I'll Give you a Hint. There were eight!JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL WSJ
'This Will Make
Voter Fraud Easier'
Why does Mrs. Clinton want driver's licenses for illegal aliens?
Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."
The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.
The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote.
But no one checks if the person registering to vote is indeed a citizen. That greatly concerns New York election officials, who processed 245,000 voter registrations at DMV offices last year. "It would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to . . . get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them drivers' licenses," says Lee Daghlian, spokesman for New York's Board of Elections. Assemblywoman Ginny Fields, a Long Island Democrat, warns that the state's "Board of Elections has no voter police" and that the state probably has upwards of 500,000 illegal immigrants old enough to drive.
The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
Gov. Spitzer is treading perilously close to that. Despite a tactical retreat this week--he says he will only give illegal immigrants a license that isn't valid for airplane travel and entering federal buildings--Mr. Spitzer has taken active steps to obliterate any distinctions between licenses given to citizens and non-citizens.
In a memo last Sept. 24, he ordered county clerks to remove the visa expiration date and "temporary visitor" stamp on licenses issued to non-citizens who are legally in the country. A Spitzer spokeswoman explained the change was made because the "temporary" label was "pejorative," given that some visitors might eventually stay in the U.S. Under fire, Mr. Spitzer backed down this week, delaying the cancellation of the "temporary visitor" stamps through the end of next year.
But he has not retreated from another new bizarre policy. It used to be that county clerks who process driver's licenses were banned from giving out voter registration forms to anyone without a Social Security number. No longer. Lou Dobbs of CNN reported that an Oct. 19 memo from the state DMV informed the clerks they don't "have any statutory discretion to withhold a motor voter form." What's more, the computer block preventing a DMV clerk from transmitting a motor voter registration without a Social Security number was removed.
Gov. Spitzer's office told me the courts have upheld their position on Social Security numbers. Sandy DePerno, the Democratic clerk of Oneida County, says that makes no sense. "This makes voter fraud easier," she told me.
While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting.
Mr. Carter has personal knowledge of why such laws are needed. He recounts in his book "Turning Point" how his 1962 race for Georgia State Senate involved a local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court challenge before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.
Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation.
Pollster Scott Rasmussen notes that Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure that she attracts between 46% and 49% support no matter which Republican candidate she's pitted against--even libertarian Ron Paul. She knows she may have trouble winning next year. Maybe that's why she's thrown herself in with those who will look the other way as a new electoral majority is formed--even if that includes non-citizens, felons and those who suddenly cross a state line on Election Day and decide they want to vote someplace new.
Mr. Fund, a columnist for OpinionJournal.com, is author of a forthcoming revised edition of "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy." (Encounter).
Friday, November 2, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
I know some of you get sick of me hammering on this subject, but can we pledge to get rid of politicians from all parties, who are in office to enforce and make laws, but then decide which laws they will not enforce?
ReplyDeleteI love it! Let's give driver's licenses to everyone but not require any ID to vote. The State of Georgia recently tried to require everyone provide a photo ID in order to vote. The lib's (Democrats) shouted down the very idea as discriminatory and likened it to a poll tax from the Jim Crow years.
ReplyDeleteThe other side will use whatever argument necessary to advance their agenda. Their crap just keeps on coming...
Brainbow
ReplyDeleteJust listened to Ira Plato on NPR, his program ScienceFriday--click on the brainbow, kinda neat. Also, he had an hour with 4 climate experts--not once in the program did I hear a suggestion about nuclear energy. Carbon tax carbon tax carbon tax--I'm starting to agree with you Whit, alot of this is driven by a desire for social dictatorship.
In "The Politics of Heaven" by Earl Shorris, a liberal book I was reading lately, the suggestion was seriously made of a graduated negative poll tax--that is, you pay people to vote--anyone I quess--but you pay poor people more and rich people less, according to their income tax returns.
Things are getting nuts, all right.
I'm not sick of you hammering on anything, folks. I hope you can keep it up.
The people of the United States have always rejected calls for National ID, a Federal Card.
ReplyDeleteAs well they should.
We do not need internal passports or ID. They are a strawman for a greater challenge.
