Posted on 03/17/2013 12:29:44 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the legality of Arizona's requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to register.
SNIP
The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona's voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal "Motor Voter" voter registration law that doesn't require such documentation.
This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.
The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.msn.com ...
Agreed!!!!
PING
Happy St Paddy’s Day, Dearie
:)
I am offended that they should even have to ask this question.
Happy St Paddy’s Day, Dearie
:)
As a naturalized US citizen, emphatically YES!
Any country with open borders ceases to be a country.
We should welcome any skilled legal immigrant who can make positive contributions to US economy. Low skilled illegals who sponge off welfare are destroying our economy. It is like cancer, at first there are hardly any symptoms. Then the tumor grows slowly and silently until it finally kills you.
Accountability? In this country? hahahahaha
“Sworn statements” don’t mean jack****. People lie all of the time and they could care less. This isn’t old school America where someone’s word used to mean something. Trust but verify is the only way to go. There’s too much lying going on out there.
Corn beef is cooking, potatoes, cabbage and carrots are ready to cook....soda bread out of the oven and the Guinness is chilling.........I will lift one just for you!
“Happy St Paddy’s Day, Dearie”
You, too, Nana! Corn beef is cookin’!
Why not, Kansans do AND show our photo ID when we vote!
I must be missing something. AZ is not allowed to change any election law without prior approval from DOJ, and it appears DOJ is fighting this in court. Why fight it? Just refuse approval.
Oops, and forgot corned beef cooking away smelling like Heaven on Earth and making a bit of horseradish sauce for the folk.
Here the corn beef needs another hour or so...
then the meat comes out of the pot and the onions, carrots, potatoes and cabbage goes in...
got just regular cheapy dinner rolls from Walmart
Yummy for my tummy...
:)
Only citizens can vote in national elections.
permanent residents or green cards can vote in locals, so there should be a definitive way of determining citizenship besides one's say so.
If it came to my getting a citizenship card to save or preserve the United States and her identity, I'd do it.
We're pretty far from what honesty used to suffice.
Those days are done.
BTW have you heard that latest “diversity” AD from our government ???
a Hispanic man and a liile Hispanic girl talking about their “global community”
They listed the people from various countries on their street and how great it is blah blah to have such an aray of foreign cultures...
Then the man says “and dont forget the Murphys”
WHAT ???
are the white American Murphys whose ancestors came from Ireland suppose to represent real Americans or something ???
It floored me the first time I heard it...
Now it makes me angry...
permanent residents or green cards can vote in locals,
__________________________________________
when did that happen ???
I never could...
I never voted until I was naturalized ...
“
So, tell me again what’s more racist; Arizona simply asking for proof of citizenship if you want to vote or, the Federal Government demanding you haul in your entire documented existence just to get some food for your starving children???
Cheers! “
Oh, good point! For that matter...medical care...can you imagine what will have to be provided for Obamacare...unless you’re an illegal alien of course.
BTW...Uncle Janet let out several thousand illegal alien criminals because of the ‘sequester’...but NO US CITIZENS.
Absolutely they should show evidence of citizenship. Boundaries are a good thing; valuing something that is of immense value by protecting it by laws is a very good thing.
If they don’t care enough to become citizens, why the heck should they vote themselves free housing and retirement benefits?
Absolutely they should show evidence of citizenship. Boundaries are a good thing; valuing something that is of immense value by protecting it by laws is a very good thing.
If they don’t care enough to become citizens, why the heck should they vote themselves free housing and retirement benefits?
Agreed!!!!
How about the purple ink, to assure 1 man, 1 vote?
FRAUD led to what we have in the White Hut right now, and in the inner-cities and Dem-controlled wastelands, that's a way of life, EVERY ELECTION.
Minnesota has a Jackass in the Senate (a real joke), where re-count after re-count was used until enough generated ballots were included to capture the win.
This seems somewhat burdensome on the criminalien. Couldn't some high priest in the 'Rat party just vouche for the immigrat's legitimacy? Bloomturd, Hillary!, Ø, Plugs, Frankenfeinstein, AlFranken-"Clown", the midget sinator, Marxine, and so on... any one of them I'm sure would be more than happy to vouch for these wannabe ersatz citizens.
Maybe in PA.
Not in MI, only US Citizens can legally vote in any election.
You’d be shocked to know how many cities in this country allow alien (even some illegal alien) voting.
When you look at the places doing it, it explains a lot!
http://www.cis.org/NoncitizenVoting
We shouldn't require someone to show proof of age before buying alcohol or cigarettes, but should rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is of age.
We shouldn't require someone to show proof insurance for their vehicle, but instead rely on the person's sworn statement that he or she is insured.
Continue ad nauseum.
John Roberts is still on this court.
Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex until the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.
Likewise, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of taxes owed until the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified.
Finally, the states were free to make laws prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of age until the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Note that 26A did not eliminate discrimination of voting on the basis of age, but made prohibiting people from voting based on age discrimination uniform thoughout the states.
So it is reasonable to conclude, imo, that the states can prohibit people from voting on the basis of unverified citizenship status. This is because the states have never ratified an amendment to the Constitution which prohibits the states from prohibiting otherwise qualified people from voting based on failure to prove citizenship.
