No longer have to be a citizen to vote according to SCOTUS.

[Kirk Freeman]

SCOTUS didn't say you don't have to be a citizen to vote, they said AZ can't change the Federal voter registration form without Federal permission.

Well, I figured he just got wound up. Got to respect passion, but, yeah, Federal law allows a certain way to register to vote. As per the Constitution the states cannot trump the federal government and impose their own requirements.

Once still must be a citizen to register to vote.

 

[88GT]

Exactly. Federal law says you have to swear that you are a resident to register to vote. This ruling says that a state may not make any other requirements for proving citizenship above what federal law requires.

While I agree that this is the scope of the ruling, and nothing more (take note, OP), I happen to disagree with the majority and side with the two dissenting justices that each state should have the sovereignty to conduct their elections, for federal office or not, as they see fit. The existence of federal election laws by and large is an affront to state sovereignty. Which is arguably more egregious than an affront on the Constitution.

 

[TopDog]

As the Republic falls a little more into self destruction...

 

[Hohn]

While I agree that this is the scope of the ruling, and nothing more (take note, OP), I happen to disagree with the majority and side with the two dissenting justices that each state should have the sovereignty to conduct their elections, for federal office or not, as they see fit. The existence of federal election laws by and large is an affront to state sovereignty. Which is arguably more egregious than an affront on the Constitution.

I agree with that. Since the Federal government was created by the States and is derives its legitimacy from them, the States should have the sovereignty to choose whom may vote.


The States ALREADY have the sovereignty to choose how electoral college electors are apportioned. Some use caucuses, others primaries, some delegates are obliged to vote for a candidate, others aren't, and so forth.


It seems that if the states have that discretion over HOW voting is carried out, the discretion of WHOM wouldn't be much of a stretch.

 

[Hohn]

Heck, the founding fathers never even meant for black people and women to vote, so I'm not sure that what they thought about voting rights is relevant today. I do agree that one should be required to have citizenship to vote, but that's really not what this court ruling was about. It was about state law attempting to trump federal law with regards to federal elections.

I can't imagine how some of the posters on this board react when they get the Publisher's Clearing House notice in the mail that they may have already won $100,000.

Hold on a sec here. They "never meant for black people and women to vote."?

There's no evidence of that at all.


What there IS evidence is that the Founders intended that those who DID vote only be those who has a stake in the government. Only property holders should have a say in property taxes is the line of reasoning.

The idea is to prevent busybody third party free-riders from using A to take money from B to give to themselves.

In other words, exactly what we have now-- with that trillion dollar "farm bill" (no offense to farmers, since it's got very little in it for actual farmers) and the dependency class of low-info voters.

Imagine if only those people who actually paid taxes got to vote for what tax levels would be!

BTW-- even those making up to $52k/yr often pay zero net federal income tax. So you don't have to be poor or a "mooch" not to pay any federal income tax.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Federal law trumps state law with regards to Federal elections. That's all this ruling says. Apply paper bag to mouth and nose to arrest hyperventilation, as necessary.

Let's just take that a step further to clarify:

Federal law trumps state law in all situations.

It's power is derived from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says as much.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

I agree with that. Since the Federal government was created by the States and is derives its legitimacy from them, the States should have the sovereignty to choose whom may vote.


The States ALREADY have the sovereignty to choose how electoral college electors are apportioned. Some use caucuses, others primaries, some delegates are obliged to vote for a candidate, others aren't, and so forth.


It seems that if the states have that discretion over HOW voting is carried out, the discretion of WHOM wouldn't be much of a stretch.

The federal government was not created by the states. It was created by the people. Just like that states were.

 

[88GT]

The federal government was not created by the states. It was created by the people. Just like that states were.

Ratification by the STATES. Just sayin'.

 

[Alamo]

Rule of Law » Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case

(Excerpts from an article by J. Christian Adams, formerly of the DOJ voting rights section)

Something perverse happened after the Supreme Court’s decision today invalidating citizenship-verification requirements in Arizona for registrants who use the federal voter registration form. The Left knows they lost most of the battle, but are still claiming victory. That’s what they do. Election-integrity proponents and the states are saying they lost, but don’t realize they really won.
...
Worse, conservatives dooms-dayers who have never litigated a single National Voter Registration Act case have taken to the airwaves, describing the case as a disaster which invites illegal-alien voting.

Before the decision today, here is what the Left wanted:
● Invalidation of Arizona’s requirement that those submitting a federal form provide proof of citizenship with their federal form. Mind you, the citizenship-proof requirement is NOT part of federal law and the Election Assistance Commission does NOT require it in the form they drafted.
● Invalidation of state citizenship-verification requirements when a state voter registration form is used (yes, such forms exist separate from the federal requirement) on the basis of federal preemption. They wanted the Arizona case to invalidate all state citizenship-verification requirements.
● Automatic registration if a registrant submits a completed federal EAC approved registration form, no questions asked.
● Federal preemption on the ability for states to have customized federal EAC-approved forms that differed from the default EAC form.
● Federal preemption over states, like Florida and Kansas, looking for independent information on citizenship to root out noncitizens from the voter rolls. Again, the Left wanted the federal EAC form to be the no-questions-asked ticket to the voter rolls.

So what is the score on these five goals after Justice Scalia’s opinion today? Election-integrity advocates are batting .800; left wing groups, .200. And the most insignificant issue of the five is the one issue the Left won. Justice Scalia foiled 4 of 5 of their goals, and the 4 biggest ones.

...

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.

...

Next, when voters use a state, as opposed to a federal, form, they can still be required to prove citizenship. The federal form is irrelevant in that circumstance.

After the decision today, states have a green light to do double- and triple-checking even if a registrant uses the federal form.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

First, Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep those federal forms in the back room gathering dust. When you submit a state form, you have to prove citizenship. Thanks to Justice Scalia, that option is perfectly acceptable. Loss for the Left. Victory for election integrity.

Arizona simply has to rewrite its statute to comply with the holding.

No huge loss.

 

[Prometheus]

It is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution that is at issue.

Federal law trumps state law where there is a conflict.

There was a conflict, the Constitution mandates that federal law win. I thought INGO was in favor of the Constitution?

The supremacy clause has to do with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. Not every single federal law and regulation.

I understand that some people, including lawyers, subscribe to this living document theory and that everything and anything the federal law says is supreme but it doesn't agree with the thoughts, wishes and writings of the founders.

------------

As to this issue, I find the idea that because the government will not secure the borders that every Citizen must carry papers to be completely repugnant and antithetical to a Constitutional Republic.

Want to require something? How about securing the border? Until that happens I don't want hear another peep about infringing on the Rights of Citizens.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The supremacy clause has to do with the Constitution being the supreme law of the land. Not every single federal law and regulation.

Yes, every single federal law and regulation can preempt the states if that what the feds choose to do.

That is the language of the Constitution.

As to this issue, I find the idea that because the government will not secure the borders that every Citizen must carry papers to be completely repugnant and antithetical to a Constitutional Republic.

Want to require something? How about securing the border? Until that happens I don't want hear another peep about infringing on the Rights of Citizens.

Pro, I'm a little lost here, every citizen carry papers? Are you talking about the Arizona statute that required papers to be presented?

 

[zippy23]

Dont worry, the repubs and dems are going to make them all legal soon, and the republican party will be finished, then the libertarians can get excited to continue to lose every election. too bad i dont have the cash to buy an island in the middle of no where