Maine, considers letting non-citizens vote
- Thread starter taylor414ce2003
- Start date
Not to be snippy, but because they let you...
I think it gets into some tricky constitutional grounds.
I don't think they could be counted in the census, but they may arguably be able to vote for President.
The tricky thing is that the constitution only really works when you have a population that isn't actively trying to subvert it.
I think it gets into some tricky constitutional grounds.
I don't think they could be counted in the census, but they may arguably be able to vote for President.
The tricky thing is that the constitution only really works when you have a population that isn't actively trying to subvert it.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Can't pick and choose. If they get to claim that, then the Fed gets out of everything.
ford nut
Local nut case
Read the link, it is talking about Non-citizens.
Not that I agree with it, but read it.
I don't follow. If the states get to claim allowing noncitizens to vote then the feds get out of everything? What everything.
That's a pretty broad statement.
Is that the That
you are refering to?I read the whole article too and found this paragraph interesting and kind of negating of your pick and choose contention.
Things do change and nothing remains the same forever.
Allowing noncitizens to vote was the norm 100 years ago.
Right now permanent residents can't vote but also can't be called for jury duty which is almost a bonus(a small bonus)
Vote in what capacity?
The distinction between voting for state or local level office and voting for national office seems to be ignored in that passage.
In light of the idea of Federalism inherent in the founding documents, do states individual standards for voting have any effect on standards for voting for national office (which would fall under the U.S. constitution)?
It's a simple concept called FEDERALISM.
The country was founded on it.
But we do have a constitution. And it's necessary for that to be a permanent document.
As Shag asks, in what capacity.
But, it's also important to note, 100 years ago, we didn't live in a social welfare state. We'd only begun to move away from the federalist system of government.
Do you want illegals serving on a jury judging you?
So the Feds get out of Federalism if states let non citizens vote?
That's a non sequeter.
I didn't realize the Feds wanted to get out of federalism as seems to be your and foss's contention.
You may think of the constitution as permanent but it has evolved since it was written with amendments and court interpretations.
It is a creation of man and not God and can be changed if the will is there.
Like prohibition(anyone watching Boardwalk Empire?)
And we're not talking about illegals but legal permanent residents.
For instance William Shatner is still a green card holder who hasn't gotten citizenship and he was Captain Kirk, an american icon.
Where are you getting that?
The point I was making was that just because a non-citizen could vote in a state level election does not mean they could vote for national office; a distinction rooted in Federalism, not a dodge around it.
You are missing the whole notion of the Rule Of Law. To change it (outside of a Constitutional Amendment process) simply "because there is the will" is to devolve this nation from a nation of law to a nation of man. It subverts the Rule Of Law. The only thing standing between a free society and tyranny is the Rule Of Law.
If the states want to let non citizen legal immigrants vote then there is precident for that.
Up until I read this article I was unaware of the past voting rules.
I wasn't saying anything about voting federally because you can vote locally.
I also wasn't saying to change the constitution outside the narrow framework and high bar allowed under the rule of law as you put it.
Repeal of prohibition was the last change.
I don't see how that negates (or circumvents) the point. Just because a non-citizen can vote for the mayor does not mean they can vote for the president.
I'd respond directly, but I have no idea what you are saying.
If the states want to exercise state's rights, 10th amendment rights, that signals a RETURN to the constitutional FEDERALISM the country was founded on.
Again, I don't know what you're trying to communicate.
The federal government has moved from federalism to nationalism this past century. Power has been moving from the states to the federal government at an alarming and unconstitutional rate this past century.
It is appropriate for it to change through the amendment process.
The "interpretation" argument is really just a means of changing the constitution from the bench without having to go through the "burdensome" amendment process.
Yes, that's called a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes. Prohibition was passed in the 18th amendment. And they repealed it by passing the 21st Amendment.
True. I would argue that this is a suicidally bad idea.
But I do think that the state SHOULD have the right to do that, provided we have a limited federal government and embrace federalism again.
William Shatner may be a Canadian, but the fictional James Tiberious Kirk was born in Riverside, Iowa in the year 2233. So Kirk, the icon, would be a citizen.
Again, I would argue that ONLY citizens should have the right to vote.
Should non-citizens also hold political office? Should a non-citizen be allowed to be President too?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's a moot point.
Shag
I was just unclear what foss meant by this statement.
The rest of it I'm in agreement with you guys.
I don't think noncitizens should be able to vote
as obviously that was not working so the law was changed.
It's a moot point.
LOL!
Obama is just hiding the way his name is or whatever it is on his long form birth certificate that he finds inconvenient.
I didn't like the dorky ethnic names my parents picked for me so I assigned myself an aka in elementary school that appears on all my identification.