Monday, April 28, 2008

10th Amendment backed again by Supreme Court

We here at Freadom Nation love the 10th Amendment, and we are glad that once again this amendment was supported by the current Supreme Court.

I always thought it odd how easy it was to cast a vote. All I do is walk up to a booth, write my name and address on a piece of paper, and then I receive my ballot.

It seems it would be easy for someone to make a list of people they know will not vote and have illegal immigrants or other people who cannot vote in a U.S. election go to the voting place and write in someone else's name. How are the officials going to know he is who he says he is if he doesn't have a photo ID.

That's why when Michigan passed legislation that required photo identification, and this law was upheld by the Supreme Court, I smiled. However, when I voted in this past primary election I still was not asked for any form of ID. I'm not sure if the law wasn't enacted yet, or if my local small town still wasn't enforcing the law.

That aside, I had to smile again today as I read a post which informed the world that the Supreme Court once again upheld a state voter identification law, this time in Indiana, by a 6-3 vote.

The big complaint that brought this case to court was that requiring voter identification would work "against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups," according to the article.

Likewise, the dissenting opinion was that this law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

We here at Freadom Nation wonder what those three dissenters (Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer) were thinking, because they cannot rightfully make a decision based on their opinion. That would not be Constitutional.

Thus, it states in the Constitution that: "The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If democrats do not like this law, then they can work by legal means to change it. And, if in 20 years they succeed at getting rid of this law and making it easy for people to fake vote, the Fed will have little say in the matter, because voting is a State right.

1 comment:

DB said...

While I agree 100% that an ID is needed, but after reading the arguments, my concern now goes to absentee ballots. I wonder if they have a plan to deter fraud this way, since it is a lot easier to get away with?