Supreme Court opens floodgates to voting by illegals

Rate this post

Nearly everywhere else around the world, voters are required to show their ID when registering to vote. This is essential to the integrity of elections because without voter ID, the door is open for massive voter fraud.

But not in the United States of America where, on May 20, 1993, then President Bill Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (aka the Motor Voter Act) into law. Before that, the bill had been approved 259 vs. 160 by the House of Reps., and by the Senate 62 vs. 37.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 requires States to “accept and use” a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections.  The form, which was developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant say, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. In other words, no proof of U.S. citizenship is required to vote long as you say you’re one.

Yesterday, in the case of Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of voting by non-citizens.

SCOTUS betrayersHeads circles in red are the 7 justices who ruled against requiring  proof of US citizenship to vote. L to r: Sonia Sotomayor, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Uncircled are Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

As reported by David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2013:

The Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law [Proposition 200] Monday and by a surprisingly lopsided vote, ruling state officials may not demand a proof of citizenship from residents who register to vote.

The 7-2 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia [et tu, Scalia?] said this “proof of citizenship” requirement conflicts with the national Motor Voter Act. The measure said states must “accept and use” a simple registration form when filled out by residents who are registering to vote.

Scalia insists on closely following the words of the law, and in this instance, the words of the federal measure were clear in their meaning, he said. As written, the Motor Voter Act “forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form,” he said.

The Supreme Court ruling was a very lopsided 7-2 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito being the only two dissenters.

Justice Thomas writes, in his dissenting opinion:

(see Arizona et al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., et al., beginning p. 25):

“I do not agree, and I think that both the plain text and the history of the Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, and the Seventeenth Amendment authorize States to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. To avoid substantial constitutional problems created by interpreting §1973gg–4(a)(1) to permit Congress to effectively countermand this authority, I would construe the [Motor Voter or National Voter Registration] law as only requiring Arizona to accept and use the form as part of its voter registration process, leaving the State free to request whatever additional information it determines is necessary to ensure that voters meet the qualifications it has the constitutional authority to establish. Under this interpretation, Arizona did “accept and use” the federal form. Accordingly, there is no conflict between Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §16–166(F) (West Cum. Supp. 2012) and §1973gg–4(a)(1) and, thus, no pre-emption. […]

Arizona has had a citizenship requirement for voting since it became a State in 1912. See Ariz. Const., Art. VII, §2. […]  In Arizona’s view, it “accepts and uses” the federal form in the same way that an airline “accepts and uses” electronic tickets but also requires an individual seeking to board a plane to demonstrate that he is the person named on the ticket. […]

The Voter Qualifications Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 1, provides that “the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature” in elections for the federal House of Representatives. The Seventeenth Amendment, which provides for direct election of Senators, contains an identical clause. That language is susceptible of only one interpretation: States have the authority “to control who may vote in congressional elections” so long as they do not “establish special  requirements that do not apply in elections for the state legislature.” U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 864–865 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also The Federalist No. 57, p. 349 (C. Rossiter ed. 2003) (J.  Madison) (“The electors . . . are to be the same who exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State”).  Congress has no role in setting voter qualifications, or determining whether they are satisfied, aside from the powers conferred by the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which are not at issue here. This power is instead expressly reposed in the States.

The history of the Voter Qualifications Clause’s enactment confirms this conclusion. The Framers did not intend to leave voter qualifications to Congress. Indeed, James Madison explicitly rejected that possibility:

“The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress would have been improper.” The Federalist No. 52, at 323 (emphasis added).

Congressional legislation of voter qualifications was not part of the Framers’ design. […]

Both text and history confirm that States have the exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied. The United States nevertheless argues that Congress has the authority under Article I, §4, “to set the rules for voter registration in federal elections.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 33 (hereafter Brief for United States).

Neither the text nor the original understanding of Article I, §4, supports that position.”

