Run-up to Election 2012

A blog, is a blog, is a blog.  I know, almost everyone who has a blog has something to say.  It’s the nature of why they have one.  And while I’m not arrogant enough to think that everyone on the internet reads what I have to write, I do of course have something to say (especially in an election year), which I know for the most part is in the mainstream of American politics.

Beginning next week, I will highlight and write on a series of topics and beliefs that I feel is important and essential to continuing the American idea.  With Election 2012 one of the most important elections in our generation’s lifetime, there are more posts to come, so stay tuned!

Eric

 

Voting Rights or Political Posturing?

So, let me get this straight. The Obama administration rejected the Texas voter ID law yesterday, stating that it is discriminatory toward Hispanic voters, yet other countries, including Mexico, require an ID to vote in general elections.

Interesting.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we all need an ID to drive, go through airport security and even get a library card? Yet, the Justice Department seems to think that we don’t need an ID to vote for president of the United States?

Again, interesting.

ENR

- Justice Department Files Objection to Texas Voter ID Law
- Requirements of other democracies

Trample Away

I’m never surprised when I read a liberal’s interpretation of the Constitution, wishing it would say one thing and not the other. The attack on our “pre-modern” document began long ago, and of course, continues today.

With the help of a New York Times article yesterday, my explanation of the liberal’s viewpoint does not need to go too in-depth.

The author is remorseful of the fact that the US Constitution does not even guarantee the “entitlement to food, education and healthcare.” Furthermore, a professor is quoted as saying, “Nobody wants a copy of Windows 3.1.”

Statements such as these are the entire basis for the declaration of a federal government that is out of control (see 'Tea Party'). I’ll keep preaching this till it sinks in, but the US Constitution was designed to be vague and restrictive (to the federal government) in nature. The rest is deferred to the states. State’s rights are essential to understand when interpreting our Constitution. Changing the structure of this document would favor the federal government, blurring the line between consent of the people and further allowing administrations to simply decree universal truths for all states to follow, no matter what.

Then again, this administration seems to be blurring the lines in more than one way, even between the church and state.

Trample away.

ENR

- Picture Credit: "The Forgotten Man" by Jon McNaughton