re: Senate is set to vote on the SAVE Act; Thune is setting it up for failure

quote:

---

Sure I have - by pointing out that it doesn't address the topic of the thread

---

You need to go back in the conversation to remember what post you were originally responding to

quote:

---

Anybody can get a picture ID. Nearly everybody can even get a Real ID. That you show an ID to vote in La doesn't mean anything w/r/t non-citizens finding it easy, and with zero risk, to vote in federal elections, should they choose to do so.

---

Again.

Go back to what you were responding to originally

You're currently in the Uncle Leo zone (lost and confused)

quote:

---

Why would anybody not want "only citizens" vote????????

---

Can someone genuinely fill me in on why this hasn't been voted on and passed with a large majority? I've seen so many different reasons and the only rational one I can come up with is someone is trying to tack on some sort of pork along with it. If that's the case, why do we allow these games when it comes to passing laws in this country?

quote:

---

Go back to what you were responding to originally

You're currently in the Uncle Leo zone (lost and confused)

---

frick off with that.

So let's be direct, okay?

- Does federal law forbid states from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections?

- Does federal law include an easy out for a non-citizen that is somehow caught casting a vote in federal elections? - that easy out is simply saying "at the time I voted, I thought I was eligible to do so".

- Does the SAVE Act, if enacted, make it impossible to register and subsequently vote in federal elections without having proven citizenship?

quote:

---

I'll answer when you can adequately explain what those questions have to do with conservatives abandoning states rights here and permitting DEMs (when they're in power next) to repeal the SAVE Act and go hard to promoting leftist election rules AND the evaluation of which state would be more beneficial for the partisan sides

---

States rights have already been abandoned. Arizona passed proof of citizenship laws 2 fricking times, and federal law/SCOTUS slapped it all back. So we're not starting from a baseline where states are deciding this shite.

quote:

---

Because I think the leftist election rules give them a MUCH larger advantage than what the SAVE Act will do for the non-Left

---

More retardation.

"We have to let non-citizens register to vote with a f'n mailed-in postcard and we have to make sure there are no penalties when caught voting illegally, so that Leftists don't do bad shite to our elections when they regain power."

Retarded.

quote:

---

States rights have already been abandoned. Arizona passed proof of citizenship laws 2 fricking times, and federal law/SCOTUS slapped it all back. So we're not starting from a baseline where states are deciding this shite.

---

Do you want to erode them further or fight against it?

quote:

---

We have to let non-citizens register to vote

---

Straw man.

It's telling that's where you had to go

quote:

---

There are two types of people in America that get that emotional

---

I'm part of neither group if "emotional" is your qualifier

quote:

---

You seem to take it to 11 on the emotional level

---

0/3

You're bad at this.

Of all the ways to describe me, emotional is not one of them.

quote:

---

Do you want to erode them further or fight against it?

---

lmfao - you sound like Adam Schiff.

quote:

---

Straw man.

It's telling that's where you had to go

---

It's hardly a strawman given it's precisely the reason the SAVE Act is needed.

It's telling you didn't answer the direct questions asked of you.

quote:

---

Uh, yeah.

States rights isn't about constitutionality

It's about preferred policymaking and political philosophy within our system.

---

Your claim overgeneralizes Republican political philosophy and misrepresents the concept of states’ rights. Many Republicans ground their positions in constitutional interpretation rather than ignoring it, so asserting otherwise would require some evidence from you. More importantly, you treat states’ rights and constitutionality as if they are unrelated, when in reality many states’ rights arguments are explicitly rooted in constitutional principles. Take federalism,especially interpretations of the Tenth Amendment that reserve undelegated powers to the states, for example. By framing states’ rights as merely a policy preference rather than a constitutional argument, you oversimplify and mischaracterize the reasoning behind those positions.

quote:

---

When the current interpretation of that Constitution gives the fedgov near unlimited power via the Commerce Clause.

---

That's a pretty hyperbolic claim. Even broad interpretations of the Commerce Clause by courts interpreting the constitution do not create unlimited federal authority, since federal power remains constrained by other constitutional provisions, judicial review, and the structure of federalism. If federal power under the Commerce Clause did create near infinite federal power as you claim, how did the courts manage to strike down federal laws deeming to have exceeded their power in cases like United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez?

quote:

---

Thar depends on the federal policy being discussed and the hypocrisy a person is willing to engage in.

---

Supporting the federal government acting within its constitutional limits does not require abandoning states’ rights, because the Constitution explicitly reserves powers not delegated to the federal government for the states through the Tenth Amendment. One can consistently back both federal authority in its proper sphere and state sovereignty in theirs without being a hypocrite.

quote:

---

This both rewrites conservative policy stances and ignores the bear unlimited constitutional power of fedgov.

If your line of demarcation is constitutionality, then you are advocating for near unlimited federal power and the near universal preemption of state authority. I've never heard a conservative take that position as a conservative principle

---

You keep claiming this but you haven't provided any evidence other than fear mongering and slippery slope fallacies. I've already demonstrated SCOTUS' willingness to strike down laws based in federal overreach so the claim that federal authority under the Commerce Clause has led to unfettered federal power has been demonstrated to be a misrepresentation of how these laws have functioned in our society and how their Constitutionality has been judged.

You keep making this false dichotomy that you either support constitutionality and thus unlimited federal power of you essentially reject constitutionality entirely. One can logically support federal action that is constitutional without endorsing universal federal supremacy.

SFP is a good attorney. I disagree with his assessment here. That’s all.

quote:

---

FFS look at your avatar.

---