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.

You're just some dumb rando with a moronic opinion. The courts said otherwise.

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?

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

What is WRITTEN?

The constitution is a living document. Settled law over time says you are wrong. If you want to change settled law around poll taxes, then go for it. In the meantime, the SAVE Act violates the poll tax case law.

BS. The Constitution is a dead document. You only change the Constitution via Article V, AKA an Amendment.

Good luck with your fantasy.

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.

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.

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 is a living document. Settled law over time says you are wrong. If you want to change settled law around poll taxes, then go for it. In the meantime, the SAVE Act violates the poll tax case law.

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.

Not according to the law of the land. If you want to test settled law, go for it.

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.

"Prove to me"

YOU prove to ME that your claims about elections being rigged and stolen due to widespread voter fraud aren't a bunch of lies and stupid MAGA bullshit.

Because, they are. This has been repeatedly studied and investigated. Out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast over the last 10 years, there have only been a few dozen proven instances of fraudulent ballots cast.

And that's the central LIE that the SAVE Act is based on. You scumbags want to impose hurdles, costs and barriers (and yes the costs are illegal, as the PP points out) for no real reason other than because of a LIE being peddled by your sore loser MAGA daddy Trump, because he thinks he should have won in 2020.

That's the only true, undeniable, proven fact here. Don't come here talking to us about "honesty" and "controls" when that is what your entire premise is grounded in.

So sit down, and STFU.

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?

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?

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.

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.

You literally have no idea how voter rolls work, but keep spewing your tripe.

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.

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

NOPE.

Do you have a legal citation to back up your false claim?

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.

You don't make the election rules. We have rules already. And one of them is that you can't make people pay to vote.

And I've yet to see any proof of widespread voter fraud. Your paranoia is not proof.

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.

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

NOPE.

You saying NOPE IN ALL CAPS doesn't make it so. It's the definition of a poll tax. If they want everyone to have some sort of uniform ID, make it free to obtain.

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.