Thank you. Really appreciate that.
Almost exactly the same act passed the House in 2019, but stood no chance whatsoever of even being debated with McConnell in charge. At least this time we should get to hear why it's a bad idea to, say, have people automatically registered to vote, or to make re-districting politically independent.An RNC lawyer recently requested a law to throw out ballots cast by genuine voters in the wrong precinct be kept because to allow those votes to be counted would put Republicans “at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,”. Counting all the votes is a bad thing for Republicans.
There seems to be a lot of lie-then-block behaviour going on on here! Sad.
I have no idea why anyone is surprised that Republicans lied about this bill. After all, they have been lying about almost everything for years, including their reasons for starting multiple wars. In that context, this seems almost trivial (although it is not).
@exitseven That user blocked me. In some places the waits were up to 11 hours. There's no way that doesn't depress the vote (unless it's out-done by the "up yours!" vote).www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54532189
A similar bill to HR 1 passed the House once before and did not even get consideration in the Senate. Indeed, not even Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders even bothered to try to bring it up.In any case, the bill would need 2/3 of the Senate to end a filibuster - and it has nowhere near that kind of support. As far as the filibuster itself, theoretically it could be abolished by a majority vote - the so-called "nuclear option" - but as two Democrat Senators are on record as opposing its' abolition and no Republican supports it, that pretty well ends the issue.So in the end, the Democrats offer it as a chew toy to their base and the GOP takes advantage of it to frighten and mobilize their supporters. Beyond that, it is pure theater and the recent vote in the House is likely to be HR 1's high water mark.
Thank you for your careful analysis
Thank you for your kind compliment.
Congress no longer follows the constitution as it holds too much responsibility for our leaders to uphold. Congress wants the President to wage wars now so that they can avoid blame and run for reelections. The lazier congress becomes, the more powerful the Presidency becomes.
@Tomtom9090 There is some truth - albeit you have expressed it with too much emotion - in your analysis. A risk averse Congress is in the habit of passing things to the Executive branch when it can.However, in this case, the analysis is not accurate. Indeed, Congress is arguably trying with HR 1 to aggregate more power to the Federal Government than has been the norm. Further, quite the opposite of trying to avoid blame, the supporters of HR 1 believe, rightly or not, that they are widening the electorate and will get credit for doing so.In any case, the constitutionality of HR 1, in the event - unlikely though not 100% impossible - that it were to become law, its' fate would not be in the hands of the Congress, but of the Supreme Court and various lower courts. So again, while your analysis is not entirely off as to Congressional risk aversion, at the end of the day it is free to push the constitutional envelope but it is not the final arbiter of such questions.
K just saw it sorta. From what I saw I think I'm for it lol
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
You raise some very good points
@JinRavage"4. Super-pacs and "dark money" revealing doners.One of the most important steps to prevent wealthy corperations manupulating federal government for their benefit."It is going to be used by left-wing terrorist groups such as antifa and blm to harass political opponents. "I have a hard time arguing against this."In full disagreement. I find finding the flaws quite easily. Hopefully this puppy dies in the Senate.
Tax returns are nobody's business. The 16th amendment was ratified via fraud, so there shouldn't even be income tax, technically speaking. Now, I find it curious that a candidate must show tax returns, which the terrorists will be stupid about and reee and start trouble over. But it says NOTHING about college transcripts, etc. So Barack Osama still gets a pass, but Trump will be retroactively harassed. Michigan has a statute that still allows the DNC to gerrymander, but explicitly forbids any other party to redistrict. Which is horsecrap. Speaking of which, how does the bill apply to the rights of third parties, which are already denied primaries?
@ObscuredBeyond We weren't allowed to see Trump's grades, either.
"There's no way in hell you would ever convince me that non-citizen or felons should be voting"It's a good job neither of those things are in the bill, then, isn't it? Ex-felons have paid their debt to society, so should be allowed to vote (like Florida voted for)."or that voter ID laws are suppression."They are, if the state government then closes places where you could get voter ID, or only opens them during working hours, so people have to lose a day's pay to get the ability to vote. Make the ID obviously easy to get, like really, really easy, and you won't have objections to voter ID.By the way, raising the voting age would also be voter suppression, and you'd be doing it to obtain an advantage over the Democrats. Same as keeping "out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books" - the reason literally given by an RNC lawyer to SCOTUS for keeping them was: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,”. That disadvantage being that more legal votes would be allowed.
You also imply that the voting age would be reduced by the bill. Not true."Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election."
They should lower the drinking age. Like in Europe.
Mostly agree but you can die for this country and pay taxes when you are 18, that's inconsiderate and taxation without representation. Very few voters that age anyway.
Enfranchisement of young voters is a valid argument
Young people deserve a voice in government too
Why wouldn’t they? Everyone deserves a vote.
Everyone does not have a vote. Toddlers do not, illegal immigrants do not, tourists and foreigners do not. And why is it they "desverve" one? Where does the right come from? Does your constitution stipulate that all citizens regardless of age have the inailenable right to decide on national matters?
I interpret it as “all citizens old enough to have an intelligible voice in the political process.” Which includes 16 yr olds.
Shouldn't the basis for voting be founded on something much more, concrete and not subjective? What is intelligable enough? Maybe I'm old fashioned, but results are more important than apperances for me. I'm not interested in a system that allows the far too young masses who barely know what they're doing and why, to make poor decisions affecting the entire nation. I'm not saying that is the case with every single youngling, but it is still the case with far too many. And the line of reasoning that they "simply deserve it", I find unbearably shallow, because it doesn't elude to anything actually logically beneficial. It's just an emotional symbolism.
