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

Skip to comments.

Justices Reject Arizona Voting Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship
New York Times ^ | June 17, 2013 | Adam Liptak

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 driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; electionfraud; illegals; immigration; ruling; scotus; seebreakingnews; votefraud; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
So you can't get a library card and umpteenth number of items without showing some form of ID, yet in registering to vote, a process, privilege that has the power, capability to profoundly effect the country in any number of ways, only requires responding to a single question, and the swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

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

1 posted on 06/17/2013 11:12:19 AM PDT by lbryce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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?


2 posted on 06/17/2013 11:18:01 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (sue the DNC for the IRS abuse! Can RICO laws be used against the DNC?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

So,

open borders and,

anyone can vote ?

.


3 posted on 06/17/2013 11:18:10 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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!


4 posted on 06/17/2013 11:19:36 AM PDT by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

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.


5 posted on 06/17/2013 11:21:46 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

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.


6 posted on 06/17/2013 11:23:31 AM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Yes, you are exactly right. The feds won’t do this job, and no one else can either.


7 posted on 06/17/2013 11:25:03 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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.


8 posted on 06/17/2013 11:25:03 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's next run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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.


9 posted on 06/17/2013 11:25:45 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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.


10 posted on 06/17/2013 11:26:07 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cyman

And get PAID by those who want the law changed to fit their agenda!!


11 posted on 06/17/2013 11:28:08 AM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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.


12 posted on 06/17/2013 11:28:09 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“...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


13 posted on 06/17/2013 11:28:41 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

“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.


14 posted on 06/17/2013 11:31:33 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA
It’s over, it’s really all over. We should stop deluding ourselves that anything will save the Republic.

Sadly, you're absolutely correct.

15 posted on 06/17/2013 11:31:54 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
No .. don't think conspiritorily ... they're enemies too.

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 ...

or

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.

16 posted on 06/17/2013 11:32:27 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof, but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

“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.


17 posted on 06/17/2013 11:33:02 AM PDT by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Frankly, the idea that this is a Conservative court, is extremely flawed.


18 posted on 06/17/2013 11:35:09 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Speaker John Boehner (R) no (D) no (R)... has more waffles than IHOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The progressives hold four seats at the bench, and the shameful Pirate Roberts’ balls.


19 posted on 06/17/2013 11:37:36 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

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.


20 posted on 06/17/2013 11:44:31 AM PDT by MarkRegal05
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well this vote was 7 to 2. How in the same hell do you find five people that stupid? I can see one or two slipping through, but they’ve fixed it so we have a majority, and can only get two votes on easy calls.

Simply amazing...

As for Roberts, I’m not even sure he has any anymore.


21 posted on 06/17/2013 11:45:14 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Speaker John Boehner (R) no (D) no (R)... has more waffles than IHOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The Supreme Court should now be called the Sondergerichte.

After taking power in 1933, the Nazis quickly moved to remove internal opposition to the Nazi regime in Germany. The legal system became one of many tools for this aim and the Nazis gradually supplanted the normal justice system with political courts with wide ranging powers. The function of the special courts was to intimidate the German public, but as they expanded their scope and took over roles previously done by ordinary courts such as Amtsgerichte this function became diluted.


22 posted on 06/17/2013 11:48:43 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

In my county in New York State, you have to sign your name in the registration book when you vote. If people in the State of Arizona don’t have to prove they are citizens to vote, why should I have to provide my signature in order to vote?


23 posted on 06/17/2013 11:55:55 AM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

” The progressives hold four seats at the bench, and the shameful Pirate Roberts’ balls.”

Yep


24 posted on 06/17/2013 12:00:14 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
If the United States were not in an advanced stage of decadence, the American people would immediately impeach every one of the so-called "justices" who ruled with the majority in this decision.
25 posted on 06/17/2013 12:07:19 PM PDT by Savage Beast ("'1984' is the essence of 'liberalism'." rlmorel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Yeah, got to wonder, heh. I still can't understand what sort of intellectual pretzels they made trying to justify nixing a requirement for identification.
26 posted on 06/17/2013 12:08:07 PM PDT by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

digraceful and treasonous. the FIX is in on everything. of course those elites, including those in the black robes that voted in favor of this, don’t have to worry as the rest of us do. they have their wealth and will be shielded from the crumbs the rest of us be will fighting over.


