Posted on 06/17/2013 7:30:44 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Sup Ct strikes down AZ law requiring proof of US citizenship for those seeking to vote in fed election. 7-2
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
Free (not sure what you mean by that?) - elections are a thing of the past; massive election fraud is rampant. Functioning judicial system has also gone bye-bye.
If you are correct, then that is a good thing. I cannot read or understand legalese, no matter how many times I try.
NVA and Perd - could you read magna’s comments and see what you think?
I need translations and commentary about legal stuff.
Federal VOting Act uses the word “accept” in the language, i.e. accept the filled out Fed form without having to prove citizenship.. The Fed form must be accepted with a mere promise of being a citizen under penalty of perjury. Therefore, with the Fed law written as it is AZ state law is preempted here. To me that means the Federal Voting Rights Act will have to be amended to address this problem.This is just what I got out of this ruling. We are wide open now.
It makes me wonder if this will put more pressure on feet-dragging with regards to ENFORCE/DEPORT on the right. Or if we can get this VRA garbage rewritten.Read it and weep.
Once again, the Supreme court has lost it's f***ing mind. There is nothing baffling about the case, I understand their reasoning just fine, but they are expanding the meaning of the constitutional clause beyond what is a reasonable interpretation of it.
It’s restraint, from where I’m sitting.
Congress can (and should) pass a law requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. States can’t, and shouldn’t, be telling the feds what they can and can’t do with federal elections.
The door isn’t closed here. Scalia’s trying not to legislate from the bench. If you asked him whether fraud is taking place, I’d like to think he’d reason that the very fact the case made it to their court is evidence enough that people no longer trust the process.
Not trusting the process of federal transfer of power is a very bad sign, since if the ballot box fails, and the soap box fails, all that remains is the ammo box.
Justice Thomas agrees with you. Justice Alito came down on your side but for different reasons.
Another thread the needle ruling. But the court basically agreed with Arizona’s points. And it ‘happily’ found an escape route to avoid declaring NVRA unconstitutional by finding that Arizona can still appeal to get proof of citizenship as part of form vs. a supposed oath.
They laid a path to address - that every state should exercise at this point.
I think an interesting approach in actual elections would be to set up two lines at election places. One for those following the full AZ law and eligible to vote for all candidates running at local, state and Federal level and other line for ‘Federal only’ voters who can not prove citizenship. After all the Federal law only affects Federal elections.
Lets see how many line up in the ‘Federal only’ line.....
Congress does not control who votes, States control who votes. To wit: the varied state laws regarding felony disenfranchisement.
Arizona is perfectly within its rights to determine who may/not vote and by what mechanism that determination is made.
The Federal government is interfering with Arizona’s right.
That any congress, anytime throughout history ever contemplated that citizenship would not be a prerequisite is an idea too nonsensical to garner credibility.
This is just one more example of where a court decided to allow an asserted legal technicality to interfere with a legitimate State interest.
Unfortunately for the nation, I think the number is far higher than two.
States have always controlled who voted.
Prior to the adoption of Amend. XV some states denied suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Prior to the adoption of Amend. XIX some states denied suffrage to women.
Amendments were required to extend suffrage.
To extend suffrage to foreigners would require an Amendment. Extending suffrage to foreigners is absurd in the extreme.
That’s why many dem-run states are going to issue illegals driver’s licenses.
Ever progressing to the goal:
It is sensible and reasonable to never allow foreigners into the system in the first place, and foolish to do otherwise.
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.
The Progressives are domestic enemies. Make no mistake, recognize this for what it is.
From Forbes.com:
So Much For Politics: More Than Half Of Supreme Court Decisions in 2012 were Unanimous
“More than half of the Supreme Court decisions in the most recent term have been unanimous, further undermining the theory the nation’s highest court is hopelessly split between a conservative majority and an embattled liberal minority.”
You are fond of citing numbers as proof of something though.
sfl
Thomas and Alito are the sorts of justices that the GOP should have pushed every time they controlled the Whitehouse. They should have kept pushing until they had 51 votes.
Ted Cruz has already filed an amendment. Cruz was doing this work as Solicitor General for Texas.
Though it looks like there is a ‘path’ to resolution. Alito points out - its not really a path.
“In refusing to give any weight to Arizona’s interest inenforcing its voter qualifications, the Court suggests thatthe State could return to the Election Assistance Com- mission and renew its request for a change to the federal form. Ante, at 16–17. But that prospect does little toassuage constitutional concerns. The EAC currently has no members, and there is no reason to believe that it will be restored to life in the near future. If that situation persists, Arizona’s ability to obtain a judicial resolution of its constitutional claim is problematic. The most that the Court is prepared to say is that the State “might” succeedby seeking a writ of mandamus, and failing that, “might” be able to mount a constitutional challenge. Ante, at 17,
n. 10. The Court sends the State to traverse a veritable procedural obstacle course in the hope of obtaining a judicial decision on the constitutionality of the relevantprovisions of the NVRA. A sensible interpretation of the Act would obviate these difficulties.”
So the court happily used an path as the escape route to making a more definitive ruling. But the path is closed and not scheduled to reopen. Nice.
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.