I don’t like logic. I prefer emotional symbolism.
The kindest thing you can do for your fellow man is to be logical. Pure emotion-led decisions only lead to disaster.
Your use of the term “man” is sexist
Why should 70 years olds and older by the millions be givin a chance to vote and affect the future 16 years olds who in 24 months will have to go out and find jobs, many will get married and start families etc. 16 is old enough to know what's going on in your nation and the world rather than a 70 plus year old who spends most of his or her time sleeping getting ready to die.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy You cropped out the entire adult and middle aged population there. Which is known as making a straw man argument. No one is talking only of 70 year olds. And they should for reasons already stated. Research and common sense both supports that younger people vote with indifference, only votes for fringe parties to be edgy and are very poorly informed on what they are doing to begin with. Exempli gratia; leftist students chanting nazi and white supremacist at Ben Shapiro's lecture but being clueless as to what makes him so when asked.It serves no practical purpose to include the unqualified in governance purely to have it look good on paper as democratic and free.
I didn't cropped out nothing. I stated the truth. Many elderly vote on the future of many young people which affects their lives. The elderly are on the way to the grave.Just because someone is 16 years old doesn't mean they are unaware of what is going on in the world and don't care about their future.Many adults are allowed to vote and easily half of them don't even understand the issues at hand or what they mean affecting the lives of others.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Yes you did, you said only and 70 year olds in the same sentence. Don't try to gain some upper hand by just denying what you just said. It never works in debate. You're arguing in circles Hispanic. Just becauses and many's aren't the point here. The vast percentages of youths that haven't passed 20 will act in a certain way when it comes to politics. Your self-wise attitude in these matters, even when confronted with research that contradicts you, is tiresome.
"Why should 70 years olds and older (by the millions) be givin a chance to vote and affect the future 16 years olds who in 24 months will have to go out and find jobs, many will get married and start families etc"Millions of old people many of them retired vote affecting the near future of those who have to worry about jobs, bills and kids.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy My apologies, I must've misread. Fact remains that you're not considering experience, knowledge, wisdom, political astuteness. Young people by the millions possess none of these.
Apparently they don't have as much wisdom, knowledge and experience you think they have by electing Donald Trump when they had the chance to elect around 16 or 17 decent candidates to represent the nation, and not a whiny, very prideful egotistical buffoon who has no business leading a nation.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Right, now we've devolved into petty vendettas. Trump wasn't a bad president alright? The economy was on the up and going strong until COVID, he had huge support in the agricultural sector, unemployment rates were way down, and he mediated peace between Israel, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Morocco, and more that are joining every month. The first president ever in history to succeed in this, and yet this means nothing you, a supposed Christian.
Yes, the economy was doing great for the rich and Wallstreet giants, not for the common man and woman at the bottom still struggling to pay their bills making minimum wage which is slave wage in the U. S. Yes, Trump did somethings well. I liked his stands on immigration and how he dealt with foreign polices.As for Isreal, I don't care for that country. Many Christians still think that those so called Jews of today are God's people but they aren't.The 12 tribes ancient Hebrews are long gone. Those people in Isreal today or "Jews" aren't God's people, in fact last I checked around 69% or 70% don't even believe a creator exist, not to mention they hate the gospel and mock Jesus Christ. The hell with them. God's people are Christians only. Anyone that rejects the gospel and the lordship of Jesus Christ will become a harden enemy of the lord and will be sent to hell by the lord Jesus himself.Last point: Trump isn't a politician. A politician (in this case a president) must have decency, professionalism, able to speak correctly since he or she represents a nation and has major influence of that nation as its prime leader, not pin people one against another, start conspiracy theories and speak foolishness.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Still on that, really? I haven't ever seen any evidence for you continuous platitudes about it "only being for the rich". So it only comes off as whiny and bitter to me. Then you clearly do not know your Bible. He who curses Israel will be cursed. New Jerusalem itself will have the twelve tribes of Israel carved into its foundation. I do believe that was the most ignorant thing you have expressed so far Hispanic. Nothing short of tragic how deceived and mislead so many Christians are. Maybe someone who curses without any qualms about, and gives life to the verse "rebellion is woven into the hearts of young men", and despise rich for being rich even though Job clearly states that the Lord has created both and deals with both fairly, shouldn't be so quick to condemn the Jewish people. Who have been subject to persecution, slaughter and genocide for 2000 years. Matthew 7:5 on hypocrisy comes strongly to mind here.
I know my Bible very well. Its you that don't know the Bible. Anyone that doesn't have the Son doesn't have the Father neither. Anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ is anti Christ. You don't know that? The Jews are part of the anti Christ system because they deny Jesus Christ as the Christ.Here's what Jesus said about the so called "Jews". They belong to the devil. The jews of the old testament like David, Daniel, Ruth, Moses etc aren't the same so called Jews of today who are heathens who happened to adopt the religion of Judaism taught by so called "rabbis" and man made trash and doctrine.Revelation 2:8-9“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life: “I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.Revelation 3:7-9“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens”: “I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it; for you have a little strength, have kept My word, and have not denied My name. Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy So now you're off on a tangent about Jews when we discussed the Holy Land of Israel that God has already made promises to? Promises to restore them, and Jesus, whose reign in the millennial kingdom will be centered in Israel, Jerusalem. I suggest you read Scripture more closely, and don't change subjects. But now I don't have energy or time for any more banter, it's late and I have work tomorrow, I bid you goodnight.
