3 words that destroy Liberty and assure tyranny. All emphasis hereinafter mine.
A key component of, for instance, Compelling State Interest to asking for and requiring we provide certain information is assurance these are the “least restrictive” and “neutral” efforts by government.
What’s that mean? It means that State interest can’t override Individual Liberty for a biased cause.
This stems from America’s Founders’ denial of government any ability to even think the Constitution granted authority to pass laws that effect an Individual’s exercise of Religion. Possible government overreach to consider: 1) using one religion against another, 2) using lack of religion against someone, and 3) using ones having a religion against them. These can misuse government power in establishment of religion against differing religious views (including atheism). The Constitution’s 1st Amendment limits imposed on government assure government understands the Individual alone has sole custody of their sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience, for their belief is theirs and theirs alone, not for judgment or to be weighed by government.
Using this as the high water mark for the right of Government to interfere in Individual Liberty begs the question: “Where is the Compelling State Interest in Diversity?” Assuring the right of citizens of the United States to vote appears the sole possible Compelling State Interest, begun with the 14th Amendment’s Section 2 in assumed supplanting Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (Transcript of the Constitution, https://www.archives.gov/constitution and link to Amendments 11-27 see note at top of Amendment XIV here, https://www.archives.gov/amendments 11-27.
I’ve found it perplexing in assumption without any direction from the of an Amendment that is replaces a clause in the Constitution which expressly limited direct taxation. The original clause linking representation to direct taxation is an intended check by balance:
“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.” — Original Constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
The 14th Amendment (Amendment XIV), Section 2 “replacement:”
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”
Use of apportionment in relation to taxation was struck by assuming the 14th Amendment section REPLACES the original, which, losing a check and balance, as well as the limitations imposed on the direct taxation authority of the Federal Government appears to explain the 16th Amendment.
Note “Indians not taxed” does remain mentioned, and that voting has specific exceptions, when voting would be denied any citizen of the United States, based solely on the citizen’s voluntary acts (“participation”) in rebellion and crime.
The 15th Amendment (Amendment XV), Section 1 nullified racial identity of citizens of the United States. No longer are there any “Indians not taxed” and servitude (a polite way to say “slavery”) has no effect on a citizen’s right to vote:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–”
19th Amendment (Amendment XIX), Section 1 is where gender restrictions on voting were removed:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
Notice the point, purpose, and object being effected? Answer: Destroying barriers to “The right of citizens of the United States to vote,” all Americans being identified under one banner “citizen of the United States.”
Yet somehow the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party too until the last 20 years, does not assume a “Compelling State Interest in Voting” requiring use of Photo ID with attached necessary for every other aspect of your life (even if never intended to be used for identification) Social Security Number!
And note also the supplanting 14th Amendment section mentions “…or other crime” as reason to lessen representation and deny voting, this hasn’t been changed by any Amendment to the Constitution. This Constitutional provision expresses the necessity of Voter ID, for how do you identify those people who are excepted to vote unless you know who they are?
The 14th Amendment’s “… the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof…” express that our “Constitution of the United States” governs voting rights within the State, that this right can be denied solely for these 2 circumstances, “except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.” Yet for political party, State Government’s claiming “Sanctuary” cities and States generally occupied by left leaning, Liberal & Socialist Democrats speciously claim “local voting rights” for Illegal Aliens, and authority to violate the Constitution and even give prisoners the right to vote, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/let-felons-and-prisoners-vote/2016/07/26/.
Isn’t this just slavery of the masses? We have a political party that jumps through every hoop & hurdle to appear as though protecting black voting rights when in fact the Democrats made blacks wait an additional 7 years for the legal protection of their right to vote as citizens of the United States! Democrats filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act, demanding voter protections for blacks be stripped from it, http://history.house.gov/. Note Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) struck black voter protections from the bill. 1964 Civil Rights Act, Democrats again filibuster for the very same reason, Klu Klux Klan fame Democrat Senator Byrd stood up in opposition only this time voter protections weren’t struck from the bill, http://www.senate.gov/. LBJ signs voter protections for blacks into law, an intentional Democrat Party fraud to appear as though Democrats are “finally” getting this done, a blackmail for the black vote, why they got so mad at Kanye West (and today Democrat’s assumption of all minority vote as well).
Democrats fought implementation of the 14th and 15th Amendments in 1957 and 1964 solely for the self-interested purpose of political party – in the Democrat Party view “buying votes by signing whatever buys a special interest group’s votes. Is that any different from in 2018 a State’s Governor issuing an Executive Order violating the Constitution’s 14th Amendment prohibition of those convicted of crime from representation and voting? What party do you think those prisoners will vote for?
Progressivism 101’s “ends justify the means” is the only explanation that appears to perfectly fit the Democrat Party lie of “we’re for Civil Rights” while ignoring and intentionally undermining the breathtaking national Compelling State Interest of enforcement of exceptions to voting rights for “participation in rebellion or other crime,” Ignored because that would REQUIRE voter photo ID. And this goes to the most ignored Constitutional phrase, the phrase that specifically institutionalizes a lack of race, denies racial & color identity as divisive tools: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote.” A Constitutional phrase also of no ambiguity that the right to vote in elections in the United States does not extend to Illegal Aliens.
(Note: This article questions the “Compelling State Interest of Diversity” by presenting how “State Interest” has historically been asserted & administered — none to extreme in 2 important constitutional circumstances of Individual Liberty — where point and weight of a “Compelling State Interest” is identical. “Compelling State Interest” assures tyranny by ambiguous use unrelated to Constitutional purpose such as Amendments to the Constitution meant solely to assure diversity of voting by eliminating barriers. There have been no Amendments to the Constitution effecting enrollment of universities, employer hiring, or who a baker must bake a cake for, as well as many other so called “legal issues of diversity” because Americans are Free, owners of their own property and not subjects of government. Any legislation or policy assumption(s) infusing purpose and intention of voter specific Amendments to the Constitution as effecting anything else are a fraud and sham, misguided and misplaced National and local State government administrative arrogance that, at every opportunity, should be struck down by the United States Supreme Court as violation of the law of the land, the Constitution as amended. I submit the most powerful act of self-government for an American citizen is their vote and if there is no “Compelling State Interest” to protect voting there certainly isn’t any for anything less important. Link to quote from Justice James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for reference, Wayback Machine http://govote.avoiceofthepeople.com/.)
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,
Toddy Littman
P.S. A little find that appears to help illustrate why “Compelling State Interest” only leads to tyranny, http://www.extremetech.com/.
