Meaning: you can’t require proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states cannot on their own require would-be voters to prove they are U.S. citizens before using a federal registration system designed to make signing up easier.
Welcome to your New United States, America, where Scalia votes in the majority as well.
BZ
From NationalReview.com:
Lois Lerner, the Internal Revenue Service’s director of Exempt Organizations currently on paid leave, has not had any of her computer access restricted since she abdicated her responsibilities, according to an IRS source with knowledge of the situation.
Lerner was placed on administrative leave on May 21 after refusing to tender her resignation, and logged into the IRS’s computer system using her agency computer as recently as June 4, the source tells me. She has the ability to access the same information that was available to her before she was placed on leave. The sources tells National Review Online:
[Lerner] can still access taxpayer data. If your duties do not inlude dealing with taxpayers, you are forbidden from seeing the information. That is a violation of IRS policy, and if she actually accesses any file that contains any Personal Identifiable Information, it is a felony violation. That would include emails that she has in her files discussing any taxpayer case that contains the name, address, phone numbers or tax data from a case. Actual Unauthorized Access (IRS uses the term UNAX) would be a really good reason for the new boss to can her in a hurry. I am sure a simple examination of her email files and hard drive would discover she still has taxpayer data.
Since Lerner is not currently dealing with taxpayers while on leave, she is forbidden from accessing any taxpayer data, though her computer permissions allow her to do so.
Imagine that. No accountability once again during a Demorat Administration.
And the hits and abortions just keep on coming.
BZ
Does this man have Verizon service?
And things are not going well for Mr Obama when this becomes plain.
From the NYT OpEd:
Within hours of the disclosure that federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.
What you may not know, however, is this:
Based on an article in The Guardian published Wednesday night, we now know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency used the Patriot Act to obtain a secret warrant to compel Verizon’s business services division to turn over data on every single call that went through its system. We know that this particular order was a routine extension of surveillance that has been going on for years, and it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division. There is every reason to believe the federal government has been collecting every bit of information about every American’s phone calls except the words actually exchanged in those calls.
Articles in The Washington Post and The Guardian described a process by which the N.S.A. is also able to capture Internet communications directly from the servers of nine leading American companies. The articles raised questions about whether the N.S.A. separated foreign communications from domestic ones.
Stick or not? Teflon or not? Does it matter or not?
BZ
From Josh Gerstein in Politico:
A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.
Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, was quoted by the Tullahoma News this week suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws.
“We need to educate people about Muslims and their civil rights, and as long as we’re here, they’re going to be protected,” Killian told the newspaper.
While threats directed at individuals or small groups can lead to punishment, First Amendment experts expressed doubt that the government has any power to stop offensive material about Islam from circulating.
“He’s just wrong,” said Floyd Abrams, one of the country’s most respected First Amendment attorneys. “The government may, indeed, play a useful and entirely constitutional role in urging people not to engage in speech that amounts to religious discrimination. But it may not, under the First Amendment, prevent or punish speech even if it may be viewed as hostile to a religion.”
“And what it most clearly may not do is to stifle political or social debate, however rambunctious or offensive some may think it is,” Abrams said.
A conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of using federal law to specifically protect Muslims from criticism.
So I suppose Mr Killian wouldn’t much care for my blog.
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
“That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.
But be careful, sir, about that precious First Amendment. Because when you lose the Second, you naturally lose the First. And you, Mr Killian, are doing your best to hasten, concomitantly, the demise of the First.
Cut down from within.
Just as history has seen for many powerful nations, over the span of time.
Be very, very careful.
And you, ladies and gentlemen, be extremely protective of your First and Second.
BZ
P.S.
Because, after all, those people pictured above need to be protected more than you.
The story from WND.com:
According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.
A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.
For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”
A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.
“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”
The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.
Perhaps there’s just a glimmer of hope left for the nation? I wish I could say I were convinced of the trend.
But, as with the Leftist doctrine of the American Media Maggots, this information and the existence of these polls remains predominantly uncovered.
You’re welcome. I exist to serve.
BZ