The Supreme Court appeared divided along familiar lines on Monday as it heard arguments over whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship from people seeking to register to vote in federal elections.
Several of the court’s more liberal justices sounded doubtful about a state law that imposes requirements beyond those called for by a federal law.
“Many people don’t have the documents that Arizona requires,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
The Arizona law, enacted in 2004 by a ballot initiative, requires prospective voters to prove that they are citizens by submitting copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.
[...]
Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal form was inadequate. “So it’s under oath,” he said. “Big deal. If you’re willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you’re willing to violate the perjury laws.”
“Under oath,” he added, “is not proof at all. It’s just a statement.”
Read the whole story
HERE.
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook
here.
Please follow us on Twitter
here.
1 comment:
Amazing how "we the people"are too stupid to pass laws. We always need politically correct judges to rid us of them since we are too stupid to pass them fit ourselves. Just like Prop 8 in California and similar laws /amendments in 31 other states. We may know what is best for society as a whole, but we can't possibly understand the privileges privileged classes DESERVE, so our laws are unfair and therefore unconstitutional.
AZ
Post a Comment