Biden Judge forces VA to put 1600 self attested non citizens back on the voter rolls
- Thread starter Scott Downey
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes. needs to be ID required for all elections, don't know if the federal government can require it of the state elections.
It would cause problems if ID required for federal election but not state elections.
Newsome just banned voter ID for California.
Gavin Newsom bans California from requiring ID to vote
The new law aims to curb conservative efforts in cities like Huntington Beach, where a voter ID requirement was passed in March.
www.newsweek.com
Not everyone has their proof of citizenship ready at hand. Minorities may be disproportionately affected. https://www.npr.org/2024/06/11/nx-s1-4991903/voter-registration-proof-of-citizenship-requirementYes. needs to be ID required for all elections, don't know if the federal government can require it of the state elections.
It would cause problems if ID required for federal election but not state elections.
Newsome just banned voter ID for California.
Gavin Newsom bans California from requiring ID to vote
The new law aims to curb conservative efforts in cities like Huntington Beach, where a voter ID requirement was passed in March.
Still needs to have voter ID to vote. If people can't figure that out.... who are these minorities who have no ID. They have no ID?
Good grief, how ridiculous. Do they never go to a doctor, even that required ID, identification.
Good grief, how ridiculous. Do they never go to a doctor, even that required ID, identification.
Not requiring ID to vote when ID is required for everything else important in life is absurdly crazy , but that is the democrat's strategy.
Elon Musk is correct, on the money with what he says here. Watch it on youtube.
Elon Musk is correct, on the money with what he says here. Watch it on youtube.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
All you got is talking points while denying the reality in effect for decades. Note how the red States that do not require Voter ID are are Left leaning. That is not a coincidence.
Section 8(c)(2)(A) of the National Voter Registration Act (the 90 Day Provision) requires states to “complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for Federal office, any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Notice how you rely on case law? Let's examine Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, shall we?
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
Notice how the Constitutional authority you cite saying NOTHING about voter registration roles and removing ineligible voters for all ballot issues except voting for Congressional offices? That is, power is granted to Congress regarding only electing its own members and not any other ballot issue or office, including POTUS,
Do you suppose the power retained by the States to prescribe the times, places and manner are now reduced to the exception underlined above and all other details are usurped by Congress? (Presumably by the "case law" you cite?)
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Right! Redfan is being obtuse, pretending DENIAL is only a river in Egypt. It reminds me of
“Kill all the lawyers”
Shakespeare “Henry VI, Part 2,” Act IV, Scene 2
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Your reply does not respond to the question. The Courts may have no authority to second guess Congress but US citizens certainly have that authority. Question asked - and evaded. I'm not looking to "strike a balance" between good and evil.
2 Corinthians 6:13-16
Complete Jewish Bible
13 So, just to be “fair” (I am using the language of children), open wide your hearts too.
14 Do not yoke yourselves together in a team with unbelievers. For how can righteousness and lawlessness be partners? What fellowship does light have with darkness? 15 What harmony can there be between the Messiah and B’liya‘al? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement can there be between the temple of God and idols?
Me neither. I'm defending the rule of law applied by courts, not the policy decisions behind particular statutes. Like you, I think Section 8 is a poor legislative choice. So what? You and I don't have the black robes.
You stopped highlighting too soon! Congress can "alter" the State's regulations! Many fine attorneys have tried, and failed, to get the NVRA declared unconstitutional. Why don't YOU try?
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor SLAMS Corrupt Judge’s Shocking Ruling Allowing Noncitizen to Remain on State’s Voter Rolls
Debp
Well-Known Member
First off...
The 1600 are a joke. That's a drop in the bucket of the illegal voters on the roles of voters in Virginia.
They removed 1600 but not the hundreds of thousand of ineligible voters on the roles. So where they are arguing over 1600...it's a joke.
We need Federal involvement in this or else foreign governments WILL interfere.
The 1600 are a joke. That's a drop in the bucket of the illegal voters on the roles of voters in Virginia.
They removed 1600 but not the hundreds of thousand of ineligible voters on the roles. So where they are arguing over 1600...it's a joke.
We need Federal involvement in this or else foreign governments WILL interfere.
I have watched videos of him speaking and the man is excellent.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
We don't need Black robes.
It's so funny how the Left stands on the law when it is convenient, like here. When it is not convenient, like at the border, then not following the law is OK.
However, this is secondary. Your defending the rule of law applied by the courts is secondary. Of primary importance is the policy decisions behind particular statutes. In this case, the only purpose for the statute is to maximize voter fraud.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't stop highlighting too soon! The grant of power is in electing themselves - not in altering State regulations for any topic whatever, as they obviously have. Purse usurpation of power.
Being a lawyer, you are legal-centric and in denial of the political reality. Good legal arguments don't hold a candle to political considerations. Example: The Dred Scott case was decided on strictly legal merits. In passing Obamacare:
- For legislative purposes, it was deemed a penalty and NOT a tax.
- For legal purposes - so it would not be declared unconstitional on the above basis - it was deemed a tax and NOT a penalty.
I guess this was a politically motivated decision too: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024-10-27-order.pdf
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Side stepping your attempt at diversion, what is your explanation for the purpose of the NVRA other than to maximize the chance for voter fraud?
Similar threads
