The VOTING RIGHTS ACT will be moot in MOVING FORWARD----the as this video states the SUPREME COURT struck down this central part of VOTING RIGHTS ACT specifically because a NEW UNIVERSAL OPEN BORDER VOTING ACT needs to be installed.
The NAACP is tied to global Wall Street 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE extreme wealth extreme poverty as such they work for the civil rights of that global 1% and their 2%---so the NAACP is a strong supporter of OPEN BORDER VOTING FOR GLOBAL LABOR POOL even though that kills any power of US black and brown 99% of citizens.
We see global 1% pols shouting for the need to reform public policies----to re-imagine gerrymandering as tied to US CITIES AS CITY STATES. So, Greater Baltimore as a CITY STATE would not be held to Maryland or US Constitutional election law or descriptions in Constitutions as to what makes a CITIZEN LEGALLY ABLE TO VOTE IN THAT CITY STATE'S ELECTION. This is MOVING FORWARD in Baltimore as in all US cities.
Here we have it-------while FAKE 5% civil rights groups pretend they are fighting for VOTER RIGHTS all 5% have allowed Federalism Act by Clinton/Bush/Obama be ignored and left unenforced-----NO SHOUTING COMING FROM THESE 5% who won elections from all this ELECTION RIGGING
'Almost a third of the amendments added to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights was ratified concern the ability to vote'
These few decades---NO MENTION OF CLINTON'S FEDERALISM ACT attacking VOTER RIGHTS because all voting and citizenship rights are in that US CONSTITUTION----but now this move to end Federal oversight of state's MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE needs to have US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES operate free from national sovereignty-----this is what is MOVING FORWARD and our FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% POLS AND PLAYERS are behind installing OPEN BORDERS VOTING for the global 1% and their 2%.
Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act
By ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 25, 2013
Wade Henderson, president and C.E.O. of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, criticized the decision on Tuesday. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.
The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.
“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.
President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.
Representative John Lewis of Georgia, center left, and Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, right, at a news conference. The Voting Rights Act covered nine states, mostly in the South. Credit Drew Angerer for The New York Times
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summarized her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement. She cited the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and said his legacy and the nation’s commitment to justice had been “disserved by today’s decision.”
She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said the law had been effective in thwarting such efforts.
The law had applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states, including Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. But the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ginsburg was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.
Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on data from the 1975 reauthorization to decide which states and localities were covered.
The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”
“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significance — unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be covered.
It was hardly clear, at any rate, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying that the majority opinion had provided the reasons and had merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”
The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.
Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its “strong medicine” was the right response to “entrenched racial discrimination.” When it was first enacted, he said, black voter registration stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points.
In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”
The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while seeking to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers in Selma, Ala.
“Today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”
Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent from the bench, drew a different lesson from those events, drawing on the words of Dr. King.
“The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “ ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”
In her written dissent, Justice Ginsburg said that Congress was the right body to decide whether the law was still needed and where. Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 by large majorities; the vote was 390 to 33 in the House and unanimous in the Senate. President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law, saying it was “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.”
The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond.
Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96.
“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction-era amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress to enforce it.
“For a half century,” she wrote, “a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.”
“The court errs egregiously,” she concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.”
Purging voter registrations for citizens who sit out several election cycles is a REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policy that the right wing supports as well. Besides the very simple hacking by local and state officials of the ballot box coding to flip votes----the next largest method of voter fraud comes from those same state and local election officials using PHANTOM BALLOTS. Phantom ballots are simply those voter registrations having sit many election cycles with that citizens NOT VOTING----being identified as inactive by election officials and used to create a FAKE BALLOT to support their candidates.
This is yet another way ROBBER BARON 5% global Wall Street pols have created these crony, fraudulent political machines inside city/counties---and states.
Even though Ohio is at this point very right wing-----we REAL left social progressives agree with the need to PURGE OLD VOTER REGISTRATIONS to stop these election frauds. Where the right wing and left wing social progressives disagree is the need to make re-registration for those lapsed voters EASY PEASY.
Our 99% of labor and justice Democrats KNOW these elections have been made crony and corrupt so they should not worry about cleaning up these methods used by right wing crony and left crony machines ----it is a good action.
The NAACP and Gupta fighting a policy that would clean up election frauds.......if this seems to appear to be 99% of black citizens fighting for voting strength-------99% of white citizens have that 5% in office using this same method of election fraud and we want that to stop..
'Vanita Gupta, a signatory of the Obama Justice Department brief, spoke out against the filing'.
The Voting Rights Act was not only about protecting our 99% of black citizens---which this corruption by black 5% players denied our 99% black citizens---it was installed to protect all population groups historically discriminated against at polls----women, disabled, new immigrant citizens et al-----WE MUST ELIMINATE ALL THESE PATHWAYS TO ELECTION FRAUDS.
Justice Department Reverses Position in Ohio Voting Rights Case
by Jane C.
The Department of Justice reversed its position in the Supreme Court case over Ohio's practice of purging inactive voters from its rolls, siding with the state in a closely-watched voting rights lawsuit.
In an amicus brief filed Monday, the DOJ solicitor general argued that the state's purge process — in which voters who do not vote over a six-year period, and do not respond to a single piece of mail asking them to confirm their registration two years in, are removed from the voter rolls — is legal under federal law.
The brief, which takes the opposite view of the Justice Department under President Obama, contended that ignoring the notice is a lawful trigger for purge process, and does not amount to a purge due to inactivity.
“Ohio and several other States have long used a registrant’s failure to vote for a specified period of years as grounds for sending an address-verification notice... That practice does not violate the [National Voting Rights Act],” the new brief said. “Registrants removed using that procedure are not removed “by reason of” their initial failure to vote. They are sent a notice because of that failure, but they are not removed unless they fail to respond and fail to vote for the additional period.”
Career attorneys in the Civil Rights Department, which handles voting rights issues, did not sign this brief, as they did the prior one.
“It’s a signal,” Justin Levitt, the former DOJ deputy assistant attorney general overseeing voting rights cases, told NBC News. “It says this was a political decision that did not have the buy in of the people who are the keel of the Justice Department.”
“It’s not unheard of for the Solicitor General to change positions, but it’s quite rare,” Levitt added. He said that the solicitor general's office is viewed as the steadiest arm of DOJ, insulated from rapid political shifts by relying heavily on precedent and career attorneys.
“As rare as it is to see normally, it’s really rare to see them switch sides in the same case," he said.
The Sixth Circuit of Appeals ruled last year that Ohio's voter purge process did indeed violate federal law and mandated that purged voters’ provisional ballots be counted in the 2016 presidential election, allowing 7,500 voters’ ballots to count in a critical swing state. The state of Ohio appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court agreed in May to review it this fall.
The amicus brief is the latest indication of the federal government's about-face on voting rights under President Donald Trump. In February, the DOJ reversed its position on a Texas voter ID law, supporting the law advocates say disenfranchises minorities. In May, the president appointed a voter integrity commission that members have said will seek out proof of fraud, and in June, the DOJ signaled an interest in enforcing federal laws requiring purges as a part of voter roll maintenance with a letter to 44 states asking for details on their purge processes.
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted said in a statement that he welcomed the DOJ's support.
“This case is about maintaining the integrity of our elections, something that will be harder to do if elections officials are not be able to properly maintain the voter rolls,” he said.
Vanita Gupta, a signatory of the Obama Justice Department brief, spoke out against the filing.
“Monday’s filing was further confirmation of some of our worst fears about the Trump administration’s crackdown on voting rights," Gupta wrote in a statement on behalf of the Civil and Human Rights Coalition. "Yesterday, the Justice Department abandoned a longstanding view, articulated in a 2010 guidance and through numerous court filings across Democratic and Republican administrations, that the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits voter purge practices like the one under litigation in Ohio."
Other voting rights advocates also responded quickly to the administration's new position on Ohio's law.
“Since taking office, this Administration has been hellbent on stripping eligible voters of their access to the ballot box," the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. "The DOJ’s interpretation of federal law would leave Americans vulnerable to getting purged from the voter rolls, dispossessing millions of a fundamental right simply because they did not exercise it."
The Brennan Center's Myrna Perez called the filing "disappointing and frustrating, but not unexpected." The Center has also filed an amicus brief in the Ohio case.
"I think we are going to see this Department of Justice switching sides on a number of instances," she said. "But the civil rights community is prepared to step into the breach."
We will end this week's discussing on voting public policy by reminding 99% of WE THE PEOPLE----whether right wing or left social progressive that election frauds will not disappear as long as the same 5% to the 1% global Wall Street pols and players are still controlling government positions. We can have those FAKE ALT LEFT groups pretending to fight election fraud shout all they want----if they do not support MASS PEACEFUL PROTESTS to get today's global Wall Street 1% pols out of office these election frauds will continue to INSTALL whatever political philosophy global 1% want------what have we shouted is the goal of MORPHING OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA from neo-liberalism----FAR-RIGHT WING, AUTHORITARIAN, MILITARISTIC, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY LIBERTARIAN MARXISM.
All of those right wing media darlings we see in all news outlets ---from Paul Ryan to Scott Walker to Rick Snyder are all being called TEA PARTY. The TEA PARTY is simply doing what REAGAN did on the right---they are pretending to be real strong conservative Republicans when in fact they are far-right wing LIBERTARIANS. Here we see Rick Snyder in Michigan as Scott Walker in Wisconsin----with Paul Ryan at a national level in all news----ALL OF THEM BEING CALLED TEA PARTY.
'Not only is Rick Snyder one of the most unpopular governors in the country, but he is trailing his Democratic opponent Mark Schauer, 42%-38%'.
When we see nothing but those kinds of candidates being highlighted in national media and FAKE ALT LEFT media outlets-----we KNOW these candidates are PLAYERS and not POPULIST.
Yesterday we shared an article showing just that-----here is a very, very, very right wing Rick Snyder of Michigan opening that state's door to what our national media STILL CALLS communist China. China has been naked neo-liberal global banking capitalist for several decades----the media still calls it communist because 99% of Chinese citizens are left in deep impoverishment and labor enslavement while that global 1% and their 2% Chinese are millionaires and billionaires-----
THIS IS WHY A POL LIKE RICK SNYDER CALLED VERY RIGHT WING LOVES CHINESE NATIONAL POLITBURO.
China to Build Cities and Economic Zones in Michigan and Idaho
Published May 20, 2012
by Henry Zheng
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.
All over the south in states called REPUBLICAN and RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE---we are seeing pols traveling to and bringing Chinese foreign global corporations and global factories to those states WINKING AND NODDING OVER THIS ISSUE OF COMMUNISM.
These FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT Tea Party candidates cannot stand left social progressive capitalism----but they LOVE far-right extreme wealth extreme poverty COMMUNISM calling it FAR-LEFT WING.
Gov. Rick Snyder leading seventh mission to China to promote business investment, tourism in Michigan
Goals are to increase trade for Michigan products, further develop economic relationship
Friday, July 28, 2017
LANSING, Mich. – Gov. Rick Snyder is leading a nine-day investment mission to China, focusing on promoting job-creating business growth and attracting investment in Michigan, while also pushing the state as a tourism destination.
