SCOTUS Nixes AZ Voter Registration Law

[freedombecki]

Did he ever vote? If he did, what evidence do you have that a voter ID law would have prevented it?

Your opposition to honest elections is noted - democrats look to fraud as your primary tool.

I gave you documented proof of illegals registered to vote - as expected, you ignored it and continued to chant bullshit.

The fact is, democrats support illegals voting because they (you) place party above the nation.

Next you're going to say that the GOP doesn't put party over country!!!! Reality check! Reality check!

Kiwiman, this is breaking news for us. None of us have had time to go over and beg the GOP what it believes is good or bad. From the entities who were suing the State of Arizona being the Tribes and the Mexican Liberation Front, though, I smell McCain's fingerprints and leading contenders for the next Republican primary which means I will split from the Republicans this time rather than put up with a lot of spitting at American founders' posterity of which I am 31/32s a part of by my 57 Heinz birth.

 

[freedombecki]

The Washington Post has released the 51-page SCOTUS Ruling here, and you can read it yourself: READ: The Supreme Court rules against proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting

They also noted:

In Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., the court ruled that the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993 — or the “motor voter” act — trumps an Arizona law that “requires voter-registration officials to ‘reject’ any application for registration, including a Federal Form, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.”
While they note that Arizona has a right to decide who votes in state elections there, they are able to request changes to the federal registration form, and then challenge the federal government if it fails to incorporate those changes. The court does not rule on the merits of such a lawsuit by Arizona.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you a conservative with libertarian views?

I'm a Libertarian with conservative views.

There is ONE reason, and ONLY one reason to support voter fraud - that is to promote the democratic party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Next you're going to say that the GOP doesn't put party over country!!!! Reality check! Reality check!

If the GOP does, I'll call them on it, like I do with the gang of apes - er 8 - and that scumbag Open Borders McCain.

 

[freedombecki]

Are you a conservative with libertarian views?

I'm a Libertarian with conservative views.

There is ONE reason, and ONLY one reason to support voter fraud - that is to promote the democratic party.

I know there's voter fraud, Uncensored. It's just that this ruling ignores fraud and goes with the 1993 (Clinton era) ruling for voter registration, which is endorsed by exactly 23% of the voting population and opposed by 60% as of a week or so ago. We've had some voter issues come up since 1993, but the SCOTUS only rules on laws, and 7 of 9 submitted to ruling in favor of the existing law, as near as I can tell, without saying good or bad about fraud.

So I realize now, they were not exactly legislating from the bench, so I was wrong about that. They merely ruled on the AZ law vs. the one passed on Clinton's watch in 1993. I added a link above to the ruling as it is posted by the SCOTUS for review by publishers, the only one of which I found so far is the Washington Post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe Arizona has other recourses. They could escort aliens away from their states and require eye scans for those who enter the border and the polls.

They could also merely close the borders a week before election time and require eye scans before entering school grounds to protect children from people who have no business being on the school grounds, such as pedophiles and other law-breakers.

Last time I checked, illegal aliens were not US citizens.

No, they are prohibited from enforcing the border. The SCOTUS already ruled that only the federal government can enforce the border. If Obama wants to pad the democrat voter roles with millions of illegals - as he clearly does, there is nothing to stop him.

I understand ICE has deported more non citizens from out country under Obama then did George W. Bush (and Reagan gave many amnesty). What say you about that?

 

[freedombecki]

I believe Arizona has other recourses. They could escort aliens away from their states and require eye scans for those who enter the border and the polls.

They could also merely close the borders a week before election time and require eye scans before entering school grounds to protect children from people who have no business being on the school grounds, such as pedophiles and other law-breakers.

Last time I checked, illegal aliens were not US citizens.

No, they are prohibited from enforcing the border. The SCOTUS already ruled that only the federal government can enforce the border. If Obama wants to pad the democrat voter roles with millions of illegals - as he clearly does, there is nothing to stop him.

I understand ICE has deported more non citizens from out country under Obama then did George W. Bush (and Reagan gave many amnesty). What say you about that?

Here's the song of the dearly deported, WryCatcher:

[ame=http://youtu.be/6GRuzaMwvrA]BOBBY VEE- "RUBBER BALL" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's just say that I would bet a fair sum that you voted two or more times for Barack Obama.

You'd lose that bet, sparky. Care to try again?

Are you a conservative with libertarian views?

No. I'm a "liberal".

But not in the sense that most Democrats are.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let's just say that I would bet a fair sum that you voted two or more times for Barack Obama.

You'd lose that bet, sparky. Care to try again?

As I recall you are not even a US citizen. So why complain about OUR laws?

You recall incorrectly.

 

[freedombecki]

You'd lose that bet, sparky. Care to try again?

Are you a conservative with libertarian views?

No. I'm a "liberal".

But not in the sense that most Democrats are.

Well, I'm so not psychic.

Congressional Democrats are liberal with other people's money and like government nice and big.

So in what way are you "liberal" that is not like them? (since I'm striking out here on the ESP.)

 

[LoneLaugher]

Everyone needs to stop voting in these morons.

