Posted on 09/17/2009 7:47:19 AM PDT by Abathar
We in VA have had to show voter ID every time we vote since George ALlen was governor.
There is probably no recourse to a federal appeal. I assume the state court’s ruling was that the law violated the state constitution, not the U.S. Constitution. If this an intermediate state court of appeal, then it can be appealed to the Indiana state supreme court.
They fear those ballots.
Vote at your own risk!
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.
Make absentees include a copy of their driver's license or an affidavit certified by a notary public that evidence of identity was provided. End of problem.
John 8:43-45
43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!
see #49
A slightly different take on this. SCOTUS ruled that the law is constitutional. That does not mean the absence of the law is unconstitutional. The Indiana court removed the law. There is no conflict here, but there is the smack judicial tyranny for what ever invented reason they want.
That’s what is confusing me here. If the U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld this law, how can a state court now rule it unconstitutional?
Huh? You're talking out of your butt on this one. Here's an excerpt of Hamilton's discussion in Federalist 78. You had ought to read it in its entirety:
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
And, of course, Marbury v. Madison was decided in 1803--first generation Americans.
Then I’m back to my original premise. the 3 branches of our Contitutional Government are in jeopardy.
Who do YOU think should have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitutionality of laws, Congress (talk about the fox guarding the henhouse)?
Legislative power = passing laws.
Judicial review = determining the Constitutionality of laws.
Agreed!
Splintered ruling means the dems lost. ;)
I will give you three guesses what is going on... but any other than the left and their ACORN-style vote fraud posse is going to be wrong.
Our country is under siege. Joe McCarthy warned us about the assault coming from the Communists (Socialists/Marxist/”Progressives”). But Joe ended up the victim of early forms of Political Correctness. And now we are ALL victims of the PC police, that again - is the tool of the same-said Commie/Marxist/Socialist/Progressives...
Particularly when a court ABOVE that judge has already ruled on the case.
I already answered that earlier, but I will do so again: The question of the constitutionality of laws is SO IMPORTANT that there is only one group of people that I would entrust it to: The citizenry at large.
The Founders agreed, and that's why they reject judicial review and you can't find valid examples of it for many decades after the founding of the Republic. If the people at least believe the legislature is out of line, then it is their responsibility to vote the rascals out and replace them with new representatives who will pass new legislation to fix the unconstitutional legislation.
Your approach makes a handful of judges the final and unilateral arbiters of law with no recourse save through revolution. So much for representative government!
Was the 2008 election "free"? Seems to have cost us a lot already (including millions of jobs, and a growing chunk of our Constitution).
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.