Bruh, God restoring the Jews (like Moses, David, Daniel and the 12 tribes to their land is in the new earth to come, not this current earth.I just posted you the scriptures where Jesus himself called Jews of Satan because they oppose the gospel and Jesus Christ. A real Jew isn't one of flesh but of the heart and spirit.Romans 2:26-28:For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy A new morning and I am faced with your comment where my distinction between Israel and the Jewish people completely goes over your head. At least you're now quoting Scripture when debating.
You raise a good point but what about the Supremacy Clause?
Federal law has supremacy when it does not run afoul of the US Constitution and the amendments thereto. Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
True. But the Tenth Amendment has been disfavored in recent decades.
But the court has more conservatives now, and true conservatives try to honor the Tenth Amendment.
Absolutely true. Do you think the Court would strike down this law if it passed the Senate as currently written?
Disfavored? Must be a new synonym for ignored.
@Gwenhwyfar Yes, I would expect the Supremes to invalidate that law, but we will get a better clue when we see ow they deal with the pending election case from Arizona.
Very good point. Thank you for your analysis.
Haha your comment is rich right about now... “Nothing is more dangerous that a bird of idiots that believe they know the truth simply because someone else told them so...” yeah, you should have had that same energy with this domestic terrorist storming the capital because one idiot pitched a fit about losing an election.. you comment treason against your own country, attempt to kill humans let alone sitting senators and congressmen, and your own muthafuckin vise president because he didn’t follow the ego.. and you all have the audacity to try to call out the dems for doing what little stupidity Democrats do? We shouldn’t hear anything out of conservatives about moral ANYTHING after that happened on January 6. You have no moral high ground.. it’s laughable at best that you said any of this!
And you are right, there have been rigged elections.. but on both sides.. heard of gerrymandering? Republicans did this often while in power! Re-zoning districts in their favor... don’t tell me that dems are the only one doing dirty shit out here.. y’all conservatives are just as bad if not worse..
@motownplayer2000 dude liberals can't talk about morals either. You'll violently rioted every city last year for months causing over 2.5 BILLION dollars worth of destruction to private property from looting, vandalism and buring down buildings. People were assaulted and killed directly from the riots. Don't forget CHAZ/COP in Seattle where "protesters' took over 6 city blocks for 6 WEEKS forcing police to abandon their station and multiple people were shot and killed inside there.
@mowtownplayer2000 It's kind of hard to take the moral High Ground here when leftist extremists did a whole lot worse for whole lot longer last year than what happened on January 6th. I mean I get it, January 6 let you feel morally Superior again. Don't forget that for half of last year BLM and antifa held the entire nation hostage, destroyed a lot of public and private property, and killed a lot of people who were just going about their day or were trying to defend their place of business. And liberal media spent the entire time rebranding these violent leftist extremist riots as Heroes of the people rising up against their oppressors, all the while covering up all the destruction and bodies left in their wake. Whatever little moral High Ground the right has right now, the left has even less.
Ok then morality aside if it comes to war ima enjoy killing all you commie bastards... dispense with fake morality and let’s so the fucking world what humans can do when they try and destroy someone. God I’m going to enjoy this.
Honestly, with everything the Democrats are trying to push through, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to that. Although I don't want it to.
I do. I hope so hard it does. We need to weed out stupid for one... but most important...We need to suffer. Americans have had it easy for decades now. This newer generation thinks suffering is Starbucks being out of their favorite coffee bean. Sad to say but they need reminded of what the world is like for some people in the world. There’s still places women are commodities and your life is worth 0.10 per day of labor. You wake up work all day then sleep. You turn the cheek when someone talks trash because you know they will kill you and the law won’t care. There’s places where the leader straight up tells you your wrong if you argue you die. Meanwhile women say their as strong as men and can handle anything. Try being a single mother when gas is $10/gal and foods double the current cost. Men can’t even bench half their weight but they think their tough because nobody’s knocked out their front teeth in high school. A deep scar is what the generation needs or we’re screwed.
@Savage_Wisdom haha wow, so stupid. Those liberals didn’t go to the streets intending to kill anyone.. those conservatives went to the capital to actually kill everyone on the other side! Killed a cop in cold blood and abused what 2 or 3 more... oh, and let’s not forget the pike bombs that were discovered around the capital.. yeah.. go back to blaming people everything else tho.. that will solve all you problem 🤦♂️🤷♂️🤡🤡www.fbi.gov/.../suspected-pipe-bombs-in-washington-dc
It doesn't matter how good their intentions were. All that matters is what happened. And what happened was BLM held the entire Mason hostage for half a year, destroying public and private property, and killing a lot of innocent people. You don't get to pull the "I had good intentions" card after that.
“Suspected”. And the cop was a republican. And they now ain’t sure what killed him. Also when people don’t listen sometimes you gotta war.
@Savage_Wisdom did I say the liberals had “good intentions?” Unlike you I have condemned that they did in the cities.. I don’t excuse anything they have done. However, apples to apples, what happened at the capital is considerably worse than property damage.. if it wasn’t safe a few Good, brave cops and secret service agents.. we would be under a dictatorship of trump
Even though we didn’t even mention the amount of property damage they caused
I oppose the bill, to answer your question I'll focus on one aspect rather than a comprehensive list as I'll be here all day.Mail in voting.There are many examples all over the country of why this practice is terrible and should be banned. One prominent example being New York's 22nd Congressional district where votes were thrown out then reinstated numerous times. I encourage you to read up on that fiasco.
