Got this tid bit from http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thre … mp;posts=1
Take a look and tell me your thoughts.
"KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party. "
This type of meddling into local politics by Obama is not surprising, he wants to be a dictator.
My thoughts; Obama is trying to re-tool voting procedure to estabnlish an accepted norm. Slide a Change past us right under our noses.
And in researching this as best I can reason; it Looks like Obamas' people may be un-constitutional!
The Constitution and its amendments already gaurantee for all Citizens the right to vote of their free will, no gaurantee of any Party affiliation is Gauranteed or asumed. Only the absolute indisputable right to vote.
Under the Constitution, The Sates are up-held as independent govermental entities that make up the United States.
States, with gauranteed protections, and constitutionaly granted permissions; one being their right to free self governace in the frame of State Constitutions and lawys that residents of each State choose by majority vote.
Ie: Sates can self govern under Federal law with agreed Structure by majority vote, and are to act responsibly as members of The United States; Granting all laws under the Constitution. They are obligated to uphold a majority vote
Thus By a States gaurantee and obligation of Constitutional acceptance, people of each state are sovern and entitled to same and equal law with all the protections under Constitutional Law Granted by the Federal goverment.
and Party Affiliation, can not, be a gaurantee to any person for the right to vote, equal treatment, or any onstitutionaly Gauranteed right already granted by Federal Constitutional Law as abided and obligated to by the State they reside in.
Thus, The rights of citizens to vote his or her concience and choice, without affiliations or influence, is not gauranteed by race or by political party, but by Constitutional protection alone!
and the Poeples of any State or territory are soverign in this right, Free under their chosen governace, by majority law.
Therefore, a Political Party is not a consideration of the law. Only of personal choice by an Individual.
In other words:
The people of your state voted, for it. It passed by popular majority, which legaly implies all races voted, and were allowed to by law; ie: (a fair and equal election under the law)
Obama can not refuse to up-hold a vote by law and by Constitutional gaurantee! The Executive can not interfear with a Sates Constitutional right to vote, or self govern.
He can not say a vote must have a party of affiliation to be fair and equal under the law, because party affiliation is a personal choice. It was never a president or finding for Civil Right, it is not a law, nor a Constitutional Gaurantee.
Therefore he, Obama. can not say he is acting to Uphold Citizen rights, by party affiliation. He has no legal principle and no authority of office, or Granted Legislative power to do this.
For these reasons, It seems un-constitutional to me
appologise for the length, those are my thoughts, IMO
A perfect example of Administrative Law in action. It is precisely this overlay of law on the Constitution that the government uses to bypass it.
And there ain't a thing anyone can do about it.
OH YES THERE IS!LOL Elections have consequences. Not just the obvious either. Obama being elected as President will have a negative impact on his parties re-election efforts in congress. Historically this generally happens....it happened to Reagan and to Clinton, both very popular Presidents. He will loose his voice when he looses his congressional support. The old checks and ballances.
Admin law is party-less. They both make use of it because then they can do what they want. Constitution? What Constitution?
Understood. Don't forget how many "deals" are made on the hill. Typically Congressmen and the President go along with things they don't agree with in order to get other things in return. Tit for Tat becomes more important when there is no balance of power. When one party gets too much controll there is no need for compromise. The only exception is "MOB RULES" its something as old as the Roman Senate. Even today Senators are more in tune to popular public opinion than the House.
Which party is going to be the check that assists voters in dispensing with the parties? Both parties will fight tooth and nail to avoid being marginalized, even if that is the will of the electorate. Power given is not so easily given up.
Edited to say: The story above is just absurd. If the voters have decided they don't need partisanship in local elections that is their will, but far be it for them to be able to decide for themselves. Certainly they need to be told what's best for them because they surely have no clue. </sarcasm>
People just don't realize how sinister this administration is! They will do whatever it takes to get their way. They have demonized Fox news because they ask tough questions and won't support their agenda. They are going after the insurance industry for speaking out against the health care plan. If you stand up against them they will cut you down!
by jiberish7 years ago
Forget about your party affiliation for a minute and consider your upbringing, and your present views, are you more conservative in your thinking, more liberal, and why? How does this effect your take on the...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter4 months ago
What would be the rational for voting for someone because of party affiliation? Are strategic party moves detrimental to the democratic process? Do we need political parties.
by Rod Martin Jr3 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National...
by Paul Swendson5 years ago
If Alexander Hamilton were alive today, would he be a Republican or a Democrat? Why?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.