Our constitution will not allow the federal government to pass a voter photo identification law. These laws must be passed by state governments and some states rather like having the ability to, ah, shall we say, manipulate the vote.
GEORGIA ON MY MIND
"Georgia's Republican lawmakers believe the integrity of elections is more important than voter convenience. They want voters to produce photo identification at every election. So this week, they passed a bill to make Georgia the seventh state to require that voters show photo ID at the polls (Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota are the others). On Thursday, Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the bill into law."
- Las Vegas Review Journal, 1/28/06
"Pajamaline"
Heh.
Seems Paul Mirengoff, founder of the very popular political site, Powerline, interviewed Dick Durbin, Senator from Illinois and very vocal during the hearings about the administration's NSA intercept program.
On behalf of Pajamas Media, a new blog venture which Mirengoff if a participant, Paul asked Durbin the most basic of questions. Paraphrased, Mirengoff asked Durbin that if he thought the NSA intercept program to be illegal, why didn't he and his fellow Lords in the House of Lords (a.k.a. The Senate) just pass a law making it illegal?
An excellent question in that the House of Lords has absolutely no power, read my lips, to wage a war. We have a Commander-in-Chief has defined in our constitution for a reason. How effective would a war be if waged by 100 Leaping Lords and 500 plus Reps in the House of Representatives?
The House of Lords cannot pass a law as Mirengoff inquired of Durbin because that would be a violation of this country's separation of powers. Remember third grade civics? There's an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch. Such a law would be ran, not walked, directly to the Supreme Court and likely, if the Justices know their third-grade civics, be declared unconstitutional.
So why are the Lords pontificating all about this NSA program if they can't do a thing about it, as posed by the question by Mirengoff? Not that any other of the mainstream journalists would pose such a question what with getting their information by faxed talking points, bothered to asked such a pointed question.
It's a simple fact that even the blind can see. The Lords are uppity that this country's Commander-in-Chief is doing his job as required by our constitution and not consulting them for political points as they desire. They're just making sound and sight bites for the midterm elections is what I'm saying here.
Article comments
1 - El Bicho
If you think Durbin mixing up a website's name is funny, you must be in hysterics with the President bungling the name of an ally in the War on Terror.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."