27 posted on 06/17/2013 12:12:01 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

However! You will still be required to show an I.D. to buy smokes or Grab Some Buds! The morons infesting this country have their priorities all screwed up.


28 posted on 06/17/2013 12:26:34 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (23,116,441 households on Food Stamps! Now that's what I call HISTORICAL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

The states need to do what they want and dare the feds to stop them. I think states should start deportations on their own or banded together. Set up a chain of custody handing illegal over to the next state with a handling fee. When they get to Texas, Texas kicks their illegal butts over the border.

Texas would get the largest cut of the handling fee


29 posted on 06/17/2013 12:38:29 PM PDT by FreeAtlanta (sue the DNC for the IRS abuse! Can RICO laws be used against the DNC?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Is there any other country in the world that allows such?


30 posted on 06/17/2013 12:39:18 PM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (I’m not a Republican, I'm a Conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The Just-Us-Eses on the USSC continue to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they are about protecting the ruling elite and not the Constitution.

It is not their job to interpret the Constitution! It is written in English (albeit old English) and even comes with an Owner’s Manual known as the Federalist Papers.

It is obvious beyond any shadow of a doubt our nation’s Lie schools (like Harvard Lie School) have been cranking out Liars left and right to the point that a limited government is only a fond memory and the ruling elite have put on the bench at the USSC some of the countries mental midgets masquerading as judges.

Even though this was a 7-2, look at the history of the USSC and you will find there are mostly 5-4 decisions. How can the brightest people get it so wrong so much of the time? The Constitution is a small document.

Before public schools removed the knowledge, we knew the reason for this country was to have a government OF the people because King, Dictators had proven disastrous. Yet somehow in today’s world we have lying progressives (in both parties) creating more government every day with more and more laws and regulations to limit our freedom.


31 posted on 06/17/2013 12:39:49 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam! 969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

Read Thomas’ dissent.

Majority Opinion, Thomas’ dissent, Alito’s dissent:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf


32 posted on 06/17/2013 12:54:43 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

My thinking entirely.

But, given that our side lost, I think throwing some of the SOBs into the hoosegow would be a good idea.


33 posted on 06/17/2013 12:59:44 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

The article is misleading.

The ruling was that a state cannot require PROOF of citizenship as part of processing voter registration for national elections, because CONGRESS passed a law dictating how voter registration is done, and the implementation of that law is a form that does not include a line requiring evidence for citizenship. You just sign under penalty of law that you are a citizen.

The state is free to, with probable cause, investigate if a registrant is a citizen, and if not, prosecute them for lying on the form.

Also, this doesn’t cover requiring ID to actually VOTE. It covers registration.

And lastly, the state can ask the voter board to include a requirement, and in some states they do — except right now the board has no members, because Obama has failed to appoint anybody.


34 posted on 06/17/2013 1:08:38 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

They seem to have gotten it right, under constitutional review. You may not like the law, but they didn’t pass the law, Congress did.

And the constitution clearly gives congress the right to regulate federal elections, which includes deciding HOW people get registered to vote, if congress so chooses, which they did.

We need to petition congress to add a verification for citizenship — good luck getting it through now though.


35 posted on 06/17/2013 1:10:33 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Scalia wrote the majority opinion.


36 posted on 06/17/2013 1:12:40 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

SCALIA wrote the opinion for the majority????

We ARE doomed!!


37 posted on 06/17/2013 1:25:43 PM PDT by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: machogirl

Tim Donaghy on the USSC - - Not too much of a stretch

38 posted on 06/17/2013 1:51:07 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberal: A person who charges their grandchildren for today's party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Not so Fast....

