Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Just right before the program started the Supreme Court has said that Arizona’s proof of citizenship law is illegal. I haven’t even seen the opinion. All I’ve seen is news stories on it. I have not had a chance to delve into it. On the surface it appears to be one of these things that’s infuriating, yet it’s a 7-2 decision. Justice Scalia voted with the majority. And apparently the whole thing is that federal law trumps state law when it comes to federal elections and the states can’t say anything about it. Scalia basically says, “Look, the states are using federal forms in elections, and there really isn’t an issue here, that Arizona, no other state can trump federal law when it comes to federal elections.”

So if the Feds down the road ultimately require no evidence of citizenship, then that could end up being a problem. But as I understand — this is really premature, folks. This ruling couldn’t have come at a worse time in terms of show prep for me today in terms of being able to delve into it. Really all I have here are the news stories. I’ve got two, one from AP and this one is from Doomberg, and Doomberg is the better of the two.

“The US Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law that required evidence of citizenship when people register to vote, in a victory for minority-rights advocates and the Obama administration. The justices, voting 7-2, said ArizonaÂ’s proof-of-citizenship law runs afoul of a federal statute that sets out registration requirements.”

It makes sense to me that the states can’t trump the Feds in federal elections, which is what the Supreme Court here has said. “The ruling limits the role played by the states in national elections and raises questions about similar laws in three other states — Alabama, Kansas and Georgia.” We all know why this happened. We all know why Arizona did this. We all know why Arizona was sued by the regime. Arizona feels overrun. And they feel like federal law’s not being enforced. So they attempted to take matters into their own hands and provide corrective procedures at the state level. And essentially the Supreme Court says, “You can’t do that. You have no authority in federal elections. Nice try.”

“A US appeals court had invalidated the Arizona law, pointing to a 1993 federal law that says states must ‘accept and use’ a standard registration form developed at the national level. That so-called federal form instructs prospective voters to swear that they are citizens, under penalty of perjury. Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal government has broad authority to displace state election rules. He pointed to the US ConstitutionÂ’s elections clause, which says Congress may override states in establishing the ‘times, places and manner of holding elections.’

“The Obama administration contended that the federal statute was designed to streamline the registration process and that the Arizona law would undermine that goal. The measure was challenged by groups including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.”

So states use federal forms, the Fed government has total authority over federal elections. Scalia says there really isn’t an issue here. They really didn’t take any time here to throw this one out. So it’s a practical matter, the federal voter registration form as it exists requires proof of citizenship. Case closed, case covered. If they don’t enforce it, that’s a whole ‘nother matter, but the states have no recourse. So if the federal government in the future fails to require evidence of citizenship, then we would have a problem. But we don’t. They haven’t done so yet. So that’s that, and if there’s any more to this, then I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, I will find it.


RUSH: And back to the phones we go to Fresno, California. Hi, Brian, really glad that you waited. Great to have you, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Rush, honored to speak with you, and I’ll get right to my point. I’m seeing today’s decision by the Supreme Court in the Arizona case maybe as a temporary setback, and I’m hoping we can encourage their state legislature and their people to continue to move forward in the right direction. In reading and looking at the literature, a majority of said citizenship is a requirement to vote in any federal election and federal registration forms require states under penalty — person under penalty of perjury to say they’re a citizen. And even Clarence Thomas in the dissent said that, you know, the Constitution authorizes states to determine qualifications of voters in federal elections.

So I’m hoping that maybe, well, voting for the president, Congress, Senate, you have to have this, or you can get by with this voter motor voter registration, hopefully in counties, states, and local elections that the state can require a higher level of proof. So maybe if they just tweak the legislation just a little bit to say, okay, for the Feds we’ll let them have the voter fraud and we won’t require anything of you, but if you want to vote for anything here in the state of Arizona, for your Senator or assembly members here in the state or your county officials or any referendum statewide, you’re gonna have to prove to us that you’re actually a citizen. So maybe we can get rid of the voter fraud in the state and local arena even if the Feds don’t want us to get rid of it —

RUSH: Well, you know what’s gonna happen. You know what would happen if any state tried that. The ACLU would find that person and go to federal court and say the state’s trying to do an end run around your law. They’re requiring people to show proof of citizenship and other stuff that the federal law doesn’t give them the right to challenge in federal elections, but a federal election’s being held today while these other people are voting and they’d get it shut down.

CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. I’m just looking for the bright side because I think the Feds are really overstepping and just trying to, as Sarah Palin just said, they’ve got their boot on your neck and they’re trying to crush us in ways that we can fight back I’m hoping we’ll look for.

RUSH: I understand what you’re saying. The reason Arizona did this is because they obviously at the time felt like the federal government was not holding up its end of the bargain on a whole bunch of stuff, enforcing immigration laws, voting laws, and this kind of thing. But they were struck down 7-2 today on all their requirements because the Supreme Court said, “Look, these are federal elections. The form, the registration form is a federal form, you have nothing to say about it. So you can’t do this, nice try.” And Scalia said it’s not an issue, there really isn’t even an issue here, this is so out of bounds.

The true problematic nature of this would be down the road if the Feds ever stopped requiring citizenship as a prerequisite to vote, then we’d have a bit of a problem. But I think at the time that Arizona did this, they just felt overwhelmed. They felt like everything the federal government was doing was an obstacle, and the government was not enforcing its own laws, particularly on immigration. I understand your idea. You’re a little trickster out there. I like the way you’re thinking.


