I have to say that the word "person" is used in the main body of the Constitution to describe who can vote in any state. That ambiguity can be an arguing point on the question of whether or not you have to be a citizen in order to vote. Nevertheless, language in Amendments regarding voting consistently uses the word "citizen."
The Constitution also provides that each individual state has the right to determine the rules for elections; subsequent amendments define protection for minorities, abolition of the poll tax, etc. Now comes the issue: Do states have the authority under the Constitution to require the voter to prove citizenship?
I cannot fathom the idea that the founders intended to open up elections for Congress and the White House to any Tom, Dick or Harriett. The right to vote being extended only to citizens of the states or of the United States, the authority to require proof of citizenship is implied. Equally implied is the obligation of the states or of the United States to provide satisfactory forms of identification to any born or naturalized citizen... at no charge, (no poll tax). There is no right, implied or otherwise, for the United States government to deny individual states the ability to determine how this shall be accomplished, as long as it is accomplished.
The position that the states have no right to require photo identification is therefore moot, as long as the above conditions are met. A central government that allows citizens to vote without proof of citizenship is prima facie guilty of voter fraud, in my opinion. The fact that so many challenges are now arising regarding the 2012 elections confirms my suspicions. If we are going to open the door even a portion of an inch to corruption of the voting process, we are to blame for the probable loss of our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment