless we meet certain conditions as described below. The two types of rules are:
- rules with Federalism Implications (FI), substantial direct compliance costs on state and local (S/L) governments, and not required by statute, and
- rules with FI and that preempt S/L law.
The Agency cannot promulgate the first type of rule unless we:
- provide funds necessary to pay direct compliance costs of the S/L governments, or
- early in the process before promulgation, consult with elected S/L officials or their representative national organizations.
For these two types of rules, we also must:
- adhere to the fundamental principles in §2 of the E.O. and comply, to the extent permitted by law, with the general policymaking criteria in §3 of the E.O.;
- provide in a separate preamble section a federalism summary impact statement;
- make available to the Office of Management and Budget any written communications from S/L officials; and
- for final rules subject to E.O. 12866 review, include certification from EPA's Designated Federalism Official stating EPA has met E.O. requirements.
Here is Obama using FEDERALISM ACT to ignore 14th Amendments et al civil rights gained by 99% of WE THE PEOPLE this past century------it is this stance which kept Obama and his US Justice Department from interceding in police brutality issues-----it is what creates the ability to openly rigged and create cronyism and fraud in our elections-------
All rights for immigrants coming to America are found in our US Constitution and these AMENDMENTS----so we don't want to replace these rights with DACA which is only that same OPEN BORDERS ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE policy taking US strong democracy to third world developing nation status---most immigrants are trying to escape.
WE CANNOT FIX ELECTION FRAUDS WITHOUT ENDING FEDERALISM ACT EXECUTIVE ORDER WHICH WAS ALWAYS USED ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY.
OBAMA'S stance on Federalism Act MOVED FORWARD towards goals of US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones becoming those INDEPENDENT CITY STATES tied to global corporate tribunal rule and thus global 1% and their 2% having VOTING RIGHTS.
Executive Order on Preemption
New Federal Initiatives Project
Sponsors:Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Brought to you by the Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group
On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies on preemption.1 The purpose of that Memorandum was to declare the new Administration’s “general policy” to be that “preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.”2 The President explained that, even though the Federal Government’s role in promoting the general welfare is “critical,” the States play a concurrent and often more aggressive role in protecting the health and safety of their citizens and the environment.3 He stated that overreaching by the Federal Government with respect to preemption limits the ability of the States to “apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect the[ir own particular] circumstances and values.”4
Accordingly, the President directed the recipients not to include preemption statements in “regulatory preambles . . . except where preemption provisions are also included in the codified regulation” or in “codified regulations except where such provisions would be justified under legal principles governing preemption, including the principles outlined in Executive Order 13132.”5 The President also instructed the recipients to “review regulations issued in the last 10 years that contain statements in regulatory preambles or codified provisions intended . . . to preempt State law, in order to decide whether such statements are justified under applicable legal principles governing preemption.”6
Executive Order 13132 is a Clinton Administration order that, among other things, identifies policymaking criteria that are to be applied to agency actions that have federalism implications. More generally, Executive Order 12988, another Clinton Administration order which the Obama Memorandum does not cite, requires agencies that are formulating regulations to “make every reasonable effort . . . specif[y] in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the regulation.”7
Executive Order 13132 instructs agencies to take national action limiting the prerogatives of the States “only when there is constitutional and statutory authority for the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the presence of a problem of national significance.”8 With respect to preemption, agencies are instructed that they should construe a Federal statute to preempt State law only where (1) the statute expressly preempts State law; (2) “there is some other clear evidence that the Congress intended preemption of State law”; or (3) “where the existence of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.”9 Implied preemption is appropriate only where there is a direct conflict or Congress intended that the agency have the power to preempt State law. Finally, the scope of regulatory preemption is limited to the “minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute” that supports preemption.10
The Obama Memorandum’s focus on the preamble to regulations speaks to one of the issues in the Supreme Court’s decision in Wyeth v. Levine.11 There, the Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the warning label for Phenergan, an anti-nausea drug, did not preempt a state law claim that the warning was defective. The Court rejected Wyeth’s reliance on the preamble to a 2006 FDA regulation governing the content and format of prescription drug labels. In that preamble, the FDA characterized its controlling legislation with respect to labeling as a “ceiling” and a “floor” and stated that its approval of labeling preempted conflicting State law.12 In addition, the FDA asserted that certain state-law actions, like failure-to-warn claims, “threaten FDA’s statutorily prescribed role as the expert Federal agency responsible for evaluating and regulating drugs.”13
