Voters approve Prop. 200 limits on illegal entrants

Arizona Daily Star ^ | 11/3/2004 | Howard Fischer

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

PHOENIX - Arizona voters approved a contoversial measure its supporters claim may do something about those who cross the border illegally.

Late results Tuesday showed Proposition 200 passing by a comfortable margin. The move came despite the fact that foes outspent supporters during the campaign by a factor of close to 2-1.

'snip'

Proposition 200 will require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and display of some type of identification when casting a ballot.

It also mandates that public employees verify the "immigration status" of applicants for "public benefits>' Workers who ignore the law would be subject to four month jail terms.

The big fight is likely to come in what constitutes "public benefits," a term not defined in the initiative.

[cyborg]

The citizens have spoken!

[pillbox_girl]

The big fight is likely to come in what constitutes "public benefits," a term not defined in the initiative.

Seems pretty easy to me. I'd say not getting your arse booted back to Mexico counts as a public benefit.

[roughneck29er]

It's RAINING on the DNC's VOTER BASE!

HAHA!

Have we DIED and GONE TO HEAVEN!?

[Ex-Democrat Dean]

BUT, the 9th Circuit hasn't! Keep your fingers crossed.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Next stop, the courts.

[dementg]

It's Prop 187, round 2.

[FITZ]

I'm not in Arizona but I was pleasantly surprised voting yesterday --- for the first time it was required to have the voting card and also show a drivers license or other picture ID. I don't see how requiring one to be a citizen could be considered going too far --- Mexicans even have that back home.

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

Hopefully with a different result.

[HiJinx]

I don't see how requiring one to be a citizen could be considered going too far ---

Which is basically what my 18-year-old new voter said. "Dad, if you don't want to show ID - what are you trying to hide?"

[Bahbah]

By golly, the good news just keeps on coming. Are we going to have to watch while the "judicial legislators" try to overturn this?

[swampfox98]

Late results Tuesday showed Proposition 200 passing by a comfortable margin.

It's good they are doing it while they can. Wish it had been a national issue that we all could have voted on.

[MissAmericanPie]

I prefer to believe that God answered the groans of His children and removed the heel of the tyrant destroying our country, at least for now. But now is no time to get lazy or complacent, we have a terrible horror coming up in 2008.

The prayers need to continue.

[B4Ranch]

>>The big fight is likely to come in what constitutes "public benefits," a term not defined in the initiative.<<

---

"Not Yours To Give"

---

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Provided as a courtesy by US Rep. Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/)

---

"Not Yours To Give"
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

***

Col. Crockett later died defending liberty in the Battle of the Alamo, in the War for Texas Independence.

[Nea Wood]

WTG, Arizonans! I'm happy for you! Here's hoping California and other states follow suit.

[millefleur]

This is needed in every state!
Proof of legal citizenship to vote!

[StarFan]

I see this as a positive sign and pray they're listening.

[StoneColdGOP]

Well, this is one certain bright spot in this election aftermath.

Way to go Arizona!

[StoneColdGOP]

CA is working on getting one on the ballot for 2006 even as we speak.

Signatures are being gathered by the hundreds, and now that the election is over that and the redistricting initiative need to be our priorities.

[DLfromthedesert]

Randy was smiling from ear to ear last evening.

[texastoo]

Great news!

[Henchman]

StarFan, now I am UPSET! The illegals in AZ will move to FL and I'll have to pay for them Thanks to the folks in AZ. If we can get BUSH to listen and stop the illegals to begin with, we will all be better off.

...and who is this Dutchy? Now I am jealous.

Thanks.

[NewRomeTacitus]

... it was required to have the voting card and also show a drivers license or other picture ID.

Same here in Tennessee - the procedure was as strict as it should be (they even compare signatures and have you rewrite it if you're sloppy). Of course, I'm especially thrilled that the Driver's Certificate program already put a stop to automatic registration of illegals here. I saw no one who appeared to need a translator anywhere where I voted (in the middle of the Nashville's Hispanic colony).

Democrats, though, are already moving beyond the personal verification issue by claiming that the Diebold voting machines were all rigged for Bush. Seems we have a bunch of bitter puppies who'd insist pooh was Alpo after having their very snouts thrust in it. Bad puppies, bad! (whap, whap)

[azhenfud]

Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Thanks for such a nice post!
What wisdom! Washington has little reluctance to throw our cow on the barbecue as long as their sacred one is getting fatter.

[azhenfud]

Those at my precinct know me personally and I still had to ID myself. Didn't mind it at all.

[freedumb2003]

Yeehaaaww!

I just saw it was supported by 47% of latinos! Stick that in their "racism" hat and smoke it!!! The ones hurt the MOST by illegal immigration are legal aliens.

Once you withstand the Aztlanites, we can put 187 back into play in the courts here in California.

[Poohbah]

The big fight is likely to come in what constitutes "public benefits," a term not defined in the initiative.

Stupid, stupid, stupid...

Does the initiative have a severability clause so that the voter ID requirement stays if a judge rules this part as unconstitutionally vague?

[cyborg]

Well wonders never cease. The people indeed have spoken!

[Poohbah]

Once you withstand the Aztlanites, we can put 187 back into play in the courts here in California.

Actually, you can't.

Gray Davis approved a consent decree that killed 187 for good.