Mike Adams of Natural News correctly calls the Supreme Court decision as “You need ID to buy beer, but not to register to vote,” and that the ruling “all but openly endorses widespread voter registration fraud” — fraud that already was pandemic in the 2012 election. He concludes:

“With these two plans — widespread voter fraud and the instant citizenship of 11 million undocumented immigrants — democrats may very well be able to continue to hold power in Washington as they drive America into complete financial bankruptcy. But they don’t care about the long-term impact of their actions. The only thing that matters to them is to stay in power and keep milking the system for as long as possible before total economic collapse arrives.”

Just remember as things get worse and worse in America, it was the Supreme Court, with the exception of Justices Thomas and Alito, who had helped make it all possible.

I weep for my country.


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Supreme Court opens floodgates to voting by illegals

  1. The Supreme Court said they are holding strictly to the law. Well, if that is the case then they just destroyed their reputation as honest men of the court, because as we can clearly see on another issue of Obama care, they are complete liars.

    When you read Section Eight of the Constitution granting powers to Congress by the States you will notice there are 18 paragraphs and each paragraph lists each of the powers granted to Congress by the States.

    James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, argued even back then that the general welfare words in the first paragraph does not give the federal government unlimited power because the general welfare would then be used by the federal government to do anything they wanted to do and there would have been no need to list each of the powers granted to Congress by the States in each paragraph of Section Eight of the Constitution.

    The Founding fathers of the Constitution and those who supported it were saying in order for it to be general welfare it must apply to one of the powers listed within the 18 paragraphs of Section Eight of the Constitution. And if you notice all of those paragraphs none of them include national health care anywhere whatsoever.

    The only legal way for the federal government to have passed national health care is to first obtain an Amendment to the Constitution by obtaining the approval by the States. Even the justices of the Supreme Court know this is the truth and they violated their oath of office by allowing it to stand.

    What we have witnessed is a dangerous power grab by the federal government in all three branches of government against the powers granted to them by the States in the Constitution.

    This is a very dangerous thing that has happened in the United States. The federal government has willingly usurped their authority on purpose and trampled the Constitution under their feet.

    Obama Care is totally illegal

  2. The Supreme Cohorts just wrote and gave America its epitaph.

  3. “Throw Them All Out!”

  4. I’m sad and terrified for our children. What kind of future will they have. I just can’t believe what’s happening to our great country. Day by day it’s vanishing before our eyes. I feel so helpless. Our first and biggest mistake that led us onto this path of distruction was when not all but most turned from God. I praise you Lord and know in my heart your in control.

  5. Welcome to the United States of Mexico…

  6. I do believe we have kicked common sense out of the country.

  7. Dennis H Bennett

    On the surface it appears we’ve lost ground. Here’s another look at our subtle victory(s) in SCOTUS ruling on Arizona using Federal Forms for voter registration.

    • Thanks, Dennis, for the link to the essay by J. Christian Abrams.

      I read the essay and remain unconvinced that this Supreme Court ruling actually is a boon to conservatives.

      For a lawyer, Abrams sure has trouble communicating CLEARLY and convincingly. His main point is that the ruling now frees the 50 states to use each state’s own form, instead of the federal form, to register people to vote, which in turn means that the states can then set up a citizenship requirement. Blah, blah, blah.

      Time will tell if Abrams’ interpretation is correct, but in the meantime I think I’ll go with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito — both greater legal lights than Abrams.

      I also really do NOT appreciate Abrams’ arrogant and condescending tone about conservatives not “getting” the SCOTUS ruling, which at a minimum is a decidedly peculiar way to educate and convince conservatives to his point-of-view.

  8. Scalia is a libturd traitor!!!

  9. Thank you Dr. Eowyn for this informative post. I am flummoxed at Scalia and Roberts. God help us!

  10. Remember this vote the next campaign cycle when Team R is begging you to vote for the lesser of two evils (again) so they can control supreme court appointments.

    Kagan – Obama
    Sotomayor – Obama
    Alito – George W Bush
    Scalia – Reagan
    Stevens – Ford
    Roberts – George W. Bush
    Kennedy – Reagan
    Ginsburg – Clinton
    Thomas – George HW Bush

    It’s a 6-3 “Republican” court that handed us this ruling (and Obamacare).

  11. No problem for left/libtard Democrats, lying is job object to them.,..


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.