Peezj,

No disrespect intended, but I’m curious what make you the expert? I find such comments to be an unwarranted personal attacks that I find to be suprising, to tell you the truth. It is distracting from the topic, to say the least. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent, and if I have I apologize.

Back on topic, the stance is pretty clear. Individual rights are Constutionally protected. Those individual rights supercedes state’s voting rights. In all other matter of voting though, the states take precedence. So, order of priority when it comes to voting:

1) Individual rihts
2) State’s Right’s
3) Federal Rights

This is the list of Federal Voting laws:

The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (Motor Voter)
The Help America Vote Act of 2002

If you read these Federal Voting laws, most all of them are designed to protect indivdual voter’s rights or to assist state’s with funding.

What I find fascinating about these laws is that the vast majority of them have been enacted relatively recently. Why the suden rush?

I have.

Yes, it is correct.

What the federal laws are protecting are Constitionally protected individual rights (which are ratified by the states, incidently) that as I said earlier, supercedes state’s rights. Illegal aliens can not vote simply becasue they are not citizens of the United States, and thus are not lawfully protected by the Constitution.

If you look at the history of this issue, you will see that the founding fathers saw it this way, as a Federalists issue. And sorry- I’m going to side with them 100% of the time. Federal laws should only supercede state voting laws when Constitutionally protected indivuidual rights are violated. Any other law should be and is against the intent of the founding fathers.

For example, in Ohio I could wear a “Bush 2004″ t-shirt into the voting booths if I wished to during the 2004 elections. In many states, this would be illegal and I would be asked to leave becasue it is deemed campaigning at the voting booths. This is an example of one of thousands of indivudual state laws. However, if federal laws were passed by Congress in this manner it would be illegal, deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it violate’s state’s rights (if taken to court).

Exactly- voting is a state’s right’s issue. The indivual’s right to vote suopercedes the state’s rights. The state’s right’s superceded the federal.

All the federal rights do for the most part is protect an indivudual’s right to vote. nything else is not Constitutional IMO.

No that is not correct.  A state law can not violate a Federal law or it is deemed unconstitutional.  Whether or not you believe that is not the point, as that is how the Constitution protects the right of the people.

Let’s use the illegal alien vote.  Our COTUS specifically spells out who can and can not vote…is it legal for Ohio to grant an illegal alien the right to vote?

If people are too stupid to be able to figure out a ballot, should they really be voting in the first place?

Absolutely, they should have the right to vote.

Doesn’t it make sense for the electorate to be as well informed as possible?

Of course, but that is irrelevant to their right to vote.

If they can’t understand how to fill out a ballot, how are they going to be able to understand what they’re voting for?

That is irrelevant. Like voting, free speech is inalienable. People have the right to speak in ignorance, just like they have the right to vote in it too.

More spefically. the SCOTUS stepped in because it was a voter’s rights issue. They detemined that the electorate has a right to a relatively quick election result. That is one of the vother’s right’s issue I was was refering to in 34.

“And the Presidential election is a federally regulated election:it is always the 1st Tuesday in November:Maryland can not decide to postpone it a day.”

This can be changed by the state’s- it is a state’s right issue, and determined by such, and not by the Federal Governement.

“A state can decide who their electors are, but they can not take the vote of the state away from the voters of the state.”

Exactly- voting is a state’s right’s issue. The indivual’s right to vote suopercedes the state’s rights. The state’s right’s superceded the federal.

All the federal rights do for the most part is protect an indivudual’s right to vote. nything else is not Constitutional IMO.