Voting and driving are not related, nor should they be. That the two have become synonomous, just a symptom, not the cause.
The States determine who votes, not the Federals. The Federals do set limints upon whom the States can exclude, but none upon on whom the States allow to participate.
There is no Federal residency requirement to voting, not in the Constitution. Can one be a New Yorker, but not a US citizen?
The Constitution seems to allow it.
In both the 14th and especially in the 17th Amendment, where people as opposed to citizens are mention as voting particpants, in the 17th.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...
The Federals do limit the States from stopping citizens from voting,
the 15th, 19th & 24th do that. But there is no residency requirement to be a voter, nor even a requirement that a voter be a citizen.
The 17th Amendment woud argue that all residents, people, are allowed to particpate in the elction of Senators.
Plain as Day.
People and citizen not one and the same. The writers of the 17th Amendment and those that voted to ratify it knew it.
Guys
ReplyDeleteI've reposted Which of these were registered to vote. over at free republic.
Hope you don't mind.
But if so--let me know. & I won't post any of your stuff over there anymore.
It is not plain as day.
ReplyDeleteYou have to look at documents within the context of time. What was the concept of citizenship in general at the time? It did not exist in England as they were called subjects, as were colonials. The Constitution created citizens.
After the creation of the United States, citizens were created and rules of citizenship followed. The founders clearly objected to a foreign born person being president. Rights were not universal for woman or slaves. The term people was far from all encompassing.
Native Indians were not granted people status so perhaps when they said people they had something else in mind. It is a moot point. Laws exist defining who is a citizen and who is not.
The Civil War clarified states rights versus federal authority. They are the laws of the land and our rulers and masters better start learning a lesson that they rule till we get damn sick of them.
Charles, keep it up and we will sentence you to being a director.
ReplyDeleteVoting Rights Act of 1965 outlaws a poll tax so thankfully a Progressive Poll Payment( PPP:) ) is logically outlawed too, one would think. But then the law is what the Supreme Court says it is. Somebody's got to have the last word. On these matters I'd hope it would be Scalia, I think, writing the majority opinion.
ReplyDeleteBeware Charles, director is the first step in downward spiral.
No, I think your interpretation is 180 degrees off, duece.
ReplyDeleteIn the 14th Amendement, 1868, the Indians were protected by using the term "people"... "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "
The difference between people and citizens well defined, there were many people deserving Constitutional protections, those protections not limited to citizens, but all people in the Country. Regardless of citizenship.
In 1870 the difference between people and citizens was clear. Not all people were covered by voting rights, just citizens
" The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
Your contention that in 1913 the word people was synonomous with citizen in the 17th Amendment is not borne out by the subsequent events.
Because in 1920 the 19th Amendment mentions citizens, again. Nothing to do with non-citizen people.
In 1964, again the Federals address States stopping citizens from voting.
The 1913 liberals really did amend the Constitution. The use of words that were well chosen, by those "Progressive Republicans" of Teddy's stripe.
... people thereof.
When the Constitution means citizens, it says citizens.
When it says people, it means people, not citizens.
The right of the "people", non-citizens can be constrained, and often is. But there is no Federal Standard. If New York wants to open it's voter rolls to Canadians, it certainly can.
There is no Federal prohibition
Article 1, Section 4
ReplyDeleteSection 4 - Elections, Meetings
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
So the Federals could pass restrictions base upon citizenship, but to my knowledge, never have.
The "Manner", that'd be who gets to vote. A procedural State affair, unless the Congress says different.
In 1791 the term Citizen and resident, person, were not synonomous.
ReplyDeleteThe qualifications for Senator and Representitive both had Citizenship requirements.
Then later, in the document, it mentions the difference
Article lV Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)
A citizen was citizen, a slave was a person. But not a citizen.
As to Indians, they were people, persons and US Nationals, but not citizens, intil 1924. They not being "Subject to" the US but their respective Tribes.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenes.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2.
"If New York wants to open it's voter rolls to Canadians, it certainly can."
ReplyDeleteYou ought to delete all your posts immediately, Rat. The wrong people might read them.:)
I wonder what the New York Constitution says, about who's a citizen, who's a people, and who can vote.