Snyder will meet with government officials, industry executives, educational leaders, and key media in China, departing Michigan on Sunday, July 30, and returning Tuesday, Aug. 8.
“We have built strong relationships in China since our first mission in 2011. Chinese investment in Michigan has increased dramatically since then and we’ll continue to make the case that there is no better place in North America for Chinese companies to expand and create jobs than in Michigan,” Snyder said. “As Chinese travelers are now going all over the world and the United States more, this is a great opportunity to tell people about Pure Michigan tourism.”
Snyder will visit Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Shanghai, and Hangzhou, where he will promote Michigan business opportunities, make a series of company visits, and connect with senior government leaders. He will participate in exchange forums in Guangdong and Sichuan that will include mutual foreign direct investment, trade, tourism agriculture and education. Snyder also plans to hold media roundtables following the forums, and will meet with business reporters while in Shanghai.
The investment mission will be led by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Concurrent with the governor’s mission, MEDC is leading 10 Michigan companies to China to meet with prospective business partners, distributors and buyers to increase export opportunities from Michigan to China.
Also joining Snyder on the mission is Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Director Jamie Clover Adams, who will continue to explore opportunities for Michigan food and agriculture products in the Chinese market. This is Clover Adams’ fifth trip to China.
In 2016, Michigan ranked number two in the nation for number of investment projects from China. Michigan also ranked number three in the nation for number of jobs created by Chinese investment and number four for total capital investment. Between January 2010 and July 2017, Michigan received $1.1 billion in new business investment from China. Recent Chinese investments in Michigan include:
- Kingfa Science & Technology (USA), Inc.: In February 2017, Kingfa, a subsidiary of China-based Kingfa Sci & Tec Company, Ltd., announced it was planning to expand its manufacturing operations in Canton Township, investing $60 million and creating 150 jobs related to the production of engineering plastic resins. The project was supported by the Michigan Strategic Fund with a $1 million Michigan Business Development Program performance-based grant.
- Yanfeng Automotive Interiors: In January 2017 Yanfeng, a subsidiary of Wenzhou, China-based Yanfeng, announced it was planning to establish a state-of-the-art southeast Michigan headquarters and technical center for instrument panel engineering and testing in the city of Novi, investing $8.45 million and creating 60 jobs. The project was supported by MSF with a $600,000 Michigan Business Development Program performance-based grant.
- Zhongding USA Cadillac: In August 2016, Zhongding, a subsidiary of Anhui Zhongding Sealing Parts (Ningguo, China) announced it is expanding its manufacturing facility in Cadillac, investing $4.3 million in a new building and new equipment to venture into the heavy truck and agriculture industries. The project is expected to create 125 jobs. The project was supported by MSF with a $600,000 Michigan Business Development Program performance-based grant.
- Karma Automotive LLC: Karma designs and manufactures luxury hybrid vehicles. In June 2016, the company, which is a subsidiary of Chicago-based Wanxiang North America, will establish an automotive engineering and purchasing hub in Troy to house operations supporting its California-based supply chain activities and automotive production. The project is expected to generate more than $3.6 million and create up to 150 jobs, resulting in a $450,000 Michigan Business Development Program performance-based grant.
Source: FDI Markets
The trip marks the Snyder administration’s seventh mission to China. Other missions led by Snyder or Lt. Gov. Brian Calley have included France, Japan, South Korea, Canada, the Netherlands, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Chile, Columbia, India, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland and Great Britain. The missions have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in Michigan by foreign companies adding jobs to Michigan’s workforce.
So, as much as left social progressives shout against Democratic primary frauds our right wing Republican primaries have been captured and full of frauds as well first by REAGAN---then BUSH as a neo-con and now Libertarians pretending to be right wing Republicans....our 99% of right wing voters do not like this either.
Here is HUFFINGTON POST AND DEMOS----both controlled by far-right global neo-liberal 1% -----still pretending to be left populist. Huffington Post was created and owned by a global 1% RIGHT WING HUFFINGTON sold to an openly global 1% banking group. DEMOS is ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1%-----neither have anything to do with left social progressive public policy and yet they are sold as our left populist media.
From TEA PARTY BEING STRONG RIGHT WING ECONOMICS----to being called MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST.
Keep in mind---those 5% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT global 1% players capturing the right wing US politics to ONE WORLD see themselves as BROTHERHOOD just as our left social progressive FAKE 5% PLAYERS ----so our 99% of right wing voters have had their VOTING RIGHTS destroyed these few decades of ROBBER BARON ELECTION FRAUDS just as our REAL left social progressive 99% labor and justice voters.
All of this is MOVING FORWARD far-right wing authoritarian militaristic, dictator LIBERTARIAN MARXIST as our national media PRETENDS this is what the 99% of WE THE PEOPLE right or left voters WANT.
DEMOS is FAR-RIGHT ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE---having nothing to do with left politics......extreme wealth is never LEFT.
06/10/2015 08:41 am ET Updated Jun 10, 2016
Scott Walker, Our First Socialist President
By Richard Brodsky Huffington Post
First, the Communists: Socialism is “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government.”
Next, the Republicans: “The project is a good deal for the state.”
What’s the project? It’s the state of Wisconsin using tax dollars to build a sports arena for the billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks, and its main proponent is Governor Scott Walker, otherwise the leading Republican true believer for president.
It’s not that Gov. Walker is the only socialist in America, Republican or Democrat. Mike Bloomberg, George Pataki, the Texas of George Bush and Rick Perry, there’s a long list of Republican socialists, when it comes to professional sports.
