Here’s the story:
(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?