Justice Scalia defies Tenth Amendment in striking down AZ voting law

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
john w k
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2002 - 1:01am
Justice Scalia defies Tenth Amendment in striking down AZ voting law

Today’s ruling which has declared that Arizona may not require proof of citizenship to vote is another attack by our Supreme Court on the legislative intent of our Constitution in addition to defying our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, under which the various united States and people therein, retained all powers not delegated to Congress by the Constitution

The simple truth is, the qualifications required to be met to vote is a power exercised by the various states long before our existing Constitution was adopted, e.g., see the [url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp][b][u][color=blue]Const... of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776[/color][/u][/b][/url] which declares:

[b][I]SECT. 6. Every freemen of the full age of twenty-one Years, having resided in this state for the space of one whole Year next before the day of election for representatives, and paid public taxes during that time, shall enjoy the right of an elector: Provided always, that sons of freeholders of the age of twenty-one years shall be intitled to vote although they have not paid taxes.[/I][/b]

And, upon adopting our existing Constitution, a minor material change was made to the State’s authority over elections which declares that:

[b][I]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[/I][/b]

Another alteration was made by the 15th Amendment declaring that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Later, the right to vote was forbidden to be denied on account of sex, and by the 24th Amendment failure to pay poll taxes as a requirement to vote were forbidden. Finally, the 26th Amendment declared that the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of age. But nowhere in our Constitution has Congress been granted authority to forbid a state to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. And Justice Antonin Scalia engaged in judicial tyranny when suggesting the 1993 National Voter Registration Act trumps the States reserved power to require proof of citizenship in order to vote. The truth is, our Constitution, and only those laws made in “pursuance thereof“, are the supreme law of the land.

So tell us Justice Scalia, when have the people adopted a constitutional amendment forbidding the various united States to require proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote?

Bottom line is, I am now firmly convinced that our constitutionally limited system of government will never be restored until the blood of tyrants flows freely in our streets.

JWK

[b][I]
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"[/I][/b]___ Justice Story

woodcanoe
Online
Joined: 02/22/2005 - 1:01am
I have concluded that the

I have concluded that the Supreme Court is as corrupt as the rest of our federal government in DC.

This "corruption" of the court's mission has been made possible by the process of now appointing Justices on the basis of their personal political ideology rather than their understanding and knowledge of the Constitution.....which is clearly evident in this lastest decision, as it was Robert's decision in the Obamacare issue.

There is nothing left to protect the people from the Federal leviathan!

WC

FLAMMENWERFER
Offline
Joined: 03/27/2005 - 1:01am
J. Christian Adams, author of

J. Christian Adams, author of Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department, who has litigated 5 NVRA takes a different view.

“It’s clear that the decision was a disaster for the Left...Those complaining about the opinion don’t understand what the Left’s goal was in this case: total federal preemption. On that score, Justice Scalia foiled them; indeed, the decision today was a huge war won, even if the small Arizona battle was lost.” In Adams’s view Scalia’s decision negated four of the Left’s five goals, leaving them with a victory on the lest significant one.

“The Left essentially believes that anyone who fills out a federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) registration form should be allowed on the rolls, no questions asked. Arizona can simply push the state forms in all state offices and online, and keep the 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.”

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/06/17/left-loses-big-in-arizona-... .

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The Elections Clause, Art. I,

The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:

“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.”

The Clause empowers Congress to pre-empt state regulations
governing the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding
congressional elections.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-71_7l48.pdf

pmconusa
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
Wood Canoe: You are

Wood Canoe: You are absolutely right, the Supreme Court is as corrupt as the rest of federal and state governments. By corrupt I mean benefiting from acting in a capacity they were never given by the law (Constitution). As I have said on all too numerous occasions the only power the people gave government was a police power to apprehend and punish those who would steal our lives our liberties and our properties.

As regards voting it is the peoples right to determine who gets to represent them in making the rules under which the government operates. The question is identifying the people who have the right to vote. We have determined it is citizens of the country or the state. In demonstrating this the federal government has set a very low standard wherein only a declaration of citizenship is necessary. This would allow a citizen of another country to vote in our elections by lying he is a citizen of the United States and the only recourse would be to call the person a liar and proving it by his lack of a U.S. birth Certificate or other document evidencing that fact. Actually all that the states were trying to accomplish was the prevention of need to confront liars.

