Voting Rights Act of 1965

 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires the government to ensure black people have a black politician to speak for them. As the enabling legislation for the 14th and 15th amendments, the VRA has the power of the constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

In Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) the United States Supreme Court explained with respect to the 1982 amendment for section 2 that the "essence of a Section 2 claim is that a certain electoral law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives."

Women's spatial reasoning

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124430.htm

https://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2019/04/gender-gap-in-spatial-reasoning-starts.html

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9586946/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_visualization_ability

https://steemit.com/steemstem/@alexander.alexis/the-70-year-cognitive-puzzle-that-still-divides-the-sexes

Natural Born Subject

Article II, Section 1:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

 Vattel and Blackstone - talked about the need for citizen parents to be a Natural Born Subject

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/16542/46_97YaleLJ881_April1988_.pdf

argues that Congress has not only the power to regulate naturalization but also qualifications to be president (natural born).

Suffering caused by DEA

 https://archive.ph/JKA5L#selection-609.0-617.628

Even when her pancreatic cancer began to invade her spine in the summer of 2021, my mother-in-law maintained an image of grace, never letting her pain stop her from prioritizing the needs of others. Her appointment for a nerve block was a month away, but her pain medications enabled her to continue serving her community through her church. Until they didn’t.

Her medical condition quickly deteriorated, and her pain rapidly progressed. No one questioned that she needed opioid medications to live with dignity. But hydrocodone and then oxycodone became short at her usual pharmacy and then at two other pharmacies. My mother-in-law’s 30-day prescriptions were filled with only enough medication to last a few days, and her care team required in-person visits for new scripts. Despite being riddled with painful tumors, she endured a tortuous cycle of uncertainty and travel, stressing her already immunocompromised body to secure her medications.

My mother-in-law’s anguish before she died in July 2022 mirrors the broader struggle of countless individuals grappling with pain. I’m still haunted by the fact that my husband and I, both anesthesiologists and pain physicians who have made it our life’s work to alleviate the suffering of those in pain, could not help her. It is no wonder that our patients are frustrated. They do not understand why we, doctors whom they trust, send them on wild goose chases. They do not understand how pharmacies fail to provide the medications they need to function. They do not understand why the system makes them feel like drug seekers.

Losing Legitimacy

 Labrador Skeptic

@SaysSimulation

The Dynamics Of Losing Legitimacy

The ruling coalition is making a series of very bad mistakes. What they are messing up is the tradeoffs between Legitimacy, naked display of hierarchy, and force.

Traditionally, the US government has had a great deal of Legitimacy for most of the population. This Legitimacy was based on the Constitution, laws being equally enforced, and free & fair elections.

The Legitimacy produced two enormous benefits. Very few people would rebel. If those people did, other people in the Heartland and mainstream would stop the rebels on the basis of the law, the Legitimacy of government, and maintaining. So, the "elites" themselves didn't actually have to use any force.

There was an understood price. While things were never actually as presented, there had be a convincing appearance that the government was governing legally under the Constitution, that the laws were fair and evenly applied, and that elections were fair so the citizens ran the country through their freely elected leaders.

The ruling coalition is losing Legitimacy in the eyes of what I would argue is a majority of the American people, on a very rapid basis. Half or more of the country accurately saw & believes in the illegitimate election.

We're watching the ruling coalition make an absolute mockery of the rule of law. We're all seeing this together This creates two huge problems at the same time. One is the percentage of the population that is angry and resentful is soaring.

The other is that the other portion of the mainstream population is far less likely to work on behalf of the regime when it comes to forcefully putting down their fellow Americans.

This means the force has to come from somewhere - and I don't think the "elites" have it. Oh yes, they have a limited number of federal law enforcement. But not compared to the size of the nation, they are few.

If the ruling coalition were masterminds, or even good, or even not just active idiots, they would be doing everything possible to maintain the perception of Legitimacy in the eyes of as many Americans as possible.

Instead, they are doing the direct opposite.

They could have coasted for decades, by just tamping down the degree of election rigging, or kangaroo courts and lawfare. But, they're making major mistakes instead.

There is an acceleration of outrageous actions that is producing an acceleration of the de-Legitimization process.

Unforced errors. I do not look forward to what may be coming next, but our side is not the one forcing events (not yet, anyway).

American aggression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

Martin's Beach

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/martins-beach-access-road-private-property-14863810.php

The Friends of Martin's Beach sought to prove the public has a right to use the road because of "public dedication." In property law, this dedication can either be explicit (a land grant by the owner, for example) or implied. The Martins Beach case was one of implied public dedication; the Friends argued because previous owners allowed beach-goers to use the single road down to Martins Beach, that constituted public dedication of the road.

The court ruled this was not the case, as the owners were charging a parking fee.

“Payment of a fee to access or use property implies that such use is not a matter of right but instead is a permitted use,” the appeals court wrote in their ruling. “A party who pays for a privilege and is granted the privilege in exchange for the payment is not acting as though he or she had an unfettered right to exercise the privilege.”

"Because the public’s use of the road and beach was thus permissive, it did not ripen into a public dedication that would give the public a permanent right to use the property," the ruling continued.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A154022.PDF

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Public-agency-overreached-on-Martins-Beach-5668020.php

https://www.hmbreview.com/news/judge-rules-against-public-access-for-martins-beach/article_ffdc327e-3d05-11e3-9292-001a4bcf887a.html

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2013/10/01/setback-for-martins-beach-access-movement/

https://medium.com/@vkhosla/martins-beach-a-matter-of-principle-property-rights-b32f4de1c97

http://titleinsurancecenter.com/Title%20Insurance%20Pages/Cases/Opinions/FriendsOfMartinsBeach_v_MartinsBeach1.pdf