Amnesty Bill No Loner An Issue: Supreme Court Gives Right to Vote to ALL

Here’s the story:

Voter Proof-of-Citizenship Law Voided by U.S. Supreme Court

(Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Monday struck down an Arizona state law that requires people registering to vote in federal elections to show proof of citizenship.

In a 7-2 vote, the court said the voter registration provision of the 2004 state law, known as Proposition 200, was trumped by a federal law, the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.

By logical extension, the Supreme Court just gave the right to vote to anyone and everyone who can get into this country in time to register for the next election.

The principle of logical extension deals with where something logically can or does lead.  In this case, if you do not need to provide proof of citizenship, but only need sign a piece of paper swearing you are an American citizen, then the right to vote has been given to anyone who wants to sign that piece of paper.  Now, if you are in this country illegally, why not sign that piece of paper?  What does it matter if you break another law when you broke several just to get here?  And what is the reward?  Well, sign the paper and you can vote for people who will make you legal, which will likely mean that nothing will ever happen to you – even if they find out you lied when you signed that piece of paper.  And the best part of all: it is all “legal.”

Incidentally: this is subversion of the Constitution (not sedition, though it could be argued it is a form of treason), as the spirit of the Constitution does not allow this — a de facto amending of the Constitution — via judicial decree.  Actually, this is a perfect illustration of what I have been trying to explain: when the Legislature passes an illegal (i.e. unconstitutional) law, the Executive signs it into law and the Judiciary upholds it, then where does that leave the people?  When this happens in a manner that is designed to get around or undermine the Constitution — as it happens frequently in our nation now — the law defines this collusion as Subversion.  This means that the Judiciary just completed the trifecta on yet another act of subversion.  Now, how does one decide which side to take when the law contradicts itself?  Or when the three branches of government colluded against the Constitution?  Better still, if the law takes both sides of the same issue at the same time, is there even a rule of law left at all?

4 thoughts on “Amnesty Bill No Loner An Issue: Supreme Court Gives Right to Vote to ALL

  1. Joe – you can keep poking at me with the term “legal” in bold and in quotes to emphasize your contempt but it still does not change what is law. I’m sorry you don’t like it but it is not subversion – the court did not strike down the AZ law because of the proof of citizenship requirement, they struck it down because the federal government has jurisdiction over federal elections and the states cannot contravene that authority.

    We don’t want judicial activism and in this case SCOTUS kept its decisions to a very narrow scope to avoid it. This is actually the SCOTUS keeping a line between state and federal jurisdiction.

    Your statement is factually correct that “By logical extension, the Supreme Court just gave the right to vote to anyone and everyone who can get into this country in time to register for the next election” but it is hyperbole because that statement was just as true 20 years ago when the federal statute was passed, so this is not new.

    The federal statute says that every voter registration application contains the following:

    (C) shall include a statement that –

    (i) states each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

    (ii) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and

    (iii) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;

    The statue is here.

    The Constitution only requires that to vote that a person be a citizen, it doesn’t define how that is to be determined. Since it is silent, it is left to the Congress to decide and since the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870, a simple affirmation was enough. That got even more support when poll taxes and literacy requirement were negated by other Acts.

    It is not appropriate to accuse the Court of sedition bordering on treason when they only deferred to the Congress, which in this case is directed by the Constitution,handing the management of federal elections over to a body that, at least, theoretically represents the “will of the people”.

    For national elections, the change must be made at the federal level, not the state.

    Again, I agree with your point, there should be stronger proof of citizenship, but that is not what this decision was about.

    Just out of curiosity – what proof would be acceptable? Are we going to issue a national ID card? Require every citizen to carry “papers”? What do you suggest?

    I actually think the French have this one right.

    And by the way, it is a “moot” issue, not a “mute” issue. Moot means that it is deprived of significance, mute means it is silent.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s