Supremes Take Voter ID Case

WSJ ^ | 10/16/12 | Jason Riley

[Clint N. Suhks]

Arizona passed a law in 2005 that says anyone registering to vote must provide "satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship," in the form of a driver's license, passport, birth certificate or some other document. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the law stands.

Critics of the statute, such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say that the proof-of-citizenship requirement is an unconstitutional burden and that it conflicts with the federal National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows prospective voters to register by checking a box on a form that asks "Are you a citizen of the United States?"

State law enforcement officials defend the measure. "Arizona has a right to ask people for evidence that they are citizens when they register to vote," said Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne in a statement yesterday. "If someone is willing to vote illegally, he or she is willing to sign a false statement regarding citizenship. This 'honor system' is not sufficient to guard the integrity of the election system."

According to John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky, the authors of "Who's Counting?," a new book on voter fraud, the Arizona law has prevented at least 20,000 non-citizens from registering to vote.

[XenaLee]

In fact, radical leftists (most Democrats) vote against the good of the country.

“Especially in today’s America. People now vote for freebies, not for the good of the country.”

[XenaLee]

But I thought that there were constitutional requirements for taxes. For one thing, I thought a tax imposed by the federal government was supposed to be levied equally on all, not on just a few or on a certain group of people (ie those that refuse to purchase health insurance, in this instance). Sure there are all kinds of exemptions and waivers and deductions that allow taxpayers to pay less. But the initial tax itself is levied evenly.

For the government to be able to single out one segment of Americans to selectively tax is, by its’ very nature, unconstitutional.

So, for it to really BE a tax, wouldn’t those same standards and requirements have to apply? And if so, wouldn’t that make Roberts wrong re: his ruling?

[arrogantsob]

I don’t pretend to be a legal expert in this but here is what the constitution says about Congress’ power to tax: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform thoughout the United States.” Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1.

It does not say that TAXES must be so, just Duties, Imposts and Excises.

“No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken..” Article I, Section 9, paragraph 4.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 5.

We are in vague areas here since there is no definition of what a “tax” actually is.