Nullification for Lawyers

Comments Off on Nullification for Lawyers

 

blindfolded-manA recent article by Cato Institute chairman Robert Levy published by Investor’s Business Daily provides a ray of sunlight for supporters of nullification.

Instead of taking the position of most folks in mainstream political organizations and denouncing nullification in all situations, the CATO head offers support for the principles, at least some of the time.

Levy acknowledges that the federal government cannot force states to enforce or enact federal law.

Are states required to enforce federal laws and enact regulatory programs that Congress mandates? The answer on both counts is “No.”

In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.

In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

But Levy stops short of approving nullification efforts that would actively block implementation of unconstitutional federal acts. He contends that an act remains constitutional until a federal court declares otherwise. He makes a solid argument from a lawyer’s perspective, but understanding nullification requires a historical perspective that often gets buried in American jurisprudence. Perhaps a slight shift in the theoretical framework will move CATO all the way into the nullification camp.

Like most lawyers, Levy believes that the Supreme Court makes the final and definitive decision on the constitutionality of an act. This makes perfect sense from a legal perspective. Lawyers rely on court precedent to build arguments, and modern American jurisprudence holds that the Court determined early on that it was the ultimate judge of constitutionality.  But the argument falls apart when placed in the framework within which political power was delegated in the American system. In essence, the Court claimed power for itself that it never had the authority to claim in the first place. Furthermore, most legal scholars and attorneys badly misconstrue the case cited as the root of federal court supremacy.

We find the first fatal flaw in Levy’s argument early on when he confuses Jefferson and Madison’s reasoning in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Levy writes:

But consider those resolutions in context: Jefferson and Madison had argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters.

Jefferson and Madison did not base their principles of nullification on the fact that the Constitution had not established an ultimate authority. They based their principles on the fact that the people of the states ARE the ultimate authority – not the federal government they created. Jefferson makes this clear in the first few lines of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.

Madison makes the same point in his report of 1800.

The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

Nullification follows from the delegation of power in the American system. The sovereign people first created independent, sovereign political societies – States – and delegated powers to their state governments. Then, the people, through those preexisting political societies, delegated specific, enumerated powers to a general government in order to form a union. The ratifiers made it clear that their states were only giving up sovereignty over those objects delegated to the federal government, and that they retained ALL powers not delegated. And they insisted on amendments (The Ninth and Tenth) to make this explicit.

If the federal government gets to decide the extent of its own power, through its own judicial branch, and the people of the states possess no mechanism to hold its creature in check, the whole notion of a federal government with limited enumerated powers becomes a farce.

Nullification for Lawyers | Tenth Amendment CenterTenth Amendment Center.

47% of Americans agree: armed revolt will not be necessary

Comments Off on 47% of Americans agree: armed revolt will not be necessary

Gun dealer Mel Bernstein takes down an AK-47 assault rifle from a sales rack at his own Dragonman's shooting range and gun store, east of Colorado Springs, Colo., on Feb. 5, 2013.

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

(The remaining 1 percent refused to answer (perhaps because they didn’t want to be placed on a government watch list. )

The poll also found that 25 percent of voters believe the American public is being lied to about the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by people seeking to promote a political agenda. An additional 11 percent said they weren’t sure.

The eye-opening findings serve as a reminder that Americans’ deeply held beliefs about gun rights have a tendency to cross over into outright conspiracy theories about a nefarious government seeking to trample their constitutional rights — paranoia that pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association have at times helped stoke. The data help explain why even the most modest gun safety laws face tremendous, intense opposition.

The poll, conducted between April 22-28, surveyed 863 randomly selected registered voters across the country and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

Talking Points Memo

Obama Overrules State’s Right

Comments Off on Obama Overrules State’s Right

Just another example of why November 2012 won’t come soon enough.

In another stunning display of an overreach of federal powers, the Obama administration has announced it will force the taxpayers of New Hampshire to continue funding Planned Parenthood against their wishes.

Previously we reported that the New Hampshire Executive Council decided not to award a $1.8 million grant to Planned Parenthood based on the organization’s overwhelming focus on providing abortion. The council also deemed this as excessive compensation for Planned Parenthood’s executives. However, on Tuesday it was a sudden change in the tide when the Obama administration announced it’s decision to award Planned Parenthood of Northern New England $1 million of the Title X grant. This act thereby overstepped the state’s ability to determine grant recipients, and in this case doing so without requiring a competitive bid or other review.

 

New Hampshire Councilor David Wheeler summed it up this way, “Even though the state of New Hampshire turned down Planned Parenthood as a contractor, the Obama administration says you’re going to take it anyway, whether you like it or not.” It is also worth noting that the initial shift in funds by the New Hampshire Executive Council was not directed at denying women access to needed services, rather they were exercising their right to determine who the providers should be. Instead of contracting with an organization that provides abortions, the state decided to award the grant to organizations that do not.

