By Publius
Huldah
From the
earliest days of our
Republic, 1
some years before
our federal
Constitution of 1787
was ratified;
2 the
Citizens of the
States determined
the qualifications
for voting, and
memorialized these
qualifications in
their State
Constitutions. In
keeping with this
hallowed practice,
the Citizens of North
Carolina
recently amended
Article VI of their
State Constitution
to add to the
Qualifications for
voting the
requirement that
persons voting in
person present a
photo ID [link].
But
lawsuits have been
filed in federal
court objecting to
the photo ID’s; and
the judge on one of
them, U.S. District
Judge Loretta Biggs
[Mid. Dist. North
Carolina], has
announced that she
will issue a
preliminary
injunction against
the requirement that
voters present a
photo ID. North
Carolina election
officials scurried
to comply with Judge
Biggs’ announcement;
and Republican
politicians called
for an appeal [link].
The
purpose of this
paper is to show a
better way to
proceed – to show
how North Carolina
can enforce the US
Constitution and
the qualifications
for voting set forth
in its State
Constitution.
We begin
by looking at what
our federal
Constitution says
about qualifications
of voters.
1.
Our federal
Constitution
enshrines the pre-existing
practice where
States set the
qualifications for
voters
In our
federal Constitution
of 1787, the States
expressly retained
their pre-existing
power to determine
the qualifications
of voters: Article
I, §2, cl. 1, US
Constit., says,
“The
House of
Representatives
shall be composed
of Members chosen
every second Year
by the People of
the several
States, and
the Electors in
each State shall
have the
Qualifications
requisite for
Electors of the
most numerous
Branch of the
State
Legislature.”
[italics added]
So! Under
our federal
Constitution, those
who are eligible to
vote for
Representatives to
their State
Legislature are,
by definition, the
ones eligible to
vote for Members of
the federal House of
Representatives.
The 17th
Amendment [ratified
1913] provided that
those who were
eligible to vote for
Representatives to
the US House would
also be eligible to
vote for the US
Senators.
With four
later amendments,
the States decided
that they would not
deny eligibility to
vote to Citizens
on account of
race (15th
Amendment), sex (19th
Amendment), failure
to pay taxes (24th
Amendment), and for
those 18 years of
age or older on
account of age
(26th
Amendment).
So the
States have
retained their
original authority
to set whatever
qualifications for
voting they deem
appropriate, subject
to their agreement
(with each other)
that they would not
deny suffrage on
account of a
Citizen’s being in
one of those four
categories.
2.
Voting fraud
But today,
we all know that,
due to the federal
government’s long
continuing refusal 3
to control
immigration 4
and protect the
States from
Invasion,5
illegal aliens are
flooding into our
Country. In at least
15 States, illegals
may get drivers’
licenses [link]
[link]; and with California’s “motor voter
law”, illegals
are automatically
registered to vote
when they get a
drivers’ license!
6
Furthermore,
there are Precincts
in this Country
where well over 100%
of the registered
voters turn out to
vote [link]!
This Georgia Precinct had a 243% voter
turnout!
Our
elections are also
corrupted by the
“ghost voters”
described in Deroy
Murdock’s article [here].
Murdock shows
that throughout the
United States, over
3.5 million persons
who don’t exist
are registered to
vote. For North
Carolina, Murdock
finds 189,721 ghost
voters. Virginia has
89,979 ghost voters.
But that’s a
pittance compared to
California which “is
a veritable haunted
house, teeming with
1,736,556 ghost
voters.”
When you
add California’s
1,736,556 ghost
voters to the
illegal aliens who
also vote there
(thanks to “Motor
Voter”)7 and
understand that this
problem is
nation-wide; who can
deny that the States
need to man-up and
clean up their
corrupt voting
systems? The federal
government has no
constitutional
authority to clean
up the voting rolls;
8 but
the States have the
inherent and
retained duty and
power to do so.
By
requiring photo IDs,
the Citizens of
North Carolina have
taken a first step
towards getting rid
of some of those
189,721 ghosts, plus
the illegals, who
corrupt elections
within their State.
3.
The Federal
Government has
usurped the
States’ expressly
retained power to
set qualifications
for Voters
In 1993,
Congress passed the
National Voter
Registration Act
(NVRA) [link],
wherein they
unlawfully seized
power to dictate
voter registration
procedures (for
federal elections)
for the entire
Country.
