Posted on 06/17/2013 7:30:44 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
Secondly, HANDOUTS would be used to assure those same business interests who would use the cheap labor would have NO TAX IMPLICATIONS, NO WITHOLDING OR FISA, and that "Benefits" would be bestowed from Taxpayer funding of Welfare, EITC, EBT's, Public Housing, etc.
Basically; businesses get cheap labor by payoffs to politicians, and the Taxpayer funds their eductation, medical, housing, and walkin' around money.
Yes, a lot of freaking out here. This doesn't prevent the state from requiring IDs at the polls.
One hell of a rifle that can take out a drone at 28,500 feet eight miles out. I want one.
Thanks for the pings.
Most everyone agrees this is a bad opinion - another failure of the Court to recognise and stipulate that the USA is a Republic and not a democracy.
“All politics is local!” is true, as is all elections are local - only DC and the various protectorates (Puerto Rico, USVI, etc.) have strictly Federal votes for non-voting Representatives.
Sad that Justice Thomas did not reveal that in his dissent, but he masterfully eviscerated the major opinion.
There is a solution to this scotus ruling: the state can require citizenship for those voting in state elections, so separate the federal ballot from the state ballot, and require every voter voting on a state ballot to be a US citizen and prove residency in AZ. Wonder how many cheat voters would show up to vote just in federal ballots?
Not to trivialize the issue Thomas and Alito raise, but it is transitory. Let AZ propose the modification, attempt to file it and then ask for judicial relief because there is no body to accept it.
Oh..for cryin’ outloud and with the Immigration (ha) bill..yeesh.
Read Thomas’ dissent.
If you have a link to the dissent(s), I would like to read. Thanks,
Insane
How would that law be unconstitutional? Under what brain fart?
With friends like you, who needs...;>
Majority Opinion, Thomas’ dissent, Alito’s dissent
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf
I would be inclined to join in with Thomas and Alito but I don’t know the dynamics of their deliberation and whether or not that was to be the losing play. My point is that this decision is not an outright rejection of the proof concept nor the calamity that most of the posters think it is.
For what it’s worth, the law was not struck down because of a Constitutional argument. It was because of the federal law.
The USSC is putting it on Congress to fix the damnthing.
“...whether or not that was to be the losing play”
Please explain.
Article I, Section IV:
1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
If we want the rules changed, CONGRESS will have to modify the existing regulations - NOT individual States ...
The powers that be depend upon that. I'll be reading through it tonight.
Agreed. Seems it was a similar type of decision in Bush v. Gore that intervened in a State that was openly subverting Federal election law to the benefit of a Democratic candidate. AZ can rememdy this and still have a voter ID law in place.
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.