Today, the US Supreme Court shot down Arizona's Proposition 200, which requires voters to provide proof of citizenship before voting, claiming that Federal Law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself." However, the US Constitution specifically grants the States the power to decide who votes, and it also gives them the power to decide where, when, and how said voting is to occur. So, when did "Federal Law" become a higher authority than the Constitution itself, which is the sole source of the power of Federal Law?
Additionally, the Supreme Court claimed that Arizona's Proposition 200 was harmful to minorities and the elderly. How, exactly, does asking one to provide proof of citizenship "oppress" minorities or the elderly? Proof of age is required to buy alcohol, yet this does not infringe upon minority or elderly rights to buy beer. A driver's license is required to drive a car, yet this does not infringe upon minority or elderly rights to self-transportation. How then, exactly, does asking for proof of citizenship infringe upon minority or elderly voting rights? Or, as before, is this not a power play, aimed to manipulate minorities and allow non-citizens to vote, thus skewing the polls?
No comments:
Post a Comment