Aside from their philosophical shortcomings, these projects don’t work and are in fact bad deals for taxpayers. As leading academic and sports economist Andrew Zimbalist puts it, “studies have found there is no statistically positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.”
That’s kind. The billions of tax dollars for Yankee Stadium are a case history in waste and the political power of sports teams (click if you want the gory details). And there are hundreds of such deals across the country.
Merits aside, the Walker initiative presents a test for the right, especially the Tea Party. They’ve been somewhat consistent. When Georgia Republicans led the way to a subsidy of the Atlanta Braves, Tea Party leader Debbie Dooley called it “Nonsense and appalling hypocrisy and arrogance. Whether it’s Republicans, Democrats, whatever, what’s going on here is that the chamber of commerce types run the county, and the politicians are doing their bidding.” And the Koch Brothers are appalled: “”Funding for sports arenas should not be the responsibility of the state and the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin.” And even some Wisconsin Republican State Senators sense the problem: “Why $220 million when the billionaire owners are putting in $150 million?”
But Gov. Walker has been perhaps the most outspoken Republican about the need for clear principled actions, on social policy and economic policy. When you hold yourself to a higher standard, small inconsistencies are magnified. If Gov. Walker is to be the candidate of the true believers, the free market, Ayn Rand, and austerity bugs, he’s got some explaining to do.
Republicans and Tea Partyers have had little trouble calling Obama a “socialist” for what are largely traditional welfare state capitalist programs, like Obamacare. What’s going on is something of a hypocrisy test. If socialism is bad, if Obamacare is bad, if income redistribution is bad, well, how can two hundred million in corporate subsidies be good?
And does anybody care? This is why we have primary elections. Personalities and strategies and skills are tested, but so are ideas. Gov. Walker is actually running a fairly high risk. He’s crafted a persona that is fresh and new and has been rushed to the head of the pack. But his support isn’t deep and a charge of economic hypocrisy and corporate cronyism could hit home with true believer voters.
Obama, by the way, has jumped onto the sports as socialism issue and proposed an end to federal tax subsidies for sports facilities. He’s absolutely right as a matter of economic policies. We can’t get our roads fixed, but we can subsidize the richest and most successful corporations in America. I don’t think so.
Let’s see how this thing unfolds, and how Gov. Walker handles it. It will not go away if only because each time the Wisconsin legislature holds a hearing or passes a bill there will be additional news stories. A good debate about socialism is just what Iowa needs.
Follow Richard Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RichardBrodskyDo you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.
Senior Fellow, Demos
Paul Ryan was sent on board to replace BOEHNER as HOUSE REPUBLICAN leader as that TEA PARTY pol pretending to bring back strong right wing Republican ideals when he was always that FAR-RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN....nothing conservative or Republican about LIBERTARIANS. This is why 99% of right wing voters have fought this right wing party. The same dynamics have occurred as REAL left social progressive labor and justice fought Clinton neo-liberals being sold as LEFT CENTER when they were always far-right wing.
The only way TEA PARTY or open Libertarians win a Republican primary---as with Bush neo-cons is the same ELECTION RIGGING AND FRAUD that took our Democratic primary elections----so this worked against both US right and left wing 99% of citizens killing our 99% of labor and justice.
Congressman Paul Ryan – Strong Tea Party Choice for Vice-President
Washington, DC – Tea Party Express Chairman Amy Kremer said the selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential choice of Mitt Romney confirms his strong commitment to the tea party economic issues that have caused the tea party movement to become such a major force in American politics.
So, today those same 5% to the 1% ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE are still out there lying, cheating, and stealing elections moving forward now LIBERTARIAN candidates on right----FAKE LEFTIST MARXIST candidates on left.
99% of US voters on both right and left black, white, or brown are simply trying to STOP MOVING FORWARD and do not want these ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE pols morphing into LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS. This political stance not only kills the future for our new immigrant citizens taking US to what these immigrants are trying to escape in third world nations---it kills 99% of WE THE PEOPLE-----BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS.
Paul Ryan Faces Tea Party Forces That He Helped Unleash
By JENNIFER STEINHAUERMARCH 2, 2016
WASHINGTON — Paul D. Ryan and his self-proclaimed “young guns” in the House Republican leadership traversed the country in 2010 harnessing the energy of the Tea Party movement that would sweep them to power that November. But in failing to confront the most divisive forces of the movement, they may have set their party up for its current crisis.
Some of those insurgent winners from that year would eventually turn on the leaders one by one, setting in motion the downfall of Representative Eric Cantor — just as Republicans were attempting to cobble together a modest immigration measure — then blocking the ascent of Representative Kevin McCarthy after they had deposed John A. Boehner as speaker.
Now the Tea Party’s ultimate creation, Donald J. Trump, may be coming for the last young gun unscathed, Mr. Ryan, the speaker of the House.
“Paul Ryan, I don’t know him well, but I’m sure I’m going to get along great with him,” Mr. Trump said as he stormed through Super Tuesday and sealed his front-runner status. “And if I don’t, he’s going to have to pay a big price.”
Facing forces he inadvertently helped unleash, Mr. Ryan finds himself confronting a potentially agonizing choice — both moral and intellectual — between the values he has spent his career promoting and the man who stands ready to repudiate them.
“If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party,” Mr. Ryan said this week, directing rare fire at Mr. Trump, though not by name, “there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Ryan’s office was contacted by Mr. Trump’s campaign, but the two men did not speak, said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Ryan.
To Democrats, and some Republicans, Mr. Ryan and the Republican leadership have a quandary of their own making. Republican lawmakers and candidates often averted their gaze when questions were raised about President Obama’s birth certificate and religion. They tolerated breaches of decorum, such as Representative Joe Wilson’s cry of “You lie” during a presidential address, and even made light of the man who brought many of those alleged conspiracies to the fore: Mr. Trump.
