http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/supreme-court-arizona-citizenship-proof-law-illegal/
Supreme Court:
Arizona law requiring citizenship proof for voters is illegal
I have not read this decision, so I'm sort of speaking out turn and uninformed. I wholly disagree with this decision to overturn and that the states cannot legislate in order to protect the rights of citizens. Our Constitution provides that only citizens can vote. Beyond that, it is my opinion that it is incumbent upon the states to ensure that each person that is eligible to vote can do so, and those that are not eligible to vote cannot do so. That is the check and balance of the federal and state governments.
However, I disagree that the Tenth takes authority from SCOTUS (there are other components of the Constitution that address this - for one, this is registering to vote in federal elections). BUT...what does apply is that state law cannot be less restrictive than federal law, and therefore the states can enact an ID requirement in order to protect the right of the citizens. As an example of this state vs federal law - there is a federal law that requires at least one person of a phone conversation have knowledge of a party recording the conversation. Colorado follows federal law, whereas California is more restrictive and requires both parties have knowledge / consent. No states can allow the recording of a telephone of a conversation without the knowledge / consent of at least one part.
This decision, a surprise from Scalia, is dangerous to not only our election process, but the security of our Country. It is disturbing when judicial hurdles are created. Simple concept - citizen - vote; not citizen - no vote. No hurdles needed. It should be incumbent upon the registrant to prove their citizenship, just like they have to prove to make a bank withdrawal, legitimately get a job, etc.
Justice Scalia, for the majority:
Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,".
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only dissenters from the court's ruling:
The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,".
Justice Thomas has it right, Justice Scalia ... apparently the NSA and IRS got to him and two other justices.
From 'Beers with our Founding Fathers'
The Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment has been as overlooked as the Ninth Amendment – until recently as the federal government continues to encroach on both the individual and states’ rights. This amendment specifically provides that the federal government is limited to those powers designated and enumerated in the Constitution. Additionally, it provides that any powers not so enumerated are reserved to the states, and by inference further to the people not so designated to the states. However, our Founding Fathers, in favor of states’ and individual rights with less government, intentionally gave more latitude for the interpretation of state sovereignty. It is important to understand this essential interpretation – otherwise you have a ‘what came first, the chicken [state’s rights] or the egg [individual rights]’ question – individual rights come first, which cannot be infringed upon by the state or federal governments, and states’ rights cannot be infringed upon by the federal government.
Supreme Court:
Arizona law requiring citizenship proof for voters is illegal
I have not read this decision, so I'm sort of speaking out turn and uninformed. I wholly disagree with this decision to overturn and that the states cannot legislate in order to protect the rights of citizens. Our Constitution provides that only citizens can vote. Beyond that, it is my opinion that it is incumbent upon the states to ensure that each person that is eligible to vote can do so, and those that are not eligible to vote cannot do so. That is the check and balance of the federal and state governments.
However, I disagree that the Tenth takes authority from SCOTUS (there are other components of the Constitution that address this - for one, this is registering to vote in federal elections). BUT...what does apply is that state law cannot be less restrictive than federal law, and therefore the states can enact an ID requirement in order to protect the right of the citizens. As an example of this state vs federal law - there is a federal law that requires at least one person of a phone conversation have knowledge of a party recording the conversation. Colorado follows federal law, whereas California is more restrictive and requires both parties have knowledge / consent. No states can allow the recording of a telephone of a conversation without the knowledge / consent of at least one part.
This decision, a surprise from Scalia, is dangerous to not only our election process, but the security of our Country. It is disturbing when judicial hurdles are created. Simple concept - citizen - vote; not citizen - no vote. No hurdles needed. It should be incumbent upon the registrant to prove their citizenship, just like they have to prove to make a bank withdrawal, legitimately get a job, etc.
Justice Scalia, for the majority:
Federal law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself,".
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were the only dissenters from the court's ruling:
The Constitution "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied,".
Justice Thomas has it right, Justice Scalia ... apparently the NSA and IRS got to him and two other justices.
From 'Beers with our Founding Fathers'
The Tenth Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment has been as overlooked as the Ninth Amendment – until recently as the federal government continues to encroach on both the individual and states’ rights. This amendment specifically provides that the federal government is limited to those powers designated and enumerated in the Constitution. Additionally, it provides that any powers not so enumerated are reserved to the states, and by inference further to the people not so designated to the states. However, our Founding Fathers, in favor of states’ and individual rights with less government, intentionally gave more latitude for the interpretation of state sovereignty. It is important to understand this essential interpretation – otherwise you have a ‘what came first, the chicken [state’s rights] or the egg [individual rights]’ question – individual rights come first, which cannot be infringed upon by the state or federal governments, and states’ rights cannot be infringed upon by the federal government.
RSS Feed