No longer have to be a citizen to vote according to SCOTUS.

[inccwchris]

SCOTUS Rules Against AZ Voting Law - The Rush Limbaugh Show


Its not just the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth amendments to the Constitution under attack now, its a full out war on the constitution. This ruling has basically said that it is illegal for Arizona to prove citizenship before allowing someone to vote, if you notice below it states The right of CITIZENS. Not the right of people, the right of CITIZENS.

Quote from United States Constitution Article II

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Nineteenth Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Twenty-fourth amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

 

[Hohn]

Dude, I'm as frustrated as anyone by consequences of the ruling, but it isn't "an assault" on the Constitution.

What it shows is that Federal Law-- despite being flawed and absurdly misguided-- still is Federal law.

I think this only applies to Federal elections.


ETA: great analysis here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/p...overnment-in-arizona-voter-registration-case/

h

 

[inccwchris]

Federal laws are an assault on the Constitution in most cases. Most of the anti gun laws are federal, the IRS is an assault on the Constitution, Obamacare is an assault on the Constitution, Laws that prevent us from checking citizenship before voting at any level are an assault on the Constitution.

 

[Redtbird]

Non-citizens...Forget that! Illegal aliens are getting drivers licenses and being allowed to vote? What's next?

Cannot believe some of the things I see happening to my/our country.

 

[5.56'aholic]

The key provision they voted down is what should concern most citizens: the SCOTUS voted that its against the law for Arizona to require DL's issued after 1996 be used as legal proof of citizenship. I dont know about you, but a nearly 20 y.o. DL should have had to been renewed by now.....

 

[bmbutch]

Dems can't stay in office & destroy America w/o illegals voting.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Federal laws are an assault on the Constitution in most cases.

What if these federal laws uphold the Constitution as in the present case?

its a full out war on the constitution

How do you figure?

Most of the anti gun laws are federal, the IRS is an assault on the Constitution

No, most of the anti-gun laws are state, county and city.

 

[inccwchris]

What if these federal laws uphold the Constitution as in the present case?

This law does not uphold the constitution, it undermines the requirnment that one be a citizen to vote, Also notice I said in most cases Federal laws violate the constitution, not all


How do you figure?

How about the rulings that have been coming down about federal wiretapping, the ruling that states that silence before actually speaking aloud that you are invoking the fifth amendment can be used against you, how about drones being used to spy on you in your own yard, how about the attacks on the second amendment we just fought off. How do you figure its not a war?



No, most of the anti-gun laws are state, county and city

Right, because ATF is a state, county, and city agency. I guess NICS is also a city county and state organization. Don't even get me started on NFA or the assault weapons bans that started at the federal level and are trickling down to be fought against in state legislature.

 

[NSA 308]

Federal law trumps state law with regards to Federal elections. That's all this ruling says. Apply paper bag to mouth and nose to arrest hyperventilation, as necessary.

 

[BogWalker]

I don't see why there's so much push against a citizenship card. If it could act as a universal form of ID I wouldn't see a problem with it. Wouldn't take more than a few seconds to present it at the polling center. Yeah, there would probably be fake ones, but it sure would cut down on the likelihood of non-citizens voting.

 

[tetsujin79]

Non-citizens...Forget that! Illegal aliens are getting drivers licenses and being allowed to vote? What's next?

1. go south or north
2. renounce citizenship
3. sneak back in
4. profit!

 

[Classic]

I can't be certain of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution and BoR but I hardly think they meant for foreign citizens and non U.S. citizens to vote. It seems to me this SCOTUS decision is inconsistent with the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[NSA 308]

I can't be certain of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution and BoR but I hardly think they meant for foreign citizens and non U.S. citizens to vote. It seems to me this SCOTUS decision is inconsistent with the meaning of the Constitution.

Heck, the founding fathers never even meant for black people and women to vote, so I'm not sure that what they thought about voting rights is relevant today. I do agree that one should be required to have citizenship to vote, but that's really not what this court ruling was about. It was about state law attempting to trump federal law with regards to federal elections.

I can't imagine how some of the posters on this board react when they get the Publisher's Clearing House notice in the mail that they may have already won $100,000.