The controlling legislation, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, does not expressly preempt state-law actions, so the FDA was asserting a form of implied preemption.14 In Wyeth, the Court gave short shrift to the preamble. It explained that while it had previously “given ‘some weight’ to an agency’s views about the impact of tort law on federal objectives when ‘the subject matter is technical[l] and the relevant history and background are complex’”, its deference to an agency’s conclusion that state law is preempted is limited.15 In this case, the preamble had not been subjected to the notice-and-comment process of administrative rulemaking and, according to the Court, was inconsistent with the FDA’s “own long-standing position. . . .”16
The Obama Memorandum discourages Federal agencies from asserting that their actions preempt state law claims. Some, like the Bush Administration’s FDA, see that discouragement as inconsistent with the expertise agencies have developed over time. That expertise is consistent with Congress’ creation and assignment of responsibilities to the FDA. Justice Alito noted in his dissent in Wyeth, that the FDA’s action involved consideration of the costs and benefits of the uses of Phenergan,17 and a state court lawsuit like Levine’s considers only the costs of a catastrophic injury. The FDA might conclude that the benefits of the use of a drug outweigh the risks of harm. In the case of Phenergan, which has been taken off the market in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the decision of the jury in Vermont trumped the agency’s balancing and affected the rest of the country.
Critics of Wyeth argue that preemption has a constitutional grounding just as federalism interests do. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states.”18 When Congress exercises that power, the Supremacy Clause makes its enactments “the supreme law of the land . . . anything in the . . . laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”19
They assert that the preemption of multiple independent state court lawsuits and the potentially conflicting standards they may create aid in the development of a uniform national market. Uniform national standards can make it more efficient and less costly to manufacture and distribute products because the same product can be sold in more markets. Economies of scale may produce lower costs and more consumer choice may be two of the products of such a uniform market. These broadly distributed benefits are not considered in a state court failure-to-warn lawsuit like Levine’s.
Even so, as it noted in Wyeth, the Court’s analysis of preemption cases begins with a presumption against preemption that is grounded in the Constitution. It explained that “respect for the States as ‘independent sovereigns in our federal system’ leads us to assume that ‘Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.’”20 Justice Thomas would go farther. In his Wyeth opinion concurring in the judgment, he argues that consideration of the purposes and objectives of Congress as part of the analysis of implied preemption claims lacks Constitutional grounding.21 The presumption against preemption also has policy support. As the President notes, preemption may choke off the benefits of experimentation in policy approaches in the several states.22 In essence, although a national rule results, the opportunity to explore new and perhaps better policy approaches may be lost.
The President’s Memorandum discouraging regulatory preemption comes against a backdrop of calls from Congress and others for increased regulation in a variety of areas. If put into law, market participants will have to shoulder greater regulatory burdens, but they will not receive immunity from state court lawsuits by doing so unless Congress provides for such immunity.
Its general inclination against preemption notwithstanding, the Administration will not be immune from the need to make difficult decisions. On June 8, 2009, for example, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General’s Office for its views regarding the scope to which the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts state court lawsuits against the manufacturers of vaccines.23 In pertinent part, that law states that “[n]o vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action” if the injury “resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”24 The Administration’s decision is complicated by the fact that, in the 1980s, the costs and risks of product liability litigation drove several vaccine manufacturers from the market and caused shortages of some vaccines, and Congress passed the Act in response.
For their part, with the President’s Memorandum in effect, producers and distributors can expect their compliance with any new regulatory requirements to be seen as a “floor” but not a “ceiling” if they are sued in s ate court and will have to deal with the resulting uncertainty.
___________________________________________
Here we see REAGAN as the first GLOBAL ONE WORLD EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY NEO-LIBERAL -----ran as right wing CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN when he was that far-right wing neo-LIBERAL.
Global Wall Street 1% pols in both parties have these few decades simply created a BACK AND FORTH in MOVING FORWARD these same global policy issues. REAGAN needed to tie RACE to his STATE'S RIGHTS stance running as right wing-----Obama TIED strengthening VOTER RIGHTS to his STATE'S RIGHTS stance having the goal of bringing rights to global 1% and their 2%----
WHICH WAS REAGAN'S GOAL IN STATE'S RIGHTS AS WELL. HE WOULD NOT HAVE BE ABLE TO RUN AS A REPUBLICAN WITH THAT GOAL.
