KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

(go to Washington Times' website for more)

Of course the Moonie-Republican Washington Times wrote this. They're trying to spin the real story, which is that the local Republicans got caught doing their usual low-level voter suppression/confusion tactics. Often times people know what party they want to vote for, but not who their local candidate is. By removing party affiliation, they're intent on increasing voter error. It's a profoundly anti-(small d) democratic action and does indeed go against the spirit of the Voting Rights Act.

eco, you might want to read the thread before going on your leftist rant

Iceman, if all cities did away with party affiliation do you think it would be a better system and how would it improve the system ?

this is a small city of 23000, the majority, black, they voted for the system that they wanted!!! it is not up to the federal government to interfere with local politics and is in fact UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! this violates the 10th amendment of sovereign rights.....and the 2 party system, what a joke! look at the moderate repugs and conservative demorats, they might as well switch sides. Mcinsane for example spent more time across the aisle than spitzer spent in the cathouses and as I said about the idiot old phart, why he lost.

Iceman it is the Federal governments job as stated in the constitution to make sure that laws are uniform throughout this country including voting rules.

You can't have all the cities and states making up thier own voting rules and still have anything approaching a fair democratic voting process. 

Everyone has to follow uniform voting rules because each city and state are not their own  individual little countries operating on their own, the uniformity provided by the Federal government is what makes America a country.

 

Iceman is correct, Barb is wrong.  Politicians and judges have changed the way this country operates and it is no longer what the constitution intended nor do I believe the government we are experiencing today should be considered constitutional.

Barb would be somewhat correct in that the Presidential election should be mandated at the Federal level, but all internal political matters were left to be decided by the states themselves, and yes we are a nation of 50 small countries(states) with each guaranteed it's own sovereignty.

All Americans should be required to learn (taught religiously in our schools) our founding and the true meaning of our Constitution, and the means by which it binds these 50 states into one nation.

Ekko, we were going over this constitutional debate once and you quit on me because on some things I just could not agree with your interpretation of the constitution.

But on this one issue would you mind posting the part of the constitution where it specifically says that cities or states can set any rules that they choose regarding voting and elections ?

 

Barbara Jones:

Ekko, we were going over this constitutional debate once and you quit on me because on some things I just could not agree with your interpretation of the constitution.   In our previous debate you were not disagreeing with my interpretation of the constitution.  You were disagreeing with Jefferson and Madison, for everything I was saying was precisely of their opinion, and I provided passages by them to prove it.  If you choose not to believe them, I have no chance of gaining ground in a debate.

But on this one issue would you mind posting the part of the constitution where it specifically says that cities or states can set any rules that they choose regarding voting and elections ?   You will not find those specific words in the Constitution, but like Iceman stated above it falls under the Tenth Amendment.

"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."

That means if it is not specifically in the Constitution it is a power left to the States.  The Federal powers are in the Constitution and they have no other.

 

 

 That seems to depend a great deal on what suits one at the time, whether being a strict constructionist best fits a persons interests or whether being a loose constructionist best fits their interest.

Strict constitutionalists argue that one must understand the intentions of those who wrote it, but naturally since they are not here to speak for themselves or see how the world has vastly changed it is debatable as to what their intentions were when they wrote it as well as whether they would amend their intentions according to the changes that have occured over the years.

The truth is that what enumerated powers the constitution does or does not give to the Federal government  has been in debate since it was written and likely will continue to be.

There is no consensus on this issue, and until there is there is no right or wrong interpretation, it is just what it is, a difference in opinion as to what the Necessary and Proper Clause as related to the 10th amendment does or does not allow and exactly what the enumerated powers do and do not allow.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."^[1] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.^[2] However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

 For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States

Interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause has been controversial especially during the early years of the republic. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, feel that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract," limiting Congress. In practical usage, the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws.

Interpretation is political-ease for making the words fit their goals.  The Constitution was written very specifically with no need for interpretation.  One MUST understand the context of the words of those who wrote it.  All of that was very well spelled out in the Federalist Papers.  The Constitution is not mystical or mysterious.  Every word has a specific meaning, and one must understand the words as they were written.  Anything else is Unconstitutional.  Plain and simple. 

 

Barbara Jones:

 That seems to depend a great deal on what suits one at the time, whether being a strict constructionist best fits a persons interests or whether being a loose constructionist best fits their interest.

The truth is that what enumerated powers the constitution does or does not give to the Federal government  has been in debate since it was written and likely will continue to be.

There is no consensus on this issue, and until there is there is no right or wrong interpretation, it is just what it is, a difference in opinion as to what the Necessary and Proper Clause as related to the 10th amendment does or does not allow and exactly what the enumerated powers do and do not allow.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."^[1] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated, which would have denied implied powers.^[2] However, the word "expressly" ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

 For several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause continued to be a powerful bone of contention between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, and several other political parties in the United States

Interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause has been controversial especially during the early years of the republic. Strict constructionists interpret the clause to mean that Congress may make a law only if the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply one of its enumerated powers. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, feel that the Necessary and Proper Clause expands the authority of Congress to all areas tangentially related to one of its enumerated powers. It is often known as the "elastic clause" because of the great amount of leeway in interpretation it allows; depending on the interpretation, it can be "stretched" to expand the powers of Congress, or allowed to "contract," limiting Congress. In practical usage, the elastic clause has been paired with the commerce clause in particular to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of expansive federal laws.

Mr. Magoo you should not even be posting, you were temporarily banned for refusing to follow the rules you agreed to when you signed up to be a member of this site and you continue to try and get around having to follow the same rules that everyone else does have to follow.   

Barbara my dear ... in case you have not noticed ... I am a non-conformist.  It is who I am. 

On the other hand, I have not been rude this past week.  I have not called anyone a name (other than factual).  I haven't even picked on you (which is normally such a delight).  Your elevation to "Queen" of this forum is delusional, but I will conform to your politically correct interpretation of the forum rules.  

Incidentally, do you not recognize the names I've been using this week?

Barbara Jones:

Mr. Magoo you should not even be posting, you were temporarily banned for refusing to follow the rules you agreed to when you signed up to be a member of this site and you continue to try and get around having to follow the same rules that everyone else does have to follow.   

 

Barb, I agree with Magoo...err...Ragnar.  The only real reason the Constitution gets 'interpreted' is by and so someone can twist it to accomodate his/her wishes that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

Jefferson, in most circles, seems to be the most prolyphic author of the time of our founding so years ago I chose to adopt and believe in his philosophy of our government.  Here is a summary on TJ I've lifted from here :  http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/07/jeffersons-union/

Jefferson’s Union

Posted on 07 October 2009 

 

Thanks Ekko, 

But to me the problem is if the state has too much power you are being ruled by one man ( the governor )  with no representation by and from the people.   And no checks and balance system from opposing parties in two different houses.

Whereas the Federal government is a body of 545 people elected by the whole country to make rules that are uniform througout the whole country.

 I do support the states rights to challenge the Federal Government, but I also support the Federal governments ability to intervene in order to unify this country and maintain uniformity in the laws and rules throughout this country in all states.

As a unified country we have much more power than an individual state would have by itself..

 

 

And Maggoo, yes I recognized the names you have been using, and I also noticed SOME improvement in your responses, but just like Jewdakris, which was the reason he was banned,( his words " calling an apple an apple is not name-calling " ),  he also thought that stating what he considered was facts about a person was not name-calling , you are not allowed to name-call according to what you consider is ( I quote other than factual )   what is facts to you about a person is not facts to them I can assure you.  What others would think is facts regarding you would not be acceptable to you either, as you would not see them as facts.

What is an apple to you is an orange to someone else and viceversa, accept the temporary ban and quit trying to get around it as if what applies to everyone else does not apply to you, and then come back and allow us to enjoy your participation without any name-calling or insults including any you might consider factual,  and others will not be allowed to name-call and insult you according to what they consider factual either.   

Barb, your last post makes me curiousor and curiousor, when did Governors become dictators? they have to answer to and work with their state governments however they are structured. As far as the necessary and proper clause, that is a stretch at best to apply it to community elections. This is just the heavy hand of socialism trying to set an example!!, and as far as disenfranchising the Black voters who make up 2/3 of the community, lame, eco, but on par with your global warming fantasies.

Iceman, to explain, I have no input when our governor makes a decision, it is not posted for people to consider and email or write or call and tell anyone what they would prefer.  We find out what new state law has been passed after it is already done.

Currently states are in the process of passing legislation regarding mandatory vaccination for young schoolgirls for the HPV virus, did your state government publicize this, so that you would have an opportunity to voice your opinion before they pass the legislation ?   My state has not.

Does your governor have to get the consent of a majority from 545 people sent to represent ( supposed to anyway ) the people, before a state law can be passed ?

 

 

 

I am curious as to how you evolved mayoral and local elections to the federal level? Did the mayor of this berg suddenly morf into the Governors seat?? Face it , you are wrong, like eco, the feds have NO BUSINESS in local politics....PERIOD

You do have a point about the mayor not being the governor.  I will give you that.

But if one berg is allowed to change the accepted voting rules that have been in place for many years, then another would want to do this and so forth and so on and it would likely escalate into a really major problem.  And some bergs are not so little so what a mess that would be.

Just think about it, if every city in the US sets their own individual voting rules about party or non party or whatever then there is no uniformity within the state or within the country and think of all the arguments that would create all thru the US because of one little berg.

Who knows what that little berg and then other bergs following suit would want to do next ?

It would create chaos which we do not need over something like that.

they voted on it, it passed, the end. It is time these fools realize that their vote means something and votes have consequences. This was and is not the realm of the federal government to interfere, it is a power show to put the voters in their place...you can vote how you want and we will decide if we like the results is exactly what this berg was just informed by the feds!! I bet after this slap in the face not too many Blacks will be voting colour only in 12.