The hipocracy of this position is the fact the federal government has no objection to the states setting higher standards for auto emissions than that established by the federal government. This is an area where both the federal government and the states have exceeded their authority "to make all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit" of the people. I have not read the dissent but, I suspect Thomas and Alito made a similar argument.

john w k
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2002 - 1:01am
Quote: The Elections Clause,

[quote]
The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:
......snip...
The Clause empowers Congress to pre-empt state regulations
governing the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding
congressional elections.
[/quote]

EXACTLY! “Times, Places and Manner” but not the qualifications to be met by voters which was retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment!

The fact is, our Supreme Court has engaged in judicial tyranny! Its majority opinion falsely asserts a State may not require proof of citizenship in order to vote. The truth is, voter requirements were fully debated by our Founders on [url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_808.asp][b][u][color=blu... 8th of the Convention[/color][/u][/b][/url] and it was agreed upon [b][I]“…to leave the whole matter of qualification of voters to the regulation by each State for itself.”[/I][/b] Charles Warren, “The Making Of The Constitution” 1939, page 403

JWK

[b][I]
If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?
[/I][/b]

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
"The NVRA permits a State to

"The NVRA permits a State to request the EAC to include statespecific
instructions on the Federal Form, see 42 U. S. C. §1973gg–
7(a)(2), and a State may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request
(or failure to act on it) in a suit under the Administrative Procedure
Act. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to
determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here.
Should the EAC reject or decline to act on a renewed request, Arizona
would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a
mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement"

I'd want Arizona to hop on the Administrative alternative.

john w k
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2002 - 1:01am
thejohnchapman, I don’t

thejohnchapman,

I don’t understand what all that has to do with powers retained by the States, and in particular, the retained power to establish qualifications which a voter must meet in order to vote. There is no provision in our Constitution requiring the States to ask for permission to exercise powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment!

The question is, under what provision of our Constitution has the federal government been delegated a power to set rules regarding voter qualifications? It seems crystal clear its delegated power is limited to setting the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections if it so chooses to exercise this power, and there its authority ends.

JWK

[b][I]
If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?
[/I][/b]

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
The issue is the central

The issue is the central question. Is it about who can vote, or about the form that must be filled out by prospective voters? One is procedural, ("manner"),and the other is substantive. According to SCOTUS, they haven't lost yet.

pmconusa
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
You can be sure that when a

You can be sure that when a position on a matter relies on precedent and is lengthy in its presentation those espousing that poition are unsure of their argument. The only precedent in this case is the Constitution itself. It gives the federal government to be the final determinate of the "times, Places and Manner" of holding election. It makes no mention of who is eligible to vote the omission of which by the 10th amendment gives that power to the states. By its omission the Congress cannot make any alterations to state law on the matter of who is eligible. If one reads the minutes of the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist papers you become aware that one of the most contentious arguments was over the ceding to federal authority the right to negate state laws. Fortunately the states won this battle, but you would never know it from what the federal government has been doing over the past 200 plus years. Obviously they just lost this last one.

The federal regulation enables perjurers to vote and for the state to prove a negative in order to claim a person is not a citizen. My mother was born in Italy and came to the U.S. at the age of twelve. She never proved herself an American citizen because she had no proof of same. She voted and even obtained a U.S. Passport thanks to loose federal enforcement even of the rules in existance at the time. You need not guess what party she voted for in every single election.

thejohnchapman
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2000 - 1:01am
"Held: Arizona’s

"Held: Arizona’s evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal
Form applicants, is pre-empted by the NVRA’s mandate that
States “accept and use” the Federal Form. Pp. 4–18.
(a) The Elections Clause imposes on States the duty to prescribe
the time, place, and manner of electing Representatives and Senators,
but it confers on Congress the power to alter those regulations
or supplant them altogether. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v.
Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 804–805. This Court has said that the
terms “Times, Places, and Manner” “embrace authority to provide a
complete code for congressional elections,” including regulations relating
to “registration.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U. S. 355, 366. Pp. 4

Neither lengthy nor difficult to understand, and makes sense. Arizona needs to act, with dispatch, to have the feds CHANGE the form and as much else of the "manner" needed. Maine should join. I hear little grousing that we did NOT petition to have the feds change the same frikkin' form, but we should.

pmconusa
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
the JohnChapman: The Supreme

the JohnChapman: The Supreme Court has also held that the states may set higher emission standards than those imposed by federal law. They can't have it both ways.

The purpose of the law was to prevent the states from setting up barriers to discourage or make it impossible for citizens to exercise their right to vote. The Constitution does not give the Congress the power to determine who is a citizen of a state and hence the United States. In fact the federal jurisdiction as it regards individuals extends only to pirates and counterfeiters or those who commit treason against the United States.

Log in or register to post comments