Please think how our US Constitution was best in WORLD HISTORY in providing for rights, liberty, justice, control of public policy with voting rights ----we are NEVER going to get a better government format for the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. Indeed, this document started off tied to race and class but all legal standings advanced the rights to 99% of citizens----
WE SIMPLY MUST FIGHT FOR THOSE RIGHTS! GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% POLS AND PLAYERS!
Our right wing 99% of voters became tied to STATE'S RIGHTS for this reason----NOW these same right wing 99% are mad at the goals of MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE INDEPENDENT CITY STATES ---ruled by a global corporate tribunal.
Meanwhile our 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players MOVING FORWARD US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE OPEN BORDERS VOTING WILL be replaced by global 1% and their 2% as those 5% white, black, and brown US citizens go under the bus.
Dog-Whistling Dixie
When Reagan said "states' rights," he was talking about race.By David Greenberg
Ronald Reagan
An academic journal would seem a more likely place than the New York Times op-ed page for a pitched debate about a 27-year-old political speech. But the speech that David Brooks, Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, and guest contributor Lou Cannon have been arguing about for the last two weeks deserves the broader airing it's getting.
The bone of contention, as readers of "Chatterbox" know, is Ronald Reagan's 1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. This matters because Reagan's election to the presidency that year hinged on bringing into the GOP fold several new groups—including the rank and file of white Southerners, the bulk of whom, for generations after the Civil War, wouldn't dare check a Republican name on a national ballot. Ever since, Dixie, once "solidly" Democratic, has been more or less solidly Republican.
The current row is about interpreting Reagan's defense of "states' rights" and his choice of venue. Was this language, in this place, an endorsement of the white South's wish to reverse the 20-year-old trend of using federal laws (and troops when necessary) to protect the rights of African-Americans? Or was Reagan's remark just an expression of his well-known disdain for "big government"—and his choice of Neshoba County an unhappy blunder? In the ambiguity lies the answer.
The first point to emphasize is that the claim that Reagan was not personally bigoted—the linchpin, for example, of Cannon's defense of the man whose life he has chronicled five times—isn't central. Personal prejudice is far from the only or most pernicious kind of racism, and politicians who don't think ill of blacks can still exploit racist aspects of our society for their own gain.
You have to understand that point to understand the conservative movement's triumph. After all, by 1980 or so, the civil rights movement had for the most part established racial equality as an undisputed good. Only in the farthest reaches of American political culture did public figures dare to make nakedly racist appeals anymore. Even segregationist standard-bearer George Wallace famously renounced his racist past in 1982 en route to re-election as governor of Alabama. These new social norms left no room for the rank white supremacism that once flowed easily from the mouths of many Southern (and non-Southern) leaders.
That doesn't mean, however, that America had attained "the end of racism," as right-wing polemicist Dinesh D'Souza claimed in a 1995 book. For one thing, bigotry continued to fester privately, in sentiments and stereotypes that people were loath to share with reporters or pollsters. Even more important, though, racial inequities had become intricately woven into many policies and structures of American life—from housing patterns to popular notions about crime and welfare—and any discussion of these issues invariably carried a racial subtext. It's against this matrix of racialized social policy that Reagan's rhetoric and ideology, and that of the conservative movement more generally, has to be seen.
In histories of the contemporary right, as historian Michael Kimmage has noted, a dichotomy exists. The conservative movement, which is highly self-conscious about its own history, has generated a library of triumphalist in-house chronicles, most of which deny that racism played a significant role in the success of Reagan or the right. In their telling, ascent stems from "ideas" such as small government, individual freedom, and anti-communism. This account, it should be noted, ignores that conservatives defined the first two of those ideas (if not the third) in ways that, intentionally or not, served to countenance racism. Conservatives spoke of "individual freedom," for instance, but they approached the concept from the perspective of a white businessman, not a black job-seeker.
On the flip side, academic historians have put race at the center of their explanations of the right's rise. These histories tend to stress the migration of the white South from the Democratic Party to the GOP. Such history sometimes shortchanges the role of the Cold War, the Great Society, and the loosening of social mores—as well as factors like the evolution of Dixie's economy. The focus is on Republican opposition first to the civil rights movement and then to later, more controversial efforts to achieve racial equality like busing and affirmative action. At its most tendentious, the argument comes close to stating that Reagan came to power because America, or at least the South, is racist at heart.