 

Likewise, several states, and even some municipalities have chosen to defund Planned Parenthood. North Carolina may see the closing of some or all of the Planned Parenthood offices, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is making cuts following defunding, and the state of Texas recently passed a bill that could cut as much as $40 million in taxpayer funding from Planned Parenthood.

 

These examples send a strong message. It seems to indicate that the trend among US citizens is toward not only preventing taxpayer funds from being used to provide abortions, but also supporting abortion providers in any manner- directly or indirectly. What remains to be seen is if the current administration will honor the will of the people and allow states to govern as they should.

Manhattan Declaration

TSA Responds To Texas: Resistance is Futile

Comments Off on TSA Responds To Texas: Resistance is Futile

This type response just goes to show you, the Federal Government doesn’t understand the Constitution. The “supremacy clause” doesn’t give the government unrestricted ‘supremacy’ over the States. It only gives the Federal Government ‘supremacy’ in the areas of “enumerated powers” ( or the areas of authority)  granted to them by the STATES or we the people. It is NOT unrestricted or unlimited power over the States and People as the Federal government wishes it was, but they will push it like a bully and see what happens.

TSA Responds To Texas: Resistance is Futile

The TSA has issued a laughable response to the news that the state of Texas has passed a bill to officially make it a misdemeanor to pat-down breasts, buttocks, or genitals.

The Agency contends, via its blog, that Texas cannot do anything to restrict TSA procedures because, as a federal agency it is protected under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Blogger Bob”, the TSA’s propaganda mouthpiece, writes:

“What’s our take on the Texas House of Representatives voting to ban the current TSA pat-down? Well, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2) prevents states from regulating the federal government.”

How ridiculous it is for the TSA to cite the Constitution in its own defense! While citing one section, it is completely ignoring two others – namely the Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

The Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches” without “probable cause”.

As far as we can recollect, no where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government has the right to touch Americans’ private parts in the first instance.

Therefore, under the Tenth, States have the right to pass their own laws against this abuse of power, because:

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 TSA’s contention that the Supremacy Clause bars states from regulating the federal government is a total lie. The Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, The constitution is the supreme law and any federal laws made in line with the constitution are supreme. No where does it say that states cannot regulate federal government.

The Constitution protects the rights of the people, not the rights of the federal government.

. Under the Tenth Amendment, airport operation falls under state jurisdiction.

The TSA blog goes on to state:

“We wish we lived in a world where you could just walk on a plane with no security screening, but that just isn’t the case unfortunately. Aviation security agencies worldwide have been using pat-downs long before TSA was created to prevent dangerous items from getting onto airplanes. The pat-down is a highly effective tool to resolve certain alarms and keep these dangerous items off of planes that could cause catastrophic damage.”

Again, this is a pathetic attempt at justification of full on government groping. To claim that “Other countries did it first” is just plain weak. Other countries do not have a written constitution safeguarding the privacy rights of their citizens. And besides, specifically, what other countries governments are putting their hands inside people’s pants and literally touching their genitals?

The Texas House of Representatives passed the legislation on Friday to prohibit “intrusive touching” when people are seeking access to public buildings and forms of transportation.

The bill, sponsored by Republican House member David Simpson, outlaws public servants from “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly touching anyone’s anus, sexual organ, buttocks or breasts, including touching through clothing, and any manner of touching that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”

Should the bill also pass the Senate and be signed into law, convicted TSA agents could face a $4,000 fine and up to one year in jail.

The TSA’s version of the US Constitution, like much of the federal government’s, is a complete perversion of it’s actual meaning.

Meanwhile, in related news, the revolt against the TSA continues as a House Appropriations Subcommittee last week stripped $76 million out of the TSA budget for 2012. The funds had been designated for the purchase of 275 more naked body scanners. Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said that the body scanners are “a nuisance. They’re slow. And they’re ineffective.”

Entire article @ Infowars

The Energy Solution by the Founding Fathers: the 10th Amendment

3 Comments

Here’s the answer to the Energy Crisis the Founding Fathers gave us. They were so intelligent and they knew the history of what governments would eventually do to it’s States and citizens, because as the scripture says.

The Tenth Amendment Energy Solution

The Middle East is burning and gas prices are exploding.   The price of oil shot above $100 a barrel and futures have gone about $110 a barrel.

What is Obama and his regime doing about this?

Nothing!