“The party repeatedly made myopic decisions, tolerating the intolerable views of a segment of the party unwilling to accept that problem-solving is complicated,” said Tony Fratto, a Republican consultant who served in the George W. Bush administration. “The short game was winning some midterms. The cost was creating an incoherent and unsustainable coalition.”
Democrats are now seizing on this trajectory, and trying to tie all Republican incumbents to the legacy. “Donald Trump is appealing to some of the darkest forces in America,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said on Wednesday. “It’s time for Republicans to stop the Frankenstein they created.”
And here is national media bringing those two political philosophy goals together-----REAL left social progressives now know Bernie Sanders is a global 1% banking ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE leading a REVOLUTION for that ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% -----and we KNOW Paul Ryan is that FAKE right wing Republican who is simply that ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE extreme wealth extreme poverty LIBERTARIAN ready to join to being LIBERTARIAN MARXISTS---which is what that national politburo in China HAS ALWAYS BEEN---NAKED GLOBAL BANKING CAPITALISTS keeping 99% of Chinese citizens in the deepest impoverishment and enslavement----now coming to US in MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
We cannot solve our US election rigging and fraud by creating new political parties---we must GET RID OF ALL GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% POLS AND PLAYERS from our people's government with mass peaceful protests for weeks and months with economic disruption demanding those 5% pols and players be removed---right wing and left wing---COME TOGETHER AS A 99% VS 1%.
We see Ryan is that same Wisconsin Scott Walker as Tea Party -------simply pretending as Reagan did to be that Republican
'Ryan Brings the Tea Party to the Ticket - The New York Times
This DIEBOLD ballot box coding fraud has taken the right wing 99% VOTING RIGHTS just as it did our 99% left social progressive labor and justice VOTING RIGHTS.
It’s Paul Ryan Versus Bernie Sanders, and Sanders Is Winning
Since Ryan warned that Republican losses would empower Sanders, the senator has used the attack to raise millions for Democrats.
By John NicholsTwitter THE NATION
October 25, 2016
Paul Ryan tried to scare some enthusiasm into Republicans by invoking the image of an empowered Bernie Sanders.
Instead, he empowered the senator from Vermont—and gave millions of Sanders backers nationwide something to get excited about.
At a gathering of Young Republicans on October 14, the speaker of the House spent most of his time not mentioning Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. But Ryan did encourage Republicans to turn out in order to thwart what he refers to as “the liberal progressive” agenda. To make his point, the speaker warned, “If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chair of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders. You ever heard of him?”
Republicans in the room and around the country took little note of the speaker’s attempt to save his down-ballot partisans. But progressives—especially those who had supported Sanders in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination—embraced Ryan’s comment. While it remains unclear whether Sanders would chair the Budget Committee or the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, there is little doubt that the democratic socialist from Vermont would be a powerful player in a Democratic Senate.
Paul Ryan helped raise more money from small donors for Democrats in three days than he did for Republicans in three months.
That this prospect unsettles Ryan was greeted with relish on social media, as Sanders followers declared, “Let’s make it happen.”
The Ryan quote went viral.
Sanders saw an opening, and he grabbed it. The senator took to Twitter—“I heard what @SpeakerRyan said: If the GOP loses the Senate, I’ll be the Budget chairman. Sounds like a good idea…”—and urged his 3.76 million followers to donate to Democrats who are seeking to overturn Republican majorities in the Senate and in the House chamber where Ryan presides. The Sanders team launched a “We Heard You Paul!” appeal to small donors.
It worked—stunningly well.
Ryan’s remark has turned into such a goldmine for progressive politics that the Sanders camp is now thanking the speaker.
“Let’s thank Speaker Ryan for helping us raise $2.4 million this week from 500,000 contributions and show everyone how powerful the political revolution still is by using the hashtag #ThanksPaul across all social media channels today,” the Sanders camp announced Monday.
Sanders and his allies have never shied away from a fight with the most right-wing and rigidly partisan House speaker in American history. And they are winning this one.
The Sanders appeal raised an epic $2 million from small donors in just three days last week: Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
Comparing their total with the speaker’s efforts in the months of July, August and September, the Sanders team celebrated the fact that “Paul Ryan helped raise more money from small donors for Democrats in three days than he did for Republicans in three months.”
Here is great big raging far-right wing extreme wealth global banking 1% TIME MAGAZINE allowing all this FAKE ALT LEFT description of DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM be sold as FAR-LEFT just as they allowed Clinton neo-liberalism far-right extreme wealth and global banking be called LEFT CENTER. There is no REAL LEFT in either of these political stances---neo-liberal or Democratic Socialism----
We explained how all last century the FDR public policy stances from NEW DEAL were called LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE CAPITALISM----candidates were always called social liberals---social progressives...never DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS.
Democratic Socialism is simply global corporate campus/global factory taking care of its human capital. This is what we call living, eating, schooled, on the same campus you work never really leaving that campus because you work 15-18 hours a day for $3-6 a day in wage after which you get to VOLUNTEER to clean the global campus, grown food for the institutional cafeteria----maintain corporate campus landscaping----then to bed for that 4-5 hours of sleep---this is what our 99% of Chinese global labor pool have done these several decades under Foreign Economic Zone naked neo-liberal capitalism.....
LAISSEZ FAIRE MEETS DARK AGES OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE SLAVE LABOR BY GLOBAL 1%.
