Texas, Ignore The Court And Do What You Want

Texas has had a strict voter ID requirement since 2011 and the Obama administration challenged it in court. Today the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law violates the Voting Rights Act and instructed a lower court to make changes to fix the discriminatory effect of the law with as little impact on this year’s election as possible.

The Constitution describes voting in several amendments and they state Congress can write laws to carry out the things described in those amendments. Those amendments talk about when a right to vote can be denied or abridged. This is not the case with regard to ID laws. No one is denying or abridging the right to vote. A person must simply provide ID to do so.

As liberal courts are eager to state with regard to the Second Amendment, reasonable restrictions can be applied to it and to all rights. That is why courts have allowed restrictions to be applied to the Second Amendment (most of which are actually unconstitutional). So if reasonable restrictions can be applied (most people would not argue that a background check for a non-private firearm sale is unreasonable) then it is not out of the question to require ID to vote. It is a REASONABLE restriction.

Evidently, the law is discriminatory because it has a short list of IDs that are acceptable. The list looks about the same as the list required to prove citizenship when applying for a job. Does this mean the requirement to show ID (and prove citizenship) when applying for a job is discriminatory?

There is nothing discriminatory about asking for ID before allowing someone to vote, period. It matters not what any court or President says about it, asking for an ID is not discriminatory at all.

The unions Obama loves so much require IDs before anyone can vote in union elections. One must show an ID to get on a plane and that is not deemed discriminatory.

Neither is showing ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, registering kids for school or sports programs and it is definitely not deemed discriminatory to show ID to get into a government building.

None of these acts requiring ID would be deemed discriminatory based on the types of ID deemed acceptable…

Texas should probably tell the court thanks but we will do things our way. This is our law and this is what we are going to do. If you want to vote here then you need to follow the law, period.

In other words, Texas should tell them to stick it because ID laws are reasonable and the list of acceptable IDs is not prohibitive.

As an aside, please don’t blast me with the idea that poor people can’t get an ID (even from the short list). Practically everyone needs an ID for some aspect of life and the poor seem to be able to get an ID to get welfare…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Dear Government, It’s None Of Your Damn Business

The US Constitution is clear about the Census. It States:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ~ US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2

Representation and taxation (the taxation part was changed by Amendment) are based on respective NUMBERS. Therefore an enumeration (read counting) will take place within 3 years and then every ten years thereafter. In plain language, they will count how many people there are every ten years. Therefore, the only Constitutional duty people have is to answer how many people there are every ten years. As citizens we have a duty to answer that question.

We are under no obligation to answer any other question.

Many scholars as well as the courts have upheld that Congress has the authority to ask any question it wants. They base this on the phrase; “in such a manner as they shall by law direct”. We are told “they” refers to Congress and that Congress can do whatever it wants because it says “in such manner…”

Hold on though, what “they” may decide is HOW to count people. The “by law” statement merely says Congress may count the population in any manner it shall direct by law. This means it could make a law that people have to show up at a census station, or be counted by door knockers or do it online. But the only thing it may direct by law is the manner in which people are counted. They can change the law every ten years about how the information is obtained but not WHAT information is obtained, contrary to popular opinion.

To the scholars and judges the phrase reads we will take a census of the people every ten years and Congress can ask whatever else it wants by passing a law. This is not what was intended and it is not what the Constitution states.

But Congress has been encroaching on our liberties for a long time. They ask a lot of questions they have no real need to know. The other reality is the government, at one level or another, has all the answers to the questions. They know what color you are based on a birth certificate. They know how many bedrooms and bathrooms you have based on building permits and floor plans. They know all about your property because they TAX you on it. They know how many cars you have because they are registered.

You see, the government has all this information scattered all over. There is no need and no authority for the government to ask all these other questions.

But they do and the law is clear that one can be fined for not answering the questions (and you have to be truthful). My answer to the other questions was “this is already on file with the government”. I answered the question and it was truthful.

I realize that some have pointed out that the first census asked questions about race and how many free people there were (particularly males) and use it as proof that Congress can ask what it wants. Keep in mind that the Constitution only allotted representation (and taxed) based on certain segments of the population (free persons excluding Indians not taxed) and fractions of others (non free people) so asking questions about free and slave as well as color made sense in order to follow the allotment scheme in the Constitution. By the way, the necessary and proper clause does not give Congress unlimited powers. It merely means, in this case, Congress can enact whatever law is necessary to count the number of people in the country IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION.

There are several definitions of census one indicating counting people and collecting information about them. Since the Constitution states the purpose is to enumerate (or count) the population then the definition; ” a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically: a periodic governmental enumeration of population” is the appropriate one. Webster

There is no real need to know one’s color in this day and age.

Why is all this important? A number of liberal lawmakers are urging the Census Bureau to DEMAND more information from people about their gender identity. DEMAND? Who the hell is the government to demand this information? And what business is it of theirs?

The claim is it will help them craft laws to improve the lives of gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people (those with gender identity disorders).

The government should not be crafting laws designed to affect one segment of the population. It is unnecessary to state that these folks have some kind of protection or are special. Laws should apply to every person equally.