Both accounts, obviously, are overdrawn. But there are a few more nuanced histories out there, including Chain Reaction by Tom and Mary Edsall (which Krugman cites in his latest column) and In Search of Another Country by Emory University historian Joe Crespino (who has weighed in on the Reagan-in-1980 controversy here). These credit the way that race has worked as an unspoken subtext in unlikely places. The key to the argument is that Reagan's successhinged on forging messages to Americans—not just Southern whites, incidentally, but also Catholic blue-collar workers and neoconservative intellectuals—that eschewed explicit racism while still tapping into sublimated resentments of blacks or anger at racially fraught policies like busing, welfare, and crime.
In its simplest form, this multitiered message relied on code words. No one who used the phrase "states' rights" in living memory of the massive resistance movement against forced desegregation could be unaware of the message of solidarity it sent to Southern whites about civil rights. (The phrase, of course, had been bound up with racism at least since John Calhoun championed it in his defense of slavery in the 1830s.) But because the term also connoted a general opposition to the growth of the federal government's role in economic life, nonracist whites could comfort themselves that politicians like Nixon and Reagan were using it innocently—and thus shrug off any guilt they might feel for being complicit in racist campaigning. It was a dog whistle to segregationists. In the same vein, Reagan's use of phrases linked to insidious racial stereotypes—his talk of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, or "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps—pandered to bigots while making sure not to alienate voters whom starker language would have scared away.
More important, even where code words weren't at work, Reagan's very ideology contained a strong dose of racial conservatism. On one issue after another, Reagan's image and appeal was shot through with a hostility to assisting minorities with positive measures—affirmative action, legal protections for criminal defendants, welfare programs (which mainly helped whites but were perceived as mainly helping blacks). As a standard-bearer of the conservative movement, the Edsalls have written, Reagan in 1980 "revived the sharply polarized racial images of the two parties … with racial conservatism contributing decisively to the GOP advantage."
As Crespino notes, the triumph of the civil rights movement and its assumptions about racial equality forced conservative Southerners to find other issues with which to galvanize voters. On these fronts, too, racial politics nonetheless shaped the debate. Southern candidates created private religious schools, for example, that could escape court-ordered integration, thus recasting the fight as one of religious freedom. In my own research, I've found that today's right-wing attacks on the "liberal media" have roots in George Wallace's relentless war in the early 1960s against the national news agencies whose reporters, he and other Southern whites believed, distorted the terms of their struggle to maintain Jim Crow.
The upshot was that by 1980, race and ideology had become so commingled that one's stand on racial issues served as a proxy for one's partisan preference. Previously, economic issues had been the chief dividing line between the parties. By 1980, though, according to the Edsalls, the changes that followed the civil rights movement had crystallized, and racial politics figured just as strongly. Almost 69 percent of the public, for example, thought the Democrats were likely to aid minorities, compared with just about 11 percent who thought the same of the Republicans. Conversely, roughly 66 percent thought the GOP "unlikely" to aid minorities, while about 12 percent said the same of the Democrats. Even talking about domestic government spending carried a tacit racial message, since public opposition to spending was highest and most intense when it came to programs devoted to the needy and to blacks. By contrast, support for government spending on Social Security, education, health care, and the environment remained robust even during the heyday of Reaganism.
Building on the efforts of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon before him, as well as of a generation of Southern Republican leaders, Reagan succeeded in altering the terms of political debate when it came to race. Stripping away the crude bigotry that had cost the white South the rest of nation's sympathy in the 1950s and 1960s, he and other conservative political leaders fashioned an ideology in which racial politics were implicit, and yet still powerful. Ever since, their followers have been able to indignantly claim that any allegations of racism are smears and slurs—and discredit the entire discussion by making it about personal prejudice rather than public policy.
__________________________________________
This brings us back to those dastardly global 1% buying their citizenship and being able to run for office in only a few years -----creating a STACKED DECK OF ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE in our US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
So, not only Chinese global 1% and their 2% are filling our US Foreign Economic Zones-----it is that global rich and they will displace our LATINO immigrant citizens first as the minority population and then as a voting block.