Our 99% of new immigrants are more easily confused about this political history and distortion of political philosophy in US than our US 99% ------so they will not understand that the FDR SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE policies from last century are the OPPOSITE of Bernie Sanders and global corporate campus socialism------last century's left social progressive capitalism EMPOWERED AND ALLOWED CITIZENS TO GROW WEALTH----this democratic socialism will leave no avenue for 99% to climb economic ladder------
"By the way, almost everything (Roosevelt) proposed was called 'socialist,'" Sanders said, listing Social Security, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, job programs, collective bargaining and the 40-hour work week as examples of accomplishments that "economic royalists" called "socialistic."
Our Latino 99% KNOW this FAKE back and forth between the far-right extreme wealth and the PRETEND far-left Marxist called POPULIST----we need our 99% of African---Asian----South Pacific immigrants to understand our US media and national NGOs are captured ----this is the opposite of 300 years of US history when we had strong journalism, free press, and open public debate on political stances.
Here's How Bernie Sanders Explained Democratic Socialism
Nov 19, 2015
In attempt to widen the appeal of his brand of democratic socialism, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday tied himself to the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and called for far-reaching social programs to reduce income inequality.
For Sanders, the often rambling speech at Georgetown University was an opportunity to demystify the moniker of “socialist,” one which has enthused his supporters and repelled his skeptics.
“When I use the world socialist–and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it—I’m saying that it is imperative,” Sanders said, that we “create a government that works for all and not just the few.”
Democratic socialism, Sanders said, is not tied to any Marxist belief or the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal,” he said.
Sanders use of the term “democratic socialist” has been both a weakness and a strength. He refused in the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas to call himself a capitalist, calling it a “casino” system, but has insisted he would not overturn the free market.
Rather, Sanders says, he wants to implement broad-based reforms, including free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform and single-payer healthcare. “My vision its not just making modest changes around the edge,” Sanders said.
Roosevelt, one of the brightest stars in the liberal firmament, has often been invoked by the Democrats on the campaign trail this year. Hillary Clinton launched her campaign on Roosevelt Island and spoke to Roosevelt's 1941 "Four Freedoms" State of the Union address. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley discusses the admiration his family had for Roosevelt.
Sanders' promise to fulfill Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights, which set economic security and independence as a national imperative, is intended to appeal to Democratic primary voters.
"By the way, almost everything (Roosevelt) proposed was called 'socialist,'" Sanders said, listing Social Security, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, job programs, collective bargaining and the 40-hour work week as examples of accomplishments that "economic royalists" called "socialistic."
Sanders plan would cost trillions of dollars over a ten-year period, and he has said he would raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for much of it. In addition to single-payer healthcare of the kind in Canada and European countries, Sanders calls for paid family leave for new mothers and a complete overhaul of election financing.
Sanders also abruptly delved into foreign policy at the end of his speech, saying the United States needs to lead a coalition to destroy ISIS and that Muslim allies in the Middle East have to step up their support.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Sanders for saying he would raise income taxes on the middle class in order to pay for single-payer healthcare. But Sanders has said his plan would greatly reduce financial burdens for families.
"Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," Sanders said.
We will end our discussion in VOTING RIGHTS tied to our US Constitution that allowed a 99% of WE THE PEOPLE advance these rights over 300 years to create a pathway for all 99% of inhabitants of America to gain that right to citizenship and VOTER RIGHTS.
While the global 1% are pretending ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE is now doing the same for today's new global labor pool immigrants ----it is doing the opposite. Below we see the term MAGNA CARTA----tied to EUROPEAN COMMON LAW----common law is enshrined in our US Constitution and is the basis for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE having equal protection under law ---public justice----the ability to own property without unlawful seizure.
THIS MAGNA CARTA IS A WESTERN NATION LEGAL STATUS---OUR DEVELOPING NATIONS IN ASIA, AFRICA, SOUTH PACIFIC DID NOT HAVE THESE LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR 99% OF CITIZENS.
This is what held global 1% power accountable for following RULE OF LAW----holding them accountable for failing to abide by COMMON LAW regarding property, criminal, and civil law.
'It is up to us to ensure that the Manden Charter and the Magna Carta will continue to resonate on their respective continents and beyond – for the ears of the whole world'.
These rights that empower 99% of WE THE PEOPLE are not found in Asia----or Africa------or Middle-East----they are what empowered all new immigrant US, UK, EUROPEAN, CANADIAN citizens with these same Western legal rights to
RULE OF LAW, COURT DUE PROCESS, VOTING RIGHTS FOR 99% OF CITIZENS----HOUSES OF COMMONS-----HOUSES OF REPRESENTATIVES along side of HOUSE OF LORDS------SENATES.
Moving forward ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE has that goal of ending all these COMMON LAW/MAGNA CARTA rights won AFTER THE DARK AGES----this is why we always shout----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE will be DARK AGES OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE for only the global 1%.
WHEN THE 99% SEE ALL RULE OF LAW SUSPENDED FOR THOSE GLOBAL BANKING RICH ALLOWED TO OPENLY FLEECE 99% OF US CITIZENS WITH NO LEGAL RECOURSE---THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. WHEN OUR 99% CANNOT ACCESS PUBLIC JUSTICE----CORRUPT CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES WITH CORRUPT COURTS SENDING 99% OF CITIZENS TO JAIL/PRISON WHO ARE NOT GUILTY----
This is what developing nations overseas in Foreign Economic Zones do----this is to where MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE takes 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens---left or right wing citizens----new immigrant citizens----
LET'S JUST STOP MOVING FORWARD.
