Supreme Court strikes down voter registration laws - Illegals win again.

[DiamondDave]

Amendment X:

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.

"...but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" is a power delegated to Congress by the Constitution you stupid, stupid, stupid ****.

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.

Uh, nowhere does it say "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" in the 10th Amendment you freaking idiot.


The Amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs the State's integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system.

Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 547 n.7 (1975)

Templar.. the power is granted in article 1 section 4.. it is specifically granted...

sorry man.. you are off base on this one

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hi Jake! Did you enjoy your vacation? Cross me again, and you may have the pleasure of going on one again. Not putting up with your crap.

You have no power at all, little one. I will always make you look the fool when you act the fool here, which is daily. I will always put you in the corner.

Scared, aren't we?

Yes, you are. Very scared.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Amendment X:


"...but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" is a power delegated to Congress by the Constitution you stupid, stupid, stupid ****.

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.

Uh, nowhere does it say "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" in the 10th Amendment you freaking idiot.


The Amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs the State's integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system.

Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 547 n.7 (1975)

Templar.. the power is granted in article 1 section 4.. it is specifically granted...

sorry man.. you are off base on this one

That Supreme Court ruling says otherwise. They do interpret the Constitution, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You have no power at all, little one. I will always make you look the fool when you act the fool here, which is daily. I will always put you in the corner.

Scared, aren't we?

Yes, you are. Very scared.

And there you go projecting. You exude fear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

little Templar pissing in his pants

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Uh, nowhere does it say "but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" in the 10th Amendment you freaking idiot.


The Amendment expressly declares the constitutional policy that Congress may not exercise power in a fashion that impairs the State's integrity or their ability to function effectively in a federal system.

Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 547 n.7 (1975)

Templar.. the power is granted in article 1 section 4.. it is specifically granted...

sorry man.. you are off base on this one

That Supreme Court ruling says otherwise. They do interpret the Constitution, right?

In reality.. they should not be interpreting the constitution.. as there is no specific power granted in article 3 nor the amendments that grants them the power to do so...

The writing in article 1 section 4 is quite clear .. the times places and manner of the election can have laws governing them written and passed by congress

 

[TemplarKormac]

little Templar pissing in his pants

Hey, I wasn't the one who got sent on a vacation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wasn't the one who got sent on a vacation.

Odds are you will; it happens to almost everyone. Where is your little buddy?

 

[g5000]

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

It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.

The NVRA is the motor voter law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to which I referred earlier.

The EAC is the Election Assistance Commission.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Templar.. the power is granted in article 1 section 4.. it is specifically granted...

sorry man.. you are off base on this one

That Supreme Court ruling says otherwise. They do interpret the Constitution, right?

In reality.. they should not be interpreting the constitution.. as there is no specific power granted in article 3 nor the amendments that grants them the power to do so...

The writing in article 1 section 4 is quite clear .. the times places and manner of the election can have laws governing them written and passed by congress

Article III, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And when a government refuses to enforce laws of it's own passed by Congress, and Congress refuses to pass laws enforcing them, have they not vacated their 10th Amendment rights by making it difficult for the states to enforce laws already on the books?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.

The NVRA is the motor voter law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to which I referred earlier.

The EAC is the Election Assistance Commission.

I see. We are talking about two different things. A serious communication error.

 

[g5000]

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 107 Stat. 77, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1973gg et seq., “requires States to provide simplified systems for registering to vote in federal elections.” Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273, 275 (1997). The Act requires each State to permit prospective voters to “register to vote in elections for Federal office” by any of three methods: simultaneously with a driver’s license application, in person, or by mail.

Emphasis theirs.

 

[g5000]

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

It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.

The NVRA is the motor voter law. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to which I referred earlier.

The EAC is the Election Assistance Commission.

I see. We are talking about two different things. A serious communication error.

I am talking about the Supreme Court decision which is the subject of this thread.

 

[DiamondDave]

That Supreme Court ruling says otherwise. They do interpret the Constitution, right?

In reality.. they should not be interpreting the constitution.. as there is no specific power granted in article 3 nor the amendments that grants them the power to do so...

The writing in article 1 section 4 is quite clear .. the times places and manner of the election can have laws governing them written and passed by congress

Article III, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And when a government refuses to enforce laws of it's own passed by Congress, and Congress refuses to pass laws enforcing them, have they not vacated their 10th Amendment rights by making it difficult for the states to enforce laws already on the books?

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)


Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


.......

There is nothing about interpreting the constitution at all.. and rightfully so.. because with that ASSUMED power, they have been able to grant themselves and other branches more power without the amendment process

 

[LoneLaugher]

We are so fortunate the weirdo TemplarKormacs of our country do not sit on SCOTUS.

Scalia and Alito are flaming liberals compared to TK.

Hi Jake! Did you enjoy your vacation? Cross me again, and you may have the pleasure of going on one again.

Not putting up with your crap.

HA HA HA!!!!!! "Cross me again........."

What happened? Did Jake own you in a thread? Did you cry to mommy? And you think mommy gave him a vacation BECAUSE OF YOU?

You unimportant, impotent fool! You have no power to do anything to anyone who "crosses" you. I will cross you and then draw a cross on you with my urine stream.

You are clearly an awkward young man with no real friends and a fantasy video game addiction. You do not matter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I wasn't the one who got sent on a vacation.

Odds are you will; it happens to almost everyone. Where is your little buddy?

You mean where is my brain? It's firmly rooted in my head, unlike yours.

And what buddy are you referring to? I don't play imaginary friends Jake.

Moron.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In reality.. they should not be interpreting the constitution.. as there is no specific power granted in article 3 nor the amendments that grants them the power to do so...

The writing in article 1 section 4 is quite clear .. the times places and manner of the election can have laws governing them written and passed by congress

Article III, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And when a government refuses to enforce laws of it's own passed by Congress, and Congress refuses to pass laws enforcing them, have they not vacated their 10th Amendment rights by making it difficult for the states to enforce laws already on the books?

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)


Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


.......

There is nothing about interpreting the constitution at all.. and rightfully so.. because with that ASSUMED power, they have been able to grant themselves and other branches more power without the amendment process

So, what you are saying is that they CAN'T rule on the Constitution? How is that possible given they rule on it all the time? I don't see anything in the 11th Amendment forbidding them from ruling on the Constitution!

 

[DiamondDave]

Article III, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

And when a government refuses to enforce laws of it's own passed by Congress, and Congress refuses to pass laws enforcing them, have they not vacated their 10th Amendment rights by making it difficult for the states to enforce laws already on the books?

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)


Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


.......

There is nothing about interpreting the constitution at all.. and rightfully so.. because with that ASSUMED power, they have been able to grant themselves and other branches more power without the amendment process

So, what you are saying is that they CAN'T rule on the Constitution? How is that possible given they rule on it all the time? I don't see anything in the 11th Amendment forbidding them from ruling on the Constitution!

1) They have ruled and granted power and interpreted without the power.. it is a power they ASSUMED for themselves... a self granting power for them to keep granting power...
2) The constitution is not a catch all with specific negations, hence granting supreme power over everything and only certain limits. What is granted is very specific powers that are within themselves very powerful, but all else is negated and delegated to the states and people via the 10th amendment... Unless it is specifically granted, it is not supposed to be in the hands of the fed.. and because they have assumed this power grab mentality beyond the constitutional limits, it is a big reason why our government has grown and been trouble for a LONG time

 

[hortysir]

Is denying a non-US citizen the right to vote in a US Election against human rights or violation of the US Constitution?

That has nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision. This Supreme Court decision removed an unnecessary burden that was being placed on US citizens. The Arizona law had no effect on illegals. It DID have a burdensome effect on citizens.

You DO want US citizens to have as few government intrusions and interference in the exercising of their Constitutional rights, do you not? Or do you only worry about that when it comes to the right to bear arms? You're okay with states ******* with your right to vote?

I don't find it burdensome, whatsoever, when I show my DL and Voter's registration card when I vote

 

[g5000]

Is denying a non-US citizen the right to vote in a US Election against human rights or violation of the US Constitution?

That has nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision. This Supreme Court decision removed an unnecessary burden that was being placed on US citizens. The Arizona law had no effect on illegals. It DID have a burdensome effect on citizens.

You DO want US citizens to have as few government intrusions and interference in the exercising of their Constitutional rights, do you not? Or do you only worry about that when it comes to the right to bear arms? You're okay with states ******* with your right to vote?

I don't find it burdensome, whatsoever, when I show my DL and Voter's registration card when I vote

Once again...this decision has NOTHING to do with Voter ID.

Christ. I've linked to the decision. Quoted from it. And STILL we have people in this topic talking about it who have NO CLUE what they are talking about!