This should not be a shock to anyone.  Obama is a socialist who hates America.  He wants to see America in economic collapse.  Only if the economy is wrecked and America’s power destroyed can he and his socialist cronies replace the greatest economic system in the world with a failed system.

But, the good news is there is still time to stop him.

And the solution to some of our problems is found in the Tenth Amendment.

America is dependant on foreign energy sources only by the design of liberals who have for forty years or more, been trying to weaken this country.  Real Americans can say no to this and we can start now.

Texas can be our test case.  Obama and his regime have shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for several reasons, not the least of which is it will drive up unemployment in the largest red state, Texas.

Texas should fight back by announcing it is going to drill as much oil as it wants within the confines of the territory of the State of Texas. Texas also has refineries, so that the oil produced in Texas can be refined in Texas.

There is no argument that the Constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce.  The Federal Government has no right to regulate intrastate commerce.  Texas can produce all the oil it wants and process it in Texas.  Now the down side for the rest of America is, that processed gas can only be sold in Texas, without triggering the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

If Texas did this, first, unemployment in Texas would immediately drop.  Gas prices across the country, but especially in Texas would drop dramatically.   This would be a huge boost to the state economy that could spill over to neighboring states.

If the second largest state becomes energy independent, it diminishes the demand for oil in the rest of the country and the fact that Texas is producing oil is going to create downward pressure on the price of oil.

This can apply to other areas too.  Tennessee has a decent supply of coal and has coal fired power plants.  Obama wants to kill these. Tennessee should mine its own coal, fire its own plants, sell the power within the state and watch the left scream as we use the Constitution to defeat them.

As children, we were taught to respect the President.  He represents America.  Now we have a scenario that was previously unimaginable. We have an un-American President.  For the first time in our history, we have a President who not only does not believe this is the greatest country in the world but wants to see this country brought down.  We cannot stand by and idly let this happen.

In the next few months, we are going to see the highest gas prices we have ever seen.  The damage this is going to do to the economy will be incredible.  Our only hope until the 2012 elections is if States will step up to the plate and tell the Federal Government not only where to go but also how to get there.

Tea Party Nation

Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

Comments Off on Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

 

Here’s another great article by my friend Publius Huldah, a retired Constitutional lawyer from Tennessee……enjoy! ( I know this is a long article, but it’s full of great info)

Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

By Publius Huldah Monday, January 24, 2011

During August 2010, the People of The State of Missouri approved Proposition C and nullified key parts of “obamacare”.  As a matter of constitutional principle, may the People of the States lawfully do this?  Or must they submit to every law made by Congress whether it is constitutional or not?  Are federal judges the final authority?

I will prove that the States have the Right and the Duty to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.  The only real question is whether Americans have the Will to reclaim our Constitutional Republic & the Rule of Law, or whether they will submit to the rulership of men who “don’t care” what the Constitution says, and who see obamacare as a way “to control the people”.

//

 

Congress’ Powers are Enumerated

1. The U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government, permits Congress to make laws only on those few objects which are listed in the Constitution. The objects on which Congress has authority to make laws applicable throughout our Country are itemized at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 (and in a few of the Amendments).

Since the Federalist Papers are the most authoritative commentary on the true meaning of the Constitution, 1 let us see what those Papers say about the extent of Congress’ legislative powers.  In Federalist   No. 83 (7th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress …shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended. [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end), James Madison says:

the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…[emphasis added]

Our Framers were emphatic that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only.  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis mine] 3

Do you see?  If the Constitution doesn’t delegate a power to Congress by listing it in the Constitution, Congress doesn’t have that power.  It is reserved by the States or the People.

Congress Usurps Power when it makes Laws outside its Enumerated Powers – and such pretended Laws are VOID NOT VALID

.2. Our Framers understood that civil governments seek to expand power at the expense of the People. And when they do so, their acts are VOID and INVALID!  Thus, in Federalist No. 33 (next to last para), Hamilton says:

…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such[caps are Hamilton’s; other emphasis mine]

In the last paragraph of No. 33,  Hamilton says a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution… [emphasis mine]

In Federalist No. 78 (10th para),  Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]

Nothing in Art. I, Sec. 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution, authorizes Congress to pass obamacare!  “Medical care” is not an enumerated power.  Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. 4

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment forbids Congress to pass obamacare: When a power is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, that power is reserved to the States or to the People.  Only the States or the People have power over medical care!
So!  Congress passed obamacare without any constitutional authority to do so, and in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Hence, as Hamilton shows us, obamacare is “void” and not “valid”. It is an act “of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

Hamilton, Madison & Thomas Jefferson show us that Nullification is the Answer.