I think the Democratic party's objection to ID laws is that Republican state governments have been using them to make it harder for Democratic voters to cast their ballots, by making it hard to get ID in places with majorities of Democratic voters; poor areas, students, etc..If there was a way to ensure everyone who was entitled to vote would get an ID with minimal inconvenience, it would be accepted by everyone.As to mail-in voting, a couple of states have used it exclusively for some time, now.
They're not making the voting age 16, they're letting 16 and 17 year olds register for when they are entitled for vote.As to crap presidents, perhaps they should go for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting , so that nobody's vote is wasted, and the worst choice doesn't get in without a true majority.
@goaded oh i thought people could already do that? But i guess not. Oh well that don't seems like even less of a thing i would be bothered by. And yup but that's not how america does it and them changing there system is laughable to think about any time soon.
Murderers, rapists, foreigners, and the dead shouldn't be allowed to vote. Period. That isn't a matter of party, but principle. Restrictions on felons are legitimate too. Felons are too easily blackmailed.
@ObscuredBeyond Baloney. A person in Florida can be a felon by simply having not realizing their driver's license six months out of date, and driving a car. With strict southern laws, it's real easy to be a felon in Florida. And felons are easily blackmailed, you say. Is that because they are so weak and so unable, that they became felons? So easily pushed around? Have you ever visited a jail or prison? Either you haven't, or you aren't very perceptive.
@ObscuredBeyond disagree about the blackmail argument or the utility of blackmail on a large scale
I'm talking serious felonies. Not bullshit state laws. Arson. Rape. Armed robbery. B&E. The stuff you get a quarter for. The kinda thing where you can be told you either do your part to rig the election, or your PO will find out that your cousin with a warrant contacted you. Even if you didn't help him, you'll still get slapped with some absurd aiding and abetting charge. Because that's what you get for not "saving our democracyyyy... reeeeeee!!!" Harder to do that to someone without a serious conviction.
@ObscuredBeyond Obviously your are very ignorant. I was not speaking of any of those voting. And the Republican bills only use them as a cover, to make it look like that is who they are taking the vote away from. But in reality, they are taking the vote away from many law abiding, tax paying citizens. It's voter suppression on steroids, because Republicans have learned in the last election, that if citizens who lawfully have the right to vote, do vote, then then lose in most national elections.
No problem. 😊..
Wait until they introduce DC as a state just to add 2 new senators and disrupt the power balance.
@Tomtom9090 SMH.. I don't think it'll ever go through.. Even if the Democrats run government right now there's only so much even a lot of them will allow to happen.. Especially the moderate ones..
Yeah that is true
Felons should vote? Wtf. Why give power to those who have acted unwisely.
@Jack9949: Because they are citizens and laws passed or not passed affects them personally, not to mention their families. If you are a citizen then you should have a right to voice your vote regardless of your past.
I don’t agree. People that have made poor decisions should not be part of the planning process. That’s like if I put Osama Bin Laden as head of the nuclear arms committee.
Illegal immigrants can't vote, and the bill wouldn't allow it, either. People are lying to you about it.
@goaded Oh lord... the bill will give IMMEDIATE amnesty to illegal immigrants giving them citizenship with little barriers. This is essentially allowing illegal immigrants to vote. You can call a tail a leg, but it's still a leg.
Where does it say that?www.congress.gov/.../textThe word amnesty doesn't appear, immigration turns up in a half-dozen places, none of which say any more than that they can't be prosecuted for getting automatically registered to vote by the government (particularly, they're allowed to let the government know they've been registered in error, without fear of prosecution). SEC. 1015. Voter protection and security in automatic registration: Protections for errors in registration.
The Tide Pod eaters disliked this post, for containing too much truth.
So, the original Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional? SCOTUS disagreed.
@goaded SCOTUS also believed at various points in its history that blacks cannot be citizens, that racially segregated facilities were ok, that citizens of Japanese descent can be imprisoned without cause or due process, that private property can be taken from one private citizen and given to another private citizen and that communists do not have free speech rights.Among many other completely wrong rulings.I'm sure you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is?
Fifty years on, SCOTUS still didn't think the VRA was unconstitutional, just that its provisions were outdated and no longer necessary. After which decision, the states in question closed something like 1600 polling places, mostly in poor areas, proving Roberts wrong.
@goaded that proves nothing other than your own belief that poor people are all Democrats.The current makeup of the Supreme Court will probably be slightly more Constitutionally adherent than previous generations.
Of course not. It's a fact, though, that poor (and young, and educated) people tend to vote Democrat. Even this SCOTUS might have a problem ruling in the Republican's favour, if their argument is explicitly "We'll lose if we can't throw out those votes".
@goaded That's funny since the 20 wealthiest districts in the US all have Democrat Representatives in Congress.And the argument will not be "we will lose if we can't throw out these votes" the argument will be "This Act violates Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution" and explain in detail why that is.
Did I say "only" poor people vote Democratic?I was referring to the RNC lawyer, who was asked why they were in front of the SCOTUS, why did they have "standing" to keep the law that the Democrats were protesting unfairly affected their voters? The answer was that without the law, Republicans would be at a "competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats". Remember, we're talking about a law that throws out votes from valid constituents in certain circumstances, rather than postponing their counting.As to "This Act violates Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution", they'll also have to explain who it is different from the previous legislation to protect citizens from being excluded from fair and free elections.
@goaded The simple answer is this bill makes it impossible to ensure free and fair elections.
Which aspect of it does that, exactly? I ask because a lot of people seem to erroneously believe that people will be able to vote before they're 18, or while they're in prison.
