Skip to main content

No ICE at the Polls!

No ICE at the Polls!



 Voting is the democratic part of Democracy! It is the work we do to choose the representatives in our representative Republic! Dill Buckley called it: Our Civic Sacrament." 

Attitudes and rules for voting evolved from the Time of our Great Declaration to the present. Our nation was not born fully grown and having an adult understanding. Like all infants, it had to grow into adulthood slowly and often, erratically. 

At the start, most of the founders believed that only white adult male property owners would have the right to cast a ballot, though by the end of the revolution, people came to realize that the war itself was won by mostly young males who owned little to no property. 

After the Declaration, each colony wrote a constitution. All but Pennsylvania included property ownership as a requirement for the right to vote. Franklin was asked why he did not include that requirement in the document. He explained that if a man owns a jackass, he can vote, but if the jackass dies, he loses that right. So, who has the right, the man or the jackass?

The issue was not resolved in the Articles of Confederation or even in the Constitution that followed. It was left to the states to make such election-related determinations. In 1856, North Caroline became the last of the existing states to drop property ownership as a voting requirement.

The right of all citizens to vote was not recognized until the 1960's!

No ICE at the Polls!

Today, there are some in the upper echelons of government who want to hinder voting by sowing fear among minorities! Don't let them do it! Join our campaign ot prevent the use of immigration agents to intimidate minority voters: 

No ICE at the Polls!

https://police-state.printify.me/

Summary Table

YearChangeTarget Group
1856End of property requirementsAll White Men
187015th AmendmentBlack Men
192019th AmendmentWomen
1924Indian Citizenship ActNative Americans
196424th AmendmentLow-income Voters (Poll tax ban)
1965Voting Rights ActRacial Minorities
197126th AmendmentCitizens 18–20 years old

Popular posts from this blog

Trump Win Fueled By Whimpering Democrats!

That is the headline I expect to see post-election  It's too early to see the full effect of the debate, but the most morose of the Commentary I have seen came from Democrats early after the event. It was that on which the pundit class based its commentary!  It seems the only way media on either side of politics comments is Democratic self-loathing! The first ten things I read from the right this morning were the whimpering comments from the left about how they lost and needed to change course! Their self-deprecating made it as bad as they perceived!  Tragically the debate was bad but not as bad as the dems made it out to be. It was one tiny data point in the face of a megalomaniacal cartoon-style villain, a felon with 34 felonies and multiple remaining felony indictments who incited an election overthrow to dispossess the votes of 81 million voters!

Problems for Federalism if States Can't Determine Eligibility

If the court rules that individual states can not determine eligibility the door would be open to all third parties for ballot access challenges. The court would have to set up or help to establish federal rules to determine eligibility requirements or face a flood of challenges for all 50 states. That seems to be a nail in the coffin of Federalism. A Trump victory in SCOTUS would set up a 50 state rush of indie candidates who would take eligibility questions to the high court. To avoid that they would have to legislate from the bench or convince Congress to legislate an end to Federalism!

Preliminary findings after reading the Durham report

  After reading the report: 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 1. Did not exonerate Trump. 2. Made no suggestion for criminal charges beyond the ones made in an earlier iteration and noted below. 3. Durham found no reason for opening a full investigation into Trump/Russian collaboration at that time. 4. Suggested that the FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation. The implication being that a preliminary investigation would have led to a full investigation. 5. Durham said that it was possible that the FBI needed to put some reforms in place. In addition, the investigation as a whole did see an earlier iteration that made 3 criminal charges: One plead guilty, the 2 others were tried and acquitted. I am awaiting the Durham appearance before congress to do a full report. I have an inescapable sense that there is something else going on here. Similarities between this report and the Müller report like something is being left out of the story by both. Somewhere in my reading, I ran ac...