Here's an answer from the people that don't know. I was asking them how do I register to vote.
ReplyDeleteI think the Indians should have to choose between voting in state and Federal elections, or voting in their sovereign tribes, if they would rather, but being able to vote in two or more 'nations' seems wrong to me. You're either an American, a Canadian, a Swiss, a Nez Perce, but not two, or three, or four.
ReplyDeleteWe had a case out here where a lawyer was driving through the Nez Perce Reservation on U.S. Highway 95, and was asked/ordered by the Nez Perce Tribal Police--who all drive around not doing much of anything in up-scale U.S. taxpayer funded Ford Police cars--to pull over, overheads flashing. He refused, drove into the sheriff's office in Lewiston, them following, and claimed they had no jurisdiction. I think it ended up, they didn't, he being on a U.S.Highway at the time of the alleged violation.
ReplyDeleteThey have a tribal court, but I don't what it's real jurisdiction is over me. If you are an Indian, and kill your grandmother on the reservation, you are in U.S. Federal Court, as of now anyway, as the Tribal Court's jurisdiction is limited to lesser stuff.
I had some Nez Perce tenants. They could vote in the Moscow City elections, important elections, to me. If I lived on the reservation, it would seem an equal protection under the law for me to be able to vote in the tribal elections, but I can't. I'm only a person, not a citizen, there, in their view.
ReplyDeleteLars Larsen was just interviewing Mr. Fund, writer of the article. In Oregon, you can register to vote in the state elections without showing picture ID of any kind, but you have to show picture ID to buy spray paint at Home Depot, which is kept in locked cabinets, due to an anti-grafitti law. The nineteen hijackers had over 34 pieces of identification, between them, he said.
ReplyDeleteAnd they were known and tracked by the FBI at various points and times during the run-up to the attacks.
ReplyDeleteSo what?
One border raid should not fundimently change the culture of or freedoms enjoyed in the United States.
Fear of another raid, it's well over blown. I've lived under a greater threat than that my whole life. I've lived in a United States under the Soviet threat of nuclear armegeddon since I was born, the threat of a vaporized Phoenix, all my life.
Duck and Cover, hermanos.
The Russians still have the capability, the Iranians do not.
The Pakistani have the capacity, if fission on the path of Allah is the greatest fear.
MS-13 and the Mex Mafia are a greater real time threat to US citizens than the 1920 Brigades or the Mahdi Army. Unsecure borders and the migrant wave that doug reports has already killed 45,000 of US, far surpassing, by a factor of ten, the Mussulmen toll upon US.
Now we must regulate propane bottles, they could be made into an IED!!!
The Nanny State, as exemplified by the compassionatly conservative.
If you can't defend your border...
ReplyDeleteCapabilities
Mormon Monastic
ReplyDeleteIn Meditation In Her Younger Days Fourth picture down.
ReplyDeletexxxxxxxxxx
Prayer clothes in the desert, Elijah. Rat said they were found long ago.
The Federals do limit the States from stopping citizens from voting, because they were concerned about citizens, NOT Martians, Syrians, and Spaniards.
ReplyDeleteBack in those days, they ASSUMED not one person of sound mind would be also.
How far we've come:
Now, *non-lawyers* construct Hairbrained Hypotheticals such as:
"Can one be a New Yorker, but not a US citizen?"
The Founders had matters of substance to concern themselves with instead, I'm certain.
No doubt would have pulled their wigs off had they foreseen it coming to this.
9-11 was a border raid!
ReplyDelete'Rat's been hittin those Desert Mushrooms pretty hard!
One reason I felt more secure during the Cold War than at present was the reassuring feeling I got from having a large majority of citizens, and those in Government, firmly on our side.
ReplyDeleteNo more.
Because the threat, doug, is not commensurate to the rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteYeah, a border raid, nothing more, actually much less. There have been hundreds of them, in the past 1400 years. A suicide mission, by less than a platoon.
The Israeli have suffered hundreds of such attacks since 1948, as we did in Africa in the 1980's, as did the Brits before then, in the Palistine Mandate.
The Japanese used suicide soldiers by the tens of thousandss, as did the French, in WWI also by the thousands, according to Wretchard. Nothing new there.
What is new, the unwillingness to sacrifice, by members of the US Goverment. In a War with no enemies. Where Hearts and Minds of the enemies masses must be "won".
A Religion of Peace, undemonized by Boners and a Industrial Complex that needs a foe. An endless conflict against a tactic.
Terror.
Serbians will fit the bill, next.
The Founders, doug, did leave "citizenship" to the States to define.
ReplyDeleteRead the Constitution, Article IV, Section 2. Lays it out.
It was not until later, with the expansion of the Federal Government, after the Civil War, that citizenship loyalties and definitions transfered to the Federal entity, away from the States.
With the 14th Amendment.
Which grants due process to all people, not just citizens.
Read the document and interpret the words as written, not as you'd like them to be.
The election of Senators of the various States, by the people thereof, not just the citizens.
It is what is says.
Strict constructionism
That's what we want in the Supremes, then why not from ourselves, no?
It is what I swore an oath to defend.
ReplyDeleteAgainst all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Even if I disagree.
Those turn of the century Free Mason politicos. They were neither fools nor knaves. They knew exactly what they wrote. What it meant. What it means for the future, in the Americas.
ReplyDeleteMcKinley, Roosevelt, Taft.
Reformers, populists, boners.
I didn't swear to defend the rights, privileges, and immunities
ReplyDeleteOf Citizenship for the People of the WORLD.
(Even to preserve Whirrled Peas)
---
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
---
Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens*of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of *citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---
I realize courts can, and have, interpreted just about anything anyway they please, but to me
"Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship"
is clear as day.
The fact that due process applies to a person does not mean that all the rights, privileges, and immunities
Of Citizenship are guaranteed ALL PERSONS!
Jeeze!
Arnold for President!
ReplyDeleteHe's as entitled to it as you or me!
(even tho we grant him due process)
ReplyDeleterhetoric? dr and ash like that word
ReplyDeletegoodness
let's see
i read here that mexico was a powder keg.
the federales need armored vehicles.
rebels in mexico could sabotage oil infrastructure
but trained proxies could not
the u.s. a global imperialist hegemon?
the u.s. a paper tiger?
an Industrial Complex that needs a foe
i thought china was the rising power
bartender gin and juice please
Prior to that 14th Amendment, in the time of the Founders, the States determined citizenship.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that all the rights and immunities of citizenship are not guarenteed to all people, that's agreed, but they are not prohibited to the non-citizen, either.
There is no demand that voters be citizens, there is no prohibition on allowing non-citizens to vote. It is left to the State to decide upon and administrate.
That is how it's written.
If Californios want to allow non-citizens to vote, the are Constituionally with in their rights to let them.
Because, doug, the illegals count as full people, for Representation after the census. Not 3/5s, but fully countable persons, needful of their Representation in the US Congress.
The words of the 17th Amendment would stand in the corner
A right granted is a right granted.
ReplyDeleteA right not granted is a right NOT granted!
Likewise for privileges, and immunities!
Plain English.
"Because, doug, the illegals count as full people, for Representation after the census. Not 3/5s, but fully countable persons, needful of their Representation in the US Congress."
ReplyDeleteACLU Quality Bullshit!
All true. elijah.
ReplyDeleteBut for the trained proxies comment.
China is not a conventional foe.
Or they'd not be a most favored nation trading partner.
Maybe someday there'll be a war with China, but not in the near term and not in California. Not against the Chinese Army, anyway.
We were in Korea, heading for the Yalu, when last we tangled with the Chinese. They were not in Alaska.
The Hezzbollah operatives have already establish links with the Cubans and the Venezuelans. Means they are also tied into the MS-13 and the drug cartels.
But their Mission, so far seems to be cash flow generation, not combat ops.
There is no border security zone being built. Not a serious effort, anyway.
There is no war, either.
Unless you are a State Dept honcho that wants to stay in the salons.
Could we please not refer to them as "illegals?"
ReplyDeleteHighly insensitive!
The Law of the Land, doug.
ReplyDeleteIf it is ACLU influenced, then it is. But that is still what it is.
The illegals count towards Representation, that's a fact.
Whether they vote or not.
Just like the children.
Wards of the Village.
Denizens, used to be the word for them. Long US tradition of utilizing an under class, while speaking of equality and liberty.
Look at the progress, doug.
From chained slaves to wage slaves.
Packed 50 in a house.
Undocumented Americans is a much more descriptive term, doug. More accurate, according to Mr Bush and Mr Kennedy.
ReplyDeleteMigrant is an appropriate term, as they are members of a pretty massed migration. Which the Governments of boh the US and Mexico subsidize and encourage.
With a whole series of practical rulings as regards health care, education and deportations.
"Put another way, the Second Amendment fused together arms-bearing, militia service, and (implicitly) political participation, yet the overall architecture of the Fourteenth Amendment seems to pull them apart, with civil rights at the core of Section One, and political rights featured separately in Section Two. (We should note that Section Two appeared to preserve the linkage between the militia and voting.
ReplyDeleteThough the word "militia" went unspoken, the
*section defined a state's presumptive electorate as "male citizens twenty-one years of age" or older.*)
What changes, if any, must "the right ... to keep and bear arms" undergo if it is to be redefined as an essentially "civil" right?"
---
Again, Plain English.
Later ammended to include femail citizens.
femail *citizens!*
ReplyDeleteSuch a reading also draws support from the original
ReplyDelete*Constitution's* use of the phrase "the people" to connote "voters"-the same adult male *citizens*
who, roughly speaking, constituted "the militia."
An assitant Att. General in the Bush group volutarily underwent waterboarding to find out for himself if he thought it was 'torture'. There was no doubt in his mind. Controlled murder, halted at the last moment. Wrote a memo to that point, got fired. The AG up for appointment says he can't answer the question. Looks like he may get appointed. He's got Feinstein, Lieberman, Schumer.
ReplyDeleteThat was via Bernie Ward, the fat, KGO.
ReplyDeleteTorture at DOJ 'unless done...with close supervision'--(presumably adult).
ReplyDeleteBernie Ward:
ReplyDeleteHysterical Socialist Talk Show Host!
That Fat little Bastard is STILL there?
Still going strong. It's only when he talks about Catholicism that he makes much sense.
ReplyDeleteNobodies: Modern American Slave Labor
ReplyDeleteIn this eye-opening look at the contemporary American scourge of labor abuse and outright slavery, journalist and author Bowe (Gig: Americans Talk About their Jobs) visits locations in Florida, Oklahoma and the U.S.-owned Pacific island of Saipan, where slavery cases have been brought to light as recently as 2006. There, he talks to affected workers, providing many moving and appalling first-hand accounts.
In Immokalee, Florida, migrant Latino tomato and orange pickers are barely paid, kept in decrepit conditions and intimidated, violently, to keep quiet about it.
A welding factory in Tulsa, Oklahoma imported workers from India who were forced to pay exorbitant "recruiting fees" and live in squalid barracks with tightly controlled access to the outside world.
How about Ron Owens?
ReplyDeleteYes, but he's daytime mostly I think. Ray T. is on 1am to 4 am. None of them even showed in the national talk show awards last year, and they think they are soooo good. Dr. Bill is great. I never listen to Owens.
ReplyDeleteIs it Feinstein, Boxer, or Pelosi that has factories in the Pacific somewhere, in textiles or fruits or something. I can never remember. Feinstein is a war profiteer.
Got to get to bed.
Aloha akbar,
Doug!
Not that Bush isn't of course. jeeze
ReplyDeleteLately, these KGO folk are getting as pissed off at their democratic crew, as many here are at Bush.
There is not a satisfied man, woman, or child in America.
Nite again.
Tunagate: Democrats Corrupted By Power Within First Five Days
ReplyDeleteIt didn't take long... only a few days, for the Democrats to be corrupted by power. And it should come as no surprise that the Ethics Queen Nancy Pelosi would be a part of it. Democrats have been passionately urging for a minimum wage hike, yet, a company in Nancy Pelosi's district benefited from an exemption in the minimum wage bill passed by the House this week.
House Republicans yesterday declared "something fishy" about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.