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 ...
The only reason this issue is before SCOTUS is that Congress passed the Motor Voter Act in 1994, which permitted people to register to vote without showing proof of citizenship. The issue is whether that Congressional statute trumps the state law.
If they don’t uphold this, it’s all over except the crying (although I’ve already shed many tears already)
UNREAL that this is even an issue.
Personally, I think all immigrants legal or illegal should not be able to vote for 10 years after entering this country. Am I too hard?
When or if, an immigrant becomes a USA citizen, they are no longer immigrants.
If, for any reason, legal immigrants refrain from seeking full citizenship, they must also refrain from voting, and certain other civic duties.
There are no “undocumented immigrants”.
There are only foreign citizens who are granted various degrees of legal temporary or long term welcome as guests, or legal immigrants pending full citizenship applications.
Any other foreign citizens are illegal aliens, and/or criminal invaders.
All adult citizens, OTOH, no matter whether they are naturally born or were formerly immigrants, should be required to vote. (IMHO)
And each ballot contest/question should include a “none of the above” option.
let me guess,... the Supeream Court will rule that undocumented voters “have a right to choose”, or some other such aliceinwonderland reasoning as they always do
Roberts will back the DOJ.
Roberts is now in the liberal camp of SCOTUS, he cannot be counted on.
The answer to your question is:
Everything. We have become the laughing stock of the civilized world, and an inviting target for all of the maniacs in power everywhere.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
~ Enhanced version from Ben Stein quote
This question depends entirely on whether there is a right to vote or whether there is a right for citizens to vote.
In the first case, you take anyone who shows up.
In the 2nd case, you take only citizens who show up.
FWIW the founders never intended for the citizens to have a direct vote for either the President or the Senate. They wanted those offices free from the political pressure of the masses in order to assure that we never had the kind of government that we now have, i.e., a Robin-Hood style democratic electorate that could vote themselves money from the treasury.
You are exactly right about that, and we have bastardized the electoral college which was designed to pick a president and not be a superfluous extension of a popular vote.
In that sense, we are NOT a republic. And it’s been for the worse.
ping
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.