Posted on 09/17/2009 7:47:19 AM PDT by Abathar
I read this the same way ... a lower court attempting to overthrow SCOTUS. I guess legal gridlock would favor the left, if it occurs.
So, the key question then ...
WAS THE 2008 ELECTION THE LAST FREE ELECTION IN THE US?
(secondary question, quite obvious, I will leave unstated)
Neutering ACORN might give us a couple more semi-legitimate elections.
Maybe that will be enough to turn things around.
If not, there’s always the “next box of liberty”.
Because I am just that! ;^)
Oops.
My bad.
You are correct. It was 7-2 and it was “decisive”.
Obviously there is an open attempt to destroy ALL 3 branches of the American Contitutional Government.
Actually I now believe that this HCR is a diversion, the true goal may be the total destruction of the Constitution.
The three branches of Government are is serious jeopardy.
What part of the constitution does this violate?!
No one knows who you vote for, just that you are who you say you are, and that you live in the district that you are voting in.
I need to present ID to get into a bar, and I’m in my 30s!
A 6-3 vote is "splintered"?
The USSC rejected the original appeal on specific grounds (the grounds that were entered in the appeal).
The appellate court is using different grounds, this time.
This happens all the time.
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana’s voter identification law is unconstitutional because of the way absentee voting handled.
In the unanimous, 29-page ruling, the court said it tossed out the law because in-person voters are treated differently than those who submit absentee ballots.
In-person voters are required to show a photo identification to prove who they are, but there are no requirements for an affidavit from mail-in voters.
“A less stringent requirement for absentee voters than for those voting in person would not be reasonable,” the court opined in its ruling.
The ruling cited “inconsistent and partial treatment favoring absentee voters who choose to mail their votes” as the primary reason for its decision.
The appeals court decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law said it curbs voter fraud. Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and most other Republicans in state government.
.
.
.
If I am reading this it seems they think the law is too lenient to absentee ballots, not too strict on in-person voters, their might be hope yet. If the state wants to make it harder to absentee vote I say go for it.
Ok, so the SCOTUS will have to decide again whether to take the case. Thanks for the clarification.
I don’t understand this. Anyone have more information?
We have a winner !!!
see #49
Yes, I too hate to have the Feds involved ... from there we disagree. In our REPUBLIC the Feds have shown a consistent tendency to use any excuse to grab power from the states - I don't want to give them another one.
In my opinion this demonstrates the really remarkable foresight of the founders in creating the electoral college - it is not perfect, but it does somewhat limit the damage an individual state can inflict on the republic with lousy election laws. Although laws that enable fraud impact one state, we at least do not leave the fate of the republic totally in the hands of, say, California - where they could let illegals vote and overwhelm the rest of the country in the popular vote.
I say - leave the voting laws in the hands of the states. It is the right of the people of the several states to pass laws consistent with the Constitution. As long as provisions are made for those whose religious beliefs rule out photos, and photo ids are provided free to those who have no driver's license, there should be no constitutional issue - and paying for those IDs is a small cost compared to being effectively disenfranchised by illegal voting.
Solution = eliminate absentee voting.
Fixed.
Hmmm. The universal death care package requires a health care I.D. card.
OMG! The health care agenda is unconstitutional, too! They'll need a card! What about the poor, older and minority people who want free health care? I guess they're screwed!!!
Someone call the White House!!
I must have missed that every time I read the constitution. And so did the founders and everyone else for the first couple generations of the American republic.
Sorry, but your defense of this invented liberal usurpation of legislative power fails. Notice that you did not actually cite where this power supposedly lies. I'll answer it for you:
READ THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
That's Article 1, Section 1, Sentence 1. What part of "legislative powers" don't you understand?
November 26, 2007 — WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement on the Supreme Court amicus brief to challenge the constitutionality of the Indiana Voter ID Law currently before the Supreme Court, which he has signed.
The brief, originally filed by Congressman Keith Ellison and supported by the entire Congressional Black Caucus, argues that the Indiana law is unconstitutional because it is effectively a poll tax and therefore violates the 24th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.