Skip to comments.Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship
Posted on 06/17/2013 11:12:19 AM PDT by lbryce
Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from prospective voters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision on Monday.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to accept and use a federal form displaced an Arizona law.
The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, Are you a citizen of the United States? Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.
The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona drivers licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Right there is the very reason we are in the gravest danger in our history, as an illegitimate occupier of the office of the presidency bent on destroying our nation, wreaking devastation and havoc across the political, governmental spectrum, in a relentless single-minded objective to undermine the very underpinnings,existence of our great, quite possibly late country.
A divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the two sets of requirements do not operate harmoniously and are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.
Incredible. I am aghast, can't believe what I'm reading, the Court's rationale for disallowing Arizona's voting law, the two sets of requirements do not operate harmoniously and are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways. .
Did you read that? Arizona's law does not operate harmoniously with the federal law and are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways. No matter that the federal law, is the worst, most reckless, ill-conceived law in history, toothless in discouraging illegal voting to the slightest degree and that the Arizona law, ton the diametrically polar opposite end to preserve, strengthen our Republic to maximum effect, the Court sided with the Federal law to supersede common sense, the Constitution itself, America itself.
No matter that the federal law does not offer the slightest validation that the prospective voter is in fact a citizen exercising the privilege as profound right so many have fought and died for, and yet is granted on the most frivolous of requirements, penalties of which make the law nothing but a catastrophic joke in the belief any non-citizen bent on voting illegally is going to give it a second thought. The fact is that at the end of the day it becomes readily apparent that the law is tantamount to nothing less than the empowering of voter fraud on a grand scale, not to mention, indirectly responsible for having put our very country in the gravest of danger
This should have been a clear cut and easy case for all the elitist justices to finally get right, but they didn’t. I wonder what the NSA wiretaps undug on them?
open borders and,
anyone can vote ?
I would love being on the Supreme Court. Imagine having a job that permits you to narrow, expand, change or even in the case of Roberts with Obamacare justify and rewrite the law so it fits your particular mood and temperment.
What a job!
No. It’s not some conspiracy theory. It is the simple fact that this “conservative” court is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a State’s rights conservative Court. It is from that “the Fed Gov’t is all powerful” camp.
Oh they will give us a little bit here and there, but in the log run . . . expect nothing good.
The justices seem to be trusting that folks will who have no respect for our borders or sovereignty will give a damn about lying and signing their name under penalty of perjury AS IF the govt would ever pursue their perjury.
It’s over, it’s really all over. We should stop deluding ourselves that anything will save the Republic.
Yes, you are exactly right. The feds won’t do this job, and no one else can either.
That NSA/IRS program is working like a charm, isn’t it? He can get them to do whatever he wants and 330 million people just sit back and watch the new American Idol or TrueBlood.
I believe that decision pertains to fed elections only. The state should continue to do what it does for state elections.
And the supremes can shove their decision up their smelly Obamas.
And I hope and pray that they soon will have to do just that.
First, they micturated on John Jay.
Then, they lied about ObamaCARE forcing
unequal taxation by fraud in violation of the Constitution.
Now, they blithely violate 18 U.S.C. § 2381.
And get PAID by those who want the law changed to fit their agenda!!
Under the Constitution, the federal government can regulate federal elections:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.”
So, since the federal government has a form on which a person swears under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a citizen, and that’s good enough for the feds, then that’s good enough.
One response to this law is to hold state and local elections on dates other than the dates of federal elections, like we do in Virginia, using odd years for the state elections, and require photo i.d. for the state elections.
Another response to the law is to investigate persons for whom there is reason to believe are not citizens but have signed the federal form swearing under penalty of perjury, etc. According to one source, here is the law regarding perjury here in Virginia:
The government must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction for perjury in Virginia. First, the government must prove that the defendant made a false statement under oath or false written statement under penalty of perjury. Second, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant did so knowingly and willfully. Finally, the government must prove that the statement was material to any issue being tried or heard.
The falsity of any statement must be established by two or more witnesses or by one witness whose testimony is corroborated by independent evidence. In order for a statement to be material, the statement must be relevant to the fact that is being tried or heard or to any substantial circumstance which tends to prove or disprove such fact.
Perjury in Virginia is punishable by imprisonment from one to 10 years, confinement in jail for up to 12 months, and/or a fine of up to $2,500. Virginia Code §18.2-434. Virginia Code §8.01-4.3.
It’s me again. It seems that the second part, the “knowingly and willingly part,” is the stickiest point. So, when a voter presents himself at the polls based on the federal form only, it would be a good thing to inform the voter of his statement and then arrest his ass. I figure $2,500 per illegal alien could add up to a pretty penny, and we could then offer to use that money to fly the illegal home in lieu of ten years in jail.
“...I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” - Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800
“Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens. “
So Federal law merely requires “swearing” to citizenship rather than proving it.
Sadly, you're absolutely correct.
There's ONLY two ways to look at these things now ...
A whole bunch'a people are 'in on the deal' and it IS a conspiracy ...
a whole bunch'a people are enemies of American Freedom.
There's no other choice folks ... it's a hustle or it's a coup.
It damned sure ain't American.
“I believe that decision pertains to fed elections only. The state should continue to do what it does for state elections.”
Yes, until the ACLU filed a lawsuit and had that overturned also.
Frankly, the idea that this is a Conservative court, is extremely flawed.
The progressives hold four seats at the bench, and the shameful Pirate Roberts’ balls.
This does not give me a good feeling about the homo marriage rulings coming-up.. I don’t trust Roberts any farther than I can throw him, and he keeps giving me more evidence that he’s a traitor.
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.