What? Well, I don’t know. This Supreme Court decision, do Hispanics like the court now? Like do Hispanics like Scalia now, since he wrote the opinion on this? I don’t know. We could ask Miss Alabama if they do. I don’t know if they’ve gotten word yet on this. But it’s a neat trick here because when there is a state or local election, oftentimes there’s a federal race, too, and if the state says you gotta meet this criteria before you can vote, it wouldn’t be long before somebody would take that whole thing to court and get it thrown out as the trick that it would be. Anyway, the state laws have to follow the federal guidelines. It’s just that simple. The joke is — you know, there’s no way to enforce the borders without a photo ID requirement. And literally, when you get down to that, how do you do that? And if the Feds are not gonna enforce something like that, then, you know… we’re whistling past the barnyard anyway on this stuff. Brian, I appreciate call, really do.


RUSH: Bob in Colorado Springs, thank you for the call, sir. Welcome.

CALLER: You got it. Hey, Colorado Springs/Black Horse fire almost out dittos to you. In light of the Supreme Court decision, proof of citizenship isn’t required in order to vote, therefore I say that we go to every union place, and since we don’t need proof of citizenship — we don’t need a union card, we don’t need anything — let’s go vote and take those clowns down.

RUSH: Wait a minute. The federal government does require citizenship. That’s the point.

CALLER: No, they require citizenship, but not to vote. You don’t have to have proof to vote.

RUSH: You mean proof to register?

CALLER: Proof to register to vote. You don’t need it. So if I don’t need that, why can’t I go into any union place that’s having a vote on what’s gonna take dollars out of my pocket that I have to pay back through taxes through Obama’s crap? To hell with them.

RUSH: Well, I’m a little bit at a disadvantage because I didn’t hear about this right before the program started, and I haven’t had a chance to look at the decision, and I’m sort of flying blind on it. When you tell me — and nothing against you here, Bob. But when you tell me that the federal government does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote or to vote, I’ve gotta be certain of that on my own. I have to independently confirm that. I can’t see the Supreme Court throwing this out and basically saying there’s no issue here if that were the case. I know when I go vote, I have to prove it.

CALLER: But how do you think unions would react to that?

RUSH: When I go vote I have to prove it. You have to give them voter ID, my voter registration. I can’t go anywhere and vote just by telling somebody I’m a citizen.

CALLER: I can’t cash a check without proof of ID. I can’t use my credit card without proof of ID.

RUSH: Exactly. Some strip clubs are even requiring it.

CALLER: Yeah. And, you know what? I spent 22 years in the Army, and all of it was Special Forces. I’ve been sent all over the damn world to do the things that this government is asking, and I can’t even provide citizens in my home country — that I went and fought for — the right to be able to go vote without having somebody else from another country? Let me go to Mexico and vote. You think that’s gonna happen?

RUSH: Well, no. No.

CALLER: I’ve enough of these guys.


CALLER: I literally have.

RUSH: You can’t even go to Mexico and become a citizen. Their immigration laws are so much different than ours. But, Bob, per federal law, first-time voters “who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement in order to be able to vote,” per federal law. So you don’t have to have a photo ID to register but you do have to have some kind of proof, otherwise the court would have dealt with this in a far different way. The fact of the matter is you legally must be a citizen to vote. We haven’t gotten to the point yet where you don’t. Now, “legally.” I’m sure there are people that vote. The dead vote. There are people that vote multiple times. We all know that voter fraud takes place. I’m not denying that at all.


RUSH: Gil in Austintown, Ohio. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush, from the Buckeye State.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I know you’re the mayor of Realville. And I’m a long-term resident of Obviousberg, and my obvious question is, what are they gonna do with the Supreme Court ruling when they have to enforce it from federal agents, when either dozens or hundreds of hundreds of thousands lie on the form?

RUSH: Which form are we talking about?

CALLER: “I swear I am a citizen of the United States.”

RUSH: Oh, what’s gonna happen when federal agents try to enforce that amount of fraud?

CALLER: Yes. Technically, of course, it’s perjury, but they might just use the Mrs. Clinton defense: What difference does it make?

RUSH: But why would they lie about it? Are we talking about immigration here after so-called amnesty?

CALLER: I’m talking about people who are not citizens who want to vote.

RUSH: Oh. You’re talking about the Supreme Court ruling?


RUSH: Oh. So there are millions and millions, thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands who’ve lied and committed perjury, and government agents are gonna track this down. Your point is, it’s too big, they’ll never be able to find them?

CALLER: Yeah. How are they gonna put ’em all on paid administrative leave and take the Fifth Amendment?

RUSH: I have no idea. What is your point?

CALLER: Well, my question coming to you, in any kind of court ruling there’s always two things: There’s fact, and then there’s meaning. I’m thinking you’re the one who would understand the meaning. Now, I know, as you said, you’re getting caught cold today, but maybe during the evening you can think about this and what meaning is behind that; how are they gonna enforce that?

RUSH: So you’re disagreeing with the court decision?

CALLER: I don’t disagree with the primacy of the federal law. But what I wonder, though, is what sort of onus are they putting on federal agents to try and enforce this? Even when Arizona tried to use their own techniques to enforce federal law, they said, no, no, no, no, no, only we can do that.

RUSH: Right. So your question, what impetus do they have to do it in the first place, how are they physically going to do it? Okay. I get the point now.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This