 

[KLB]

Heck, the founding fathers never even meant for black people and women to vote, so I'm not sure that what they thought about voting rights is relevant today. I do agree that one should be required to have citizenship to vote, but that's really not what this court ruling was about. It was about state law attempting to trump federal law with regards to federal elections.

I can't imagine how some of the posters on this board react when they get the Publisher's Clearing House notice in the mail that they may have already won $100,000.

Exactly. Federal law says you have to swear that you are a resident to register to vote. This ruling says that a state may not make any other requirements for proving citizenship above what federal law requires.

 

[Classic]

Heck, the founding fathers never even meant for black people and women to vote, so I'm not sure that what they thought about voting rights is relevant today. I do agree that one should be required to have citizenship to vote, but that's really not what this court ruling was about. It was about state law attempting to trump federal law with regards to federal elections.

I can't imagine how some of the posters on this board react when they get the Publisher's Clearing House notice in the mail that they may have already won $100,000.

Well you're probably a lot smarter than I am but I do think what the Founding Fathers were thinking about many issues IS still relevant now. Perhaps you think what they were thinking about the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant today also.

This SCOTUS ruling will have the effect of allowing many more illegals to vote. Personally I think that is wrong and the DL requirement to vote seemed pretty benign by comparison.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I can't be certain of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution and BoR but I hardly think they meant for foreign citizens and non U.S. citizens to vote. It seems to me this SCOTUS decision is inconsistent with the meaning of the Constitution.

It is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that is at issue.

Federal law trumps state law where there is a conflict.

There was a conflict, the Constitution mandates that federal law win. I thought INGO was in favor of the Constitution?

What if these federal laws uphold the Constitution as in the present case?

This law does not uphold the constitution, it undermines the requirnment that one be a citizen to vote, Also notice I said in most cases Federal laws violate the constitution, not all

The law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruling upholds the Constitution by correctly stating that federal law trumps state law.

How do you figure?

How about the rulings that have been coming down about federal wiretapping, the ruling that states that silence before actually speaking aloud that you are invoking the fifth amendment can be used against you, how about drones being used to spy on you in your own yard, how about the attacks on the second amendment we just fought off. How do you figure its not a war?

What rulings on wiretapping are you referencing by the Supreme Court?

Miranda is only triggered upon you being in custody not by voluntarily playing "I is so smart" games with the cops. If you want to be protected by the Fifth Amendment, invoke the Fifth Amendment and keep your baconhole shut. Don't play games, take 5, ask for lawyer, ask if free to leave. Better yet don't go "downtown" to play the "I is so smart" game.

No, most of the anti-gun laws are state, county and city

Right, because ATF is a state, county, and city agency. I guess NICS is also a city county and state organization. Don't even get me started on NFA or the assault weapons bans that started at the federal level and are trickling down to be fought against in state legislature.

ATF? ATFE is an administrative agency. There are very few federal laws in when compared to the myriad of laws at the state level--California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey constitute many dozens of times the number of laws than at the federal level.

The NFA started on the state level.

The assault weapon bans started at the state and city level before the VCCA of 1994 enacted by Congress.

 

[inccwchris]

So its a win when one part of the Constitution is upheld and others are not?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't see why there's so much push against a citizenship card. If it could act as a universal form of ID I wouldn't see a problem with it. Wouldn't take more than a few seconds to present it at the polling center. Yeah, there would probably be fake ones, but it sure would cut down on the likelihood of non-citizens voting.

Universal ID, I don't need no damn ID. Seriously, I don't

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So its a win when one part of the Constitution is upheld and others are not?

Registering to vote is covered by federal law which states that the voter must affirm citizenship and can do this by mail (just like every other state).

States cannot make their own laws for what the federal government has preempted. States must get permission, Arizona did not.

Supremacy Clause trumps as per the Constitution.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What a bogus thread title. SCOTUS didn't say you don't have to be a citizen to vote, they said AZ can't change the Federal voter registration form without Federal permission.

If we'd actual solve the illegal immigration problem, this would be a non-issue. Since neither party really wants to do that, though, side issues like this get the debate limelight.