Sovereignty under fire: what are they thinking?
The NAACP is objecting to the voter ID laws of several states. It claims that states intend to limit voter participation by limiting the forms of acceptable identification, shortening early voting opportunities, restricting where and when eligible voters may register, and banning formerly incarcerated citizens from the polls. But now they have formed a new delegation to lay these claims before the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This is a direct threat to American sovereignty, and begs the question: what are they thinking?
There are four substantial issues that this action raises that should be discussed.
Direct threat to sovereignty
First, have they forgotten that we are a sovereign nation and not bound by foreign laws? If they believe they have a legitimate complaint, why haven’t they gone through the customary avenues, such as bringing lawsuits before the courts in the states in question? Of course given the renegade courts existing in this millennia, I can hardly blame them for not pursuing this course of action. Going before our courts now-a-days to seek justice is like rolling the dice – you never really know how they will land. Sometimes they may adhere to the Constitution, but then again, don’t bet on it. However, in this instance the U.S. Supreme Court already upheld Indiana’s voter photo ID laws in 2008, so perhaps this is nothing more than a publicity stunt on the part of the NAACP.
In addition to asking: what are they thinking, I also have to ask: what are they afraid of?
The fox that guards the henhouse
Second, taking something before the U.N. Human Rights Commission is like asking the fox to guard the hen-house. Here’s the current list from Wikipedia of the members of this Commission and the terms for which they will be serving:
The replacement for the 2009 Group, was duly elected by the General Assembly on 12 May 2009, known as the 2012 Group, the year when their terms expire.
- African States: Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritius, Nigeria and Senegal.
- Asian States: Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia.
- Eastern European States: Hungary and the Russian Federation.
- Latin American & Caribbean States: Cuba, Mexico and Uruguay.
- Western European & Other States: United States, Belgium, Norway and Turkey.
The replacement for the 2010 Group, was duly elected by the General Assembly on 13 May 2010, known as the 2013 Group, the year when their terms expire. African States: Angola, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania and Uganda.
- Asian States: Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar and Thailand.
- Eastern European States: Poland and Republic of Moldova .
- Latin American & Caribbean States: Ecuador, Guatemala and Peru.
- Western European & Other States: Spain and Switzerland.
The replacement for the 2011 Group, was duly elected by the General Assembly on 20 May 2011, known as the 2014 Group, the year when their terms expire.
- African States: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso and Congo.
- Asian States: India, Indonesia, Kuwait and Philippine.
- Eastern European States: Czech Republic and Romania.
- Latin American & Caribbean States: Chile, Costa Rica and Peru.
- Western European & Other States: Austria and Italy.
Given the list above, we have to ask the NAACP again: what are they thinking? While admittedly the American jurist prudence system is growing more corrupt by the day, the human rights policies of some of the nations listed above make our American courts look like angels sent from heaven above. Asking nations with some notoriously corrupt human rights violations to judge the human rights of this nation is absurd and illogical. Again, I must ask: what are they thinking?
Voter ID is not racist
Third, how in the world can they asrgue that taking measures to enforce our voter ID laws somehow translate into racism? The voter ID laws are not discriminatory – unless you are not a citizen, of proper age, or in some states a convicted felon. These prerequisites apply to those of all genders, races and creeds. If the NAACP truly feels that indirectly this limits a certain race because they include a higher population of convicted felons, then they should be doing something to rectify that demographic that helps this segment of the population. Taking this before the U.N. certainly does not help that demographic. Again, I must ask: what are they thinking?
Elections are a State matter
Fourth, according to our Constitution, states are free to design their voter laws – as long as they do not conflict with federal regulations. Furthermore, it was never the unrealistic intention of our Founders that we could develop a “perfect” voting system.
The Federalist Papers were written before the ratification of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Their motive for doing this was to explain the document to the people so that the people could make an informed decision whether or not to ratify. In Federalist #68, Alexander Hamilton referred to our voting system this way:
The most. Plausible of these, who has appeared in print (Hamilton is referring to those objecting to the ratification of the Constitution), has even deigned to admit that … not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. …
And all our efforts to change an excellent voting system into a perfect one have only accomplished the opposite. Of course we want to encourage all citizens to exercise their civic right/duty to vote, but in leaning so far over to accommodate this we have corrupted the integrity of the system and voter fraud has become a real issue. Voter ID laws are an attempt to overcome some of the fraud, like dead people and illegal aliens voting, etc.
If the NAACP wants to challenge our Constitution, let them do this within the bounds of our system of government. But to take this before a foreign commission that does not exercise any power over our sovereignty is not only embarrassing and questionable at best but ignorant at worst. Furthermore, it demonstrates a true – or at least deliberate – ignorance of the intentions of our Founders and the prescriptions of our Constitution. Again, I must ask – what are they thinking?
- Sovereignty under fire: crimes against the Constitution
- Sovereignty under fire: UN CRC
- Sovereignty under fire: treason disguised
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]