@goaded To name just a couple: it eliminates removing people from voter rolls, even after they die. It removes any and all penalties for voting fraudulently, it mandates vote harvesting and it bans voter ID laws.
No, it doesn't.You know you can read the bill, here? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52861726"“(1) REQUIRING VERIFICATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State may not remove the name of any registrant from the official list of voters eligible to vote in elections for Federal office in the State unless the State verifies, on the basis of objective and reliable evidence, that the registrant is ineligible to vote in such elections."That's basically it. Death is certainly a valid reason. Not voting once or twice is not.It talks about "... excessively onerous voter identification requirements..." It limits what you're allowed to use as an excuse to take people off the voting rolls.It doesn't do any of the things you say.
@goaded Yes, it does, you just don't understand how laws work in the US.
I'm pretty sure they follow the rules of the English language. Show me the section you think says what you think. www.congress.gov/.../text
@goaded I'm going to say this once, so pay attention, read it as many times as you need to:The parts you are talking about are vague and vagueness is left to the courts to clear up. Given the previously mentioned long history of the courts getting things wrong this is a recipe for a complete federal takeover of elections from the states and an abolishment of any semblance of any kind of integrity to our elections.I'm not going to explain this any further, if you're still don't get it then you're too stupid to bother engaging with.
Of course, it's my stupidity, not your inability to point to a specific section of the bill that could even be argued to mean that "it eliminates removing people from voter rolls, even after they die", or "It removes any and all penalties for voting fraudulently".You might have some argument about whether "it mandates vote harvesting and it bans voter ID laws", but (a) people mustn't be paid for collecting votes, and (b) there's still a requirement that the voter has to make a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.And you have no credibility because of the first two claims.
@goaded Yes, it is because of your stupidity, I explained it so that a middle school student would be able to understand it and you still don't get it.Begone, fool.
The issue of voter IDs is only an issue because Republicans refuse to clarify what kind of ID should count and also refuse to provide them for free. Everyone has a SSN so the government could very easily provide FREE forms of Identification but the Republicans in Congress don't want that.The issue of Photo IDs is similar except there's no good way to provide free legal photo IDs that won't disenfranchise workers who aren't able to make it to their "local" DMV (which can be miles away for some).
@Hypnos0929 the ssn is only so good. It doesn't come with a current picture and address. The ssn db is also stale, and not up-to-date.On the other hand state id is pretty accurate. Most people need good id's to get what they need now. Bottomline, regardless party, it needs to be done to show transparency. If we keep up our current, people will lose faith as they are now.
State IDs would be good if they actually gave people free ones. I turned 21 last year and I haven't been able to get a new one due to COVID and cost restrictions of getting to and from the DMV
@Hypnos0929 so if state license or identification is too costly and hard to obtain, should we not give away guns and alcohol without verification?
Rather, give guns and alcohol without verification. Guns are a constitutional right.
No. Guns and alchohol are both products made by private groups. The government is not a private industry, or at least shouldn't act like one intentionally. Furthermore my issue with the state ID isn't so much the cost of the ID but rather the cost of getting the ID. Basically getting to my nearest DMV would be a $40 trip for me, not including the ID itself. On top of that the hours of my nearest DMV are from 8am to 4pm but my only days off are weekends, which is when the DMV is closed. Basically I'd have to take a day off work (money loss) then I'd have to spent $40 on top of however much a new ID costs. So I'd be losing about $100-$200 depending on what day I go to the DMV.
There is no problem with having ID to vote. The issue is requiring picture ID, which is new. The reason it's a problem, is because for many people, getting a picture ID is difficult and cumbersome. That interferes with their constitutional right to vote. If picture IDs were easy to obtain for all citizens, there would be no problem, but that is not how it works. Picture IDs are easy for some to obtain, and much more difficult for others. Thus, that is how Republicans use this method of voter suppression to keep people form using their constitutional right to vote.
The real bottom line, is there has been NO wide spread voter fraud, and the courts have ruled that that there was no wide spread voter fraud. The Republicans use the false claim of voter fraud, to fix a non-existent problem, which is rally aimed at keeping people from voting. There would be a good case for more stringent IDs, if voter fraud was common, but it's actually uncommon, as in very uncommon. Republicans are like a dentist who wants to drill pull your teeth, and drill into other teeth, to put in fillings where no cavities exist.
@Hypnos0929 Wait, gun ownership is not private. That's a constitutional right. And this issue comes down to purchaing. You legally cannot buy a gun without a state or federal ID. There a certain phrase in the 2nd Amendment, Shall not be Infringed. Based on your argument, the cost associated with getting an ID should also be removed from gun purchases. It's a barrier of ownership.The second issue is how would a person get a job without ID. In my state, over 18, you are required by law to carry state ID or drivers license. You also have to use getting a job along with a ss card.
A person does not need a picture ID to get a job, he will need a social security number. The SS number is routinely applied for at birth, so is present for most people. And there is a difference between obtaining a deadly weapon, and voting. There is substantial proof that guns cause many deaths, wide spread deaths, every year. There is NO proof that there is any wide spread voter fraud. The courts have repeatedly found no substantial voter fraud, despite the Republicans applying in more than 50 courts, and the supreme court. That is, there is no problem with voter fraud, so why the massive "fix" gong on? It's not about voter fraud, it's about voter suppression. And with guns, there is massive killings, including children in schools. So it's little wonder that the courts find some gun laws necessary.