Who is voting for OPEN BORDERS voting in Maryland's Montgomery County? Montgomery County is that WASHINGTON DC SUBURB filled with global corporate campuses that feed off our US Treasury and create most of the massive corporate frauds and movement of US wealth out of US. Over these few decades Montgomery County has become that RICHEST COUNTY status pushing working, middle-class US citizens out---just as in San Fran. The 5% to the 1% black, white, and brown citizens are heavily represented and pushing these policies in Maryland.
This is the point on voting------leaving what was a immigration policy creating a global list of global citizens wanting to come to America for citizenship----which allowed all 99% of global citizens to attain that right-------and going to a BUY YOUR US CITIZENSHIP with the price to go higher and higher was done under OBAMA----this is how MOVING FORWARD will make what is already a rigged system for only global Wall Street pols become that global 1% VOTING RIGHTS. That is the goal---don't think because all 99% of immigrants are started in voting that they will have any power in getting that candidate for their community needs.
THIS IS HOW THE 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE BLACK, WHITE, OR BROWN END VOTING FOR THE LEAST WORST.
How Chinese millionaires buy U.S. citizenship
World May 14, 2015 11:07 AM EDT
Millions each year apply for U.S. visas, hoping it will be the ticket to a better life. The process often takes years, and there are few guarantees of success.
But what if you could buy your way to the front of the line? One visa allows investors willing to dish out half a million dollars a fast pass to a green card.
To qualify for the so-called EB-5 visa, an investor must inject $500,000 into a project or business that will create 10 new jobs in a high unemployment or rural area. The visa has become so popular among Chinese millionaires looking for a ticket to citizenship that for the first time since it was introduced 24 years ago, the government has run out of available slots… until October.
But since the EB-5 visa was created in 1990, some have seen it as selling citizenship to the highest bidder. Supporters of the visa argue it is a painless way to employ U.S. workers, stimulate the economy and create funding for American businesses. In fact, the program has generated $8.6 billion in investment and created more than 57,000 jobs since 1990, according to the State department.
Still, critics say the government needs to keep a closer eye on investors applying for the visa to ensure they have met the employment requirements adequately. Investments built in high-end neighborhoods that employ workers from poorer areas often fulfill the visa’s rural and low-income job quota. With vthe isa up for renewal this September, some are urging Congress to reconsider.
For more, check out this week’s Shortwave Podcast with P.J. Tobia.
_____________________________________________
We showed last week in discussing Spanish public policy their 99% of citizens are being shipped off to being that EX-PAT. Well, if global 1% of Chinese buy their US citizenship and enter US elections they need that global labor pool 5% citizens as their voting base. US voters openly support our new immigrant candidates but there is always a base of support from communities. This is why our US cities are filling with global labor pool along with global 1%------as we said---these low-skilled and high-skilled foreign workers are not better than our US workers ---they are building that broad voting constituency needed to make global 1% feel their ability to affect policy protecting their foreign corporations is there.
This same thing is happening in Spain----as it is happening in China -----the Spanish Chamber of Commerce in China recruits 99% of Spanish citizens as will a US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE recruit 99% of US citizens to live and work in China and all other Foreign Economic Zones.
ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE OPEN BORDER VOTING NEEDS TO HAVE THAT POPULATION DYNAMIC GEARED TO THAT 1% AND THEIR 2% TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN CREATING THAT DARK AGES OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE 'SENATE'----
'And the next decade and a half will see that gap grow. OECD projections are that by 2030 more than a quarter – 27% - of all 25-34-year-olds with a degree will be in China, while another 23% will be in India, with the U.S. languishing on 8%'.
Keep in mind---these stats of 27% of US young adults will be in China do not reflect these percentages in all other Foreign Economic Zone nations-----so we see the goal of MOVING FORWARD is moving US 99% of citizens out as EX-PATs ======do we really think all that EX-PAT population are going to vote in US elections as has been the case?
OF COURSE NOT.
Only the global 1% and their 2% will vote inside that Foreign Economic Zone no matter what the current NATION.
By 2030 when we feel global corporate campus building in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will be mostly completed ----we will see the movement away from OPEN BORDERS 99% of global labor pool voting to only that global 1% and their 2%----they need to fill these US cities first then move voting to only that global 1%.
Apr 26, 2015 @ 10:42 AM 1,827 2 Free Issues of Forbes
The Global Talent Pool Will Have A Different Face by 2030
Nick Morrison , Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
For anyone interested in global trends in education, a report published this week shows evidence of a decisive shift in the balance of power.
The dominance of the U.S. and Europe in both the quantity and quality of higher education has been so overwhelming that sometimes it is difficult to imagine it could be any other way.
But a report by the OECD shows just how far and how fast that is changing, as well as holding some ominous lessons for the West.
According to the report, in 2005 60% of the 25-34-year-olds with a tertiary education were in OECD countries. By 2013, the division between OECD and non-OECD G20 countries was about even, and by 2030 the picture will have reversed, with 70% of all graduates in non-OECD G20 countries.
Membership of the non-OECD G20 group consists of the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, plus Argentine, Indonesia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
China and India have been at the vanguard of this expansion. By 2013, China had outstripped the United States in its share of the global graduate talent pool, with 17% of all young people with a degree, compared to the U.S.’s 14%.
And the next decade and a half will see that gap grow. OECD projections are that by 2030 more than a quarter – 27% - of all 25-34-year-olds with a degree will be in China, while another 23% will be in India, with the U.S. languishing on 8%.
In other words, half of all recent graduates will be divided between two countries, a far more comprehensive stranglehold than anything previously achieved.
_______________________________________________
The global Wall Street 5% players CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have been very good at hiding policies tied to these regions designated as Foreign Economic Zones. As this article states this FEZ designation happened during FDR and it mainly allowed US businesses to ship and receive global market goods ----these policies are what took our US corporations which were not MONOPOLIES to becoming those MONOPOLIES all while global Wall Street pols shouted WE NEED FREE MARKET POLICIES.
What happened during Clinton/Bush/Obama is they stopped talking about new FEZ policies MOVING FORWARD a completely new status inside these global zones. Here we see that right wing media outlet------beginning to use that TERM SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE--- same as Foreign Economic Zone. While these global 1% claim they are rebuilding manufacturing in America---MADE IN US----they are really bringing Asian Foreign Economic Zones filled with global labor pool workers to US creating a COLONIAL STATUS.
IF WE CONTINUE TO ALLOW MOVING FORWARD WE WILL HAVE THAT OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE VOTING AND CONTROLLING OF ALL PUBLIC POLICY BY ONLY THAT GLOBAL 1%.
JUST STOP MOVING FORWARD.
REFUGEE CITIES is indeed what MOVING FORWARD creates------no voting for that 99% of global labor pool which will include US citizens black, white, and brown------BUT THOSE GLOBAL 1% WALL STREET CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS ARE WORKING HARD TO PROTECT OUR VOTING RIGHTS
'Lotta Moberg is the Director of Economics at Refugee Cities'.
Of course NO sovereign rights to vote will come with all these global labor pool movements of US 99% black, white, and brown citizens-----this is why we KNOW all this talk of VOTER RIGHTS from BUSH NEO-CONS AND CLINTON/OBAMA NEO-LIBERALS has nothing to do with protecting the VOTING RIGHTS enshrined in our US Constitution and Amendments. The word 'PROTECTIONISM' simply means left social progressive want to rebuild local small business economies in US cities by stopping global corporate campus development-----
Is It Time That America Adopted Special Economic Zones?
Lotta Moberg
Director of Economics, Refugee Cities
2:02 PM 03/30/2017
How do you solve a problem like protectionism? With a U.S. president threatening a trade war, populism dominating political headlines in Europe, and decreasing popularity of trade deals, think-tankers and political pundits are scrambling for ways to escape a vicious circle towards ever-higher barriers to trade. Turning this development around may take a long time. In the mean time, though, countries may still create spaces where the barriers do not apply.
Enter the special economic zone, or “SEZ.” An SEZ is a geographical area where investors enjoy tariff exemptions and other kinds of tax breaks. By making particular areas of a country more attractive for investors, the zones can spur production and exports and create numerous employment opportunities. As I write in my book on the topic, “The Political Economy of Special Economic Zones,” SEZs can serve as the economic lifeline for otherwise closed countries.
SEZs come about in many different circumstances, but often in the context of adverse economic conditions. The first modern version emerged in Ireland in 1959 at the Shannon Airport. Thanks to new aircraft technology, planes flying between the U.S. and Europe no longer had to stop in Ireland to refuel. With its declining role in air traffic, the airport introduced an SEZ to attract investments and hence save the local economy.
Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzō Abe is using SEZs as a way to get around the country’s infamously rigid labor laws and restrictions on foreign workers. As part of his package of economic policies to revive Japan’s economy, Abe is introducing reforms in SEZs that meet too much popular resistance to be feasible when proposed on a national scale.
Or take the United States. It is a prime example of more-liberalized zones working as a counterweight to protectionism. It introduced SEZs in 1934, in response to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Under this law, tariffs rose to historic levels, which seriously damaged the country’s import-exporting businesses. These responded to their new predicament by convincing lawmakers to create Foreign Trade Zones, an American variation on the SEZ concept.
Since China ushered in economic success with their SEZs, starting in the 1980s, the SEZ scene has been dominated by developing economies. All around the world, countries with an abundance of poor and poorly educated people are attracting multinational manufacturers to invest in their SEZs. So widely spread are the zones that countries without them easily fall behind in the competition for foreign direct investments. As such, zones seem like a must for developing countries, rather than nice-to-have.
Many poor countries are highly protectionist, with no political support for change. As a result, SEZs have established themselves as the policy of choice for numerous governments. Unable to pull back their support for interest groups appealing for trade protection, policy-makers use zones to attract investors and create jobs while keeping trade barriers high for the rest of the country.
Might renewed protectionism in the U.S. usher in the rise of SEZs on a large-scale here? It would be an easy way for the Trump administration to preserve manufacturing jobs while pursuing protectionism.
SEZs are a tool policy-makers can use to point to the jobs their policies created, without accounting for the possible costs. These costs stem from the risk of SEZs wasting resources, as companies move into zones in search of tax breaks. Some zones also allow politicians to deceive the people with what looks like a liberalization policy but is actually a tool to preserve a system of protectionism.
Before the US embarks on the SEZ track, we should ponder the political economy fallacies with SEZs. So for anyone interested in learning about the history, future, and political economy of SEZs, my book is self-recommended. It will also give you an insight into the role of SEZs in international production, with value chains spanning rich and poor countries alike.
The world is enjoying previously unseen levels of prosperity combined with rising protectionism. With international trade under attack, people are rightly worried about inward-looking policies stifling growth and prosperity. SEZs may be our way to prevent protectionism from causing such damage.
Lotta Moberg is the Director of Economics at Refugee Cities.
______________________________________
Here is that example-----As Chinese corporations are given real estate for global corporate campuses inside US Foreign Economic Zones bringing their global 99% labor pool ----how do these global immigrants vote? OPEN BORDER VOTING says MARYLAND POLS O'MALLEY, RASKINS----and all 5% to the 1% pols and players pretending to be fighting for the rights to vote for that global 99% labor pool when the goal is only those global 1% voting.
Michigan is where global FOXCONN is being allowed to build that global sweat shop factory which is the face of 99% GLOBAL LABOR POOL ENSLAVEMENT----nothing good coming from this.
China to Build Cities and Economic Zones in Michigan and Idaho
Henry Zheng
Published May 20, 2012
by Henry Zheng
China's meteoric rise has caused much concern in the United States due to its dominating presence in Asia. China has territorial claims in the South China Sea and the South Asian region, and is establishing substantial economic and infrastructural inroads with countries such as Myanmar that have long been neglected by the West.
Now Chinese companies and businessmen are planning to make their home in the United States. The mainland Chinese company Sino-Michigan Properties LLC has paid $1.9 million for 200 acres of undeveloped land in Milan, Michigan.
Currently a city of 6,000 residents, Milan could be the site of a "415-unit housing complex complete with artificial lakes and up to 6,000 square-foot homes, as well as a cultural center" for mainland Chinese. The location is about a 40-minute commute to the industrial centers of Toledo and Detroit, and less than half an hour from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (a hub for international Chinese students).
This "Chinese city" has undoubtedly contributed to local concerns over the uncertainty of allowing such a high concentration of Chinese immigrants who may not integrate with the community and possibly bring a slice of Communist rule onto American soil.
Mayor Mike Bell of Toledo, Ohio, does not seem fazed by this potential political encroachment. Instead, he has embraced Chinese investors from the Dashing Pacific Group, who have already purchased the Docks restaurant complex and offered $3.8 million to purchase 69 acres of the Marina District for residential and commercial development.
Mayor Bell had been on a nine-day trip in China discussing these deals when he made the announcement. As if anticipating concerns back home, Bell reassured that “[t]hese are not folks who are coming to Toledo to do a business deal, generate profits, and bring the money back to China. They are interested in investing in our community and being a part of the community beyond just investing in property.”
And generating profits is certainly at the heart of these developments. Instead of U.S. companies solely going to China to develop, Chinese companies are now eager to build in the United States. This trend reversal is seen in the ambition of companies such as China National Machinery Industry Corp (also known as Sinomach), China's third largest contractor with projects in over 130 countries.
Sinomach is one of the many companies that have expressed an interest in developing a 10,000 to 30,000-acre technology zone for "reinvigoration of the American industrial base." The company proposes to establish a special economic zone like Shenzhen where there would be preferential policies conducive to Chinese businesses such as tax incentives and easing of trade regulations. The Michigan and Idaho projects are still in their preliminary stages and have yet to be approved.
In a more successful maneuver, the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation's (CNOOC) $2.2 billion investment in U.S.-owned Chesapeake Energy is the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets.
This is not the first time that CNOOC tried to make its foray into the U.S. market. In 2005, political opposition over CNOOC's bid of California-based Unocal led the company to withdraw its $18.4 billion offer.
Now, a faltering U.S. economic climate has resulted in less resistance to the influx of Chinese capital. And the possibility of creating 20,000 local jobs in South Texas doesn't hurt, either. Instead of taking these local jobs, the Chinese energy giant is interested in "gaining technical insight" so they can use the technology to extract "gas and oil locked in [China's] plentiful shale formations."
The United States has displayed increasing caution as China increases its economic power and military strength. A study co-authored by Wang Jisi and Kenneth Lieberthal observes that mutual distrust between both governments is deeper than previously imagined.
Wang Jisi, whose unique position as an advisor to the Chinese Communist Party has generated a rare insider's look into the Chinese position that cuts through the usual official talk, observes a change in the Chinese character.
He writes that Chinese leadership "believes that China's turn in the world has arrived" and that "keeping a low profile" is over. "It is now a question of how many years, rather than how many decades, before China replaces the United States as the largest economy in the world."
Lieberthal of Brookings writes that findings from American intelligence indicate that top Chinese officials have assumed a zero-sum approach when discussing issues related to the two countries' relations, in which China or the U.S. would emerge as the victor with little possibility of co-existence in the top spot. This language suggests that China's growing sense of distrust towards the U.S. risks breaking into open conflict if these antagonistic feelings are not reconciled.
However, these political problems have not hindered Chinese business interests in the U.S. The allure of America's business and industrial climate has drawn Chinese investors and developers who are, among other reasons, avoiding exorbitant real-estate prices in China's metropolitan areas. Exactly why Milan and the other places are being chosen has been largely left to local speculation.
Whether the Chinese government or businessmen have other agenda besides economic development remains to be seen, but for the time being, there are American states and towns willing to embrace an influx of capital, regardless of where it's from. Because as Idaho's Lieutenant Governor Brad Little says, “Asia’s where the money is.”
Henry Zheng
By
Henry Zheng
Interested in healthcare, national security, and domestic and international politics.
______________________________________________
This is what we have been shouting since 2000 Bush era elections and yes it was those elections where DIEBOLD voting machines were installed and as we see it is VERY, VERY, VERY easy to change BALLOT BOX CODING with virus. This is why our elections these few decades have gone only to global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA neo-liberals and neo-cons.
Republicans love to hide the fact that this moved the US from being a majority left social progressive to neo-liberalism being FAR-RIGHT WING----this is why US went further and further right. It was never voter tampering-----it was always done in our state and local Boards of Elections.
In all the VOTER RIGHTS FAKE 5% movements left and right wing----NONE of them are shouting our state BOARDS OF ELECTION are the culprits---they come up with these RUSSIA AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT hacking propaganda. We see in this video how easy it has always been for our local officials to flip our votes.....Republican and Democrat moving to ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL PARTY.
This is how those dastardly 5% ROBBER BARON POLS stayed in office these few decades and were able to move GLOBAL WALL STREET POLS into all levels of government.
FOX: Diebold Electronic Vote Fraud Confirmed
Ricarte Rivera
Published on Feb 1, 2008 You Tube
http://www.baldwin08.com We The People Hae Passed Legislation to Guarantee Paper Ballots and an Open Count in the 2008 General Elections. Please comment, pass the message around and favorite this video. Additional information will be added to this page on a regular basis.
RSS Feed
