How likely for save act to pass senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Hey ummm CONSTITUTION.

You wanna be absolutist about it and falsely claim an ID is a poll tax, so it's also an infringement on bearing arms.

DP.

If it costs you money to have to vote, it's a poll tax.

If it costs even a single penny to get the ID, because for example they require a birth certificate and you get charged for it, or they demand a passport, which you have to pay for, then it is a de-facto poll tax.

24th Amendment bans poll taxes in federal elections, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Education extended it to ALL elections, federal, state and local via the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court was extremely clear that if a voter must spend money to meet a voting requirement, then it's unconstitutional.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Hey ummm CONSTITUTION.

You wanna be absolutist about it and falsely claim an ID is a poll tax, so it's also an infringement on bearing arms.

DP.

If it costs you money to have to vote, it's a poll tax.

If it costs even a single penny to get the ID, because for example they require a birth certificate and you get charged for it, or they demand a passport, which you have to pay for, then it is a de-facto poll tax.

24th Amendment bans poll taxes in federal elections, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Education extended it to ALL elections, federal, state and local via the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court was extremely clear that if a voter must spend money to meet a voting requirement, then it's unconstitutional.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

Indiana was only able to do this because they made getting the ID free. Crawford v. Marion County actually reaffirmed that charging money to vote is unconstitutional. And Crawford left a warning that if the voter ID law does at any point impose substantial cost, travel burden or document fees, it violates the Constitution.

The SAVE Act has no provisions guaranteeing any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately, this needs to go to the Supreme Court as like it or not, it is a potential poll task.

It's not a poll tax, period.

it is if it is forcing people to spend money in order to vote.

So, they don't buy liquor. They don't go to the doctor. They don't fly. They don't drive. They don't go to concerts. Probably don't have a bank account or a credit card--but they vote?

An ID that can be used to buy liquor or open a bank account is not the same as an ID that establishes citizenship. How hard is that to understand?

Social Security cards and Medicaid both require ID similar to the SAVE Act.

If it costs money to vote, it is a poll tax. Poll taxes are illegal. Your right to vote is constitutionally guaranteed.

Oh, you want to bring up the Constitution. Voting in a federal election under 18 is illegal. Prove to me you are over 18 without documentation. Prove to me you are who you say you are without govt photo ID. Prove to me you can only vote once in an election without controls including matching what you state you are with hard controls, and by the way, I don't accept "signed affirmations" based on honesty as a control.

Was that you who cited Crawford v. Marion County?

If so, big egg on your face because Indiana allows affidavits, that's part of how it got around having their voter ID law thrown out as unconstitutional. Along with not being allowed to require any documentation that can cost money to get, whether birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, tribal document and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Hey ummm CONSTITUTION.

You wanna be absolutist about it and falsely claim an ID is a poll tax, so it's also an infringement on bearing arms.

What do you think a poll tax is? You all keep saying with such certainty that it isn't a poll tax. Explain how requiring specific kinds of ID that costs money to get as a condition of voting is not requiring people to pay a fee as a condition of voting?

Is the FEE collected at the place of voting? No. Is the FEE for an government photo ID segmented off and used to fund electoral activities? No. Is a government photo ID used exclusively for voting? No.

Not a poll tax.

It would be required AS A CONDITION of voting. If you must purchase the ID as a condition of voting, it is a poll tax. If you cannot vote without paying the fee, it is a poll tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Gee, I'm looking at the Constitition and I don't see that written anywhere.

What is WRITTEN?

the constitution also says emuluments are illegal, and yet people like you simply ignore it while our treasury is being raped

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Hey ummm CONSTITUTION.

You wanna be absolutist about it and falsely claim an ID is a poll tax, so it's also an infringement on bearing arms.

DP.

If it costs you money to have to vote, it's a poll tax.

If it costs even a single penny to get the ID, because for example they require a birth certificate and you get charged for it, or they demand a passport, which you have to pay for, then it is a de-facto poll tax.

24th Amendment bans poll taxes in federal elections, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Education extended it to ALL elections, federal, state and local via the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court was extremely clear that if a voter must spend money to meet a voting requirement, then it's unconstitutional.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

^^^Another MAGA playing lawyer on the internet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No need to show ID to purchase a firearm. It's a tax and govt "shall not infringe".

