"If you're gonna vote in Texas, ya gotta have a photo in your hand"

 Props to anyone who gets the song reference in the title of this post.  Thumbs up and brownie points from me!

If you have stuck with me this long, or have the misfortune of knowing me personally, you know that one of the first things I told all of you when I started this venture was that I was a Texan.  Very Texan.  In my future careers and assignments, I may be asked to move around the country or, perhaps, overseas, but home will always be Fort Worth, Texas, where the West begins and where colder beer and better steaks are served (don't believe that old "Dallas" talk, overrated if you ask me).  Politically, my great state has been...well....hit and miss.  I mean, I love the can-do, we're Texan and so you obviously can't tell us what to do mentality that is everywhere in the state from Corpus to Amarillo.  But we get a lot of flak for Bush...both of them.  We hear endlessly of the corruption in our state politics (mostly by  those outside the great state), and we are always subjected to (most commonly) battles over Congressional redistricting and presumed racial malpractice left over from the Civil War (mind you, a war that was fought over 100 years ago, but I digress).

Just a quick bit of history.  After the Civil War, those states who were once a part of the great Dixie experiment were accused of unnecessary poll taxes, taxes levied (as in money that must be paid to the state by a voter when they vote this is important later...) during elections that affected, mainly, minority, black, newly enfranchised voters.  The states (including Texas) did this in order to (as established history tells us) continue to disenfranchise those black voters who just won the right to do so.  The cry of racism was hollered, and the Supreme Court of the United States actually declared such a tax constitutional in the decision of Breedlove v Suttles in 1937.  As the makeup of the Court changed throughout the 50s and 60s, however, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was also passed (in 1962), the text of which is as follows: 

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.

The Court then declared in a 6-3 decision the ruling of Harper v Virginia Board of Electors which made such taxes for state elections unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, etc, etc". 

Now, you may be asking yourself, "I am from Colorado, why should I keep reading this dude's rant about Texas?'.  Understandable, but listen to the recent remarks made by Attorney General Eric Holder at the annual NAACP Convention Summit of Empty Heads thingy regarding Texas' new Voter ID Laws, passed by the Texas legislature in 2011:

Mr. Holder is referring to the following process put into place under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, putting it around the same time frame as our legal history I alluded to.  Now, the fifth section he alludes to in his remarks concerns the states shaded in blue to the right here.  These states and highlighted counties and districts must submit any change or addition to their voting qualifications to the Justice Department (of which Mr. Holder is the head...amazingly coincidental) in order to be approved and deemed constitutional.  Instantly noticeable are the states you would expect to be put on the spot and put on watch for racial profiling:  Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.  Gold ol' Dixie.  Throw in Virginia, parts of Florida, Alaska, and Arizona.  Now, there is a "bail out system" put in place for these states and counties to escape the dark shadow of preclearance in which the state (at the time of the submission of its application to the Justice Department) could not have had any voting legislation shot down by the Justice Department in the preceding 10 years. 

Guess Texas will have to wait another 10 years to no longer have to be watched over by the Feds because, as you heard, Mr. Holder's Justice Department has struck down Texas' 2011 Voter ID Law as unconstitutional and, even more strangely, he calls it a new kind of poll tax.  Mr. Holder makes the statement that

Listen to this, listen to this (yes, Eric, I believe they are listening)...a concealed handgun license is admitted as an acceptable form of ID under their law, but a student ID is not!

A few points I would like to make. The first is with respect to what kinds of ID are required under the Texas law:

• A driver's license 
• DPS Personal ID card 
• Military ID card 
• Citizenship Certificate 
• Concealed Handgun license 
• U.S Passport 
• Election ID card (voter registration card) 

I currently possess four of the seven admitted types of identification.  If you want to be fair and take away the passport because, obviously, minorities cannot possible afford to take lavish vacations, then I possess three of the seven.   The Justice Department continues to point to numbers and statistics (a good summary of which is in the article here) which show that minorities are targeted by these types of ID because they either do not own a driver's license, or do not live in areas with a "close in proximity" DPS office to go to and get a driver's license, thus leading one senator to suggest that Hispanic voter turnout will decrease by as much as 120%.

Easy way to solve this issue with driving long distances and paying large fees for a driving course or for a passport and shoving and stuffing 10% differentials between minorities  into meaningless articles.  Here it is...ya'll ready?

Citizenship Certificate 

If you are a citizen of this country, either by naturalization or birth, you have been issued a citizenship certificate proving such.  I mean....shouldn't everyone have one of these?  Look in those old cardboard boxes your parents keep...its bound to be in there right?  If not, contact the hospital you were born at (presuming it was this country) or the town hall of your town of birth...they keep records.  The entire argument these people propose falls apart with this one requirement (cue inner monologue):  Okay, you can't afford a driver's license, the DPS is too far 'cause you live in the sticks, you did not serve in the military, you do not own a handgun, you for some reason are not registered to vote (then why are you here in the first place...), and you do not own a passport.  Well, are you a citizen then?

This is a fail safe.  In this day and age documentation is needed for everything we do.  Here's a short list of places where you need a photo ID to conduct business there:

• DMV/DPS
• Airports 
• Hospitals 
• Pharmacies 
• Donating Blood 
• Buying alcohol 
• Banking transactions
• When writing a check 
• Social Security offices 
• Pawn Shops 
• Jails 
• Using a credit card 
• Voting in Union elections (This one I find absolutely hilarious)

And that is just what I could think of off the top of my own head.  Now, I understand, that all of the list I just gave is not "constitutionally protected" like our right to vote is.  But, in my opinion, that it is a right does not bar states from enacting provisions to ensure that such an act or right is carried out and is done legally. 

Secondly, go back and reference the preclearance map I provided.  Here's another (with a different color scheme) to demonstrate my next point:

The states that are in green require a photo ID to vote (Texas, of course, is now in limbo), states in yellow request a photo ID (not required), states in blue require a non photo ID, and grey states demand no kind of ID.  Now, I find it interesting that all of the former Dixie states have current voter ID laws on the books and that, even more shocking, three of them are states which require photo IDs.  

Here is another breakdown:  States who need to be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are in bold. 

Strict photo ID (voter must show photo ID at polling place): Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin. In addition, South Carolina and Texas have strict photo ID laws that must receive, but have not received, approval from the federal Justice Department; pending such approval, they require non-photo ID.

Photo ID or alternative (voters at polling place must either show photo ID or meet another state-specific requirement, such as answering personal questions correctly or being vouched for by another voter who has voter ID): Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota.

I did some digging and will now break down (by states affected by the Voting Rights Act which require or request voter photo ID), what kinds of IDs are acceptable:

• Georgia: Any state or federally issued photo ID (including a free voter ID card from the county registration office) a Georgia driver's license (even if it is expired), any state of federal employee worker ID, valid US passport, valid military ID, valid tribal photo ID (Indian tribe...) 
• Indiana: I know, Indiana is not affected by the VRA, but its requirement on student IDs was particularly interesting, so I threw it in. Indiana only requires that certain things be on the ID when presented at the polling station: photo, your name which matches the voting record, an expiration date, be state or federally issued.  Note: a state ID from an Indiana state school is only acceptable if it meets the criteria and private school ID cards are not acceptable (sorry Notre Dame).  For the record, my Texas A&M University ID card does not have an expiration date, but meets all other criteria under the Indiana law. 
• Mississippi:  Mississippi's law is also under DOJ scrutiny and has yet ot be passed but merely states that a "government or state photo ID is acceptable".  
• Alabama: Government or state issued photo ID (current or valid), employee identification card, photo ID of Alabama college or university, photo ID from an Alabama professional or technical school (current or valid).  
• Louisiana:  Louisiana driver's license, a Louisiana "special ID card", any other generally recognized photo ID. 
• Florida: The following are only acceptable if they contain your name and photograph: US passport, debit or credit card, military ID, Student ID, retirement center ID card, neighborhood association ID card, public assistance ID card.  

Focusing first on Georgia, the only state susceptible to Section 5 of the VRA that requires photo ID.  The only thing that Texas offers as acceptable that Georgia does not is the handgun license.  It also does not specifically state that student IDs are acceptable.  All other states are admittedly less stringent and also do not require photo IDs but only request them.  But even with this caveat, Georgia's photo ID laws are currently on the books and has been since 2006.  In that intervening time, President Bush reaffirmed the VRA.  If the DOJ was to do a thorough job of evaluating the Texas ID law, it should be judged in the same way Georgia was judged.  In addition, the DOJ should take into account the current immigration issue and the impact it does have on election fraud.

The intent of this law was to decrease the number of voter frauds that occur in the state of Texas.  Due to governmental pressures the state of Texas must constantly submit any change in their voter ID laws to the DOJ which, frankly, does not have a good grasp of the current immigration issue in the South (as the current Arizona debacle is showing).  This opinion by Mr. Holder and the DOJ is just another misunderstanding of a situation that the federal government has no frame of reference over.  The states are trying to do their best to work with the system and (at the same time) crack down on ways to keep state security and processes legal and available only to legal citizens.  In a Catch 22, these actions are seen as racist, purely because of the type of people who are breaking these laws to begin with.

"Oh empire wide and glorious, you stand supremely blessed. God bless you, Texas, and keep you brave and strong.  That you may grow in power and worth throughout the ages long". 

Why, yes, indeed, I am in fact still living

Gorgeous reader!  How lovely to see your bright smiling computer generated face after this undeserved separation.  I do hate it when life rips us apart from each other, but I have learned that there is always one constant truth when it comes to our relationship...I just can't quit you.  God love you, Heath Ledger. 

NOW, on we go.  A few things you must know regarding where, in fact, I have been hiding.  I would love to regale you with stories of skiing in the Alps with Martin Sheen, or exploring the wreck of the Titanic with Mark Zuckerberg, or going to Mars and visiting Tupac, but, alas, I have been leading a life of banality.  I tackled a month long summer course at the end of May and through June (hence my absence), during which time useless mathematical dribble was forced into my cerebellum.  I have not completely recovered my sanity.  BUT, "the strife is o'er now" as the old hymn says and I have emerged from the rabbit hole, enlightened.  Mix in taking the GRE in mid June and composing graduate school applications and you will find my life has effectively been sucked away. 

But my GOSH, what a great load of THINGS have happened in this month long hiatus, and I do love a nice thing or two to keep me interested.  Just a quick rundown of the list of nuggets I plan to tackle in this one post:

1.)  The 78904586723th Summit of the European Council to discuss the future of the EU and Euro
2.)  Something called Obamacare...I think the Supreme Court said something?  Its a tax penalty that is also a tax on a penalty taxing a penalty and...a...thing.

....seriously, order a pizza or pour a drink or something.  This one's gonna be a long one.  There may be only two broad topics, but both are of monumental importance. 

The European Council's "Great Compromise"

At the end of last month, the European Council met in Brussels to discuss the (again...and again) the future of the Eurozone and its beloved currency.  For those who are unaware of the institutional bodies of the government of the European Union, the European Council has the distinct honor of doing absolutely nothing.  Ok, maybe that is a bit of an unwarranted jab, but really, the Council is comprised of the heads of state from all the member of states of the EU and is tasked by the Treaty of Lisbon to "provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development".  Basically a big think tank full of the big wigs.   

See, big wigs:

The main topic on the agenda (as you may have surmised) was the future of the EU in the wake of the Greek elections last month.  In a nutshell, the elections resulted in a victory for the current government who towed the line on the "stay in the EU" argument.  Many foresaw a victory by the opposition party as a precursor to the Greeks exiting the EU.  But, the iceberg was averted, and the EU continued to keep all of its member institutions together as one big happy family.  Whether or not a Greek exit (or Greexit, as it was being monikered) would lead to the dissolution of the EU altogether is debatable, but the fact that the Greeks are staying put for the time being called for a major discussion on how to best avert this same situation occurring, perhaps, with another deficit ridden member (Italy, Spain, Portugal for example). 

The two sides of the debate can be summarized thusly: German Chancellor Angela Merkle has been unshakable in her (and her country's) commitment to austerity measures for those EU member states who have been lent money (German money) to stabilize their economies, meaning, practically nil public sector spending and a huge cut in taxes.  To her credit, she rationalizes this stubborn attitude in experience: the German economic miracle that took place after the great World War Two and, ultimately, after the reunification of Germany following the Soviet Union collapse in 1991 all were results, arguable, of these policies.  What is good for the Germans, the thinking goes, will also be good for all EU members. 

To be expected, the debtor nations do not take kindly to the German government effectively running their country's fiscal and monetary policy.  Italian and Spanish heads of state, Mario Monte and Mariano Rayjoy, have been pushing for a banking union between EU members to drive down the yields on sovereign bonds, and also advocating more freedom with which loaned money can be spent, saved or invested by the respective debtor country.  The Council's meeting green lighted both of these efforts and resulted in the following:  the creation of a single Europe wide bank adviser (appointed and constructed by the European Central Bank), and the injection of bail out funds directly into banks, and not to just governments with austerity measures attached. 

However, there are caveats. Europe’s politicians did not commit themselves to a banking union. There was no agreement to euro-wide deposit insurance or to a common bank-resolution scheme. And although the summit agreed that euro-zone rescue funds could be injected directly into banks, this depends on the single supervisor being in place first (again, to be decided on and appointed by the ECB). 

I am dubbing this Council meeting the "Great Compromise" of the EU crisis thus far.  Both sides have claimed a victory in this fight, and both seem pleased with the short term results and accolades of financial firms and commentators.  Unlike the article I linked to, I believe that (seeing that the ECB banking adviser board is done in a bipartisan way) the give on both sides at this Summit is what, ultimately, the citizens of the EU deserve:  compromise between the nations.  And isn't that why this whole experiment began in the first place?  Yes, it is.  

Roberts Rules 

 

I will not rehash what I am sure you already know.  The Affordable Healthcare Act was found constitutional under the taxing power of Congress, with a ruling decision of 5/4 coming down to Chief Justice John Roberts.  In a completely non partisan way, I was floored by the ruling.  Not so much in the substantive consequences of the passage of the law, but in the conundrum legal reasoning used by the Chief Justice.  Throwing out the "landmark" status of the case and constitutional questions it posed and answered, I will remember this case for a particular quote that the Chief Justice used in his opinion. 

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

 Boom.  Headshot.  As the saying goes.  With all the hubbub of the individual mandate and the commerce clause implications and the ideological rhetoric from both sides, this quote cuts through it all.  In effect, Roberts recognizes that the Constitution grants powers to Congress and that Congress, using those powers, may enact legislation that is both constitutional and unpopular.  He, as a Justice, does not assume that every constitutional law will be popular and every unconsitutional law will be blatantly unpopoular.  Is that how it should be?  I think, yes.  Now, do I agree wholeheartedly with CJ's reasoning here?  Perhaps not, but that is not the focus of this particular blog piece.  By now, you have formed your opinion of the ruling, perhaps read as I have the 193 page ruling, and no blog piece I put forth to you will change your opinion. 

Here, though, is where my "pat on the back" of the CJ ends.  What I can do is relay to you what I know to be true of the implications of the ruling.  I have already been notified by my family that our Flex healthcare payment system allotment is to be cut in half because of this ruling.  We are a family four who could barely make due with the allotment as is, and now it is being halved.  That is a real world consequence for you, constant reader, amidst the self aggrandizing and, might I say, absolutely pathetic and altogether stupid comments made by both sides in defending and attacking this issue.  Here is a favorite of mine: 

Gold.  Oh, and this gem as well from the White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew on July 1, 2012 when he was confronted with the question of whether or not the new healthcare tax is an infringement upon the campaign promise of 2008 to not raise taxes on families making $250,000 or less a year:  

Full interview video here...please watch....imbedding for this particular video is being wibbly.

"That's not what the Supreme Court said, what the Supreme Court said was that this is Constitutional, they said that it didn't matter what Congress called it, it is a penalty for the 1% who choose not to buy insurance. Technically, what they said is that Congress has many powers, there's the commerce clause, there's taxing power, and it was Constitutional, that's what they said...it doesn't matter what they call it"

My response, **clears throat**

 

Let's clear something up at the very top of this conversation.  The individual mandate was deemed constitutional under the Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress to levy taxes.  The Court has ruled since then that under this taxing power, Congress can also issue a penalty for not complying with laws on the books as it did in the nuclear waste case of New York v US.  What Mr. Lew is trying, and failing miserably to do, is to defend the health care...ahem....penalty by making the distinction that a "tax" applies to **all** citizens, whilst a "penalty" applies only to a group percentage of the population (here, he and Nancy Pelosi both supply the number of 1%, straight from the Office of Pull the Statistics out of your Butt) who are being "irresponsible" and who are "free riders" and are thus, "making their health care cost a burden to others".   

It is amazing how this rhetoric has changed.  It is amazing that how merely 6 months ago we had to suffer through the lamentations of how families are without health insurance because they cannot afford it and it is for this reason that we must pass this law.  Now, all of a sudden, the mere 1% of the population who do not have health insurance are now demonized as free riders who should "pay their fair share", according to Mr. Lew.  Wait, wasn't I supposed to feel bad for those who could not afford insurance?  And that this act was the only way to save these poor souls?  The millions of poor, uninsured Americans who were not being treated fairly by the system.  Now, apparently, those millions are really only 1%, and they all choose to be mean, horrible, obstructive minded people who refuse to pay for a health insurance plan. 

What is this, amateur hour?  You are the White House Chief of Staff.  Pretty big title, business cards and everything.  And this is the best argument you have.  Really? It seems like he is taking me for an idiot. 

And I am not amused. 

The bottom line is this, you will pay a penalty, you will be taxed if you do not buy health insurance.  Regardless of the amount, the principle of this ruling is broad and unmistakable.  The Congress can penalize inaction of the individual in any sphere with a tax penalty.  

Well, we made it through.  Two very, very large topics today that (I hope) make up for my lack of posting this past month.  Stay tuned later htis week for the "under the radar" story regarding the LIBOR.  Juicy, juicy stuff.   

"Keep the faith, stay off the naughtiness".