Supreme Court strikes down voter registration laws - Illegals win again.

[thereisnospoon]

Having actually read the decision, it was the right one.

What we need to do is to change the law to reflect the fact that with so many States and the Federal Government giving ID's to illegals, that in order to register to vote proof of citizenship is required.

We really wouldn't be in this position if it were not for the Liberals and Democrats who not only tolerated, but encouraged illegal immigration and "Rights" for illegals.

The Left's tolerance for illegals is derived solely from the perceived political advantage millions of minority( non white) newly arrived people with the ability to vote.
Of course this is confirmation that democrats arrogantly believe that minority groups vote in lockstep with democrats.
Liberals in effect are racist in their belief that they need do nothing to receive the minority vote. Save for throwing out the social program bait out to them, they take blacks and Hispanics for granted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shoot Speeders wants the Articles of Confederation, a failure of government.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This will all come back to bite liberals in their asses. And they deserve it too. There's lots they haven't thoroughly thought through. I hope this doesn't insult any of them in any way.

no it wont moron. Az will just pass a law that equals what the Federal laws already state about this issue. If AZ goes beyond what the federal law states they will end up in court again.

Seriously try reading the article retard.

You would be correct.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The decision puts the power in federal hands. Take heart, we will not always have a wimp as president.

BS - the constitution says states have the power to conduct elections as they see fit.

Only to the extent they conform to Federal elections laws, and where Federal laws trump state laws:

The Elections Clause imposes on States the duty to prescribe the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators, but it confers on Congress the power to alter those regulations or supplant them altogether. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 804–805.

Arizona’s appeal to the presumption against pre-emption invoked in this Court’s Supremacy Clause cases is inapposite. The power the Elections Clause confers is none other than the power to pre-empt. Because Congress, when it acts under this Clause, is always on notice that its legislation will displace some element of a pre-existing legal regime erected by the States, the reasonable assumption is that the text of Elections Clause legislation accurately communicates the scope of Congress’s pre-emptive intent.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Having actually read the decision, it was the right one.

What we need to do is to change the law to reflect the fact that with so many States and the Federal Government giving ID's to illegals, that in order to register to vote proof of citizenship is required.

We really wouldn't be in this position if it were not for the Liberals and Democrats who not only tolerated, but encouraged illegal immigration and "Rights" for illegals.

The Left's tolerance for illegals is derived solely from the perceived political advantage millions of minority( non white) newly arrived people with the ability to vote.
Of course this is confirmation that democrats arrogantly believe that minority groups vote in lockstep with democrats.
Liberals in effect are racist in their belief that they need do nothing to receive the minority vote. Save for throwing out the social program bait out to them, they take blacks and Hispanics for granted.

Nonsense.

It could take years, in some cases decades, before an undocumented immigrant is able to gain citizenship and vote.

For liberals it has nothing to do with ‘tolerance,’ rather, it’s an understanding that the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants due process rights, that all persons are innocent until proven guilty, regardless their immigration status, and that one is not ‘illegal’ until such time a court makes that determination. See: Plyler v. Doe (1982). It is for this and other reasons why minority groups tend to vote democratic.

Consequently it’s idiocy to accuse liberals of ‘racism,’ as for decades liberals have been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights, too often opposed by conservatives.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

For liberals it has nothing to do with ‘tolerance,’ rather, it’s an understanding that the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants due process rights,

How many times must we explain this to you? Illegals have NO constitutional rights. The first seven words of the C are "We the people of the United States". That makes it clear that whenever the C uses the words "people" or "person", they mean citizens.

think

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Shoot Speeders wants the Articles of Confederation, a failure of government.

No - i'm willing to stick with the constitution. It makes it clear that the states are above the federal govt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Illegals have NO constitutional rights.

Wrong again, as usual:

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Plyler v. Doe

 

[Vandalshandle]

Illegals have NO constitutional rights.

Wrong again, as usual:

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Plyler v. Doe

Just as importantly, NOBODY is an "illegal" until so judged in a court of law.

 

[hortysir]

Illegals have NO constitutional rights.

Wrong again, as usual:

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

Plyler v. Doe

Just as importantly, NOBODY is an "illegal" until so judged in a court of law.

You do know that it is possible to do something that is illegal without being convicted, right?

 

[Polk]

Wrong again, as usual:

Just as importantly, NOBODY is an "illegal" until so judged in a court of law.