Because we see what happens when *anyone* can get a gun, and particularly semi-automatic weaponry. Maybe the right to bear arms should only be for ball and powder muskets?

Hey ummm CONSTITUTION.

You wanna be absolutist about it and falsely claim an ID is a poll tax, so it's also an infringement on bearing arms.

DP.

If it costs you money to have to vote, it's a poll tax.

If it costs even a single penny to get the ID, because for example they require a birth certificate and you get charged for it, or they demand a passport, which you have to pay for, then it is a de-facto poll tax.

24th Amendment bans poll taxes in federal elections, and Harper v. Virginia Board of Education extended it to ALL elections, federal, state and local via the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court was extremely clear that if a voter must spend money to meet a voting requirement, then it's unconstitutional.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

^^^Another MAGA playing lawyer on the internet

It's pointless to argue with them. Just by virtue of them being MAGA you know they can barely read or string together a coherent thought.

The courts have already decided what a poll tax is. Will that precedent hold in our new banana republic? We'll see. But there's no question that the SAVE act would be unconstitutional according to a faithful reading of our constitution and existing laws.

[Anonymous]

I can't read through all 30 pages-- Is this bill going to clear Congress? I heard Susan Collins gave in on it so I assume so. This is not an issue I track closely although I've heard about the obstacles. What does it do besides require a photo ID to vote?
Thanks very much from those of us late to this party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't read through all 30 pages-- Is this bill going to clear Congress? I heard Susan Collins gave in on it so I assume so. This is not an issue I track closely although I've heard about the obstacles. What does it do besides require a photo ID to vote?
Thanks very much from those of us late to this party.

Why would you ask random people on the internet to educate you on this? Go find a reputable source and find out what the law would mean for yourself. Don't rely on the biased opinions of random people and potential bots designed to manipulate you one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't read through all 30 pages-- Is this bill going to clear Congress? I heard Susan Collins gave in on it so I assume so. This is not an issue I track closely although I've heard about the obstacles. What does it do besides require a photo ID to vote?
Thanks very much from those of us late to this party.

No, it isn't going to clear Congress. It needs 60 votes for cloture. Supporters claim the GOP will force a talking filibuster on the Dems to get it through but that isn't happening because it would tie up the Senate floor literally for months and there aren't 50 votes to otherwise change Senate rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't read through all 30 pages-- Is this bill going to clear Congress? I heard Susan Collins gave in on it so I assume so. This is not an issue I track closely although I've heard about the obstacles. What does it do besides require a photo ID to vote?
Thanks very much from those of us late to this party.

it needs 60 votes and Murkowski is a no; Thune said he wouldn't break the filibuster for it, so it is unlikely, but who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

Noone is getting screwed over. If you are a citizen and eligible to vote then you should be able to. No need to worry about illegals voting and changing laws/policies of your cities,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

Noone is getting screwed over. If you are a citizen and eligible to vote then you should be able to. No need to worry about illegals voting and changing laws/policies of your cities,

You are screwed over if you need to pay $135 for a passport and can't afford it. And, since they aren't issuing them at libraries or post offices, where is one supposed to go to get one, if they don't live in a city, like DC, that has a state department passport office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is an updated version of the SAVE Act posted

https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s1383/BILLS-119s1383eah.pdf


the changes do not make it better, and the demand for states to turn their voter rolls over to the federal government is a violation of the Constitution.

Meanwhile you're claiming that all the states that require an iD to vote are acting unconstitutionally by virtue of whichever way the wind blows.

You know how nuts your argument is?

Do you see you are unable to understand the real problem even though it has been explained numerous times? Do you know how stupid you really are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I changed my last name but have a passport. I’m registered to vote in PA. My sister thinks it will definitely pass and screw over all married women who changed names. I think she’s jumping the gun along with a lot people apparently on social media. Why isn’t anyone talking about this on dcum?

Noone is getting screwed over. If you are a citizen and eligible to vote then you should be able to. No need to worry about illegals voting and changing laws/policies of your cities,

Hi! Please give an example of a single time people voted illegally and it changed the outcome of an election.