By
dictating the
registration procedures
each State must use,
and by mandating the
voter
registration form
[the “federal form”]
each State must use
when registering
voters; the NVRA
stripped the States
of their power to
determine whether
voters in their
State meet the
qualifications for
voting set forth
within their State
Constitutions. It
thus prohibits
the States from enforcing
the qualifications
for voting set
forth in their
State
Constitutions! 9
This is
shown by what
happened in Arizona:
The
Constitution of the
State of Arizona
restricts voting to
Citizens.
During 2004, the
People of Arizona
(which had been
overrun with illegal
aliens) adopted an
initiative
(Proposition 200)
which required those
in Arizona who apply
to register to vote,
to provide
documentary proof of
citizenship.
But a lawsuit was
filed in federal
court; and the Ninth
US Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that
since the National
Voter Registration
Act of 1993
doesn’t require
applicants for
voter registration
to
provide
documentary proof
of citizenship, the
States may not
require it.
Thereafter,
in Arizona
v. The Inter
Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc.
(2013), the US
Supreme Court
affirmed the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion [link].
I wrote
about the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion [here] and
the Supreme Court’s
opinion [here].
Both opinions are
monuments to
judicial
incompetence - or
worse. The
assertions made by
the Courts in their
attempts to justify
their
unconstitutional
judgments are demonstratively
false.
The majority opinion
of the Supreme Court
is also logically
incoherent.
But here
we are: The Supreme
Court has held that
since the federally
mandated voter
registration form
doesn’t require that
persons registering
to vote provide
proof of
citizenship, the
States may not
require it.
What this means, in
practice, is that
the States must
register anyone who
fills out the
federal form.
4.
So where does this
leave North
Carolina?
The
federal voter
registration form
may be seen (in 15
different languages)
[here].
The
federal form doesn’t
require applicants
for registration to
provide a photo ID.
Therefore,
consistent with Arizona
v. The Inter
Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc.,
North Carolina may
not require applicants
for registration
to provide a photo
ID.
May North
Carolina require
voters to present a
photo ID when they
show up to vote? The
Supreme Court hasn’t
directly addressed
this; 10 but
consider that since
the federal
government requires
the States to register
anyone who fills
out the federal
form, why would the
feds permit the
States to deny
exercise of the
suffrage to any name
which is
“registered”?
We already
know how U.S.
District Judge
Loretta Biggs is
going to rule – and
her ruling is
consistent with the
Supreme Court’s
lawless holding in Arizona
v. The Inter
Tribal Council of
Arizona, Inc.
5.
Are There any Men
in North Carolina?
The 7th
paragraph of our
Declaration of
Independence recites
how the Colonists
opposed with manly
firmness the King’s
invasions on the
rights of the
people.
Are there any
politicians in North
Carolina today
who will oppose the
federal government’s
invasions on the
rights of the
Citizens of North
Carolina to set and
enforce requirements
for voting within
their State?
A State
Attorney General
with brains and a
spine would inform
the federal judge
that North Carolina
won’t participate in
the litigation; that
she may issue all
the Orders and
Judgments she wants
– North Carolina
will ignore them –
because (if she
obeys the Supreme
Court instead of the
federal and State
Constitutions) her
Orders and Judgments
will be void as in
violation of Article
I, §2, clause 1, US
Constitution; and as
in violation of the
Sovereign Rights of
North Carolina to
enforce their own
Constitution
respecting voter
qualifications.
What could
a federal judge do
about such a principled
response from North
Carolina? She has no
Army. She has no
power to enforce her
judgments. She has
to depend on the
Executive Branch of
the Federal
government to
enforce her
judgments.11
So we
would find out
whether Trump
actually means it
when he says he
wants honest
elections, or
whether he is just
another fake
“conservative”. If
he is a fake, he
will send in the
National Guard to
enforce the Judge’s
unconstitutional
judgment. But if
Trump lives up to
his words about the
need for honest
elections [link]; then he will refuse to send in
the National Guard
to enforce the
unconstitutional
Judgment; and North
Carolina will have
won the Battle and
set a noble example
for other States to
follow.
6.
Conclusion
The Deep
State which controls
the federal
government doesn’t
want elections
cleaned up – they
need dirty elections
to get their
henchmen in office.
So they have
embarked upon a
course of action
(such as the NVRA) to
try to prevent
the States
from cleaning up
elections. So, for
Heaven’s Sake! Man
up and resist! Our
Framers always
advised the States
to resist
unconstitutional
acts of the federal
government [link] [link]! We
will never get
honest elections
unless the States
man up and reclaim
their rightful
authority over
their own voter
rolls. Do
it before you lose
the political
power to do it.