In the land of Magna Carta, individual liberties already exist - Human Rights Act or no
A British Bill of Rights would remind our courts that judges are not obliged to let Strasbourg tell them what liberty means
King John signing the Magna Carta at Runnymede on June 15, 1215 Photo: ALAMY
By Philip Johnston
6:10AM BST 02 Jun 2015
Eight hundred years ago this month, in a meadow beside the Thames between Staines and Windsor, King John appended his seal to a charter negotiated with his rebellious barons to buy himself time while he contemplated other ways of bringing them to heel. Within weeks, Magna Carta, as it came to be called, was annulled by a compliant Pope and the country sank into civil war, during which a French takeover of England was averted by John’s timely death. An amended Charter was subsequently reissued in the reign of Henry III.
On its 700th anniversary, in 1915, the Scottish legal scholar William McKechnie called the Charter “a clear enunciation of the principle that the caprice of despots must bow to the reign of law; that the just rights of individuals, as defined by law and usage, must be upheld against the personal will of kings”. A century on, and Magna Carta’s reverential status has grown monumentally. Mythologised or not, it is pre-eminent among all English statutes of liberty, the nearest we have to a founding national document. It is the basis of legal systems around the world. It is our greatest export.
How, then, does a British government, the inheritor of this exemplary tradition, stand accused by an idiotic UN official of behaving like Nazis for considering the abolition of the Human Rights Act (HRA)? Or why is a gaggle of “celebrities” perpetuating the canard that repealing this legislation means the end of liberty as we know it? More to the point, what has turned this into a row that has split the Cabinet, with the Prime Minister and Home Secretary reportedly at odds over what to do next?
To begin at the beginning. As the celebration of Magna Carta testifies, individual liberties existed in this country before the HRA was passed by Parliament in 1998. A simple repeal of the Act would merely return us to the position before then, when no-one suggested the jackboot of tyranny was marching across the land. Before 1998, individuals with a case against the state under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had to take it to the court in Strasbourg. The Labour government then incorporated the convention into UK law and made it justiciable by domestic courts.
Introducing what was the first major Bill on human rights for more than 300 years, Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, said: “It will guarantee to everyone the means to enforce a set of basic civil and political rights, establishing a floor below which standards will not be allowed to fall.” Arguably this was unnecessary since the convention’s benchmark standards were set by British jurists in the aftermath of the Second World War. We were giving continental Europeans liberties that many of them had never enjoyed. Not only were the British the prime movers in drawing up the ECHR but we were the first to ratify it, in March 1951. This country does not need to apologise for its record on human rights.
But this issue is not really about human rights at all – it is about the internationalisation of our laws. Although the convention rights were developed by Britain, they were taken over by the Council of Europe (not the EU) and administered through its court in Strasbourg. One reason Labour advanced for incorporating the convention into UK law was because going to Strasbourg was taking too long and was too expensive. Mr Straw told MPs: “It will also mean that the rights will be brought much more fully into the jurisprudence of the courts throughout the United Kingdom, and their interpretation will thus be far more woven into our common law.”
Here, then, is the crux of the problem: interpretation is principally the responsibility of own courts, not that of Strasbourg. For instance, controversial rulings allowing released foreign prisoners to stay in the UK because deporting them would infringe their right to a family life have been made here using precedents set down in Strasbourg. Despite the stated aim of repatriating these rights, our judges have been complicit in the internationalisation of our law. This is why Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, believe repealing the HRA will not make any difference unless the convention underpinning it is also revoked. Otherwise, cases like the rights of prisoners to vote would still end up in Strasbourg, the UK government would lose and the cycle would continue.
In their last two manifestos, the Tories proposed to address this by introducing a British Bill of Rights. This was blocked by the Lib Dems under the Coalition, and David Cameron has now shelved the legislation pending further discussions. With a majority of only 12, he would almost certainly lose the Bill since there are a number of Tory MPs who oppose it despite being elected on a programme promising reform.
Furthermore, although leaving the convention will make no difference to the liberties of British citizens, it would involve rescinding this country’s treaty obligations and probably mean withdrawing from the Council of Europe – a group of more than 40 countries, many of whose human rights records are nothing to write home about. This is a diplomatic headache that Mr Cameron could do without, and there may be knock-on consequences affecting our relationship with the EU, though no one is quite sure what they are.
But maybe we need to come at this from the other direction. Instead of contemplating withdrawal from the convention (which is not going to happen), why not make the system work the way that Parliament intended? The key provision of the HRA states that “a court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a convention right must take into account any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights”. Most people would take from this that British judges are not obliged to follow the Strasbourg court, but only to have regard to its opinion. They are not its agents or delegates.
This point was made most compellingly by Lord Irvine of Lairg, the former Labour Lord Chancellor and architect of the HRA, in a speech a few years ago that Mr Gove would do well to dig out of the archive. He said the domestic courts have “strayed considerably from giving effect to parliament’s intention… by proceeding on the false premise that they are bound… to follow any clear decision of the ECHR which is relevant to the case before them”. He traced this to a ruling by the late law lord, Lord Slynn, which imposed “an unwarranted gloss on the statutory wording”. In Lord Irvine’s view, the Act means that the domestic court always has a choice. He added: “It would strike at the very heart of the integrity of our courts if the HRA obliged them to declare our law to be something which they regard as fundamentally unsound in principle and damaging to the interests of the people of Britain simply because of the latest decision of the Strasbourg Court.”
This goes to the heart of the matter and it is why a new British Bill of Rights – even one that writes the existing convention into domestic law – is worth pursuing, because it would remind the courts of their proper function. We need to make explicit that this really is about “bringing rights home” – though in the land of Magna Carta they never really went away.