@kkirk4442 Yet we find ourselves in the dark place where half the voting bloc feels like the election was rigged. And of course they have take the word of the government that there is no fraud, yet the private groups that want to verify the vote have not been given access. No one can say for sure there is no fraud, because if they have a voter's registration number, that's all they check. There is no list that can be given to the public and a way to verify outside of elected officials to actually check. If a person or group submitted a Freedom of Information request, they would only get a summary. Not a cross reference. And despite what the media runs, dead people crawl out of the ground to vote all the time. My dad has been dead for more than 30 years, but when I got to vote, he is still on the logs when they look me up in their binder. The only reason I know that is I live in the same town. So don't pretend that the dead are removed, and that fraud is so rare not to cause a barrier because some communities can't get ID.The reminds me 20 years ago when I started in customer service, and the Spanish callers would call in, and we would keep dropping them on the Spanish line. It was busy so at some point most went from speaking Spanish to English to get their business taken care of. It was not unusual really. Same thing here. The cast majority of people have drivers licenses. Most should have IDs. This sounds like a lame argument that poor people just can't afford, because it will cost them $10-40 of fees and opportunity cost to get something they should all ready have to do most day-to-day activities. And to add insult, many of poor people walk into pawn shops and pay day loan shops frequently to pay peter to rob paul to get by during hard times just to get by. They also have to show up most of the time to get their various welfare programs, that too should be checking this information as well. It is also
WE don't have to take the word of the government that there was little voter fraud, and no amount of fraud that would have changed the election. We have the findings of over fifty judges, including judges who were appointed by Trump. We also have the Supreme Court which refused to weigh in, as there was not wide spread voter fraud. The supposed rigged election if completely false, a lie spread to enhance Trump and some other Republicans, and to excite Trump's base. Of course, Trump had the crazy idea that he could over turn the election by spreading this lie. Again, there was no wide spread voter fraud, and the suppose need to change how voting is done to protect the elections is based on a falsehood, a big lie by Trump, supported by his followers.
@kkirk4442 I am not talking about just this last election. I am talking about all elections for the last several decades. I don't care about the political affiliations. And the judges are apart of the system. Who is their oversight? Should we feel better if we agree with them politically?Back in the old days we had journalist and big news companies that sought out answers. Seems we have turned them into entertainment, and we take what the government gives us as their take on the vote.
Do you have a link to that?
Never mind. en.wikipedia.org/.../Commission_on_Federal_Election_Reform"* Increased voter registration efforts by the states, including an effort to allow ex-felons meeting certain conditions to vote * Creating a uniform photo identification method to match the voter to the voting roll, while establishing more offices to all non-drivers to more easily register and acquire photo IDs"It does the first two, but doesn't go for voter ID because states aren't willing to do the second part it's coupled to. (There are obviously many, many, other recommendations, like making the system less partisan, and I'd be happy to discuss which ones it "ignores".)
@goaded The big thing is mail-in ballots, which the commission warned against as a major source of fraud. They didn't say "Don't do mail-in ballots.", because mail-in ballots are necessary in some cases. They identified it as a major source of fraud, and gave recommendations on how to minimize.There is almost no way to ensure the integrity of mail-in ballots. Mass use of mail-in ballots leaves it wide open for abuse. The best way to combat it is to not do it any more than necessary.The Democrats are making a power grab to get as much in their favor while they control both chambers of Congress. They are usurping the intention of the Constitution. The federal government does not have the authority to create legislation like this.
I see your point about mass mail-in ballots, although at least two states have used them exclusively for quite some time, now, without any problems.I don't agree with your claim that "The Democrats are making a power grab to get as much in their favor while they control both chambers of Congress", though. We've seen that Republicans wanted states to throw out as many ballots as possible on the basis of mismatched signatures, when they're predominantly Democratic votes (Lindsay Graham), or to "find" more ballots (Trump), or to disqualify entire districts, despite the statistics used to justify doing so were *worse* in less Democratic leaning areas (Wayne County)."The federal government does not have the authority to create legislation like this."The Voting Rights Act was constitutional, and similarly designed to protect the vote.
Two final pieces of breaking news:What Carter says about what's going on today:"while states must safeguard the integrity of the election process to prevent fraud, this should not be at the expense of voters' access to the polls... In the 16 years since the report's release, vote-by-mail practices have progressed significantly as new technologies have been developed. In light of these advances, I believe that voting by mail can be conducted in a manner that ensures election integrity."www.cartercenter.org/.../...-statement-030921.htmlThe laws Georgia is passing: (tl;dr? Read the last sentence of the first paragraph!)"... cuts weekend voting days—including on Sundays, when Black churches hold 'Souls to the Polls' get-out-the-vote drives—restricts the use of mail ballot drop boxes, prevents counties from accepting grants from nonprofits to improve their elections, adds new voter ID requirements for mail ballots, gives election official less time to send out mail ballots and voters less time to return them, and even makes it a crime to distribute food and water to voters waiting in line."Also "On Monday afternoon, the legislators approved a bill repealing no-excuse absentee voting, which 1.3 million voters used to cast ballots by mail in 2020, including 450,000 Republicans. They were also set to consider a bill on Monday evening ending automatic voter registration, which 5 million of the state’s 7.6 million voters used to register since it was implemented in 2016."www.motherjones.com/.../*That's* how you steal an election.
You need an ID to get on a plane, you need and ID to go in a courthouse, you need and ID to buy beer. Why can you vote with no ID? Especially the mail in ballots. In some cases there were more ballots counted than there were registered voters. This is a mathematical impossibility. Mail in ballots created the mess.In 2024 the election will be decided by how many fake ballots each side can send.
