None of these candidates, not any more

On August 22, U. S. District Court Judge Jones ruled that it was unconstitutional for the option to vote for “None of these Candidates” to appear on Nevada’s ballots. The rationale behind the decision makes sense. Since even if ‘none of these candidates’ receives the majority of votes; the candidate receiving the most votes would still be elected. Nevada is, or was the only state that allows voters the option of voting for ‘none of these candidates’. The Republican National Committee was seeking an injunction to remove that option from voters. Democrat Secretary of State Miller was defending the law that was passed in 1976 to combat voter apathy. While a candidate has never lost to ‘none of these candidates’; there has been elections where the number of people voting for ‘none of these candidates’ was larger than the difference between the first and second. Those arguing against the law claim that people’s votes are not being counted, a violation of the Voting Rights Act, as essentially a vote for ‘none of these candidates’ is not being counted to a living candidate, a person with a chance to win the election. Those arguing for the existing law claim that people have the right to not vote, and ‘none of these candidates’ is a way to exercise that right. The stakes are high in this election and the presidential race and Nevada’s senate race are so close that people voting for ‘none of these candidates’ could sway the election. I love the ‘none of these candidates’ option on our ballots, my only problem with it is with the outcome. I would love to see ‘none of these candidates’ be able to win the election. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think “nobody” should fill the seat. I think that it should trigger another election. Obviously if a majority of people vote for ‘none of these candidates’ it should send a message to the two major parties that their selections are unacceptable to the people. New candidates would be selected and another election scheduled. I know the cost to run another election is expensive, but I would call it a necessary expense if a majority of the people doesn’t want any of the candidates. The United States may not be a democracy, but we do have democratic leanings.

Harry Reid, the quintessential hypocrite

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in the news again and not for passing a budget, which the Senate has not done in over 1200 days. Reid made news as the democrat attack dog; making accusations that Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years. This information supposedly came from some source, but Reid will leave the burden of proof on the accused; another instance of being guilty until proven innocent. Although if you remember, Harry Reid was the person who claimed that paying taxes was voluntary. Reid, who doesn’t face reelection for another four years, has nothing to lose except his position as Senate Majority Leader. He calls out Romney on taxes, but won’t release any of his records. That might be a good idea for Reid, his shady land deals may come out to the public. Is the IRS really that incompetent? Can a millionaire really just stop paying taxes for a decade and then resume again and not send any up any red flags? One thing is for certain, you cannot believe anything Harry Reid says. He constantly proves he is nothing more than a partisan hack. As I mentioned above, Harry Reid attacks Romney as a tax dodger but claims that paying taxes are voluntary. Harry Reid even supported auditing the Federal Reserve; that is until it became something the conservatives wanted. If those were the only two, it wouldn’t be that bad, but it gets worse. Harry Reid supported interpreting the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution to not allow anchor babies free citizenship, but that was only important until the democrats began pandering to the emerging Latino community. Harry Reid pretends to care about protecting our border, but if he was really for securing borders, would he be pushing for amnesty or the DREAM act? Reid continues to show that his only allegiance is to his party, not Nevada, not the country. Under President Bush, Reid was against raising the debt ceiling but now under President Obama, it’s unpatriotic to not raise it. Harry Reid has flip flopped on his stance on the PATRIOT ACT, transparency in government and continues his hypocrisy with senate recesses. Harry Reid continues to show us the problem with career politicians; they are nothing but partisan hacks that care more about themselves and their party than anything else. One thing is for certain, you cannot trust anything that comes out of his mouth because if you wait long enough, it will change.

Titus likes unconstitutional behavior

Ex Congresswoman Dina Titus, who was elected to Congress in the democratic landslide in 2008 and ushered out in the 2010 republican revival, is running for Congress again, this time she moved to a more “friendly” district. She is trying to keep a democrat in the seat that Shelley Berkeley held for seven terms. Shelley Berkeley is running for the Senate against Dean Heller, who replaced former Senator Ensign, who resigned before the expiration of his term. Now don’t get me wrong, Titus did not come out calling for the impeachment of President Obama, she would never do that, she voted in step with the progressive agenda of Obama during her term in the House, but she did point out the unconstitutional actions taken by President Obama. She did point out that Obama is violating his Oath of Office by overstepping his constitutional authority. In an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal’s editorial board, Titus said, Obama expanding executive authority was a dangerous trend and that not only the executive branch but the other two were overstepping their constitutional authority. Of course she voted for congressional overreaches of power like the Obamacare bill. Dina Titus also supported the unconstitutional actions by the President by blaming his actions on Congress’s inability to act. Of course the implication is on the republicans in the House, but you cannot overlook the democratic controlled Senate’s inability to act, like not passing in a budget for over three years. What I find frightening is that Dina Titus is a political science teacher at UNLV. I never took a class taught by Titus, but if she teaches like she governed in the House, students are getting a warped view of the Constitution. She constantly voted for bills that overstepped constitutional authority and now she is supporting executive branch overstepping of constitutional authority. As a political science instructor, I would think she would understand the nature of the government and its limited nature. I would think she would understand our system of checks and balances. I would think she would understand how the government works and why it was designed the way it was. Most importantly, I would expect her to understand that frustration is not a reason to violate your oath of office, violate the Constitution and continue to add to what she called a systemic problem.