Psst! We don't get to vote for the justices of the Sopreme Court. Just an FYI

Immie

I think she was talking about the administrations who submitted them for Congress and the representatives/senators who passed them in to legislate from the bench when laws are controversial.

Bullshit. What a load of gibberish. Nice of you to defend someone....but that word salad was Palinesque.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you a conservative with libertarian views?

No. I'm a "liberal".

But not in the sense that most Democrats are.

Well, I'm so not psychic.

Congressional Democrats are liberal with other people's money and like government nice and big.

So in what way are you "liberal" that is not like them? (since I'm striking out here on the ESP.)

My signature really explains it better than I know how. There isn't really a word for it.

It's somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism.

 

[freedombecki]

No. I'm a "liberal".

But not in the sense that most Democrats are.

Well, I'm so not psychic.

Congressional Democrats are liberal with other people's money and like government nice and big.

So in what way are you "liberal" that is not like them? (since I'm striking out here on the ESP.)

My signature really explains it better than I know how. There isn't really a word for it.

It's somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism.

LOL, doc. I copied and enlarged your signature. My non-existent psychic abilities are better than I could read the blurs when I blew them up 300%, 200%, 400%. etc.

According to Wikipedia:

"Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for subjugated classes in capitalist society to regain control of the economy and with it, the broader society."

So you want unions running and controlling society?

Laws of mercy, doc.
Left in charge of any given situation, unions will kill people including and especially their own members for noncooperation. That's what the Bolsheviks did, starting with the small children and family of and the Czar.

 

[boedicca]

Our Overlords in DC once again demonstrate that they think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, I'm so not psychic.

Congressional Democrats are liberal with other people's money and like government nice and big.

So in what way are you "liberal" that is not like them? (since I'm striking out here on the ESP.)

My signature really explains it better than I know how. There isn't really a word for it.

It's somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism.

LOL, doc. I copied and enlarged your signature. My non-existent psychic abilities are better than I could read the blurs when I blew them up 300%, 200%, 400%. etc.

According to Wikipedia: "Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for subjugated classes in capitalist society to regain control of the economy and with it, the broader society."

So you want unions running and controlling society?

Laws of mercy, doc.

I said somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism, although now that I think about it, that's not entirely correct either.

I'm going to try to explain it a little clearer, but it's going to take me a few minutes to type up and post it.

 

[freedombecki]

Our Overlords in DC once again demonstrate that they think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

Well, they certainly don't have their ear to the ground.

 

[freedombecki]

My signature really explains it better than I know how. There isn't really a word for it.

It's somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism.

LOL, doc. I copied and enlarged your signature. My non-existent psychic abilities are better than I could read the blurs when I blew them up 300%, 200%, 400%. etc.

According to Wikipedia: "Anarcho-syndicalism (also referred to as revolutionary syndicalism[1]) is a branch of anarchism which views revolutionary industrial unionism or syndicalism as an appropriate vehicle for subjugated classes in capitalist society to regain control of the economy and with it, the broader society."

So you want unions running and controlling society?

Laws of mercy, doc.

I said somewhere near anarcho-syndicalism, although now that I think about it, that's not entirely correct either.

I'm going to try to explain it a little clearer, but it's going to take me a few minutes to type up and post it.

Okay.

 

[boedicca]

They don't care. The country has been taken over in a (relatively) bloodless coup by an unaccountable government class. Their answer to EVERYTHING is MORE FEDERAL CONTROL.

They never ever ever identify a solution that is to return power to the states, of Obama Forbid, the individual.

 

[freedombecki]

They don't care. The country has been taken over in a (relatively) bloodless coup by an unaccountable government class. Their answer to EVERYTHING is MORE FEDERAL CONTROL.

They never ever ever identify a solution that is to return power to the states, of Obama Forbid, the individual.

Well, in 1993, this decision was set up by a Clinton law passed early in his administration that was an outreach to noncitizen voters in its best light.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's right. The Supreme Court today invalidated the Arizona Voter Registration Law

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.

Supreme Court invalidates Arizona voter registration law | Reuters

What say you?

This is fundamental, settled, and accepted bedrock Constitutional jurisprudence: the states may not ignore, modify, amend, nullify, or otherwise attempt to preempt Federal law, Federal law is supreme. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

Today the Court held, in a seven-to-two decision by Justice Scalia, that Arizona’s law cannot stand in the face of the NVRA. The Court first recognized that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to dictate when, where, and how elections are held, and state election laws that conflict with federal ones are therefore preempted and without effect. The Court thus held that by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form, the NVRA effectively required the states to treat the federal form as sufficient evidence of citizenship without any additional proof, so that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was contrary to the NVRA, and therefore invalid.

Details: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. : SCOTUSblog

The case is Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

The ruling has nothing to do with immigration, those ‘undocumented,’ or whether the borders are properly secured or not. The issue concerned itself with only the question of whether the Elections Clause of the Constitution can be preempted by the states – and clearly the states may not.

If the state of Arizona, or any state, for that matter, believes a given voter is in violation of state or Federal elections laws, then that evidence can be used against that specific voter with regard to his alleged crime; but the states cannot presume every voter is a potential ‘fraud’ risk, and compel citizens to document their citizenship in a manner not required by Federal law.