Democrats Know They're Finished Without Illegal Immigrant Votes

PJ Media ^ | 01/12/2022 | Stephen Kruiser

[woodpusher]

Patriots are reminded that post-Civil War federal lawmakers identified a major constitutional problem with states that let illegal immigrants vote.

More specifically, the congressional record shows that federal lawmakers recognized that aliens are not allowed to vote in federal elections for the simple reason that such action effectively nullifies Congress's power to establish citizenship laws under "uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.5)."

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [emphasis added], and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

The Constitution delegated power to the Federal government to create a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Originally, citizenship in the United States was acquired by first becoming a citizen of a State. The various States had different rules for naturalization. The Framers thought it desirable to have the same rules apply in each State. No power whatever was delegated to the Federal government to tell a State who it may find eligible to vote in a State.

The speech of Congressman Delano is ahistorical and lacking in legal merit.

"If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but" * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphases added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)

"Whatever difference there may be as to what other rights appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government, from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition [emphasis added]." —Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)

As a minor distinction, this is from the Congressional Globe which was the official record at its time. Subsequently, the official record became the Congressional Record.

Going to the Congressional Globe, 40th Congress, Second Session, page 356, we find the first quote prefaced by,

In Wheaton, page 910, Mr. Lawrence says:

And the second quote is prefaced by,

Once more, Mr. Calhoun, in Wheaton, 905, puts the question so distinctly and clearly that without intending to indorse his opinions in other things, I think it will shed light on this question to quote from his argument. He says:

The Mr. Calhoun in question is famous Senator John C. Calhoun (1782-1850).

The Mr. Lawrence in question is William Beach Lawrence (1800-1881) who published a volume called Lawrence's Wheaton, his annotated version of Elements of International Law by Henry Wheaton.

The Henry Wheaton (1785-1848) in question was a U.S. Supreme Court reporter, and author of United States Reports, Vol 14-25 (originally 1 Wheat. thru 14 Wheat.), these being the official reports of the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Congressional Globe quote is from the Speech of Hon. Columbus Delano (1809-1896) of Ohio, in The House of Representatives, June 3, 1868, spanning pages 354-58. On page 354, Delano addressed the specific fraud issue in his congressional election which occurred in the state of Ohio,

Nor did the discovery of fraud end even here. It was ascertained, and is in proof, and the proof is uncontradicted, that a car load of non-residents (some sixty in number) were imported into the district by friends of the sitting member on the night preceding the election. These non-residents were distributed in squads, of from five to ten in number at each railroad station, where the train stopped in passing through the district. They were heard to say that they were going into the thirteenth district to vote for the sitting member, because they could do no good by voting in Mr. BINGHAM'S district; and they were in charge of a special manager, who was inquired of as to what he was doing, and who replied that "they had been fixing up things to beat Delano, and would beat him whether or no." All this and much more is proved by Mr. Krumbaker, a respectable merchant of Zanesville, who happened to be a passenger on the train that evening, and whose character is well established and above reproach. No attempt was made to contradict or impair the evidence of Krumbaker on this subject.

It was under circumstances thus briefly referred to that contestant felt himself compelled, in deference to the feelings and wishes of his constituents, to undertake this contest.

At issue was the votes of non-residents to the voting district being transported in to vote. It was not about aliens.

The two quotes come from Lawrence's edition of Wheaton's volume on International Law. Determination of American voting eligibility is not subject to International Law (formerly referred to as the Law of Nations).

With regard to voting by aliens, the Constitution is silent. Federal statute law restricts voting in Federal elections. In State elections, a State may do as it pleases.

Originally, voting rights (suffrage) was restricted based on sex, or ownership of taxable property, or factors such as age. Suffrage has expanded to include the vast majority of adult citizens. Seemingly forgotten is that the restriction of suffrage based on citizenship came much later. This was not the standard in the early years, and it is not mandated by the Constitution. Resident aliens were granted the right to vote in 22 states and territories. It is beyond reason to claim the States could not do it.

