Justice Scalia defies Tenth Amendment in striking down AZ voting law


#1

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 Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776 which declares:

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.

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

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

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

***“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?”***___ Justice Story


#2

His ruling only applies to **federal **elections, so calm down.


#3

I must be missing something that the majority justices saw.

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/27.PDF

I don’t see where NVRA prevents state laws from using stricter citizenship requirements. I like the fact that Justice Scalia and the majority gave a path for Arizona to go through the EAC to get to the same end.


#4

Exactly!

So when have the people adopted a constitutional amendment forbidding the various united States to require proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote in federal elections?

JWK

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?


#5

I’m a bit vague on the ruling itself but I believe the idea is that the federal gov’t set uniform procedure for federal elections with the National Voter Registration Act. The registration to vote in federal elections doesn’t require proof of citizenship (you only check a box) and Arizona was trying to alter the federal standard set by NVRA. Constitutionality of the act wasn’t being challenged, so SCOTUS wasn’t going to strike it down, all the Supreme Court was looking at was whether or not state and federal law conflicted, which they did. Federal law would therefore trump the Arizona’s law, they said that. Arizona can challenge NRVA if they so wish (Scalia left the option open) but it would have to be a separate lawsuit.

Personally I think that the federal government can set it’s own standards for federal election (per Article 1 of the Constitution). I also think that voting is an individual right (per the 9th and 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments), not to be taken away by any government at the federal, state, or local level.


#6

I expect things like this from the Treasonous John Roberts but Scalia joining the Anti Constitution/Living Document Apostates caught me by surprise.

Out of respect for Scalia I will withhold complete condemnation until I can go over everything slower but at this point He appears to have pulled a Robert’s and just written his own clauses.


#7

RET, Roberts *may *have been a genius not a traitor (or we might just get lucky). Just in case you hadn’t read George Will on it, here:

The time bomb in Obamacare? - Washington Post

Please forgive the interruption and carry on. Oh, yeah, and I agree JWK.


#8

I have no idea where Will got the idea that a tax had to be so small as to not cause hardship, his entire speculation rests on this but except for political consequences (historically avoided by simply printing and borrowing money) I know of no such restriction on Congresses ability to tax us till we bleed air if they want to.

Roberts offered no formula to define his “it can never be more than payable” position so I can’t see how this is cause for much hope.


#9

Well, maybe he got it wrong…

/sniffle


#10

Maybe I should start a new thread. RET?

Here’s the basis for Will’s comments and more detail:

We have nonetheless maintained that " ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’ " Kurth

Full text of the Supreme Court health-care decision - The Washington Post

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance mandate is constitutional because its penalty for non-insurance is a de facto tax. This article argues that the ruling may have preserved the ACA legally, but it likely doomed the law economically. Legal and legislative limits on the tax, coupled with the ACA’s prohibition on health insurers discriminating against preexisting conditions, results in a perverse incentive for non-low-income households to forgo insurance coverage until they face a high-cost medical problem, and then drop the insurance once the problem has been resolved. This perverse incentive extends to many employers, who would be financially better off to pay the tax and increase employee pay, rather than provide health insurance. As a result, insurance costs will likely soar while many people will go uncovered.
This is the abstract for the paper. You can download the paper itself.

How the Supreme Court Doomed the ACA to Failure by Thomas A. Lambert :: SSRN


#11

I think they idea was that if the penalty is fixed in place by law (as opposed to any percentage), inflation would eventually render said penalty meaningless…at least that’s how I read it.


#12

The moment Roberts rewrote the the law to say that it was a “tax” he removed all authority from the amount or how it is calculated from everyone except Congress, tax laws change all the time.


#13

We have nonetheless maintained that " ‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’ " Kurth

This is the part that I cannot understand, since when has “there come a time” when a tax becomes a penalty? Who decides where this line is and when it has been crossed and what authority is claimed that even makes this “a thing”?

I suppose in a law this size something could be contained within it to define this restriction, I will have to read the pdf you linked when I get time and see if that is the basis for their theory.


#14

I think that I have come up with the perfect solution for those (liberals and lefties) that don’t want to get or cannot afford an ID card.

How about we let you go down to the local precinct in your district and pick up a free copy of your rap sheet.

This will carry all pertinent information such as photo, proof of address and anything else that may or may not be required by your local election board.


#15

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 August 8th of the Convention and it was agreed upon “…to leave the whole matter of qualification of voters to the regulation by each State for itself.” Charles Warren, “The Making Of The Constitution” 1939, page 403

JWK

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?


#16

[quote=“RET423, post:13, topic:39863”]
This is the part that I cannot understand, since when has “there come a time” when a tax becomes a penalty? Who decides where this line is and when it has been crossed and what authority is claimed that even makes this “a thing”?

I suppose in a law this size something could be contained within it to define this restriction, I will have to read the pdf you linked when I get time and see if that is the basis for their theory.
[/quote]Would you put your analysis and thoughts in another thread and leave a link here when you do, please? I’d like to unjack this thread. Apologies JWK.

I have partially read the article and some highlights from the decision so far.


#17
http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f10/examination-catos-analysis-aca-41167/#post600381

#18

So now their going to let illegals vote in elections? The dems will love this because guess who the illegals will vote for? You all better start learning Spanish because in a few years that will be the only language spoken.


#19

I’m not so much worried about learning to speak Spanish as I am about seven members of our Supreme Court defying the defined and limited powers granted to our federal government and giving a thumbs up to Congress to exercise a power not granted by the American People, AKA judicial tyranny.

JWK

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?