You do know that it is possible to do something that is illegal without being convicted, right?

Yes, but "illegal" isn't really apt anyway, since being in the country without a valid visa isn't a criminal offense. It's an administrative infraction, like a speeding ticket.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shoot Speeders wants the Articles of Confederation, a failure of government.

No - i'm willing to stick with the constitution. It makes it clear that the states are above the federal govt.

Clearly a false belief, and one that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would throw in your face.

 

[JakeStarkey]

For liberals it has nothing to do with ‘tolerance,’ rather, it’s an understanding that the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants due process rights,

How many times must we explain this to you? Illegals have NO constitutional rights. The first seven words of the C are "We the people of the United States". That makes it clear that whenever the C uses the words "people" or "person", they mean citizens.

Case law does not agree with you. We, citizens and non-, are all subject to and protected by the Constitution and the laws.

Can't change it, podjo.

 

[hortysir]

Shoot Speeders wants the Articles of Confederation, a failure of government.

No - i'm willing to stick with the constitution. It makes it clear that the states are above the federal govt.

Clearly a false belief, and one that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would throw in your face.

Thomas was of the dissent

 

[thereisnospoon]

Having actually read the decision, it was the right one.

What we need to do is to change the law to reflect the fact that with so many States and the Federal Government giving ID's to illegals, that in order to register to vote proof of citizenship is required.

We really wouldn't be in this position if it were not for the Liberals and Democrats who not only tolerated, but encouraged illegal immigration and "Rights" for illegals.

The Left's tolerance for illegals is derived solely from the perceived political advantage millions of minority( non white) newly arrived people with the ability to vote.
Of course this is confirmation that democrats arrogantly believe that minority groups vote in lockstep with democrats.
Liberals in effect are racist in their belief that they need do nothing to receive the minority vote. Save for throwing out the social program bait out to them, they take blacks and Hispanics for granted.

Nonsense.

It could take years, in some cases decades, before an undocumented immigrant is able to gain citizenship and vote.

For liberals it has nothing to do with ‘tolerance,’ rather, it’s an understanding that the Constitution affords undocumented immigrants due process rights, that all persons are innocent until proven guilty, regardless their immigration status, and that one is not ‘illegal’ until such time a court makes that determination. See: Plyler v. Doe (1982). It is for this and other reasons why minority groups tend to vote democratic.

Consequently it’s idiocy to accuse liberals of ‘racism,’ as for decades liberals have been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights, too often opposed by conservatives.

Your interpretation of Plyer is yours and yours alone.
The term illegal is also applied to an act. In the case of illegal immigrants, once they cross the border in violation of US Law, they are in fact "illegal". Deal with it.
Case and point. I have a friend who is a registered alien citizen of Canada. He cannot vote. There goes your legal theory into the crapper.
ANyway, that's not the issue.
This is political. The dems support open borders for the reason I posted earlier. Period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No - i'm willing to stick with the constitution. It makes it clear that the states are above the federal govt.

Clearly a false belief, and one that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would throw in your face.

Thomas was of the dissent

Which has nothing to do with my point: Thomas would not elevate the states above the national government. He fully understands what federalism means, as does Alito, Roberts, and Scalia.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Clearly a false belief, and one that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would throw in your face.

Thomas was of the dissent

Which has nothing to do with my point: Thomas would not elevate the states above the national government. He fully understands what federalism means, as does Alito, Roberts, and Scalia.

Be careful...Go read the definition of "supremacy clause"..
It is not absolute.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thomas was of the dissent

Which has nothing to do with my point: Thomas would not elevate the states above the national government. He fully understands what federalism means, as does Alito, Roberts, and Scalia.

Be careful...Go read the definition of "supremacy clause".. It is not absolute.

You have a comprehension problem, so begin with "federalism" then come back and tell us what it means.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which has nothing to do with my point: Thomas would not elevate the states above the national government. He fully understands what federalism means, as does Alito, Roberts, and Scalia.

Be careful...Go read the definition of "supremacy clause".. It is not absolute.

You have a comprehension problem, so begin with "federalism" then come back and tell us what it means.

Go read the link I placed into the post.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Which has nothing to do with my point: Thomas would not elevate the states above the national government. He fully understands what federalism means, as does Alito, Roberts, and Scalia.

Be careful...Go read the definition of "supremacy clause".. It is not absolute.

You have a comprehension problem, so begin with "federalism" then come back and tell us what it means.

Don't make this personal.