In the Civil War era some states included a large portion of non-citizens and extended the right to vote, and virtually all other rights of citizenship, to non-citizens. Also, the U.S. government considered these non-citizens subject to the draft. See, for example, the following exchange between the governor of Wisconsin and Secretary of War Stanton, where there was no question of whether they could vote, only of whether they could be drafted.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924079575241&view=1up&seq=381

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES.

MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.

Honorable E. M. STANTON:

About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty-five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them.

E. SALOMON,
Governor of Wisconsin.

- - - - - - - - - -

WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington City, D. C., August 12, 1862.

Governor SALOMON,

Madison, Wis.:

Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms. Your telegram respecting extension of time for volunteering cannot be answered until to-morrow, some information from different States being required.

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.

For a judicial viewpoint, see Spragins v. Houghton, 3 Ill. 377, 395 (1840) from the Supreme Court of Illinois.

From the Syllabus at 377:

THOMAS SPRAGINS, appellant, v. HORACE H. HOUGHTON, appellee.

Appeal from Jo Daviess.

Under the statute of the State of Illinois, every white male inhabitant of the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in the State six months immediately preceding any general election, is entitled to vote at such election, and the judges of election are compelled to receive his vote.

The question, whether the person offering to vote is an unnaturalized foreigner or a citizen, the judges of election have no right to investigate, under the existing laws. If such person takes the oath prescribed in the law, the duty is imperative upon the judges, to receive his vote, unless the oath is proved to be false.

The question whether the person offering his vote is an inhabitant, and entitled to the right of suffrage, within the meaning of that word in the Constitution, is not a subject of enquiry by the judges of the election.

There is no ambiguity in the word resident. Every man is a resident who has taken up his permanent abode in the State.

It is only when the judge of the election allows the exercise of the elective franchise by one whose right he suspects, or whose vote is challenged, without tendering the oath prescribed by the statute, that the judge violates his duty. He does not subject himself to the penalty for receiving an illegal vote, by admitting an alien to vote who has resided in the State six months immediately preceding an election, and who is a resident of the county where his vote is received, and who is a free white male inhabitant of the age of twenty-one years.

Per Smith, Justice:

Each State has the undoubted right to prescribe the qualifications of its own voters. And it is equally clear, that the act of naturalization does not confer on the individual naturalized, the right to exercise the elective franchise. The qualification which the voter is required to possess, in a Congressional election, depends entirely on the laws of the State in which the elective franchise is exercised, and is purely dependent on the municipal regulations of the State.

The term inhabitant is derived from the Latin habio, and signifies to live in, to dwell in; and is applied, exclusively, to one who lives in a place, and has there a fixed and legal settlement. The residence, however, is to be bonafide, and not casual or temporary.

To determine the qualification of an elector in this State, it would seem to be wholly unnecessary to enquire whether the elector was a citizen of the United States.

Unless the legislature shall make citizenship an indisputable qualification to the enjoyment of the elective franchise, and the Constitution clearly admits of the exercise of that power by that body, the Supreme Court cannot add such a prerequisite by construction.

Opinion of the Court at 393-94:

It is here to be remembered, that the Constitution of the State of Illinois was required, by the act of Congress of the 18th of April, 1818, to be republican, and not repugnant to the Ordinance of the 13th July, 1787, between the original States, and the people and States of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, excepting so much of said articles as relate to the boundaries of States therein to be formed.

By the resolution of the Congress of the United States, of the 3d December, 1818, it is expressly declared, that the Constitution and State government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact between the original States, and the people and States in the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, passed on the 13th July, 1787; and that the State of Illinois should be admitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever.

