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 ...
It’s hard to believe that 0bama has something on Scalia too, but I think he must. The Kenyan is blackmailing the judges.
Nicely stated.
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.
Me thinks you ought to read the Constitution:
Article I, Section IV:
1: 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 Senators.
Congress mandated that registration for federal elections be done on a federally-authorized form. That form DOES NOT currently specify a requirement to prove citizenship ...
“You are fond of citing numbers as proof of something though.”
Yes indeed, I plead guilty. However on this thread it was YOU who first brought up the numbers of Justices on each side of this decision.
Scalia jumped the shark. And these fools dared to suggest that Thomas didn’t have the intellectual gravitas to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas’ dissent is a brilliant piece of legal analysis and original intent Constitutional interpretation.
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.
According to the DOJ (http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/nvra/nvra_faq.php), Section 6 of the NVRA provides that a State can develop its own form, if it meets all of the same criteria the NVRA requires for the EAC’s national mail voter registration application.
There is no mention of limiting a State form to only the criteria on the national form.
Additionally, "The voter registration portion of the application may not require any information that duplicates information required on the driver’s license portion of the application and may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
"The voter registration application must state each voter eligibility requirement (including citizenship), contain an attestation that the applicant meets each requirement, state the penalties provided by law for submission of a false voter registration application and require the signature of the applicant under penalty of perjury."
How does an applicant's attestation permit State officials to determine the eligibility of the applicant? The State can make no such determination, only passively accept the application. How can the State determine the veracity of the attestation? This ruling neutralizes the State's ability to determine the eligibility of the applicant.
All the above aside, Congress has no authority. This is the flaw in the ruling.
Here is yet another case of the three branches of the government—the Supremes in Black, the PINO and his minions, and Commiegress—all agreeing among themselves to something that is PLAINLY NOT Constitutional. And YOU must obey because they SAY SO.
What would happen if Arizona gave the Fed the big middle digit? I’d love to see Arizona State police and Arizona county Sheriffs ARREST any Feds that attempt to interfere with Arizona’s elections.
There's a loophole in the decision that seems to suggest that anyone, anywhere, who uses a motor voter form can register to vote anywhere, or maybe even everywhere.
So, what's the address of that house Sarah's daughter purchased in AZ? Bet we could register enough new voters we could make that district Republican through the next century and insure that McCain can't ever win again.
Well you teach election law, that’s something!
This is YOUR fatal flaw - while the State can develop its own form, it must be ESSENTIALLY the same as the EAC form. The State's form has to meet ALL of the same criteria as the EAC form [according to your own words]. NO MORE NO LESS.
That was the ruling today. AZ's requirement for proof of citizenship went BEYOND the existing criteria ...
You overlook the salient point which is that Congress has no authority.
BTW - “meeting all the same criteria” does not preclude exceeding those criteria.
Regardless, the salient point is Congress has no authority.
I recommend you read Thomas’ dissent.
Just got it. Appears there may well be an out here...
I made some really yummy tacos yesterday, and my son told me that they taste better than Del Taco!!
Aren’t I special?
Yes, I know how state and federal election laws work. Most Freepers on this thread are angry and lashing out and they don't understand how the system works and don't know the intricacies of state election laws, much less how they integrate with federal law. I would just get stomped on if I went into it here (and it would be long), as the Freepers will hit anything that moves right now about this.
For instance, most states can pass election laws that affect state and federal elections with no problem unless there is a protest of someone with standing, but some states, Texas being one of them, can't pass and put into action any law that affects federal elections UNLESS the US JUSTICE DEPT., MEANING ATT. GEN. HOLDER, APPROVES IT. Holder hates Texas with a passion and he stomps on Texas every chance he gets which he did when we passed a voter picture ID law two years ago. He took us to the Supreme Court. He must have one of his henchmen sitting in our Texas House and one in our Texas Senate, taking notes to see what he can screw up next in Texas. I despise Holder.
Anyway, in law, every word in a law means something and some of those words have a special meaning when written in law. When I taught law, the first thing I taught them, was how to read each word to know what it exactly meant in law. If you don't know that, you won't know what that law really means. The person who does know what every word in law really means, is the winner in politics. If you are going to play the game of politics, you have to know the rules and the rules are the election laws. We used those laws to turn a Democrat County into a Republican one in four years. He who knows the rules, wins.
That was my point:
Just another step closer to plan "B".........
(We all know it is coming, just not sure when).
This is not new law ~ which means this is at the USSC because Arizona is a state. If they’d been Apple, the case would have never gotten to the court.
Yep, why is it that so many conservatives are so willing to throw in the towel. They’re the same on the BSA. Every risk is an opportunity and the Left is massively at risk.
Yes indeed, I plead guilty.
You are obviously playing to the cheap seats who don't know any better than to think "numbers of people who believe something" = "true." Again, it is a lawyer's tactic, and not that of a objective, rational person.
However on this thread it was YOU who first brought up the numbers of Justices on each side of this decision.
I most certainly did, but not in an attempt to prove them right, more to illustrate that they cannot even agree amongst themselves. It demonstrates a conclusion with no possible counterargument; That at least two people are WRONG.
By the way, good work on debunking Joel Gilbert. Sometimes it just takes someone who is willing to do the legwork.
Well that’s a real victory! (I think...)
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.