And even though it took me a short time to write this post, let's see how long it takes the Supreme Court to make a decision in this case, not that outcome-driven, activist justices will agree with what amounts to a common sense (please forgive me) interpretation of the Constitution.
Well, voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court. One must be a citizen to legally vote. It seems like a logical extension of documenting identity and eligibility to vote.
But to liberals, I know that none of this makes any sense. To liberals, we can’t have any restrictions or documentation because some old lady somewhere, never ever got a driver’s license or government issued ID. Because there are some rare cases such as this, liberals take the position that we can’t ask anyone for any documentation of eligibility.
To vote in my book...
*you must be at least 25 years of age to vote (except for active duty military)
*military absentee ballots are accounted for and counted first
*you must not be receiving government assistance.
*you must not be a violent felon (reform non-violent felony voting restrictions)
*your identity must be established at the time of voting on the testimony of a certified poll watcher under pain of fines or imprisonment not to exceed $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment per violation.
*Foreign nationals cannot vote.
*Individuals judged legally incompetant cannot vote.
*No one may vote for another person in any capacity except in cases of physical disability, and only with the approval of an attesting physician and the approval of the state election board.
*Single acts of vote fraud, including but not limited to any attempt to defraud the election system through manipulation, coersion, or identity fraud carry a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison on conviction.
There are probably many more things I’ve missed, like reforming the “gerrymandering” that goes on, but that’s just a quick back of the napkin wish list.
LOL.
Have you ever read the questions asked by GOP politicians when they send you these meaningless surveys through the mail for the sole purpose to get you to contribute?
With the exception of a handful, they are all a bunch of idiots whose only interest is their political survival — nothing more. I often doubt if they are even interested in the survival of this country.
IMO all voter rolls should be dumped. Everyone should be required to re-register in person with a photo ID and proof of citizenship. The time has come when we, as a nation, can no longer tolerate fraud in our elections. Our country is sick and it may be terminal. The only way out is to rid our self of the cancer that is rotting us. That is to say, fraudulently elected officials that do not have the country’s bet interest in mind. Socialists, communists, criminals, perverts, and the remaining assorted scum need to be driven from office an never reelected.
I would only add that Article I Section 2 and the 17th Amendment specify that the qualifications of electors to the House and Senate have the same qualifications as electors to the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. If a State requires proof of birth or citizenship to elect state assemblymen, I do not understand how that can be a contested standard for Congressional elections.
I’ve seen people lie in a court, under oath. Nope. I want documented proof of citizenship
I agree. A person’s “word” means absolutely nothing to me in this day and age. Lying is all too common as well as even being expected.
Does citizenship mean anything? Because it shore as hell doesn’t if people don’t even have to prove it to vote.
Why don’t we just invite the whole world to come decide how we are governed.
SCOTUS has also agreed to hear arguments on the colour of s@#$te (from Braveheart), whether pigs have wings, and whether water is wet, and whether Tennessee Nana should have shown a picture of a horse laughing, or a cow, instead of a cat.
IMHO, voters should be allowed to vote when they pay taxes, and that’s my only requirement.
suing states hwich enforce federal immigratio laws but then ignore states which ignore federal immigration law and drugs.
Seems laws are for fools today and we might as well have anarchy which some actually want by allowing anything what goes.
Seems the occupy communist lot are getting what they have always wanted, the down fall of America
Take a look at the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States
Why is this even a question?
So any ol’ murdering Islamic terrorist or child raping alien illegally residing, er squatting in Arizona should be able to vote? Give me a break!
Voting is a state privilege - not a federal right.
Excellent point!
If you aren't qualified to vote in your state elections because of state voting laws which prohibit you from voting for reasons which aren't protected by the Constitution, then you aren't qualified to vote in federal elections either.
Probably the only reason that state voting laws are being challenged for federal elections is because of a combination dirty politics as a consequence of the Democratic & RINO agenda to unconstitutionally centralize government power in DC, and Constitution-ignorant voters.
Regarding Constitution-ignorant voters, note that the reason that people would likely get upset about being proibited from voting in federal elections is because they probably don't understand the constitutionally limited powers of the federal government. After all, in times of peace, practically the only intrastate commerce-related issue that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend for is the postal service (1.8.7).
And note that not only did most citizens evidently did not initially pay for postal services as evidenced by the fact that postage stamps were not issued until about the mid-19th century (corrections welcome), but consider the following. Thomas Jefferson had noted that, initially, only the rich paid taxes to make the federal government operate.
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied (emphasis added). … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.
And since only the rich used to pay taxes, with the exception of state and federal military-related training, I wonder if the federal government was nothing more than something to gossip about to pass a little free time for many pioneering voters.
Finally, as a side note to congressional elections, if the federal government was still in compliance with its Section 8-limited powers as it should be, voters would likely have to guess when asked who the current president is.
Do you happen to know if “direct taxes” authorized by the Constitution were ever levied?
It shows how far we’ve fallen. Liberalism is built on lies.
Huh? that's like the AP asking "Should drivers have to open their eyes while driving?" I mean how pathetically low have we sunk that this is even an issue???
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.