“Here is a lesson... instead of taking the ramblings of lunatics on blogs at face value... see if they are lying to you.”
Nice self description. You stink of desperation.
Typical response of one who would rather believe in a fantasy, rather than utilize reason. I am sorry that the world hurts you so much. Wrap up the tin foil a bit tighter, perhaps the Lizard People can’t get you that way.
The fact is, Leo is claiming that Justia took out a case name, and edited a paragraph to “HIDEZ DA TRUF”...
He claims the the Justia page has edited the text of the opinion to read only like this:
“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the @ 88 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”
Yet, a direct link to the Justia page in question, shows both the presence of a case name, and a complete unedited paragraph:
“The privilege to vote in any state is not given by the federal Constitution, or by any of its amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United States. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162. It may not be refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but it does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the privilege to vote in a state is within the jurisdiction of the state itself, to be exercised as the state may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals, in violation of the federal Constitution. The state might provide that persons of foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Miner v. Happersett, supra, such persons were allowed to vote in several of the states upon having declared their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some states permit women to vote; others refuse them that privilege. A state, so far as the federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the federal Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and the conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the states alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the federal Constitution already stated. although it may be observed that the right to vote for a member of Congress is not derived exclusively from the state law. See Federal Constitution, Art. I, Section 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S. 58. But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the state statute. (Id.) See also Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S. 487, 185 U. S. 491. In this case, no question arises as to the right to vote for electors of President and Vice President, and no decision is made thereon. The question whether the conditions prescribed by the state might be regarded by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a federal one. We do not wish to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is unreasonable or in any way improper.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/193/621/case.html