Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
Group Info Group Founded 2 Years ago Statistics 336 Members
15,424 Pageviews297 Watchers

Group Info

The group mainly about American politics so if you have an interest into this you are allowed to submit art about American politics. Occasionally I will create debates by using the blog.

Rules for posting art:
1. It must be yours.
2. The artist must put it to the folder that he/she has political views in.
3. It must be about politics.

Note: There is an issue with uploading art to just ask me if you want to upload art and I will request it for you to accept.

Guidelines for the debates:
1. Bad language is not encouraged. We want to keep this as clean as possible.
2. Try no to hate on other users, example: "You fascist fool! You have no life!" If you have no evidence that he has no life and you keep saying that then you are a hater.
3. Try not to just disagree with something and leave it with that, when typing a comment add details on why you disagree with it. Example: "I disagree with liberals because...."
4. Try not to be a conspiracy theorist or a hippie. I have personal reasons for this.
Group
Founded 2 Years ago
Oct 8, 2011

Location
Global

Group Focus
Social

336 Members
297 Watchers
15,424 Pageviews
Daily Pageviews

Admins

Founder


:icontitanicfan1000:

Co-Founders


:iconconservatoons::icontaxbane::iconblamethe1st::iconthe-laughing-rabbit::iconkajm::iconsuperawesomechris::icongreatkingrat88::iconshanhikari:

Deviants

Newest Members

Visitors

You're not here because you're not logged in
  • :iconemperor-romanov:
    Emperor-Romanov
    Visited here 8 minutes, 5s ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconconnor-is-cool:
    connor-is-cool
    Visited here 3 hours, 24 minutes ago
    Isn't a member
  • :icongeekartbyzentner:
    GeekArtByZentner
    Visited here 3 hours, 49 minutes ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconthe-mad-walker:
    The-Mad-Walker
    Visited here 16 hours, 13 minutes ago
    Isn't a member
  • :icontitanicfan1000:
    Titanicfan1000 - Founder
    Visited here 1 day, 7 hours ago
    Submitted a blog entry 2 days ago
  • :iconrequiemsvoid:
    Requiemsvoid
    Visited here 1 day, 13 hours ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconblamethe1st:
    BlameThe1st - Co-Founders
    Visited here 2 days, 7 hours ago
    Voted yesterday
  • :iconlevel0hero:
    Level0Hero
    Visited here 2 days, 18 hours ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconneworldisorder:
    Neworldisorder - Members
    Visited here 2 days, 18 hours ago
    Submitted a deviation 3 days ago
  • :iconj-r-m-n-k-e:
    J-R-M-N-K-E - Members
    Visited here 2 days, 22 hours ago
    Submitted a deviation 5 days ago

Affiliates

:iconanti-illuminati-01::iconclintonworld::iconbillmaher:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday made clear that states are free to prohibit the use of racial considerations in university admissions, upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action.

By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the 2006 decision by Michigan voters to bar consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities.

The ruling could encourage other states to join the handful that have such prohibitions, including California and Florida. Higher-education officials have warned that those states have seen a decline in the number of minorities admitted to their flagship universities.

The decision further illustrates the court’s skepticism about race-conscious government programs. In effect, the ruling says that universities may still employ the limited consideration of race authorized in previous Supreme Court rulings. But it also said that voters and legislators also have the right to curtail such plans. That it took five separate opinions totaling 102 pages written over six months to reach that result is a sign of how divided the court remains on the issue.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the main opinion and said there was no reason for judicial intervention in state decisions that do not target minority groups.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the most powerful and notable dissent of her 41 / 2-year tenure on the court, blasted the majority and took particular aim at Roberts and the court’s conservatives, who she said attempt to “wish away” evidence of the nation’s racial inequality.

“Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence,” Sotomayor wrote in her 58-page dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Sotomayor, who this year said she was not fond of justices reading dissents from the bench to emphasize disagreement, overcame her reluctance to do just that.

“For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who oppose racial preferences, agreed with the outcome but not Kennedy’s rationale.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, normally part of the liberal bloc, also ruled for Michigan but on different grounds. If voters or their representatives have the right to adopt race-conscious policies, he said, so must they have the right to decide not to.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on the case while solicitor general.

Read more: www.washingtonpost.com/politic…
More Journal Entries

Recent Journal Entries

Monthly Stats

Group Activity

Favourites

Gallery Folders

Art for Conservatives

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconzacharytc:
ZacharyTC Feb 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
What do I do if my art/writing is more moderate/neutral than one or the other?
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Feb 9, 2014  Student Writer
Stays in featured.
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Feb 4, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
If it does not feel like it fits any particular category, then go with 'Featured.'
Reply
:iconbetarius:
I have a small question, as I am not American, but I'm so-so intrested in American politics. Is it okay to upload art about politics of other countries? Just asking.
Reply
:icontitanicfan1000:
Titanicfan1000 Jan 30, 2014  Student Writer
Off course!
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Jan 30, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Well, just on a quick glance in the gallery, I have spotted materials on the Pope and chavez of Venezuela, so I'd say go for it! 
Reply
:iconryu238:
Hi, 

For three years, a group of some 600 multinational corporations and trade associations have been quietly negotiating a trade pact IN SECRET that could void American laws that protect workers, jobs, health, and the environment. During negotiations here last summer, news leaked of some of the provisions U.S. trade officials were prepared to approve, and a public outcry derailed the talks. Trade Representative Ron Kirk resigned. Now that Michael Froman has been confirmed as the new U.S. Trade Representative he is pushing to renew "fast track" authority so President Obama can sign the agreement first, and then force a quick vote in Congress without any public scrutiny, floor debate, or revisions. 

Rep. Keith Ellison has called TPP "the largest corporate power grab you've never heard of." Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, (who happens to share my name!) is one of just four U.S. Senators who voted against Froman's confirmation this summer. She said of TPP, “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant.” Warren explained, “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.” 

The only TPP language made public was leaked in 2012 and shared by Public Citizen. Since then trade officials have kept a tight lid on the negotiations, only recently allowing members of Congress to view (not copy) the text, which remains "classified." Among the most disturbing revelations in last year's leaked TPP language, that seems to be mirrored in the Atlantic version as well: Foreign companies would have "preferred status" – granting them greater rights within our borders than our own companies enjoy. U.S. companies would have more incentives to offshore jobs, and foreign companies would not be bound by the minimum wage and could sue the U.S. if our health, safety, or environmental regulations interfered with their profits. Jurisdiction over such suits would rest not in the hands of elected officials or judges, but with an international business tribunal. Their decisions, which would be binding upon all member nations, would supersede our own laws – including our Constitution. 


That's why I signed a petition to The United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate, which says:

"The White House and the U.S. Trade Representative are urging Congress to abdicate some of its power over approval of trade agreements by renewing "fast track" authority. Fast track would allow the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership to leapfrog customary legislative protocol and be put to a rapid "up or down" vote without a public hearing, floor debate, or amendments. Forcing Congress to vote on an agreement this complex without adequate time for open hearings, review, and public scrutiny, sets a dangerous precedent. Congress, we urge you: just say NO to fast track!" 

Will you sign the petition too? Click here to add your name: 

petitions.moveon.org/sign/cong… 

Thanks! 
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Dec 12, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What's your take on Obama breaking laws?

Reply
:iconbelianis:
belianis Jan 28, 2014  Professional Traditional Artist
Isn't it paradoxical, how the people most hungry for power are always the ones least capable of using it responsibly?
Reply
:icondrybonesreborn:
DryBonesReborn Jan 28, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah. Exactly. Now, he wants to legalize illegal aliens. Wait, they break the law coming over here, jumping fences into people's land (farmers), do other stuff and then want rewards? There is a boarder, and there are ways in. Unless they are fleeing for war, not sure what to do. If we legalize them who will teach them English to read our signs to drive? 
Reply
Add a Comment: