By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… Attorney General Eric Holder opposes the law that would require citizens to present a photo ID in order to vote. Holder indicated he felt that it was equivalent to a poll tax and that it violated the 24th Amendment to the Constitution.
It is refreshing to know that Holder is aware that this country has a Constitution. Now if we could just get him to read the Second Amendment. But he would probably misread it as he did the 24th.
The 24th Amendment reads: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
To equate a requirement of a photo ID with a poll tax is pure nonsense.
Holder indicated that eight percent of white Americans have no government-issued ID’s; while 25 percent of black Americans lack such ID’s.
The easy answer for that is to have the government make such ID’s available at convenient locations (like grocery stores, etc.) to any American citizens who presents a valid birth certificate. This could be done at no cost to the individual. However, I guess in a country where the President is not required to prove he meets the Constitutional requirements of the office, it might be unfair to citizens to prove that they are who they say they are when they vote.
This is not a tax or a permit to vote, it is merely a method to determine that the person casting the vote is the person who is registered to vote.
No one asked me but… One might begin to think maybe the government has gone too far. It is no longer legal to rescue an animal from injury unless one has a permit from the government.
Apparently one must have a permit from the Nevada Department of Wildlife to save a dying bird. Doug Neilsen, spokesperson for the Department, has indicated that only three such permits have been issued in the State of Nevada and Marion Brady is not covered by any one of these three.
Marion Brady was ordered to stop accepting injured hummingbirds for treatment and release after rehabilitation. For four years, she has been rehabilitating hummingbirds at no cost to anyone but herself. She has received no financial benefit nor has she received any financial help in the cost of saving the birds. Here is an operation that cost the taxpayer nothing and met a need not recognized by many.
However, once again an overzealous bureaucrat has stepped up to flex his government muscle.
Maybe the Nevada Dept. of Wildlife could step up and fill the void left by his interference. After all they did so well with their effort to save the desert tortoise. How many thousand tortoises were euthanized in the care of the State?
Neilsen stated that it is important to have this permitting regulation to make sure the person engaging in rehabilitation efforts has the “necessary experience to properly handle and care for the animals and are following accepted protocols and procedures”.
The fact that Brady has cared for and released over thirty birds in the four years might indicate she has the ability to rehab the animals.
What the Nevada Department of Wildlife has achieved with its ridiculous enforcement of its statute is to shut down one of the most effective bird rehabilitation efforts in the state. The State is telling you if you find a wounded hummingbird, it is better to let it die than try to save it for you are not experienced in handling and caring for the bird.
The real issue is not whether Brady is qualified to save the birds; the real issue is why in the world would one require a permit for such a noble effort. I guess the next issue is why do the American people allow the government to dictate on such a matter.
I am sure some effete tree hugger in her running shoes from PETA is behind such a law. It is in the same line of the PETA protestor of the African big game farms in Texas who stated it would be better that the animals were extinct than to be saved in Texas where a controlled hunt helps finance their existence. It is better to let the hummingbird die than having a non-permitted individual save it.
When did America evolve into a country were the government gets to decide what one is permitted and not permitted to do?
Now before the crazies all begin to write in about how this is a nation of laws I accept the fact that there are laws that govern the relations of man within the social context. But surely there is a limit as to where the government should interfere with a person.
Back in the early 1900’s, it was decided that one should not be able to drive a car without a permit. Interestingly enough no one needed a permit to drive a horse and buggy. So why a car? Were there no buggy accidents?
In 1911, after an attempt to assassinate the mayor of New York City, the New York legislature passed the Sullivan Law, which required a police permit for both owning and carrying a pistol. While this was a violation of the Second Amendment, which clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, no one seemed to mind.
A bus that was transporting conservatives who were campaigning against Shelley Berkley was forced to move because the people did not have a permit to assemble. Had the police indicated they had to move because they were not assembled peaceably, there would have been Constitutional merit to the action. However, to close down the assembly of the people because they did not have a permit to assemble is not Constitutional.
The Constitution does not allow for “abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. As much as I hate to disappoint those who love control, it does not require a permit to peaceably assembly or express one’s opinion. One must begin to wonder where the permitting process will end and when the American people will say enough is enough.