There are few privileges to be a Citizen of a country.
The US Congress, Senate, and Courts have made Citizenship null and void.
These Globalists don’t understand that they are going AGAINST the will of the PEOPLE.
These ACTIVIST judges are outright Communists.
The proof for NEED of citizenship:
Art. I, Sec. 2 part — the Electors in each State [for U.S.A. Reps.] shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
17th Amdt part — The electors in each State [for U.S.A. Senators] shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
Contrast what you read above — Articles of the Constitution to the excerpts from the “Document” below.
This is the DOCUMENT
“Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 228-29 (1993) (alterationsin original). To “use” an object is simply to derive servicefrom or utilize it. The NVRA doesn’t say that states musttreat the federal form as a complete application. It might precludea state from requiring an applicant to provide yet againthe information that is already on the federal form, but that’snot the case here. There’s no question that Arizona acceptsand uses the federal form for the information contained in it.Arizona only asks for proof of citizenship in addition to theform in order to complete the registration process.”
Moreover, the NVRA expressly authorizes states to require“such identifying information . . . as is necessary to enable theappropriate State election official to assess the eligibility ofthe applicant.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-7(b)(1). This provisioncan plausibly be read as authorizing the type of “identifyinginformation” that Arizona requires. The majority holds thatthis passage is part of a comprehensive framework preventingstates from requiring proof of citizenship, but overlooks thepossibility that such proof may be “necessary to enable” Arizonato assess eligibility. See maj. at 17652-53.
Had Congress meant to enact a comprehensive code ofvoter registration, it could have said so in the NVRA, but itdidn’t. Congress may have had the more modest goal of balancingease of registration against each state’s interest in protectingits voting system. Had Congress explicitly prohibitedstates from imposing additional requirements, then we couldplausibly conclude that Gonzalez I is clearly wrong. But itdidn’t, and therefore the majority has no authority under thelaw of the case doctrine to “depart from [the] prior decision.”Jeffries V, 114 F.3d at 1493.
1. The majority claims that “allowing states to imposetheir own requirements for federal voter registration . . .would nullify the NVRA’s procedure for soliciting state input,and aggrandize the states’ role in direct contravention of thelines of authority prescribed by Section 7.” Maj. at 17654. ButCongress never granted much authority to the Election AssistanceCommission. The Commission can’t write many regulations,42 U.S.C. § 15329, can’t enforce the NVRA or theregulations it writes, id. § 1973gg-9, and has no investigativepowers. That’s not the profile of an agency in charge of acomprehensive regulatory scheme. Cf. CFTC v. Schor, 478U.S. 833, 842 (1986) (O’Connor, J.) (“Congress empoweredthe CFTC ‘to make and promulgate such rules and regulationsas . . . are reasonably necessary to effectuate any of the provisionsor to accomplish any of the purposes of [the CEA].’ ”(alteration in original)). And Section 7 of the NVRA doesn’teven prescribe lines of authority; it orders the Commission to consult with the states when developing the federal form. Seeid. § 1973gg-7(a). If anything, this indicates that Congress didn’t want to aggrandize the Commission’s power over the states. It certainly doesn’t “demonstrate a legislative intent to limit States to a purely advisory role.” Cal. Coastal Comm’nv. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 584 (1987) (O’Connor,J.); see also Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 347(1984) (O’Connor, J.).
O’Connor is senile!
She is confused. She is saying that proof is not required to be presented, because the STATE has a Voter Registration card. Then, she goes on to say that The Voter Registry doesn’t have any power over the Federal jurisdiction and is only limited to the STATE.
Her argument goes on and is baseless, when one goes to the letter of the Constitution. Her continuous vitriol over STATES LAWS and Federal POWER is laughable. HER LOGIC is ILLOGIC. She focuses on the TREE and forgets the entire FORREST.
She nullifies, through policy, HER POLICY, the CONSTITUTION of the US. This is an ADVOCATE JUDGE, which has TREASON as a POLICY.
New immigration uproar: voters need not prove citizenship
Posted: Oct 26, 2010 11:37 PM CDTUpdated: Oct 27, 2010 3:17 PM CD
Updated: Oct 27, 2010 3:17 PM CDT
TUCSON, Ariz. (KGUN9-TV) – “Déjà vu all over again” — that’s how some are reacting after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled federal law trumps Arizona law when it comes to voter registration.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an Arizona law requiring would-be voters to prove their citizenship. The judges ruled that the Arizona law conflicts with federal law, which does not require such proof. Under the federal law, a voter applicant has to swear that he or she is a citizen, but does not have to prove it.
<SEE the above Article of the Constitution. This is an outright lie. QUALIFICATIONS means proof. Citizenship papers were not invented at the time of that writing. Birth Certificates were not either. This JUDGE has ALTERED the CONSTITUTION! >
The Arizona Advocacy Network was a plaintiff in the 5-year-old lawsuit. Its mission is to encourage civic participation by educating voters. Executive Director Linda Brown welcomed the news. “It’s a tremendous victory for Arizonans because democracy works best when more of us participate,” Brown said.
Brown said that because of the Arizona law, officials have rejected 40,000 voter applications.
The now-rejected statute made Arizona the most stringent state in the Union when it came to processing voters. Arizona voters approved the measure in 2004. It required documentary proof of citizenship, such as a valid driver’s license, passport, state birth certificate or tribal ID.
The Arizona Advocacy group said that nearly 10-percent of Arizonans who should be eligible to vote are not able to obtain such documentation. But now all a voter applicant will have to do is to check a box on the federally-approved voter registration form declaring, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a citizen.
The federal law does still allow election workers to require voters to show an ID, however.
Supporters of Arizona’s voided law reacted swiftly, and angrily, to the ruling. “You have to have ID to vote, so how in the world can they say it’s a hardship to have ID to register vote? But, then, it’s not a hardship to actually complete process of voting?” questioned Tucson Tea Party founder, Trent Humphries.
KGUN9 News relayed that question to the Viewer Advocacy Network. “How are we preventing illegal immigrants from registering to vote if, in fact, you don’t have to show proof of citizenship and you can just check it off (on a form)?” KGUN9’s Joel Waldman asked Brown.
Her reply: “Well, you do need to show last 4 of social (security number), as well as your full name, address and date of birth.”
Anyone convicted of lying about citizenship on the federal voter registration form could face a prison term of up to five years.
Pima County Recorder, F. Ann Rodriguez told KGUN9 News that despite the ruling, for now, protocol will stay the same when it comes to registering voters.
That statement did not sit well with Richard Martinez, a Tucson attorney and civil rights activist who filed one of the lawsuits against SB 1070, Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigration. “It actually takes effect now, the decision is controlling,” Martinez insisted.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett issued a joint statement saying, “Today’s decision should not impact the election on Tuesday, but could impact our registration requirements and the integrity of local elections being conducted beginning as early as this spring, as well as statewide elections in 2012.”
This is being done ON PURPOSE and that PURPOSE IS TREASON
O’Connor should be thrown in jail and investigated for conspiring to TREASON and be swiftly disbarred and then thrown our of the country to ANY OTHER country that would have her. Maybe IRELAND, since her name “sounds” Irish or Scotland?
Anyway. This fool has just allowed ILLEGAL aliens to vote.
I thought we got rid of her already. Why is this MONSTER back?
This is the same one that was
|Nominated by||Ronald Reagan|
Reagan wrote in his diary on July 6, 1981: “Called Judge O’Connor and told her she was my nominee for supreme court. Already the flak is starting and from my own supporters. Right to Life people say she is pro abortion. She says abortion is personally repugnant to her. I think she’ll make a good justice.” On September 21, O’Connor was confirmed by the U.S. Senate with a vote of 99–0. In her first year on the Court she received over 60,000 letters from the public, more than any other justice in history.
O’Connor was nominated, because she was thought to have been a conservative, yet time and again she proved those people wrong:
O’Connor allowed certain limits to be placed on access to abortion, but supported the fundamental right to abortion protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O’Connor used a test she had originally developed in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health to limit the holding of Roe v. Wade, opening up a legislative portal where a State could enact measures so long as they did not place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion. Casey revised downward the standard of scrutiny federal courts would apply to state abortion restrictions, a major departure from Roe. However it preserved Roe’s core constitutional precept: that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to control one’s reproductive destiny. Writing the plurality opinion for the Court, O’Connor famously declared: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992).
O’Connor is a GLOBALIST and has maintained that mindset. The Communists are very pleased with her and always have been. She was a KEY instrument to pushing the door open for them:
The impressions we create in this world are important and can leave their mark … [T]here is talk today about the “internationalization of legal relations”. We are already seeing this in American courts, and should see it increasingly in the future. This does not mean, of course, that our courts can or should abandon their character as domestic institutions. But conclusions reached by other countries and by the international community, although not formally binding upon our decisions, should at times constitute persuasive authority in American courts—what is sometimes called “transjudicialism”.
The TREASON committed here should not go unnoticed.
This will be something that will be SOUND all over the World.
This is a decision that is monumental if it’s allowed to continue.
There is no more AMERICA without Americans.