(NaturalNews) The destruction of the America our founding fathers fought and died to create is now nearly complete as yet another U.S. Supreme Court decision turns a fundamental right of citizens on its head - the key word being citizen.
In an unbelievable 7-2 ruling that included Justice Antonin Scalia, who has a well-earned reputation of being a constitutional originalist when deciding cases, in the majority, the nation's high court overturned a voter-approved Arizona measure requiring voters to produce proof of citizenship before casting a ballot, though other states are likely to be caught up in the ruling as well.
Per Bloomberg News:
The justices, voting 7-2, said Arizona's proof-of-citizenship law runs afoul of a federal statute that sets out registration requirements. The ruling limits the role played by the states in national elections and raises questions about similar laws in three other states - Alabama, Kansas and Georgia.
No need for proof to vote anymore
According to various reports, a U.S. 9th Circuit court of appeals had already invalidated the Arizona statute, claiming it violated a 1993 federal law which says states have to "accept and use" a standard registration form as identification that has been developed on the national level.
And what does that form require? Only that prospective voters swear that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury. No ID is required to "swear" you are a U.S. citizen, mind you, and of course, the federal government - as large as it is - does not have the ability to verify that each person who "swears" they are a citizen actually are.
That, in fact, was the impetus for the Arizona law. Arizona, you might recall, has the worst problem with illegal aliens of all the states and has regularly butted heads with the Obama Administration over the latter's lack of shoring up border security and enforcing laws that punish those who enter the U.S. illegally.
Writing for the majority, Scalia said the federal government has a great deal of authority to toss out or ignore state voting rules. He pointed to the Constitution's elections clause - Article I, Sect. 4, which states: The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
In arguing against the Arizona law, the Obama Administration said the 1993 law was designed to streamline voter registration - as codified in the so-called "Motor-Voter Law," which permitted people who were seeking a driver's license to be able to simultaneously register to vote.
'Really? The honor system?'
A number of "civil rights" groups also opposed the Arizona law, but state voters passed the measure without prejudice - they simply want to know if the people voting in elections are indeed citizens, as is required by the very same Constitution. Nonetheless, a number of them hailed the decision as a victory for their specific ethnic groups; now, it seems, more of them will be able to cast ballots in U.S. elections without ever having to seriously verify that they, indeed, have a legal right to do so. Per The Associated Press:
Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot in Arizona, said the ruling makes it harder to combat voter fraud, including fraud carried out by people who don't have permission to be in the country. "To even suggest that the honor system works, really?" McKee said. "You have to prove who you are just to use your charge card now."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. In writing for the small minority, Thomas said the Constitution clearly "authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied."
This ruling will dramatically increase the incidents of voter fraud, further undermining our constitutional republic and the future of our nation.