How are they making it difficult?Most states allow absentee ballots for those who have physical problems that prevent them from going to the polls. Plus those who are away from home and can't make it to their local polling place.And don't give me the bullshit about a drivers license or state IDs can't be obtained by minorities. That is racist racist thinking.If a person is on welfare, the welfare department requires proof of citizenship. The welfare department can issue a picture ID that can be used for voting at no cost to the person on welfare.
@Cicero79 Right, the Republicans lost Georgia on a strong Democratic mail-in vote. So their response is to ban mail-in voting without a doctor’s excuse. They also limited polling places in urban areas. The governor of Texas tried to limit each county to one ballot drop-off location in an attempt to discourage urban voters. There are hundreds of similar examples across the country. Students tend to vote Democratic, so Republicans excludes student ids as acceptable identification. None of this is about voter fraud, it’s about suppressing the votes of groups that lean Democratic.
Student ID's don't prove you are a resident of that state, only a student of a school in that state, that is why they are rightfully excluded.And several voter organizations in Georgia are being investigated for fraudulent activity, such as telling out of state students they can change their residency to vote, then change it back.Pull your head out of your ass.
@Cicero79 Public assistance offices could issue voter identification, but they don't, because that would make voting easier for likely Democratic voters. Student IDs could be used for proof of identity (not proof of residence) but that would make voting easier for likely Democratic voters. Republicans state legislatures have passed measure after measure to make it difficult for likely Democratic voters to cast ballots, and have proposed more after their losses in Georgia and Arizona and close wins in Texas. Republicans have shown repeatedly that they are not in favor of democracy. Claiming that they are trying to prevent voter fraud is complete bullshit, as voter fraud is nearly non-existent in this country.
Thanks for answering
As far as voter ID.. Everyone should be required to show ID to vote. If you have universal mail in ballots though, you will have an increase in people voting who aren't necessarily legally allowed to vote, say illegal immigrants and the like. I am on the fence on that one lol.As far as being 16 to vote. Only if they lower the drinking age and tobacco age, and things like being tried as an adult to the age of 16. If a 16 year old can vote, then a 16 year old should be forced to accept all, and i do mean ALL of the responsibilities as an adult. So i am against this one.
I like you, but actually the Feds dictating to the states is exactly what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is for. Where they conflict, federal law is supreme.
Thats the thing though. Look at how it actually works. Weed is illegal federally, But in such a way that if you have it you have to have a tax stamp. States were on their own to make laws regarding the illegality of it. Some states have lifted those rules, and legalized it despite it still being illegal federally. So the supremacy clause i guess does not apply here. The federal gov making this kind of rule, It will be challenged in supreme court and shot down. The constitution guarantees voting rights at the age of 18. The house passing this law is in direct opposition to the constitution. In order for them to make the law have teeth, It would need to be an Amendment to the constitution, Which all 50 states would need to ratify.. And more than 50% of them simply will not.
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes. The tax had been used in some states to keep African Americans from voting in federal elections. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.
Meaning it would take more than some idiotic bill passed by the house to actually change that law. If you studied the constitution you would know that.
The Constitution says everyone over 18 has voting rights. It doesn’t prevent Congress from giving 16 yr olds the franchise.The Constitution sets a federal floor, not a ceiling.
Thats not how it works. no matter how badly you want it to, it simply does not work like that.
Then if you’re correct I’m sure the Supreme Court will strike down the law.
I guarantee it will. Let me put it a different way, If your way of thinking were true, we would not have needed amendments allowing women and minorities to vote. In fact if the way you're thinking were true, most of the amendments would not be necessary. The constitution is iron clad, its not something that you can just changed on a whim by passing a bill. Take Prohibition. The amendment that made alcohol illegal. If your logic were correct we would not have needed an amendment repealing it to make alcohol legal again.
No. My point is nowhere in the Constitution does it say that 16 yr olds CAN’T vote.But you have identified one of the key arguments the opposition will use if they take this to court, that the reforms in this bill are beyond the powers of Congress and can only be enacted by constitutional amendment. We’ll see what the Supreme Court says.
Actually it does. it says 18 or older in the wording, Not 18 or younger. By adding in the "Or older" part it sets a hard limit, or floor for the age.. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment provides, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.” It prohibits states from discriminating among voters based on age, for people who are at least 18 years old, and grants Congress power to “enforce” that prohibition through “appropriate legislation.” The Twenty-Sixth Amendment is the last in a series of amendments enacted over more than a century expanding constitutional protection for voting rights. Like many other amendments, it was enacted as a direct repudiation of a U. S. Supreme Court ruling. Traditionally, Americans had to be at least 21 years old to vote. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted after the Civil War, protects the right to vote for the “male inhabitants of [each] state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States.” States were permitted to lower the voting age, but not required to do so. By the time of the Vietnam Conflict, most states still limited the franchise to people 21 and older. Because so many men between 18 and 20 were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, Congress came under substantial pressure to expand the franchise to them. Congress consequently enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which lowered the voting age to 18 for all federal, state, and local elections.
Yes, but it doesn’t PROHIBIT people younger than 18 from voting. It just says states can’t prohibit those 18 or older from doing so. And the traditional stuff only matters if you believe in original intent.
Thats not how a lawyer would interpret it, It literally says you must be at least 18. Source, my wife is a constitutional lawyer, she deals with this stuff daily.
Going with your logic. drinking laws dont expressly prohibit minors from drinking so technically they can.. The mental gymnastics you go through are just funny here.
Then if your wife is correct I’m sure the Supreme Court will agree with you on judicial review
No but that's what the Democrats want.
