Cebu_4_2
18th June 2013, 11:12 AM
Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S. Elections
(?subject=Supreme%20Court%20Rules%3A%20States%20Ca nnot%20Prevent%20Illegal%20Aliens%20from%20Voting% 20in%20U.S.%20Elections&body=Check%20out%27Supreme%20Court%20Rules%3A%20St ates%20Cannot%20Prevent%20Illegal%20Aliens%20from% 20Voting%20in%20U.S.%20Elections%27:%0D%0Ahttp://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/59946-supreme-court-affirms-that-illegal-aliens-can-vote-in-u-s-elections/)
In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_VOTER_CITIZENSHIP_PROOF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-17-11-01-58) an Arizona law requiring voters to present citizenship proof to register in state and federal elections.
The law clears the way to illegal alien undocumented immigrants voting in national elections without substantive means of preventing it for many states. The highest court in the land ruled 7-2 that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” as Justice Scalia wrote.
Professor Tom Caso of the Chapman University School of Law in California told the Associated Press that the decision “opened the door” to noncitizen voting. “The court’s decision ignores the clear dictates of the Constitution in favor of bureaucratic red tape,” Caso said.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling. The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats who argue that requiring proof of citizenship is a needless burden on their “vulnerable” constituents will be able to maintain that mendacious line when Obamacare documentation requirements (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113075/obamacare-implementation-revised-application-much-simpler-easier) are added to IRS reporting next year. Is that not a burden on “vulnerable” constituencies?
This is not to mention the labyrinthine maze of tax requirements and small business regulations that Washington D.C. has implemented over the years. Are not those who run businesses in this struggling economy a “vulnerable” constituency?
And how insulting and patronizing is it that the Democrats imply their constituents are too stupid and incompetent to get proper identification to vote in national elections, but they are fit to select their representatives in Washington D.C.?
Providing proof of citizenship is no more burdensome than presenting a birth certificate or other official identification to get a driver’s license, acquire a passport, enter a federal building or apply for college. If all of these ID requirements are so burdensome, why don’t we ban identification card requirements altogether?
And for anyone who think it’s just impossible that an illegal alien undocumented worker can vote in our national elections, “Elwood” is going to be your guide on how it can be done:
Correction: Some states (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) still have voter ID laws (for now) and so could potentially prevent voter fraud by making prospective voters produce visual ID at the polls. Many more states are being blocked from enforcing photo ID laws until the Department of Justice clears these laws as in compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although minority turnout was at an all-time high in 2012, even in states with strict photo ID laws (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/kyle-wingfield/2013/may/09/more-evidence-voter-id-laws-dont-suppress-minority/), the DOJ is unlikely to clear these laws.
(?subject=Supreme%20Court%20Rules%3A%20States%20Ca nnot%20Prevent%20Illegal%20Aliens%20from%20Voting% 20in%20U.S.%20Elections&body=Check%20out%27Supreme%20Court%20Rules%3A%20St ates%20Cannot%20Prevent%20Illegal%20Aliens%20from% 20Voting%20in%20U.S.%20Elections%27:%0D%0Ahttp://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/59946-supreme-court-affirms-that-illegal-aliens-can-vote-in-u-s-elections/)
In a stunning ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_VOTER_CITIZENSHIP_PROOF?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-17-11-01-58) an Arizona law requiring voters to present citizenship proof to register in state and federal elections.
The law clears the way to illegal alien undocumented immigrants voting in national elections without substantive means of preventing it for many states. The highest court in the land ruled 7-2 that federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,” as Justice Scalia wrote.
Professor Tom Caso of the Chapman University School of Law in California told the Associated Press that the decision “opened the door” to noncitizen voting. “The court’s decision ignores the clear dictates of the Constitution in favor of bureaucratic red tape,” Caso said.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling. The Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,” Thomas wrote in his dissent.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrats who argue that requiring proof of citizenship is a needless burden on their “vulnerable” constituents will be able to maintain that mendacious line when Obamacare documentation requirements (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113075/obamacare-implementation-revised-application-much-simpler-easier) are added to IRS reporting next year. Is that not a burden on “vulnerable” constituencies?
This is not to mention the labyrinthine maze of tax requirements and small business regulations that Washington D.C. has implemented over the years. Are not those who run businesses in this struggling economy a “vulnerable” constituency?
And how insulting and patronizing is it that the Democrats imply their constituents are too stupid and incompetent to get proper identification to vote in national elections, but they are fit to select their representatives in Washington D.C.?
Providing proof of citizenship is no more burdensome than presenting a birth certificate or other official identification to get a driver’s license, acquire a passport, enter a federal building or apply for college. If all of these ID requirements are so burdensome, why don’t we ban identification card requirements altogether?
And for anyone who think it’s just impossible that an illegal alien undocumented worker can vote in our national elections, “Elwood” is going to be your guide on how it can be done:
Correction: Some states (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) still have voter ID laws (for now) and so could potentially prevent voter fraud by making prospective voters produce visual ID at the polls. Many more states are being blocked from enforcing photo ID laws until the Department of Justice clears these laws as in compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Although minority turnout was at an all-time high in 2012, even in states with strict photo ID laws (http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/kyle-wingfield/2013/may/09/more-evidence-voter-id-laws-dont-suppress-minority/), the DOJ is unlikely to clear these laws.