3. Hamilton shows in Federalist No. 28 (7th para) that if the federal government invades the rights of the People, they can use the State government as the instrument of redress:

…in a confederacy   the people … may be said to be … the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will … stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government.  The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…. [emphasis added]

So!  When the People of the State of Missouri approved Proposition C nullifying obamacare, they properly made use of their State government as “the instrument of redress” against the usurpations of Congress & the Executive Branch.

And since State officials and many Citizens have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2), it is their SWORN DUTY to nullify – to refuse to obey – unconstitutional and pretended federal “laws”, such as obamacare.

Nullification by States of unconstitutional federal laws is not new. Our beloved Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence) & James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution) show us precisely what States are honor bound to do when Congress makes an unconstitutional law. During 1798, in response to Congress’ passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures passed Resolutions declaring those Acts unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress, and as in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  In these Resolutions, Kentucky and Virginia resolved not to abide by the federal acts.  Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison wrote The Virginia Resolution. 5

The Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions are masterpieces of constitutional analysis. Study them!  States may use them as models for their own Resolutions nullifying the myriad of unconstitutional “laws” which have spewed forth from Congress in recent decades.

The Framers did NOT say States should file Lawsuits and let Federal Judges decide!

4. Think: Why would the States, which formed a Federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive), exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)?  All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time!  Why would States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?

And further:  Can we not see for ourselves that obamacare is outside the scope of the Legislative Powers granted to Congress in the Constitution, and that it violates the Tenth Amendment?  Our Framers certainly did not advocate running to federal judges to let them decide such issues!  No, our Framers were men who had guts & backbone and understood the Constitution! So they nullified unconstitutional acts of Congress. 6

Will the American People pass the Test?

5. Will the States and the People surrender to the likes of former DNC Chairman Howard Dean who “doesn’t care” if the stuff passed by Congress is unconstitutional? To Democrat Congressman John Dingle who sees obamacare as a means “to control the people”?  Or will The People and the States man up and defend our Constitution?

We have instructions from the Author of the Declaration of Independence, the Father of the Constitution, and the Author of most of the Federalist Papers. They explain what our Constitution really means, and tell us what we need to do when the federal government usurps powers. Listen to them! They are the highest Authority on the true meaning of our Constitution.

And do not be swept away by rage and lust for revenge. Do not become the murderous, unthinking red-capped mob of the French Revolution.

Let us pray that our eyes be opened, that we listen to the words of wisdom from our Framers, that our spines be stiffened, and that we work for a peaceful political resolution of the dreadful problems facing us. PH

Endnotes:

1 At a meeting attended by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825, the following resolution selecting texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

2 See also Federalist No. 14 (8th para) “…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…”

Federalist No. 27 (last para) “…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps in original]

3 Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc., are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And the programs can’t work!  As more & more people seek to live at other peoples’ expense, the system eventually collapses. That collapse is upon us.

4 Jefferson calls it “nullification”; Madison calls it “interposition”. In “interposition”, the State “interposes” – steps in between – an usurping federal government and The People. (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.)  The result is really the same.

5 Furthermore, the supreme Court is NOT the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution!  Hamilton says federal judges may be impeached for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, next to last para).  Federalist No. 49, 3rd para, says that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “…the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance”.

The federal courts have refused to “enforce” the Constitution. Congress has failed to impeach & remove usurping federal judges – it has failed to be the “check” on the federal courts.  Therefore, WE must enforce the Constitution by means of nullification.  WE must be the final “check” on the courts. Study & Learn so that you are qualified to do this. PH

Canada Free Press

UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Comments Off on UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Here we have another example of why the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the Federal Judges to rule on State issues. The will of the people has been once again struck down by one Federal Judge. Clearly the Constitution only allows for CITZENS to vote. The ninth circuit has more cases overturned than any other circuit. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Let’s see what the Constitution says about who votes according to my Constitutional Lawyer friend:

Art. 1, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, re: the “time, place and manner” of elections. Note that Congress may by law alter such regulations as the States make. However, this clause has to do with the “time, place & manner” of elections – NOT “qualifications” of electors.

Clearly only “citizens” may vote! See 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments!

15th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude…”

19th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

24th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President,……”

26th Amendment: “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 State on account of age.”

9th Circuit overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Yes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes again.

And yes, Sandra Day O’Connor played a role in helping the liberal majority.

Facepalm:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement.

But as you know from reading this blog, the Obama Department of Social Justice has also been actively sabotaging state efforts to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.

More details on the 9th Circuit ruling:

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration. (Again for the Federal law to supersede State law it must fall into the category of one of the “enumerated powers” described in the Constitution-MD)

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

As I’ve noted before: No illegal alien left behind. That’s the progs’ plan.

Mechelle Malkin

Older Entries