[freedumb2003]

bumped and bookmarked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hooray for AZ!!!

[freedumb2003]

Hmmm....

I hadn't heard about that, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I have heard about "Son of 187" -- IUT az 200 is a lot more court-proof than our 187.

Let's make it an issue we can get behind -- I know (IIRC) you are pissed at J&K, but we can get them going for all of us on this one.

[in the Arena]

I voted "Yes"...only because they didn't have a "HELL YES" option...

[Fatalis]

Does the initiative have a severability clause so that the voter ID requirement stays if a judge rules this part as unconstitutionally vague?

I've read that it does.

[curiosity]

Does the initiative have a severability clause so that the voter ID requirement stays if a judge rules this part as unconstitutionally vague?

That's a silly argument. Nothing in the Constitution says laws can't be vague. Actually, that's the nature of the common law system.

[JackelopeBreeder]

Yes, it does have severability written into it. And public benefits are already very succinctly described in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Prop 200 does not affect federally mandated programs (K-12 education and emergency health care) or public services like police, fire, ambulances, etc., or any service open to the public at large such as libraries, parks, or similar such things. It only applies to public benefits (welfare, food stamps, subsidized whatever) that require proof of eligibility -- in other words, citizenship and residency.

[Paperdoll]

Why hasn't California passed this law?

[curiosity]

Gray Davis approved a consent decree that killed 187 for good.

That's not entirely true. You could argue that Davis breached his duty as governor when signing that decree, thereby rendering it null and void.

But I think what Californians are trying to do is pass a simlar bill and then push it into the courts.

[Poohbah]

That's a silly argument. Nothing in the Constitution says laws can't be vague. Actually, that's the nature of the common law system.

Excessively vague laws make one's "privileges and immunities" subject to a legal crapshoot--i.e., you've just violated the 14th Amendment.

[Poohbah]

That's not entirely true. You could argue that Davis breached his duty as governor when signing that decree, thereby rendering it null and void.

You can argue that point...but you will lose. Davis, as Governor, had broad discretion in the performance of his duties as governor. One of those areas of discretion is how to deal with lawsuits against the State of California. Since no money was required to be appropriated by the Legislature in connection with the consent decree, Davis had full authority to sign and execute it.

[Poohbah]

Yes, it does have severability written into it.

Well, in that regard, y'all did better than we did in CA.

And public benefits are already very succinctly described in the Arizona Revised Statutes.

The term "public benefits" is explicitly defined there?

[curiosity]

Excessively vague laws make one's "privileges and immunities" subject to a legal crapshoot--i.e., you've just violated the 14th Amendment.

First, on the priviledges and immunities clause, you need to read the Slaughterhouse Cases.

Second, the law is specific enough to understand its intent and how it is to be applied. Everyone knows what a non-federally mandated public benfit is. It does not mention specific benefts, but such specificity is not necessary in a common law system such as ours.

[Arizona Carolyn]

That's okay -- we'll just appeal to the Supreme Court where our wonderful President will have appointed a good Constitutional Law Judge..

[curiosity]

The term "public benefits" is explicitly defined there?

For the third time, we have a common law system and not a continental system.

[curiosity]

That's okay -- we'll just appeal to the Supreme Court where our wonderful President will have appointed a good Constitutional Law Judge..

That will be hard to do with Specter as head of the Judiciary Committee.

[Marine Inspector]

Does the initiative have a severability clause

Yes it does.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Which we ALL need to push Frist to not let happen.

[JackelopeBreeder]

The Prop 200 crowd has been in touch with organizers in other states. Bottom line: in a state referendum, don't try to change Federal law. Don't try to fiddle with the State Constitution and try to avoid changing existing State laws. That's where you're asking for a plague of lawyers to descend upon you.

Instead, work with what laws you already have on the books and find ways to make the state enforce them.

Prop 200 did not get written overnight. Several months were spent just creating a good working draft. Then it was given to the Arizona Legislature's own legal counsel with instructions that it be tested to destruction. The legal counsel provided a number of good tweaks. After that, it was passed to a number of the best legal minds in this country for further study. A couple more tweaks were added and it went to the ballot.

The opposition to Prop 200 was half-hearted at best. The other side knows this is bad ju-ju and will not even try to state the real reasons for their opposition. Instead they call it mean-spirited and divisive, racist, xenophobic, and all the other fun words.

I should admit that the opposition was kept way off balance by a couple of really draconian bills in the legislature. One would have piled all sorts of state penalties on any employer caught knowingly or very negligently employing illegal aliens. Fines, temporary shutdowns, permanent revokation of business licences -- all sorts of fun stuff.

That set them to yammering six times louder than Prop 200 ever did. It also splintered the state GOP and led to a grassroots revolt that is still ongoing.

[freedumb2003]

Works for me

I need to get this info into the proper hand (alas, none of them California Republicans)

[freedumb2003]

For the third time, we have a common law system and not a continental system.

Coffee, Orange Juice and Sweet Rolls?

[curiosity]

I mean a system based on Roman law, like you have in continetal Europe. Continental legal systems are much more rigid and require more specifically written laws. Common law relies more on judicial discretion, allowing laws to be written more vaguely, making the law more flexible and adaptable to circumstances not necessarily forseen by the law's writers.

There is a vast literature out there in economics and finance which documents that common law systems are much more conducive to economic growth and development than continental legal systems.