Arizona's Proposition 200, the "Elections Clause" & VOTER Qualifications

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA passed an initiative requiring applicants for voter registration to provide documentary proof of citizenship. But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said they can't do that because Congress decides all matters pertaining to registration of voters.
This is judicial activism: look how they rewrite the Constitution! : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30740

It's also at my website in case you find the format at CFP difficult to read. I am sorry for the length of my paper - but I had 62 pages of judicial lies to expose.

Tags: Arizona's Proposition 200, motor voter act, national voter registration act, the elections clause, voter registration

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on December 6, 2010 at 10:00am

In Endnote 1, I set forth provisions of the pretended National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which purports to require STATES to have voter registration at public assistance offices. This and other efforts to register the American citizen welfare parasites to vote, plus the move to legalize the Mexican invaders or permit them to vote anyway (as the NVRA does), will have the effect of overwhelming us in the 2012 elections.

THE STATES MUST WAKE UP and reclaim their pre-existing power - reserved by Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1 (as the quote from Federalist No. 52 proves) of complete control over the qualification & registration of voters (subject, of course, to the 4 amendments that suffrage may not be denied on account of race, sex, not paying taxes, or age).

Permalink Reply by Mike Foil on December 5, 2010 at 1:36pm

Publius,
Excellent paper! Two thoughts: (1) Even if Washington were allowed to dictate registration of voters for Federal elections, how could they dictate voter registration for state, county and city elections. They have effectively done this. (2) The following article shows how, even Prop. 200 here in AZ, was watered down after the people passed it, to still make it very easy for non-citizens to register, by our former Gov. and Attn. Gen.
http://thehousetop.blogspot.com/2010/10/vote-no-citizenship-require...

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on December 6, 2010 at 10:35am

But it is important to note that NOTHING in the Constitution gives the federal government authority to dictate registration of voters in the elections for federal office. Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1 specifically says that whoever the STATES permit to vote in the elections for STATE office are the ones who will vote in the elections for federal office. The quote from Federalist No. 52 confirms this.

Then, in Federalist No. 60 (next to last para), Hamilton says that prescribing qualifications of the voters "forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the national government".

WE MUST NOT COMPROMISE ON THAT POINT. WE MUST INSIST THAT Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1, be obeyed to the letter.

Permalink Reply by Mike Foil on December 6, 2010 at 10:45am

P.H. Thanks for the comments and corrections. When I wrote the article, I had no idea that voting was not just a fundamental right of citizenship. Not until yesterday, when I read your article was I aware of there being legitimate restrictions, even for citizens. Your article may have been long, but sometimes it takes some space to get the fine points accurately expressed. I appreciate that you took the time to be the "teacher" again. There is a lot for us to learn and I look forward to the next lesson.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on December 6, 2010 at 11:07am

Thanks Mike, I spent a long time trying to shorten that paper! Plus, removing my expressions of rage against those two dishonest judges on the 9th Circuit.

We have been told for a very long time, by everybody, that voting is a "fundamental right". I was told that in law school and heard it ever since. But our US Constitution leaves this issue completely in the hands of THE PEOPLE OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES to do as they deem proper & right (subject to the 4 amendments saying suffrage may not be denied on account of race, sex, not paying taxes, or age.

Permalink Reply by JC Daley on December 5, 2010 at 7:03pm

What I can't believe is that Sandra Day O'Connor, former SCOTUS, and AZ resident could come up with that preposterous decision. When she left the bench she quit and gave up her right to sit on any court. Unless she has been granted some sort of special dispensation she is NOT qualified to be sitting in as a sub-Judge on the 9th Circus or any other court. This should be overturned by the Supremes on that basis alone!

Excellent article PH and, again, I learned all kinds of things I didn't know about the 14th amendment....

You might be interested to hear that the AZ State Senate has developed a new "committee" called "Border Security, Federalism, and State Sovereignty". I think I will send copies of all of your articles to the committee members, especially where they involved court decisions about AZ law!!! They might learn something!

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on December 6, 2010 at 11:00am

From day one, the conservatives with their eyes open knew that O'Connor was BAD NEWS. But Reagan wanted to appoint a woman. Affirmative actions - when used to promote the incompetent over the competent - is wicked. And there weren't many women lawyers at that time.

It is not uncommon for retired judges to fill in when there is a crush of work, sickness, etc. I never looked into the rules on this; but appeared before many retired judges. Some of them were better than the judge they sat in for.

AZ does seem to be at the forefront of restoring our constitutional Republic. [Oklahoma also, from the emails I get.] Mindsets are very hard to change, but if the Committee members have any questions about the US Constitution, I am at their service. Really, all they have to do is ask.

Ascertaining the original intent of the Constitution is very fast & simple! It took me less than an hour to become fully informed on the original intents of Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1 and Art. I, Sec. 4, cl. 1. I checked on-line editions of The Federalist Papers and Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787.

But I also have the ability [which is learned & practiced] to lay aside what I have heard, and look at an issue with clear eyes. Many other people can't get beyond what they think they know, and they use that as the standard for measuring new info. If the new info "fits" what they already believe, they accept it. If it doesn't "fit", they reject it. And in this way, error piles on error and a civilization collapses. Laziness & Pride really are the root sins.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on August 10, 2012 at 9:31am

I'll update this to address times for military voting.

Permalink Reply by Mike Foil on August 10, 2012 at 11:56am

I noticed you mention you would update this because it is too technical. If you do that, please leave the original version and just add another, less technical version. Sometimes, it is nice to have the details available.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on August 10, 2012 at 1:06pm

Will do, Mike.

Honestly, every time I think of that brainless twit, Sandra Day O'Conner, I think law schools never should have admitted women.