If 16 year olds serve in the military I would let them vote. Otherwise, forget it.
If a 16 year old can serve in the military, then he/she can vote , otherwise, NO.
It's a political party that only represents the best interest of the high middle class and above. A political party like that is trash for a nation.
Not sure yet
Let's wait and see
I mean, do they really think that in a democracy you should win because you block other people from voting?If the only way you can win is by blocking people from voting, your ideas are just shit
And the last for years was filled with absolute integrity was it? Both sides do the same exact thing. As soon as one has more power over the other, they do what they want. Republicans literally had closed door meetings with no Democrats present and now it's the reverse. The idea of working together and isle crossing ended decades ago. People are only ever upset when their party isn't in power but ignore just about everything else when they are. Literally nothing has changed whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. It's just more of the same, waiting 2, 4, or 8 years until it's your turn again.
@BeeNee you’re not wrong
Actually if they get the vote the drinking age will probably be lowered to 16
Or at least 18
Like in Europe
What Left/Democrats fear the most is the inevitable revenge by commoners. Thats why DC is an armed camp. The irony is that their arrogance will bring about that which they most fear.
The purpose is to allow people the constitutional right to vote, that Republican controlled states are taking away, so they can win elections. Republicans know that in many circumstances, they can only win, if they keep lawful citizens from registering to vote, or from voting. They do this by making obstacles that make it more difficult to vote. That's voter suppression.
@kkirk4442 How does proof of citizenship and voter ID prevent lawful citizens from voting?
@kkirk4442 When does any lawful citizen denied the right to vote? It never happens under any circumstances. Any US citizen can go to their local city hall and register to vote. There are no more poll taxes or other forms of voter suppression. That is just a lie perpetrated by the democrats. After they register to vote they show up at the polling place on election day and cast their ballot. It has been done successfully for over 200 years. Now all of a sudden it's voter suppression. I say if somebody can't get his/her lazy ass off the sofa and go down to vote then they have no squawk about who gets elected. In fact, every place I have ever lived both urban and rural places, if you do not have transportation to get to the polls there are plenty of people who will drive you to the polls. If you don't want to do that then you can vote by absentee ballot. There are plenty of options that will have a secure election. Mail in ballots with no authentication is just a recipe for fraud. Just because the hundreds of allegations were not investigated the way they should have been does not mean they did not happen. Hundreds of people gave sworn statements under penalty of law that they observed first hand actual voter fraud. I think at the end it was a little over a thousand people who came forward. A thousand people risked jail time to give sworn testimony that there was fraud. This has never happened before. And it certainly never happened on this scale. It was not a conspiracy and it is crazy to think so. A conspiracy suggests these people had some common link. They had nothing in common. Some of them were registered democrats.
@exitseven You are simply too ignorant to discuss this issue with. When has a citizen been not allowed to vote? It has happened many times. When has a citizen been indirectly not been allowed to vote because of voter suppression? Again, it happens all the time. You simply are ignorant, and don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps if you read some real research and real studies on the subject, rather than listen to Fox so called news, you would know more.
@kkirk4442 I bet that as a US citizen I could move to anyplace in the US and go to the local city hall I could register to vote with absolutely no problem provided I did it during regular business hours. On election day I could go to the local polling place to cast my ballot. There would be nobody there that would make any effort to prevent me from doing so. Can you argue with that?
@kkirk4442 Give me a single example of voter suppression in the 50 years.
The left doesn't fear the commoner. The left is made up mostly of commoners. What they fear, is an insurrection by the far right, as was done on January 6, when they stormed the capitol building. Traitors is a word that aptly describes the right wingers who stormed the capitol.
@kkirk4442 It was not an insurrection and it was much less of a riot than was seen in cities across the country over the summer. Out of the tens of thousands of people who showed up to support the president only a handful entered the capitol building All this occurred incidentally while President Trump directed people to march "peacefully and patriotically" to the capitol. Only one person was shot, an unarmed woman who was killed for basically trespassing by a cop. The fake news media all of a sudden decided that the cops were heroes, what, because they killed somebody that didn't agree with their warped view of America?
exactly- the simple answer is that it doesn't. Early and late voting, mail in ballots, ballot harvesting , no authentication are all used by the democrats to steal the election.
@exitseven Complete garbage. The election was not stolen. That is a lie that the Trumpers spread, because they haven't the sense to understand that Trump could, and did, lose the election. Over fifty judges ruled in favor of the Democrats not stealing the election, and the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump's challenge, because the lower courts were right. Even Trump nominated judges ruled that the election was fair, and Trump's attorney General, William Barr, said the election was fair. Many right wingers just have comprehension difficulties. That happens when you belong to a cult.
Very good point
Stop committing crimes?
Stop being a dick
The difference in maturity between a 16 year old and a 18 year old is hardly nothing. You have grown adults that vote and don't understand what's going on affecting the future of young people in process.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy there's a big gap between 16 and 18 . A 16 yr old have no life experience and live under the guidance and protection of their parents. If you agree with 16 , then why not 15 or 14 ? The gap between 15 and 16 isn't different.
There is no much difference of maturity between a 15 year old and 16 year old.Around the world 13 and 14 year olds are more mature than a bunch of 25 year old adults in the West who act like little kids.A 16 year old is old enough to understand between right and wrong and comprehend social matters than a 70 puls year old man or woman who can't even remember their birthdays anymore, yet are allowed to vote.
Not even once, as always. The only mention of them is that they aren't allowed to be prosecuted if they report being incorrectly registered by accident.
It specifically outlaws voter ID.