In a 6-3 decision today, the Supreme Court said that Indiana’s requirement that voters show a form of identification at the polls is not unconstitutional.

So why doesn’t Barak Obama like that?

If you want a drink, you have to show ID. If you want to go to an R-rated movie, you have to show ID. If you want to open a bank account, you have to show ID. So what is wrong with proving you are a CITIZEN and legally eligible to vote? If having to have an ID puts an “undue burden” on people, then I guess they just don’t want to get off their ass and make an effort to vote, do they?

Participate, people or you will get the government you deserve. Right now we don’t have squat and it doesn’t look like it’s going to get any better.

And Barak — quit whining.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th amendment to the US Constitution
Because of the federal nature of the American government, the national government frequently requires state and local governments to comply with federal rules, often with the threat of financial penalties for noncompliance. Unfunded Mandates are simply put, a way for the Federal Government to make themselves look like they are doing something, at the expense of the state and local government. They tell us “You have to do (put in whatever program you like here) but we’re not going to pay for it. Figure it out yourself.”

[In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act, this time the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.] Excerpt from Wikipedia.

To bad the feds don’t pay any attention to court rulings they don’t like.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The Supreme Court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is tied to service in a state militia.

The politicians who advocate that the individual has no right to own a gun (bear arms) mights sing a different tune if they weren’t allowed to have armed bodyguards. But, they think they are special…