The Right to Vote!

From Monkey in the Middle:

The Right To Vote!

The right to vote is granted to all citizens of the United States regardless of race, creed, color, sex, income, or sexual orientation. If you are a citizen over the age of 18, who hasn't committed a felony, you have the right to vote.

That is soon to change. For now there is a movement by the Progressives Moonbats to allow legal non-citizens to vote.

Like his neighbors, Claude Rwaganje pays taxes on his income and taxes on his cars. His children have gone to Portland's public schools. He's interested in the workings of Maine's largest city, which he has called home for 13 years.

There's one vital difference, though: Rwaganje isn't a U.S. citizen and isn't allowed to vote on those taxes or on school issues. That may soon change.

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.

Noncitizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote, Rwaganje said.

"We have immigrants who are playing key roles in different issues of this country, but they don't get the right to vote," said Rwaganje, 40, who moved to the U.S. because of political strife in his native Congo and runs a nonprofit that offers financial advice to immigrants.

Opponents of the measure say immigrants already have an avenue to cast ballots -- by becoming citizens. Allowing noncitizens to vote dilutes the meaning of citizenship, they say, adding that it could lead to fraud and unfairly sway elections.

"My primary objection is I don't think it is right, I don't think it is just, I don't think it is fair," Portland resident Barbara Campbell Harvey said.

In San Francisco, a ballot question Nov. 2 will ask voters whether they want to allow noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they are the parents, legal guardians or caregivers of children in the school system....

This is a must read that raises important points. Go here to read the rest.

Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Citizenship: Write Now

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

BLOGGERS: Real Clear Politics refuses to allow Reader Articles concerning Barack Obama's citizenship. My latest post reports a scheduled Supreme Court conference on this very issue. My post was removed from RCP today. In fact, every post, by most bloggers, covering Barack Obama's citizenship has been scrubbed from RCP.

Most of us think what the Supreme Court does is news worthy. Not the case at RCP. The question is: why does RCP not deem actions by the U.S. Supreme Court important for readers to know about?

PLEASE, if you have not posted about this already, grab this and cross-post at your blog. Let's get the information out and send some letters to the Supreme Court.

*****

Justice Clarence Thomas has placed a discussion of Barack Obama's citizenship on the December 5th docket for conference, meaning a discussion of the merit of this particular case.

A commenter at America's Right, who has been the leading source of excellent information on the various lawsuits, is requesting that we write directly to the Supreme Court:

The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

One commenter said he/she was sending a copy of his letter to each of the nine Justices. Good idea!

Here are some details just in from WorldNetDaily

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the Secretary of State in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

Jeff Schreiber at America's Right has followed this case closely. His post today reports:

As for New Jersey firebrand and attorney Leo Donofrio, his application for an emergency stay was denied by Justice Souter, Donofrio was able to refile and resubmit it to the Justice of his choosing, and properly did so. Today, the docket for his action shows that after being put before Justice Clarence Thomas, the application will be discussed by the Court in a December 5, 2008 conference.

Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg's case as well.

Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction.

Please visit America's Right and WorldNetDaily for more.