Little-Acorn
Gold Member
- Jun 20, 2006
- 10,025
- 2,410
Yes, that title sounds weird and contradictory, and it is... but it is also accurate, because that's exactly what the Supreme Court said today.
The Supremes ruled 7-2 today that Arizona's law requiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote (you have to be a citizen), was unconstitutional.
The Opinion (written by Scalia) said:
1.) The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to regulate HOW Federal elections can be run, but not to regulate WHO can vote in them. The latter power, the Supremes said, belongs to the states.
2.) Since the Fed govt did not give states permission to ask for proof of citizenship at elections, when the Fed passed the Motor Voter Act in 1993, the states don't have that power. They must sue the Fed govt in court, and hope the courts grant them that power.
Those two statements can't possible both be true. Yet the Supremes just said they both were.
The Opinion of the Court can be found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".
The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."
The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.
I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.
In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.
Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.
Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.
And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free.
The Supremes ruled 7-2 today that Arizona's law requiring voters to prove their eligibility to vote (you have to be a citizen), was unconstitutional.
The Opinion (written by Scalia) said:
1.) The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to regulate HOW Federal elections can be run, but not to regulate WHO can vote in them. The latter power, the Supremes said, belongs to the states.
2.) Since the Fed govt did not give states permission to ask for proof of citizenship at elections, when the Fed passed the Motor Voter Act in 1993, the states don't have that power. They must sue the Fed govt in court, and hope the courts grant them that power.
Those two statements can't possible both be true. Yet the Supremes just said they both were.
The Opinion of the Court can be found at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
The Opinion (written by Scalia) says that the reason Arizona's law is illegal, is because the Federal law says each state mush "accept and use" the Federal form decreed by the Motor Voter Act (MVA) of 1993. But Arizona's law says that that Arizona must "reject" the form if it is not accompanied by documentation showing citizenship. That work "reject" goes against the MVA's clear requirement of "accept and use".
The Opinion also says: "Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the States."
The Supremes go on to say that the Fed could have put language into the Motor Voter Act allowing states to require documentation of voter eligibility... but that the Fed didn't put that language in, so now states have to sue the Fed for it if they want to check eligibility.
I disagree with that Constitutional interpretation. I believe that the 10th amendment says that if a power is not EXPRESSLY given to the Fed, then the Fed is forbidden to exercise that power, but the states still can if they want. That includes the power to forbid states to check voting eligibility.
In other words, the Fed is forbidden to ban states from checking voter IDs. States can check IDs if they want, and they DON'T have to sue anybody to get that power - they've always had it.
Scalia blew it, just as Blackmun blew Roe v. Wade. He invented a power out of thin air, that the Constitution never gave the Feds, and said the Feds have it anyway. That's not how the Constitution works. And the Supremes saying otherwise, doesn't change the clear language of the Constitution.
Scalia even pointed out that the Fed govt does NOT have the power to regulate who may vote in elections and that the states do... and then did a 180 and concluded that the states couldn't do it unless they sued the Fed for the privilege.
And people wonder why the United States is going downhill. The guardians at the gates, keep steppng aside and letting the criminals in, scot-free.
