You may think my headline is a bit over the top, but considering that San Francisco, California is allowing non-citizens to vote and there are at least 1,500 non-citizens registered to vote in California, in clear violation of the US Constitution, I don’t think I’m that far out of line.
According to ABC News:
San Francisco has become the largest U.S. city to give people in the country illegally and other noncitizens the right to vote in a local election, but the possibility of the Trump administration learning their identities appears to have kept people away: only 35 noncitizens have registered.
Voters in 2016 approved a measure allowing parents or guardians of a child in San Francisco schools to have a say in their children’s education by helping elect school board representatives regardless of their immigration status. In the same election, Donald Trump won the presidency and has since cracked down on illegal immigration and ramped up rhetoric against those living in the U.S. illegally.
Sadly, the people of the state do not possess the right to give rights to those who are here in our country illegally to vote.
“We’re in an unprecedented arena of animosity toward our immigrant community, and that has really stopped people from voting,” said San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Fewer.
That has absolutely no bearing on illegal aliens voting in our elections. The reason they won’t register, for the most part, is that they are fearful that they will be arrested and deported.
“People are really fearful because the Trump administration is perceived to be very anti-immigrant,” said Chinese American Voters Education Committee Executive Director David Lee. “There is legitimate concern that their information may be turned over to the federal government and that they may end up being detained or deported.”
This is utter nonsense. The Trump administration, like many of us, understands the difference between those who immigrate to the united States via immigration law and those who seek to infiltrate or invade our country to their own ends.
“Voting is a sacred privilege and a sacred right of citizens. It should not be trivialized for political gain,” said Harmeet Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney and committeewoman for the National Republican Committee, who believes that allowing noncitizens to cast ballots devalues the rights of citizens.
Of course, but it’s also criminal!
As Publius Huldah has consistently pointed out by simply referring back to the US Constitution and the arguments made in The Federalist Papers leading up to the writing of our Constitution, only citizens may vote.
The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting. And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.
Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens. But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship. I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.
A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote.
PH went on to cite the Federalist Papers:
The Federalist Papers show that voting is a privilege of Citizens alone
The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”. They weren’t allowed to vote. Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:
“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States]. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added]6
In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants. In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.
Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:
“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom) [boldface added]
“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) *** “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…” (No. 57, 7th para from bottom) [boldface added]
“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.) [boldface added]
“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …” No. 68 (3rd para) [boldface added]
This, of course, stemmed from the same place where we understood the only working definition of natural born citizen in our Constitution, Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations.
PH writes, “…our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a ‘natural born Citizen’ (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments5 refer to voting by ‘Citizens’.”
Sadly, though states have the right to determine qualifications for voting and procedures for registration, even “conservatives” have undermined this in our history.
PH pointed out:
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form! The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.
But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Scalia asserted:
“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” 12
“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”
“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”
What do we do with such unconstitutional rulings and/or laws? We nullify them!
In this instance, seeing that California is clearly seeking to be unlawful, we should nullify every single vote in that state until they comply with a citizens only voting approach to elections. Perhaps then, they will learn a valuable lesson.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.