No matter, the government does not belong asking these kinds of questions or any others beyond how many people live in a home. The goal is to count the number of people so representation in Congress can be determined. That is all they should be doing.

Congress asks questions under the threat of a penalty in order to coerce people into providing information that is none of the government’s business.

What harm could that do?

Well, what if the questions are; do you have any firearms in your home? If so, how many? Are you here illegally? Did you file your taxes? Are you a child molester? If so, have you registered with the sex offender registry?

It seems to me government could use the census to have a gun registry by asking questions and requiring people to answer them under penalty of law. It could find illegals or child predators or use the information in any number of ways to encroach on the privacy and freedom of the people.

Remember folks, you have a right not to answer anything. You have a Constitutional duty to answer how many and they can make a law compelling you to do that but beyond that you have no obligation to answer. You have the right not to provide anything, the right to remain silent.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Was Trump Right About Breaking The Law?

Donald Trump is apparently in hot water over a comment he made about a woman getting an abortion. Trump was asked if abortion were made illegal and a woman got one should she be punished under the law? Trump stated that if she broke the law by getting one she should be punished.

The media reported this as Trump saying women who get abortions should be punished.

This hypothetical question was designed to trip him up and it is obvious by the way it was reported that the media deliberately deceived people.

Trump was correct in his answer. If abortion were made illegal then anyone getting one or performing one would be in violation of the law and would be subject to punishment. For what its worth, Trump handled this question terribly and could have done a much better job considering the media and all liberals (and a lot of Republicans) are out to get him. For a guy who is supposed to be media savvy he blew this one.

The reality is that anyone who knowingly does something illegal has broken the law. People can argue if, in this scenario, she should get in trouble and that is for a court to decide. No matter what the outcome she broke the law and if found guilty should be punished.

If a drug dealer sells illegal drugs to a junkie they are both guilty of a crime. No one would argue that the buyer was a victim in this scenario…

The interviewer also asked Trump if the man who impregnated the woman should be punished and he said no. In most cases, getting someone pregnant is not against the law. But if the guy took her to get the abortion and was part of the process then I think he should be punished as well. The liberal media folks discussing this had a hard time grasping any of it and indicated that Trump had some kind of double standard when it came to punishing women and men.

Trump’s answer has nothing to do with abortion. It is simply a matter of the law. In the case of the interviewer however, this was about abortion and finding a way to trip up Trump.

I guess Trump just has more regard for the law than all those folks screaming about what he said (or what they were told he said). To those folks the woman did nothing wrong in obtaining an illegal abortion.

Sort of like how they all find nothing wrong with a woman running her own private email server and risking classified information, in violation of the law.

As an aside I saw an interview (it could have been excerpts of a speech) with Clinton and she was all over Trump for what he said, you know, women’s issues and all that. Keep in mind Trump never said he would make abortion illegal, just that if it were (part of the question) the woman should be punished if she got one. Given Hillary’s blatant law breaking and her flagrant disregard for the law it should not be surprising to learn she would not punish a lawbreaker.

I think Trump changed his opinion five times in the last day but that is neither here nor there. The damage by the media assassins has already been done.

They will continue until they can get rid of him and clear a path for their lawbreaker to win the presidency.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Pelosi Should Be Put Out To Pasture

Nancy Pelosi is warning that if the Supreme Court rules in favor of those challenging the subsidies in Obamacare win it will cost Republicans because allegedly 8 million people have the coverage and rely on them. She predicts that it will harm all those folks and Republicans will pay a price.

She claims that this is all because a phrase in the law has been taken out of context.

Pelosi said she knew the law well and that opponents were relying on a phrase taken “out of context” in pressing their case before the court. AP News

The woman who said you had to pass it to find out what was in it now claims that she knows the law well? The same law that continues to have surprises pop up because no one knew they were there?


As for out of context, the Democrats made it clear that only states that set up exchanges would get subsidies when they were pushing the bill on us. They made it clear this was a carrot and stick approach where states would be provided incentives to set up exchanges and one of the incentives was subsidies.

Now that someone has challenged that part of the law the Democrats have rewritten history and are claiming this is what they meant all along.

They are liars as is Pelosi.

I do not think Republicans will pay a price for this if the ruling in their favor. The law says what it says and that is how it should be followed.

Of course liberals have trouble with following the wording of the Second Amendment (hell all of the Constitution) so I expect them to be clueless in this regard as well.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


IRS Follows The Law…When It Can

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told the Congressional Ways and Means subcommittee that the agency follows the law when it can. While being questioned he told members of Congress; “Whenever we can, we follow the law.”

Texas Republican Representative Kevin Brady told Koskinen; “I encourage you to follow the law in all instances.”

This follow the law when we can mentality is probably what led to all the law breaking under Lois Lerner. She was supposed to follow the law but she didn’t. The IRS is supposed to follow laws about backing up data but it didn’t.

The agency probably decided that it just could not follow those pesky laws.

How do you suppose the IRS would treat taxpayers who follow tax laws “when they can”?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog