The Help America Vote Act would not "federalize elections"

[BidudeinWi]

You seem triggered. You literally asked for reference about federal involvement as a response to a comment in the voting rights act, which was already ruled constitutional.

And when I call you out, you need to bring in other comments to diminish my calling you out.


Precious

Haha! The voting rights act has no bearing on the on Congress making laws that make it easier to cheat. You’re a dufus with NO credibility! Nothing you “claim” ends up being true!

 

[ll74]

Haha! The voting rights act has no bearing on the on Congress making laws that make it easier to cheat. You’re a dufus with NO credibility! Nothing you “claim” ends up being true!

I never mentioned cheating.

Though having the ability for oversight is good for preventing cheating

 

[BidudeinWi]

I never mentioned cheating.

Though having the ability for oversight is good for preventing cheating

Agreed, and ONLY the State Legislature’s have that with respect to election laws, according to the Constitution!

 

[ll74]

Agreed, and ONLY the State Legislature’s have that with respect to election laws, according to the Constitution!

And yet the comment you posted on, which started our interaction, shows that your incorrect.

Ignoring the original argument because you believe you're correct, doesn't address the origin argument

Go back, read up, maybe you'll do better next time

 

[pecksniff]

No one seriously suggests the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, so why would the Help America Vote Act be unconstitutional?

 

[ll74]

No one seriously suggests the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional, so why would the Help America Vote Act be unconstitutional?

His reply was to your point which showed that and he just disregarded it.

 

[BidudeinWi]

And yet the comment you posted on, which started our interaction, shows that your incorrect.

Ignoring the original argument because you believe you're correct, doesn't address the origin argument

Go back, read up, maybe you'll do better next time

Where in the Constitution does it give “election law oversight,” to Congress?

 

[ll74]

Where in the Constitution does it give “election law oversight,” to Congress?

Can you actually go back to when you started responding and understand he already mentioned the voting rights act? Which was already upheld by SCOTUS?

Oh right ..no...because you're a fucking moron

 

[BidudeinWi]

Can you actually go back to when you started responding and understand he already mentioned the voting rights act? Which was already upheld by SCOTUS?

Oh right ..no...because you're a fucking moron

Can you respond to the question about the Constitution???? Unlikely, public k-12! The Voting Rights Act is NOT IN ANY WAY, “precedent Law” with respect to what the Marxists are attempting to ram through. It will NEVER stand up to the SCOTUS review. No voter id? No signature validation? No proof of citizenship? Blah, blah blah. It violates so many Constitutional Laws it’s ridiculous. The Voting Rights Act did NONE of that. But, using your words, “you too much of a fucking moron” to comprehend that!

 

[ll74]

His reply was to your point which showed that and he just disregarded it.

Can you respond to the question about the Constitution???? Unlikely, public k-12! The Voting Rights Act is NOT IN ANY WAY, “precedent Law” with respect to what the Marxists are attempting to ram through. It will NEVER stand up to the SCOTUS review. No voter id? No signature validation? No proof of citizenship? Blah, blah blah. It violates so many Constitutional Laws it’s ridiculous. The Voting Rights Act did NONE of that. But, using your words, “you too much of a fucking moron” to comprehend that!

The federal government has already been proven to have oversight on elections.

Hence the voting rights act rulings.

If you want to get into specifics, then you're finally addressing something. You fucking generalize everything.

There's nothing about their ruling that addresses it...so signature verification, which you know nothing about,.might be up for debate, but I doubt it.

Proof of citizenship is already established in every state..

 

[BidudeinWi]

The federal government has already been proven to have oversight on elections.

Hence the voting rights act rulings.

If you want to get into specifics, then you're finally addressing something. You fucking generalize everything.

There's nothing about their ruling that addresses it...so signature verification, which you know nothing about,.might be up for debate, but I doubt it.

Proof of citizenship is already established in every state..

Have you read the proposed legislation? It makes it illegal to ask anyone for id’s or “proof of citizenship!”

 

[ll74]

Have you read the proposed legislation? It makes it illegal to ask anyone for id’s or “proof of citizenship!”

Most states donr require.it.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Have you read the proposed legislation? It makes it illegal to ask anyone for id’s or “proof of citizenship!”

“ You fucking generalize everything.”. <————— Classic example of “generalization!” Hypocrite!

 

[ll74]

“ You fucking generalize everything.”. <————— Classic example of “generalization!” Hypocrite!

The definition of the word seems to escape you

Not sure how you believe you had a point there, but you did not

 

[BidudeinWi]

The definition of the word seems to escape you

Not sure how you believe you had a point there, but you did not

Your public k-12 education apparently wasn’t helpful in English. Can you please explain what you meant when you used the word “everything?”

 

[GothTalk]

The definition of the word seems to escape you

Not sure how you believe you had a point there, but you did not

Nope.

You stepped in your own shit, deal with it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So did the VRA. So what?

Referencing the title of the thread. Both acts extend federal power over elections.

 

[pecksniff]

Referencing the title of the thread. Both acts extend federal power over elections.

But the VRA did not "federalize" elections. So how would the HAVA? How are its critics any different from Southerners in the 1960s screaming against the VRA as a dictatorial federal intrusion on "states' rights"?

 

[pecksniff]

I note a lot of RWs repeating that as an obvious fact. But, the Voting Rights Act did not federalize elections, which continued to be run by local officials, with some federal oversight, and some access to federal courts provided. How is the HAVA any different?

Nobody has yet explained how the HAVA is any different from the VRA.

 

[GothTalk]

Nobody has yet explained how the HAVA is any different from the VRA.

If it's not any different then there is no need for it then now is there???

 

[pecksniff]

If it's not any different then there is no need for it then now is there???

Yes, there is. The VRA has by now been gutted, and the HAVA addresses different problems, which are real problems, which did not exist in quite the same way in the 1960s.

 

[phrodeau]

Where in the Constitution does it give “election law oversight,” to Congress?

I Googled it for you.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: 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 Places of chusing Senators.

 

[GothTalk]

Yes, there is. The VRA has by now been gutted, and the HAVA addresses different problems, which are real problems, which did not exist in quite the same way in the 1960s.

I'm glad you were able to explain how the HAVA is any different from the VRA and will expand federal control over elections.

Good job shooting down your own OP.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, it would and it's unconstitutional anyway. Big waste of time.

 

[pecksniff]

Yes, it would and it's unconstitutional anyway. Big waste of time.

How is it unconstitutional?