Will Holder argue the 10th Amendment is unconstitutional to help Obama’s voter fraud scheme?

 

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

The Department of Justice thinks it can “order” Florida to stop removing illegal non citizens from her voter registration rolls. The Sunshine State announced it will ignore the “order.”  Let’s see Barack Obama and Eric Holder back it up.

 The fight over States’ rights versus the strength of an all powerful central government has been set in motion: the fuse is lit. 

Since Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs forced bribed and tricked Obamacare into “law” real America has been on a collision course with him.  This latest attack on our freedoms will likely only be settled by a courtroom showdown centering on whether the 10th Amendment to our Constitution has any meaning.

This powerful 28 word Amendment is the enduring gift James Madison left us to balance the voracious appetite for power he recognized central governments always have. It says: 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.”  It is a clear and potent weapon for justice against Obama’s fraudulent charge.  

By bringing its attack on Florida the Department of Justice (DoJ)  is virtually acknowledging the Democrat Party’s reliance on voter fraud to win close elections. DoJ statements on the matter acknowledge it centers on noncitizen “voting rights.”

So far Florida has removed 2700 noncitizens from her voter rolls, and reportedly has another 182,000 on her “must purge” list.   

The Obama Administration is using  a section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (1965 VRA) to single out five counties in Florida for scrutiny over their voter registration procedures.  DoJ wants to scare unenthusiastic minorities into voting by erecting a straw man for their hero Barack Obama to “defeat.”

 Given the era in which the 1965VRA was passed, not surprisingly it went into law without a 10th Amendment challenge, but one will be coming shortly.     

 The 10th Amendment makes it clear that since maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls is a state matter, in any court action the DoJ will have to argue A) it has the power to maintain these rolls; B) the manner in which Florida is conducting her purge of noncitizens voters violates these noncitizens’ rights to vote because almost all are Black Hispanic and Democrats; or the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution is unconstitutional.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama have made America sick. The 10th Amendment is powerful medicine that can quickly cure our nation. Let’s see if Holder wants to argue the Constitutionality of the 10th Amendment.        

To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

To read more use these links:    

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/02/florida-tells-holder-to-blow-it-out-his-ass/

http://www.examiner.com/article/holder-to-florida-stop-checking-records-for-illegal-voters

Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?

Do you have something to say?  If you do and you want to be heard, coachisright.com may be your answer. CiR is a conservative Judeo/Christian site that demands links for everything you say except obvious opinion pieces.  

 If you can you reduce your thoughts to a cohesive 300 to 500 word essay send a writing sample to kcoachc@gmail.com .

 To read about the Democrats’ 200 year war on Americanism get your copy of Coach’s new book Crooks thugs and bigots the lost hidden and changed history of the Democratic Party at http://crooksthugsandbigots.com

 In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both. 

What have you done today to deserve to live in America?

Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.


Be Sociable, Share!

8 thoughts on “Will Holder argue the 10th Amendment is unconstitutional to help Obama’s voter fraud scheme?”

  1. Argue the constitutionality of the 10th Amendment? Don't think Holder wouldn't do just that if the opportunity presents itself, ESPECIALLY if one of the actual justices on the court were to die and be replaced by yet another Marxist, Obama clone. Ruling a part of the Constitution, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Nothing is impossible for the left.

  2. Below is the link to the two-page letter from DOJ to the Florida AG. As much as I adore Weaswl Zippers, I prefer to see the primary sources for legal matters.

    eThere seem to be 2 major problems with Florida's efforts to tidy up its voter rolls. The first involves a federal law prohibiting wholesale voter roll cleaning 90 days or less before a primary or general election. Florida has a primary election scheduled for early August 2012. (Oops)

    The second problem concerns special "guidelines" for 5 specific counties. These date back to the Voting Rights Act.

    http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/95500652

    1. And both must be tested against the 10th Amendment that is the very point of the piece. Saying something is NOT a violation of the 10th Amendment doesn’t mean it isn’t. See reply to B. Johnson.

      1. Certainly, Florida has the legal right to fight this in court. Considering the shortness of time until the November election, maybe the Florida AG will petition the Supreme Court directly.

        Has any state gone to court to fight the federal law regarding the 90 day cutoff period?

  3. Coach, I'm not convinced that state power to regulate elections is entirely protected by the 10th Amendment. More specifically, although Clause 3 of Section 1 of Article II indicates that the only thing that Congress can do with respect to the election of a president is to count electoral votes and break a possible tie, there is also Section 4 of Article I to consider. Section 4 gives the impression that Congress does have the constitutional authority to stick its big nose into how the states conduct congressional elections. If that's the case, then Clause 4 weakens the argument that elections are protected by the 10th Amendment imo.

    So what am I overlooking concerning the 10th Amendment and elections?

    1. Excellent points and spot on.. Mr. Madison, in writing the first package of 12 Amendments to the Constitution — an enterprise he called an "odious business" as he believed the intent of the document was clear as it stood was heavily influenced by Mr. Jefferson to include a "statement" regarding the rights and privileges of what were then still considered "sovereign" states in the broadest possible sense. Mr. Jefferson, an anti-federalist (except when HE became President, but that is off-topic), had a lifelong fear of the encroachment of the "Government at Washington" and wanted a stopgap. Mr. Madison, though his friend, and in many ways his student, was a federalist and disagreed. The language of what we now know as the 10th was the result.

      One may, in dimly lit salons argue what the language means (as has been done for many, many years) but until last week, in a decision of a Federal Appeals Court in Massachusetts on a topic the homophobes among us resent it has never been given voice. Read Perry v Brown which, though its subject be distasteful to some, is the very first case to go before a federal panel that has decisively given the 10th Amendment life.

      Bottom line: It says States and the People of those States have prerogatives and powers that cannot be trumped by the "Government in Washington" and the "Government in Washington" is duty bound to respect those prerogatives and powers.

    2. Only flaw I can see in your logic is that Eric Holder is NOT "Congress"…no matter HOW far he goes in his attempts to usurp their exclusive power.

  4. Holder can argue that the Tenth Amendment is un-constitutional 'till he's blue in the face' (ah, excuse me, do any of our readers know whether dark complexioned persons can actually 'turn blue' like us 'Ofay-types' are said to do? ) ; the fact of the matter is that "The Tenth" is one of the Laws of the Land … and no amount of bombast is going to change that now , and likely not in the future….
    Ain't it a bloody shame that there may be some actual limitations on the reach and abuses of the absolute worst Attorney General in American history ?
    Pure Obama/Holder political theater and sleights of hand.

Comments are closed.