The U. S. Constitution and the Voting Rights of Democrats

 

Citizens of America owe permanent allegiance to their nation, and owe a moral obligation to protect the rights of other citizens.
This article expands the legal and constitutional justification for eliminating the Democrat’s right to vote particularly in a proposed national referendum on allowing California and smaller metro regions to leave the current nation to form their own socialist nation.
The argument that I am making is that registered Democrats do not exhibit allegiance to the nation, and all registered Democrats are colluding in Mueller’s attempt to subvert the rights of citizens.
In their continuing plot to eliminate the second amendment, they are trying to eliminate rights of 63 million Trump voters.
If the registered Democrat voters were authentic patriotic Americans, they would not be engaged in the morally reprehensible attempt to use the murder of school children as a political prop to get rid of the second amendment.
If the socialist trolls who run Twitter and Facebook were authentic, patriotic Americans, they would not be suspending accounts in order to limit free speech.
If the globalists in the FBI were authentic, patriotic Americans, they would not be engaged in the treason of overthrowing a duly elected government.
There is no reciprocity in civil exchanges or civil discourse between socialists and natural right conservatives because their basic beliefs about America are different.
One part of the socialist belief system holds the conservatives as immoral, and unworthy of civil treatment.
A second part of the socialist belief system is that they can not tolerate dissent or disagreement about their total vision of American culture and society.
Socialists are engaged in thought-control and censorship, not free exchange of ideas, because socialists, like those at Twitter and YouTube, can not tolerate dissent from their religious ideology.
The root of the socialist Democrat’s evil is their subversive behavior in undermining the freedom of other citizens.
The American Democrat Party performs, on a daily basis, evil acts to destroy liberty, knowing in advance, that their political actions are harming the rights of the 63 million citizens who voted for Trump.

Socialists do not hold these national moral values in common with other citizens.

Moral behavior in socialism is multi-cultural.
In socialist cultures moral values are not based upon the highest value of “personhood,” but are rather based upon the group values of a tribe or the collectivity.
In multi-culturalism, each culture, even ones that believe in the mutilation of young girls, are held to be morally equivalent.
The socialists have an irreconcilable difference with conservatives about moral behavior because socialists do not believe in the values of individualism expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration.
Socialists are totalitarians and police-state authoritarians, but conservatives make the mistake of assuming that socialists believe in free speech.
Conservatives respect the rights of other citizens to speak and write ideas that are contrary to their own because conservatives are aware that the truth of a proposition is difficult to discern.
Conservatives continually make the mistake of assuming that socialists believe in the self-evident truths in the Declaration, because conservatives assume that all American citizens believe in these truths.
This conflict between socialists and conservatives is between individual rights and collectivism. The differences are irreconcilable.
There can only be one side that wins this war.

Treason and Allegiance
Congress defined espionage and treason as an attempt to overthrow the government.
In defining treason, Congress outlined two forms of allegiance: permanent and temporary.
U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world.
The law states, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
My argument is easy to understand. Prior to the election of Trump, Obama, and the Democrat Party, were engaged in the treason of espionage.
After the election, Obama unleashed the Deep State secret police to overturn the Trump election. Mueller, and the FBI, are engaged in the treason of espionage and subverting the government.

Any, and all, registered Democrats who are guilty of collusion with Obama and Mueller, to subvert the rights of citizens, should have restrictions on their right to vote.
All Democrats who are traitors, should be punished by taking away their voting rights.

The rule of law
The basic promise, in the American natural rights republic, that citizens made to each other, was not to use the government’s police power to destroy America’s heritage of individual liberty.
In constitutional decision-making under uncertainty, individuals would seek rules that had maximum equal rights for all, with special privileges for none. The end goal of the rule of law in the natural rights constitution is based upon rational self-interest, aimed at the greatest individual freedom.
The rule of law in America is entirely voluntary. Obedience to the rule of law depends entirely on the application of equal justice under the law.
Paine wrote, “…for where the rights of men are equal, every man must finally see the necessity of protecting the rights of others as the most effectual security of his own rights.” “…freedom and rights mean a perfect equality of them.”
Jefferson wrote, “We come to respect those rights in others that we value in ourselves.”
Locke wrote that when the citizens left the state of nature to form their government that a rational individual, with a rational self-interest, would choose fair rules for all, aimed at the greatest freedom for all.
In Federalist #45, Madison promised citizens that the powers of the central government were limited and defined.
The public purpose of maintaining the rule of law and social order in the natural rights republic is tempered by the equally important public purpose of defining social rules of cooperation allowing for each individual to define and pursue self-interest.
The social rules of cooperation in America are found in the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, and Madison’s constitution of 1787.
The American cultural values of trust and honest fair dealings allowed individual citizens to form expectations about the likely behavior of other individuals in society.
The application of the rule of law in Obama’s socialism is entirely arbitrary, just like the rule of law in the colonies, when King George enforced the rule of law on the colonists.
In contrast to Madison’s equal justice under the law, in Obama’s socialism, Marxian class war, socialist ideology, and white privilege within the capitalist legal system, constitute the context of the rule of law.
In contrast to the individualistic rules of cooperation, in Obama’s socialism, the citizens never leave the state of uncertainty because they never know what the socialist elites will come up with next.
As a result of the uncertainty in socialist rules, the socialist elites must use the coercive power of the secret police to enforce the rules.When citizens can see a criminal, like Hillary, getting away with murder, the citizens have no reason, themselves, to obey the constitutional rule of law.
When citizens can clearly see Mueller’s betrayal of the nation, with no consequence from Sessions, the citizens think to themselves, “Why should I obey the rule of law?”
Mueller and Obama are unrestrained by the American rule of law. They are empowered by their application of the socialist rule of law.
Madison’s principles of the separation of power in socialism is converted into a two-step process between an ideological political party and the apparatus of government, that uses the secret police to enforce the values of “social fairness.”
The rule of law under Obama results in collectivist authoritarianism, just like the outcome in Venezuela.

Constitutional Restrictions on Registered Democrats Voting Rights
Whereas, the Constitution explicitly protects the right to own a gun, no where in Madison’s flawed document does the right to vote exist.
In no part of Madison’s text does he state, “All individual citizens have the right to vote.”
The Constitution simply rules out specific limitations on “the right to vote.”
In the absence of an explicit right to vote codified in Madison’s constitution, the Supreme Court has found no issue with a variety of regulations that restrict the right to vote.
The Supreme Court, for example, has consistently accepted the claims by states that voter registration in advance of an election, is needed for orderly elections and to prove that a voter is a real resident.
Generally, when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of voting restrictions applied by states, it cites in the first paragraph of the opinion , Article I, Section 4, which declares that the states shall regulate elections.
Amendment XIV, ratified by the states in 1868, states:
“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”
Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge “the right to vote at any [federal or state] election … to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, … except for participation in rebellion, or other crime.”
The US Constitution stated in Amendment XV, which was ratified by the states in 1870: “Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, states that, “no registrant may be removed solely by reason of a failure to vote.” It then says that the state may remove a voter if the voter doesn’t respond to a notice and “then has not voted” in two or more federal elections in a row.
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008), the Supreme Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.
The majority on the Court ruled that the Indiana law was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. According to Justice Scalia, citing Article 1, the proper level of scrutiny was “whatever the state legislature wants.”
Since that Supreme Court ruling, in 2008, 14 states have enacted and strengthened voter-ID laws.
Arizona enacted a law requiring voters to prove their citizenship by presenting not just a driver’s license but a passport or birth certificate upon registering and a photo ID at the polls.
The city of Albuquerque changed its charter to require a photo ID at the polls.
In Georgia, the legislature voted to require government-issued ID.

This is my conclusion.
The evil pursued by American socialists is the subjugation of the individual “personhood” to the socialist ideology of group “social justice.”
The socialists destroy the liberty of citizens to pursue their individual sovereign life destiny, and substitute the collective socialist pursuit of social justice, where control over an individual’s choices are subjugated to the needs of the “state.”
The Democrats who are currently engaged in “resistance,” are engaged in rebellion.
As in the period of time, just after the Civil War, when Confederate soldiers were required to swear an oath of allegiance in order to vote, Democrats engaged in resistance, should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, before they vote.
Obama and Mueller are engaged in crimes against the nation.
Any Democrat that shows up at the voting place must swear an oath that they have not colluded, or supported, the criminal, treasonous acts of the Democrat Party leadership.
The resolution to the ideological war between conservatives and socialists will require a citizen referendum that grants authority to the state of California to leave the nation.
Each state legislature should prepare the rules for voting in that referendum, including sensible restrictions for Democrats, who can not swear an oath of allegiance to the nation.
Democrat Party leaders should be banned from voting because they committed crimes against the nation.
If the results of the California referendum allow the state to secede, then a second referendum will be held to form the Liberty States of America, where each state can choose to join the new nation, or stay with the former United States of America.
The best, non-violent outcome of the irreconcilable difference between natural rights conservatives and socialists is a peaceful, voluntary emigration of socialists to California.
The first step in that peaceful resolution is to restrict traitors from voting in the proposed citizen referendums.

I am Laurie Thomas Vass. This video is a production of the Citizen Liberty Party News Network.
Thank you for joining me today.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.