For our new immigrant citizens---this is what allows all that freedom, liberty, access to public justice, rights as citizens having made the US the LAND OF THE FREE. Our US Constitution created a legal foundation unique to our new nation but the founding fathers embraced the precedence of these earlier legal standings enshrined in European and English COMMON LAW. Do these earlier COMMON LAW negate our US Constitutional rights as AMENDED? Of course not-----COMMON LAW stems from legal standings brought from OLD WORLD to NEW WORLD.
'This goes to the heart of the matter and it is why a new British Bill of Rights – even one that writes the existing convention into domestic law – is worth pursuing, because it would remind the courts of their proper function. We need to make explicit that this really is about “bringing rights home”'
We have the global Wall Street 1% pols today saying ----COMMON LAW DOES NOT FOLLOW LEGAL PRECEDENT----but our US Federal government structures developed over these 300 years tied to our US Constitutional rights as citizens DOES institute legal precedent for all jurisprudence.
THIS IS A CRITICAL DISTINCTION -----ONE STATES ALL FEDERAL LAW AND US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CAN DISAPPEAR UNDER COMMON LAW----THE OTHER STATES COMMON LAW BEFORE US CONSTITUTION STANDS----OUR US CONSTITUTION AND FEDERAL LEGAL STANDINGS FOR 300 YEARS TRUMPS OLD WORLD COMMON LAW.
All of this is very, very confusing for citizens new to public policy----but all these terms----COMMON LAW, MAGNA CARTA, are tied to STATE'S RIGHTS----US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES acting as independent ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE structures free from any US Rule of Law, US Constitutional rights, from any Federal laws and court precedence for 300 years. This is a FALSE STANCE ON COMMON LAW----below we see again what we discussed earlier in this week----FEDERAL VS STATE----SUPREMACY CLAUSE giving that sovereign national government rights ABOVE STATES.
'THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding'.
If a citizen is fighting for state's rights today ----they often do not know they are fighting against that 800 years of MAGNA CARTA----COMMON LAW in Europe before our US Constitution----these have massive powers enshrined for WE THE PEOPLE.
The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption
The issue: How should courts determine whether a federal law preempts state law?
Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional. What remains a much more difficult question under Article VI is when a state law or action, which is at least arguably consistent with federal law, in fact creates sufficient conflict so as to justify finding it "preempted."
The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.
Preemption can be either express or implied. When Congress chooses to expressly preempt state law, the only question for courts becomes determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt. Implied preemption presents more difficult issues, at least when the state law in question does not directly conflict with federal law. The Court then looks beyond the express language of federal statutes to determine whether Congress has "occupied the field" in which the state is attempting to regulate, or whether a state law directly conflicts with federal law, or whether enforcement of the state law might frustrate federal purposes.
Federal "occupation of the field" occurs, according to the Court in Pennsylvania v Nelson (1956), when there is "no room" left for state regulation. Courts are to look to the pervasiveness of the federal scheme of regulation, the federal interest at stake, and the danger of frustration of federal goals in making the determination as to whether a challenged state law can stand.
Many citizens do not know the goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE in using STATE'S RIGHTS to install ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones---ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE having no ties to MAGNA CARTA---OLD WORLD COMMON LAW----erasing all legal standing won by the 99% of Western citizens taking us back to DARK AGES when the global 1% did ANYTHING THEY WANTED to do to the 99% of human capital.
Below we see that far-right wing LIBERTARIAN media outlet MISES telling us we need a NEW BILL OF RIGHTS----A NEW US CONSTITUTION because it has become too broad in its protections of 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Home | Blog |
Why the Bill of Rights Is Failing Why the Bill of Rights Is Failing
'From any libertarian, or even conservative, point of view, it has failed and failed abysmally; for let us never forget that every one of the despotic incursions on man’s rights in this century, before, during and after the New Deal, have received the official stamp of Constitutional blessing'.
Bill of Rights and Later Amendments
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
Amendment 10 States' rights
Amendment 11 Lawsuits against states
Amendment 12 Presidential elections
Amendment 13 Abolition of slavery
Amendment 14 Civil rights
Amendment 15 Black suffrage
Amendment 16 Income taxes
Amendment 17 Senatorial elections
Amendment 18 Prohibition of liquor
Amendment 19 Women's suffrage
Amendment 20 Terms of office
Amendment 21 Repeal of Prohibition
Amendment 22 Term Limits for the Presidency
Amendment 23 Washington, D.C., suffrage
Amendment 24 Abolition of poll taxes
Amendment 25 Presidential succession
Amendment 26 18-year-old suffrage
Amendment 27 Congressional pay raises
Original Ten Amendments: The Bill of RightsPassed by Congress September 25, 1789.
Ratified December 15, 1791.
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IIRight to bear arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quartering of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Rights in criminal cases
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Right to a fair trial
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Rights retained by the People
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Later Amendments Amendment 11Lawsuits against states
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
February 7, 1795.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
June 15, 1804.
Superseded by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.
Abolition of slavery
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce these article by appropriate legislation.
December 6, 1865.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
July 9, 1868.
Section 1. The 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
February 3, 1870.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
February 3, 1913.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
April 8, 1913.
Prohibition of liquor
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article, the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
January 16, 1919. Repealed by the Twenty-First, December 5, 1933.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
August 18, 1920.
Terms of office
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
January 23, 1933.
Repeal of Prohibition
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
December 5, 1933.
Term Limits for the Presidency
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
February 27, 1951.
Washington, D.C., suffrage
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
March 29, 1961.
Abolition of poll taxes
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
January 23, 1964.
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
February 10, 1967.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
June 30, 1971.
Congressional pay raises
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
May 7, 1992. (Note: Congress submitted the text of this amendment as part of the proposed Bill of Rights on September 27, 1789. The Amendment was not ratified together with the first ten Amendments.)