It is of importance here to ascertain whether the Ordinance of 1787 permitted resident aliens to be representatives in the territorial legislatures, and to vote at elections for representatives. By the Ordinance it is provided, that no person shall be eligible, or qualified to act as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen of one of the United States three years, and be a resident in the district, or unless he shall have resided in the district three years ; and, in either case, shall likewise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred acres of land within the same ; provided, also, that a free­hold in fifty acres of land in the district, having been a citizen of one of the States, and being resident in the district, or the like freehold, and two years residence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a man as an elector of a representative.

It will readily be perceived, that the qualification for eligibility to the office of representative in the territorial legislature, is twofold; first, three years a citizen of one of the United States, and a resi­dent of the district, and the owner in his own right, in fee simple, of two hundred acres of land, within the district; or, secondly, three years residence in the district, and the like owner of two hundred acres of land, without being a citizen of one of the United States.

The qualification to vote for such representative is, first, a free­hold in fifty acres of land in the district, and having been a citizen of one of the States, and a resident of the district; or, secondly, a like freehold of fifty acres of land, and two years residence in the district.

The policy of the Ordinance here disclosed, continued to be the policy of the Congress of the United States, with various modifica­tions in favor of the extension of the right of suffrage in the Terri­tories, from time to time, as its various acts of legislation disclose; and distinctly recognise and authorize aliens to enjoy the elective franchise. The emphatic term man, it will be seen, is used as mark­ing the person who is to exercise the right, whether that man be a citizen or resident of the Territory.

Thus, the “Act to enable the people of the Eastern division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio, to form a State Con­stitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes,” declared, “That all male citizens of the United States, of full age, who resided within the Territory one year previous to the day of election, and who had paid a territorial or county tax; and also all persons having, in other respects, the legal qualifications to vote for representatives in the General Assem­bly of the Territory, were authorized to choose representatives to form a convention to frame a Constitution and State government.” This same provision, with the exception of the term of residence being reduced from one year to one day, was incorporated in the act to enable the people of Indiana Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union.

The act to enable the people of the Illinois Territory to form a Constitution and State government, and for the admission of the State into the Union, is precisely similar, except in the reduction of the time of residence to six months.

The several acts of Congress erecting and regulating the terri­torial government, passed from time to time, not only prescribed the qualification of voters, but gave to aliens as well as citizens the right of electing and being elected to office.

Under the terms used in the acts to enable the people of the Territories referred to, to form Constitutions and State governments, it will be perceived, that “ all persons having, in other respects, the legal qualifications to vote for representatives,” were permitted to vote for members of the State conventions; thereby including aliens as well as citizens, who possessed the other qualifications then and there enumerated in the law.

At 395-96:

The qualification which the voter is required to possess in a Congressional election, depends entirely on the laws of the State in which the elective franchise is exercised, and is purely dependent on the municipal regulations of the State. The Constitution of the United States, in this particular, is wholly subordinate to the legislative will of the State; whatever it prescribes is adopted, as the qualification of the voter for member of Congress. In speaking of this pro­vision of the Constitution of the United States, the 52d number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Madison, contains the following just comments: “To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States, as it would have been difficult to the Convention. The provision made by the Convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State Constitutions, it is not altered by the State governments; and it cannot be feared, that the people of the States will alter this part of their Constitutions, in such manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution.”

Each State of the Union has not only exercised this power, at discretion, ever since the first organization of the government of the United States under its own Constitution, original, modified, or changed, in any manner whatsoever, but the qualifications of elec­tors are variant and dissimilar in many of the States; some differing in the period of residence; others making the possession of real estate essential; and others permitting, on certain conditions, free negroes to enjoy the right of suffrage. Hence, in all of the States, there may be frequently individuals who cannot exercise the right of suffrage, although native citizens, because of the want of the possession of the requisite legal qualifications.

In the Illinois constitution of 1848 appears the following at Article VI, (On Elections and the Right of Suffrage), Section 1: (emphasis added)

Section 1. In all elections every white male citizen above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state on years next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such election; and every white male inhabitant of the age aforesaid who may be a resident of the State at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall have the right of voting as aforesaid; but no such citizen or inhabitant shall be entitled to vote except in the district or county in which he shall actually reside at the time of such election.