This was ruled on narrow grounds and is NOT an overturning of Arizona law....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner


39 posted on 06/17/2013 1:54:42 PM PDT by cookcounty (IRS = Internal Revenge Service.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime

I had to refresh my memory as to who he was and I looked at Wiki. In reading this sentence, ....”and had been approached by low-level mob associates...”, my first thought was the IRS excuse of “low-level IRS associates”. Just substitute Mob for IRS.


40 posted on 06/17/2013 2:17:07 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
And the constitution clearly gives congress the right to regulate federal elections, which includes deciding HOW people get registered to vote, if congress so chooses, which they did.

After reading through several analyses of this decision, it is not nearly as bad as most are portraying it. As several have pointed out, this affects only registration, not requiring ID for voting. And this only impacts registration to vote for federal offices. States are still free to require proof of citizenship to register to vote for state offices, though that would require maintaining a separate registration form and a way to identify those who were registered to vote in Federal elections only, and those who were eligible to vote in state and local elections.

Scalia also laid out a road map for Arizona on how to correct the problem. Basically, Arizona needs to ask the board that controls the makeup of the registration form to include language indicating that Arizona residents need to include proof of citizenship with the registration form. If they refuse, Arizona can sue the board on several grounds (laid out neatly by Scalia), including on the grounds that the board has already granted similar requests to other states.

41 posted on 06/17/2013 2:21:43 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

bfl


42 posted on 06/17/2013 2:36:12 PM PDT by Bradís Gramma (Psalm 83)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Well, let’s see where things are now.

ObamaCare...
Anyone can vote....without proof of citizenship...
Amnesty for undocumented Dems...
Obama spying on all citizens...
Gun control stepped up at same time Obama is buying huge ammo, guns and armored cars for interior USA use...
Um, gee, anyone see a trend here?
Duh, wonder where he is going with all this?
....
Naw, nothing to see here...go back to your Dancing with Stars, sports, etc.


43 posted on 06/17/2013 3:07:39 PM PDT by OldArmy52 (The question is not whether Obama ever lies, but whether he ever tells the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Meanwhile foreigners register to vote and consequently do vote.

What ID do you think will be presented when voting? A driver license? Is there any bar to foreigners voting?

A vote cast can not be undone.

A country can not long survive if foreigners are given control of its government, in fact in such a case it is already dead. This ruling gives foreigners undue control of our government, it strikes at the very heart of our republic.

It is sensible and reasonable to never allow foreigners into the system in the first place, and foolish to do otherwise.

As for Scalia’s roadmap I suggest you read Thomas’ dissent.


44 posted on 06/17/2013 4:02:21 PM PDT by Ray76 (Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lbryce
Time to dump the Fed.

CWII is just around the corner. Time for the States to stand up again. I'll probably not see it in my lifetime, but I pray to God my children and grandchildren see it.

That's right, I hope they see it and participate in it.

The time is near that this REPUBLIC is taken back from the one party system...the DemoPubs....all the same in my book.

FMCDH(BITS)

45 posted on 06/17/2013 4:32:00 PM PDT by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

This does not void voter ID laws as some liberals are crowing. States just have to remain within the fed voter registration laws to register voters. Stupid and wrong, but not a disaster.


46 posted on 06/17/2013 5:29:00 PM PDT by Some Fat Guy in L.A. (Still bitterly clinging to rational thought despite it's unfashionability)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Read the dissents. The “way out” that Scalia described is a fiction and will not be able available to Arizona. Scalia has contracted the mad cow disease that infected Roberts. 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have just declared that US citizenship is meaningless. The barbarians are well past the gates and the elites are intent on giving them the keys to the city.


47 posted on 06/17/2013 6:41:19 PM PDT by littleharbour ("All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. ~ James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: lbryce; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

48 posted on 06/17/2013 7:18:27 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
Isn’t the supremecy clause grand?
49 posted on 06/17/2013 8:03:57 PM PDT by Almondjoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lbryce

Not really.

Read this excellent explanation:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3032524/posts


50 posted on 06/17/2013 9:29:12 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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