Endnotes:
1
From
1778 to 1789, we
operated under our first
federal
Constitution,
the Articles of
Confederation [link].
2
Our present federal
Constitution was
ratified on June 21,
1788 [link].
3
Both political
parties have
embraced the
Globalists’ open
borders policy -
both parties have
failed to secure our
Borders.
4
Art. I,
§9, cl. 1, US
Constit., delegates
to Congress as of
January 1, 1808, the
power to control
immigration.
5Art.
IV, §4, US Constit.,
requires the
federal government
to protect each of
the States against
Invasion.
6
During 2013,
California passed a
law which permits
illegal aliens to
get drivers’
licenses [link];
and during 2015,
consistent with the
unconstitutional
National Voter
Registration Act,
passed “Motor Voter”
providing that when
one gets a drivers’
license, one is
automatically
registered to vote [link].
7
So with a “National
Popular Vote” for
President, or to
ratify a new
Constitution (if the
mode of ratification
for the new
Constitution is a
national
referendum), it
would be easy to
steal the outcome!
Illegal aliens and
“ghost voters” in
California alone
would determine the
outcome for the
entire Country.
8
President
Trump’s Executive
Order 13799 of May
11, 2017, which
purported to
establish a
“Presidential
Advisory Commission
on Election
Integrity” [link], is unconstitutional as outside
the scope of powers
delegated to the
federal government.
9
Justice Thomas
understands this:
Until the federal
government usurped
power over this
issue, the States
always determined
their own procedures
for registration of
those who were,
pursuant to their
State Constitution,
qualified to vote. The
function of
registration of
voters is so that
the States may
determine whether
the qualifications
for voting set
forth in their
State Constitution
have been met!
Justice Thomas
points out in
his dissent
in Arizona v.
The Inter Tribal
Council of
Arizona, Inc.
at II. A. 2:
“This
understanding of
Article I, §2, is
consistent with
powers enjoyed by
the States at the
founding. For
instance,
ownership of real
or personal
property was a
common
prerequisite to
voting … To verify
that this
qualification was
satisfied, States
might look to
proof of tax
payments… In other
instances, States
relied on personal
knowledge of
fellow citizens to
verify voter
eligibility. . .
States have always
had the power to
ensure that only
those qualified
under state law to
cast ballots
exercised the
franchise.
Perhaps
in part because
many requirements
(such as property
ownership or
taxpayer status)
were independently
documented and
verifiable, States
in 1789 did not
generally
“register” voters
. . . Over time,
States replaced
their informal
systems for
determining
eligibility, with
more formalized
pre-voting
registration
regimes. . . But
modern voter
registration
serves the same
basic purpose as
the practices
used by States
in the Colonies
and early
Federal Republic.
The fact that
States have
liberalized voting
qualifications and
streamlined the
verification
process through
registration does
not alter the
basic fact that States
possess broad
authority to set
voter
qualifications
and to verify
that they are
met.”
[italics added].
10
In the Supreme
Court’s majority
opinion [link],
Scalia mentioned (4th
para down from top)
that Arizona’s
Proposition 200 also
required voters “to
present
identification when
they vote on
election day”; but
he did not grace us
with an answer as to
whether States may
require voters to
prove that they are
who they say they
are when they show
up to vote.
11
As Alexander
Hamilton points out
in Federalist No. 78, the
Judicial Branch
is the weakest
branch. All they
can do is issue
orders and
judgments - they
can’t enforce
their orders and
judgments. They
must rely on the
Executive Branch
to carry them
out:
“…
the judiciary…
will always be the
least dangerous to
the political
rights of the
Constitution;
because it will be
least in a
capacity to annoy
or injure them.
The Executive not
only dispenses the
honors, but holds
the sword of the
community. The
legislature not
only commands the
purse, but
prescribes the
rules by which the
duties and rights
of every citizen
are to be
regulated. The
judiciary, on
the contrary, has
no influence over
either the sword
or the purse; no
direction either
of the strength or
of the wealth of
the society; and
can take no active
resolution
whatever. It
may truly be
said to have
neither FORCE
nor WILL, but
merely judgment;
and must
ultimately
depend upon the
aid of the
executive arm
even for the
efficacy of its
judgments.”
[caps are
Hamilton’s;
italics added]