In the Michigan constitution of 1850 appears the following at Article VII (Elections), Section I: (emphasis added)

SECTION 1. In all elections, every white male citizen, every white male inhabitant, residing in the State on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five; every white male inhabitant residing in this State on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty, who has declared his intention become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to the laws thereof, six months preceding an election, or who has resided in this State two years and six months, and declared his intention as aforesaid; and every civilized male inhabitant of Indian descent, a native of the United States and not a member of any tribe, shall be an elector and entitled to vote; but no citizen or inhabitant shall be an elector, or entitled to vote at any election, unless he shall be above the age of twenty-one years and has resided in this State three months, and in the township or ward in which offers to vote, ten days next preceding such election.

I would note an uncited claim of Representative Columbus Delano made in his 1868 speech which appears in the Congressional Globe at page 356,

And to such an extent has this doctrine been carried out that it has been clearly established by law and logic that no State can confer the elective franchise upon one who is not a citizen of the United States. There is no such thing as State citizenship.

There has been State citizenship since the nation was founded. State citizenhip did not begin with the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Numerous States did confer the elective franchise upon those who were not citizens. They even did it in State constitutions.

In fact, Section 2 of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment is a penalty for renegade states that weaken the voting power of citizens in any way.

Excerpted from the 14th Amendment;

"14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [emphases added] in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

In fact, it did nothing for over half the population, and was primarily intended to prevent disenfranchisement of the newly emancipated black MALE citizens.

Women remained lawfully disenfranchised after the 14th Amendment. To this day, States retain the power to eliminate altogether the popular vote for electors of the President and Vice President.

Neither women, nor men, have a right to vote except as provided by the state. The 19th Amendment did not give anyone the right to vote, rather it prohibited discrimination regarding voting based on sex. Where men are permitted to vote, women must also be permitted on an equal basis.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000)

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 , 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Also consider that renegade states that let illegal immigrants vote in state and local elections are weakening the voting power of citizens, thus abridging the constitutionally enumerated protection of a republican form of government imo.

See, Spragins, quoted above, that the Illinois constitution was republican in form, was constitutional, and followed the Federal policy in the Ordinance of 1787 which permitted resident aliens to vote at elections for representatives.

Consider also that representation is based on a census that includes resident aliens, legal and illegal. California gains 4 or 5 representatives just on the basis of its alien population.

Patriots need to primary federal and state elected officials who don't send voters email ASAP that clearly promises to do the following.

Federal and state lawmakers need to promise in their emails to introduce resolutions no later than 100 days after start of new legislative sessions that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to the states, the amendment limited to repealing the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17A), little or no discussion required imo.

In fact, I challenge the states to ram the repeal amendment for 16&17A through the ratification process faster than Nancy Pelosi irresponsibly rammed unconstitutional Obamacare through the House. /semi-sarc

It is next to impossible to get three-fourths of the States to agree on anything. I believe repealing 14A would do more than 16A and 17A. It was 14A that sucked the sovereignty right out of the States. It reversed the relationship between the States and the Federal government. A hallmark of sovereignty is self-determination. 14A dictated to the States who would be citizens of the States. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." States have no say on who is, and is not, a citizen of the State.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That has brought Federal jurisdiction to all nature of things, such as buying condoms (Griswold), getting abortions (Roe, and the list goes on.

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." And there is the source of the power for the Federal government to write laws to expand its reach exponentially.

The unreconstructed (former) Confederate state legislatures participated in ratifying 13A. When they would not ratify 14A, they needed reconstructing. When three-fourths of the Union States could not be persuaded to ratify 14A, coercing the (former) Confederate States became a thing. And that is how we got 14A. The history of ratifications contains no other story approaching that of 14A.