Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Should voters have to prove citizenship to register? (SCOTUS to hear arguments Monday)
MSN ^ | March 17, 2013 | Jacques Billeaud and Jesse J. Holland

Posted on 03/17/2013 12:29:44 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to register.

SNIP

The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn't require such documentation.

This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.

The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: citizenship; constitution; electionfraud; illegalaliens; motorvoter; skeeter; sukz; votefraud; voterfraud; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: DoctorBulldog


So, tell me again what’s more racist; Arizona simply asking for proof of citizenship if you want to vote or, the Federal Government demanding you haul in your entire documented existence just to get some food for your starving children???

Cheers! “

Oh, good point! For that matter...medical care...can you imagine what will have to be provided for Obamacare...unless you’re an illegal alien of course.

BTW...Uncle Janet let out several thousand illegal alien criminals because of the ‘sequester’...but NO US CITIZENS.


21 posted on 03/17/2013 1:03:47 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Absolutely they should show evidence of citizenship. Boundaries are a good thing; valuing something that is of immense value by protecting it by laws is a very good thing.

If they don’t care enough to become citizens, why the heck should they vote themselves free housing and retirement benefits?


22 posted on 03/17/2013 1:07:45 PM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Absolutely they should show evidence of citizenship. Boundaries are a good thing; valuing something that is of immense value by protecting it by laws is a very good thing.

If they don’t care enough to become citizens, why the heck should they vote themselves free housing and retirement benefits?


23 posted on 03/17/2013 1:09:26 PM PDT by bboop (does not suffer fools gladly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw; Tennessee Nana

Agreed!!!!


24 posted on 03/17/2013 1:12:50 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Have they started the "Jim Crow" rhetoric, again?

How about the purple ink, to assure 1 man, 1 vote?

FRAUD led to what we have in the White Hut right now, and in the inner-cities and Dem-controlled wastelands, that's a way of life, EVERY ELECTION.

Minnesota has a Jackass in the Senate (a real joke), where re-count after re-count was used until enough generated ballots were included to capture the win.

25 posted on 03/17/2013 1:17:58 PM PDT by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
but should instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is a citizen...

This seems somewhat burdensome on the criminalien. Couldn't some high priest in the 'Rat party just vouche for the immigrat's legitimacy? Bloomturd, Hillary!, Ø, Plugs, Frankenfeinstein, AlFranken-"Clown", the midget sinator, Marxine, and so on... any one of them I'm sure would be more than happy to vouch for these wannabe ersatz citizens.

26 posted on 03/17/2013 1:22:57 PM PDT by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
permanent residents or green cards can vote in locals,

Maybe in PA.

Not in MI, only US Citizens can legally vote in any election.

27 posted on 03/17/2013 1:36:13 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Are all journalists ignorant or are they trained to be so?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet; knarf

You’d be shocked to know how many cities in this country allow alien (even some illegal alien) voting.

When you look at the places doing it, it explains a lot!
http://www.cis.org/NoncitizenVoting


28 posted on 03/17/2013 1:56:59 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
Opponents "argue that Arizona should not be permitted to request evidence of citizenship when someone registers to vote, but should instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is a citizen," Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne said in court papers.

We shouldn't require someone to show proof of age before buying alcohol or cigarettes, but should rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is of age.

We shouldn't require someone to show proof insurance for their vehicle, but instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is insured.

Continue ad nauseum.

29 posted on 03/17/2013 1:57:19 PM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

John Roberts is still on this court.


30 posted on 03/17/2013 2:13:43 PM PDT by reefdiver (Be the Best you can be Whatever you Dream to be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana; All
The states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualiifed voters from voting on the basis of race until the 15th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of taxes owed until the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.

Finally, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of age until the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Note that 26A did not eliminate discrimination of voting on the basis of age, but made prohibiting people from voting based on age discrimination uniform thoughout the states.

So it is reasonable to conclude, imo, that the states can prohibit people from voting on the basis of unverified citizenship status. This is because the states have never ratified an amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the states from prohibiting otherwise qualified people from voting based on failure to prove citizenship.

And even though it took me a short time to write this post, let's see how long it takes the Supreme Court to make a decision in this case, not that outcome-driven, activist justices will agree with what amounts to a common sense (please forgive me) interpretation of the Constitution.

31 posted on 03/17/2013 2:18:08 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Well, voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court. One must be a citizen to legally vote. It seems like a logical extension of documenting identity and eligibility to vote.

But to liberals, I know that none of this makes any sense. To liberals, we can’t have any restrictions or documentation because some old lady somewhere, never ever got a driver’s license or government issued ID. Because there are some rare cases such as this, liberals take the position that we can’t ask anyone for any documentation of eligibility.


32 posted on 03/17/2013 2:28:19 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

To vote in my book...

*you must be at least 25 years of age to vote (except for active duty military)
*military absentee ballots are accounted for and counted first
*you must not be receiving government assistance.
*you must not be a violent felon (reform non-violent felony voting restrictions)
*your identity must be established at the time of voting on the testimony of a certified poll watcher under pain of fines or imprisonment not to exceed $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment per violation.
*Foreign nationals cannot vote.
*Individuals judged legally incompetant cannot vote.
*No one may vote for another person in any capacity except in cases of physical disability, and only with the approval of an attesting physician and the approval of the state election board.
*Single acts of vote fraud, including but not limited to any attempt to defraud the election system through manipulation, coersion, or identity fraud carry a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison on conviction.

There are probably many more things I’ve missed, like reforming the “gerrymandering” that goes on, but that’s just a quick back of the napkin wish list.


33 posted on 03/17/2013 2:29:53 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

LOL.

Have you ever read the questions asked by GOP politicians when they send you these meaningless surveys through the mail for the sole purpose to get you to contribute?

With the exception of a handful, they are all a bunch of idiots whose only interest is their political survival — nothing more. I often doubt if they are even interested in the survival of this country.


34 posted on 03/17/2013 2:31:16 PM PDT by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

IMO all voter rolls should be dumped. Everyone should be required to re-register in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship. The time has come when we, as a nation, can no longer tolerate fraud in our elections. Our country is sick and it may be terminal. The only way out is to rid our self of the cancer that is rotting us. That is to say, fraudulently elected officials that do not have the country’s bet interest in mind. Socialists, communists, criminals, perverts, and the remaining assorted scum need to be driven from office an never reelected.


35 posted on 03/17/2013 2:35:29 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Well said.

I would only add that Article I Section 2 and the 17th Amendment specify that the qualifications of electors to the House and Senate have the same qualifications as electors to the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. If a State requires proof of birth or citizenship to elect state assemblymen, I do not understand how that can be a contested standard for Congressional elections.

36 posted on 03/17/2013 2:40:28 PM PDT by Jacquerie ("How few were left who had seen the republic!" - Tacitus, The Annals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I’ve seen people lie in a court, under oath. Nope. I want documented proof of citizenship


37 posted on 03/17/2013 2:45:11 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I agree. A person’s “word” means absolutely nothing to me in this day and age. Lying is all too common as well as even being expected.


38 posted on 03/17/2013 2:48:31 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Whatever happened to the land of the free, home of the brave?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Does citizenship mean anything? Because it shore as hell doesn’t if people don’t even have to prove it to vote.

Why don’t we just invite the whole world to come decide how we are governed.


39 posted on 03/17/2013 3:14:37 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

SCOTUS has also agreed to hear arguments on the colour of s@#$te (from Braveheart), whether pigs have wings, and whether water is wet, and whether Tennessee Nana should have shown a picture of a horse laughing, or a cow, instead of a cat.


40 posted on 03/17/2013 3:22:57 PM PDT by Eleutheria5 (End the occupation. Annex today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson