Federal appeals court blocks three states from proof-of-citizenship voting requirement


#1

Federal appeals court blocks three states from proof-of-citizenship voting requirement abcn.ws/2cC8oBv


#2

Is it not in the Constitution that you must be a citizen to vote?


#3

Hey can’t let that little detail get in the way of a few votes:rolleyes:


#4

what has happened to our judges and courts!!???
I don’t understand how people could be disenfranchized because they have to prove they are citizens to register to vote.
this is maddening!


#5

Our country has gone insane. I think they need to do a mass exorcism on it, like they did for Mexico. Seriously. Demonic influence is the only explanation I can find for some of the incredibly logic defying things going on in our nation these days not to mention the mass support for abortion, gay marriage, etc.


#6

You may get some idea of the difficulties by reading this. Or this.


#7

Excellent!


#8

Trump’s polling place police will fix the rigged system…I think they will build a wall around voting booth’s and make those who show up without birth certificates pay for it!:stuck_out_tongue:


#9

Not a bad idea…::wink:


#10

The court decision was that that Brian Newby had exceeded his authority when he unilaterally changed federal voter registration forms.

The judges in the majority said the full assistance commission could vote to approve the states’ request for required citizenship documents if it desired, or else the states could sue in federal court if the commission denied the states’ request or failed to act on them.

washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-appeals-court-orders-removal-of-proof-of-citizenship-voting-requirement-in-3-states/2016/09/09/bc8b0314-76f1-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html

Newby seems to have once been a protege of the Kansas official who pushed through the requirement to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Earlier this year, a state court ruled that the Kansas law requiring proof of citizenship applied to state forms, but not to federal forms. In response, Newby decided to change the federal forms used in Kansas (and the other two states.)

Newby didn’t have the authority to do this, that is what Friday’s appellate court ruling said. The decision did not address whether requiring proof of citizenship is permissible.


#11

It is technically not in the Constitution. The states can decide for themselves what qualifies a resident to vote as long as they follow federal laws about voting rights.


#12

If you are a globalist, globalizing American elections is critical to undermining American sovereignty.

Jon


#13

An example would be my Godmother. She was born in Italy but had US citizenship thru her mom. She came to the US with a US passport in the 1950’s but never renewed it because she didn’t travel out of the country. She was a teen at the time. She did have a drivers license though.


#14

Even if this fails, there is still another way of accomplishing the same thing. Simply have a penalty for lying on the form, say a class B misd, and police the polls. There will not be many, if any that would face even one chance in a million of punishment just to vote.


#15

Believe it or not, there is no right to vote listed in the Constitution. And yes, it is so easy to vote numerous times. In the last election they (Pa) just gave me an absentee ballot with no questions asked. No ID was required and I could have voted many times by going to different Town Halls and getting ballot after ballot.


#16

Actually, no, it is not. If you suggested that it should be, some politicians would call you “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic."

breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/09/hillary-clintons-47-percent-moment-calls-trump-supporters-racist-sexist-homophobic-xenophobic-islamaphobic/


#17

Believe it or not… The right to vote is mentioned in 5 different amendments to the Constitution. The 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th.


#18

The courts have made voting a complete joke. I’m not fan of democracy, but it’s mythology rests on the idea that every vote counts. If your vote is being invalidated by a fraudulent vote then your vote doesn’t really count at all. All it takes is one fraudulent vote. The courts seem to want as much corruption as possible in the vote. Every chance they get they invalidate reasonable laws made by democratically elected representatives. Eventually the citizens might wisen up and realize you can vote only so long as what you vote for agrees with the courts.


#19

The math here does not make much sense. If one fraudulent vote can invalidate all the legitimate votes, then one legitimate vote can invalidate the fraudulent ones. And since there are a heck of a lot of legitimate votes, what are you worried about?


#20

So in the end fraudulent voting doesn’t bother you? Nothing to worry about?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.