Democrats don't want to save America

Diogenes said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2030745345018196122
View: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2030745345018196122?s=20
Click to expand...
And for Presidential elections this will be against the Constitution,
It states in the CONSTITUTION that it is up to the legislatures of the states to decide how they want to approve and appoint their delegates to the EC.
A states legislature doesn't even need to hold elections they can just appoint whom ever they want to go to the EC.
And if they do hold elections it is UP to them how they want to run then NOT the Federal government.
And we all know that being against the CONSTITUTION doesn't matter to Trump and his low IQ followers , Thrum just walks all over it it doesn't mean shit to him.
 
Last edited:
Tbird19482 said:
And for Presidential elections this will be against the Constitution,
It states in the CONSTITUTION that it is up to the legislatures of the states to decide how they want to approve and appoint their delegates to the EC.
A states legislature doesn't even need to hold elections they can just appoint whom ever they want to go to the EC.
And if they do hold elections it is UP to them how they want to run then NOT the Federal government.
Click to expand...

No, the provisions in the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, including versions like H.R. 22 and the SAVE America Act in the 119th Congress) relating to federal elections are not unconstitutional. They fall squarely within Congress’s authority under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the Elections Clause) to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. This clause explicitly allows Congress to make or alter state regulations on federal elections.

The core provision requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., a U.S. passport, birth certificate paired with photo ID, REAL ID indicating citizenship, military ID with birth record, or specific tribal/government documents) when registering to vote in federal elections. It amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to prohibit states from accepting or processing applications without such proof for any method (in-person, mail, motor-voter, or agency registration). Mail applicants must generally present proof in person by the deadline (with polling-place exceptions in some states). States must also create an alternative process for those lacking listed documents (e.g., a signed attestation under perjury plus other evidence, with a state official’s determination). Additional elements in some versions include enhanced voter-roll maintenance using federal databases (like DHS’s SAVE system) to remove non-citizens, criminal penalties for violations, and a private right of action for enforcement. These apply only to federal elections and do not affect state or local races.

Congress has long used its Elections Clause power to regulate federal voter registration and eligibility verification without violating federalism. Examples include:
  • The NVRA itself (1993), which standardized forms and required citizenship attestation under penalty of perjury.
  • The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002), which mandated ID for certain first-time federal voters.
  • The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE, 2009).
These were enacted with bipartisan support and have been upheld. The SAVE Act simply strengthens verification of the existing citizenship requirement (already mandated by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 611, which criminalizes non-citizen voting in federal elections). It does not create a new voter “qualification”; it enforces one that is already universal in practice and required by law. Requiring proof is a procedural “manner” regulation, not a substantive qualification reserved exclusively to states under Article I, Section 2 or the 17th Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona reinforces this distinction: States set voter qualifications, but Congress controls the content and process of the federal registration form and can regulate how eligibility is verified for federal elections. The Court noted that Congress could have required more than mere attestation if it chose. The SAVE Act does exactly that by amending the NVRA Congress itself created.

Courts apply the Anderson-Burdick balancing test to election regulations. Any burden here (e.g., obtaining documents) is not severe. Alternatives exist, most citizens already have or can easily obtain qualifying proof, and states must accommodate those who do not. The state interest in preventing illegal voting and maintaining accurate rolls is strong and legitimate, even if non-citizen voting is rare. Analogous state voter-ID laws have been upheld (e.g., Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008), and federal rules receive similar deference when tied to the Elections Clause. Claims that it imposes a “poll tax” (violating the 24th Amendment) or violates equal protection fail: Document costs are incidental (not a direct fee to vote), and the law includes safeguards for name changes, disabilities, and those without documents. Disproportionate impacts on certain groups (e.g., married women or low-income voters) do not trigger strict scrutiny when the law is neutral on its face and serves a compelling interest.
 
Diogenes said:
No, the provisions in the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, including versions like H.R. 22 and the SAVE America Act in the 119th Congress) relating to federal elections are not unconstitutional. They fall squarely within Congress’s authority under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the Elections Clause) to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. This clause explicitly allows Congress to make or alter state regulations on federal elections.

The core provision requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., a U.S. passport, birth certificate paired with photo ID, REAL ID indicating citizenship, military ID with birth record, or specific tribal/government documents) when registering to vote in federal elections. It amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to prohibit states from accepting or processing applications without such proof for any method (in-person, mail, motor-voter, or agency registration). Mail applicants must generally present proof in person by the deadline (with polling-place exceptions in some states). States must also create an alternative process for those lacking listed documents (e.g., a signed attestation under perjury plus other evidence, with a state official’s determination). Additional elements in some versions include enhanced voter-roll maintenance using federal databases (like DHS’s SAVE system) to remove non-citizens, criminal penalties for violations, and a private right of action for enforcement. These apply only to federal elections and do not affect state or local races.

Congress has long used its Elections Clause power to regulate federal voter registration and eligibility verification without violating federalism. Examples include:
  • The NVRA itself (1993), which standardized forms and required citizenship attestation under penalty of perjury.
  • The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002), which mandated ID for certain first-time federal voters.
  • The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE, 2009).
These were enacted with bipartisan support and have been upheld. The SAVE Act simply strengthens verification of the existing citizenship requirement (already mandated by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 611, which criminalizes non-citizen voting in federal elections). It does not create a new voter “qualification”; it enforces one that is already universal in practice and required by law. Requiring proof is a procedural “manner” regulation, not a substantive qualification reserved exclusively to states under Article I, Section 2 or the 17th Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona reinforces this distinction: States set voter qualifications, but Congress controls the content and process of the federal registration form and can regulate how eligibility is verified for federal elections. The Court noted that Congress could have required more than mere attestation if it chose. The SAVE Act does exactly that by amending the NVRA Congress itself created.

Courts apply the Anderson-Burdick balancing test to election regulations. Any burden here (e.g., obtaining documents) is not severe. Alternatives exist, most citizens already have or can easily obtain qualifying proof, and states must accommodate those who do not. The state interest in preventing illegal voting and maintaining accurate rolls is strong and legitimate, even if non-citizen voting is rare. Analogous state voter-ID laws have been upheld (e.g., Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008), and federal rules receive similar deference when tied to the Elections Clause. Claims that it imposes a “poll tax” (violating the 24th Amendment) or violates equal protection fail: Document costs are incidental (not a direct fee to vote), and the law includes safeguards for name changes, disabilities, and those without documents. Disproportionate impacts on certain groups (e.g., married women or low-income voters) do not trigger strict scrutiny when the law is neutral on its face and serves a compelling interest.
Click to expand...
Maybe for " holding elections for Senators and Representatives " but not Presidents as it states in the CONSTITUTION it is up to the state legislature to decide how the want to appoint they delegates to the EC.
 
Diogenes said:
No, the provisions in the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, including versions like H.R. 22 and the SAVE America Act in the 119th Congress) relating to federal elections are not unconstitutional. They fall squarely within Congress’s authority under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (the Elections Clause) to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. This clause explicitly allows Congress to make or alter state regulations on federal elections.

The core provision requires documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., a U.S. passport, birth certificate paired with photo ID, REAL ID indicating citizenship, military ID with birth record, or specific tribal/government documents) when registering to vote in federal elections. It amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to prohibit states from accepting or processing applications without such proof for any method (in-person, mail, motor-voter, or agency registration). Mail applicants must generally present proof in person by the deadline (with polling-place exceptions in some states). States must also create an alternative process for those lacking listed documents (e.g., a signed attestation under perjury plus other evidence, with a state official’s determination). Additional elements in some versions include enhanced voter-roll maintenance using federal databases (like DHS’s SAVE system) to remove non-citizens, criminal penalties for violations, and a private right of action for enforcement. These apply only to federal elections and do not affect state or local races.

Congress has long used its Elections Clause power to regulate federal voter registration and eligibility verification without violating federalism. Examples include:
  • The NVRA itself (1993), which standardized forms and required citizenship attestation under penalty of perjury.
  • The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002), which mandated ID for certain first-time federal voters.
  • The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE, 2009).
These were enacted with bipartisan support and have been upheld. The SAVE Act simply strengthens verification of the existing citizenship requirement (already mandated by federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 611, which criminalizes non-citizen voting in federal elections). It does not create a new voter “qualification”; it enforces one that is already universal in practice and required by law. Requiring proof is a procedural “manner” regulation, not a substantive qualification reserved exclusively to states under Article I, Section 2 or the 17th Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona reinforces this distinction: States set voter qualifications, but Congress controls the content and process of the federal registration form and can regulate how eligibility is verified for federal elections. The Court noted that Congress could have required more than mere attestation if it chose. The SAVE Act does exactly that by amending the NVRA Congress itself created.

Courts apply the Anderson-Burdick balancing test to election regulations. Any burden here (e.g., obtaining documents) is not severe. Alternatives exist, most citizens already have or can easily obtain qualifying proof, and states must accommodate those who do not. The state interest in preventing illegal voting and maintaining accurate rolls is strong and legitimate, even if non-citizen voting is rare. Analogous state voter-ID laws have been upheld (e.g., Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008), and federal rules receive similar deference when tied to the Elections Clause. Claims that it imposes a “poll tax” (violating the 24th Amendment) or violates equal protection fail: Document costs are incidental (not a direct fee to vote), and the law includes safeguards for name changes, disabilities, and those without documents. Disproportionate impacts on certain groups (e.g., married women or low-income voters) do not trigger strict scrutiny when the law is neutral on its face and serves a compelling interest.
Click to expand...
Electoral College
Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top