Someone really ought to make a court case out of this, say that illegal aliens voting violates their rights as a citizen and if it makes to SCOTUS, they may just agree.
election fraud doesnt affect you therefore you cannot sue over election fraud
One of the most retarded ideas ever to grace the folds of my think-ball. Why would any union or elections in general ever even happen if this is the case? Why would one state agree to be bound to such an "election" in another state? Whole USA destroyed at a conceptual level with this one line of tyrant bullshit. A good sign that the USA is occupied.
DC elections are weird, but they are pretty much federal elections, aren't they?
I disagree. They're not federal officeholders. Congress can overrule local election laws, but if it doesn't, I do not see (and I repeat that I know little of this specific matter) how this could be unconstitutional.
I just wish there were tangible punishments for enacting boldly unconstitutional laws.
You know what the punishment is for boldly unconstitutional laws in many European countries? The law being upheld (because there is no judicial review).
I just don't think there is a judge alive (even ones rubber-stamped through confirmation) who is going to say "illegal aliens can vote."
I could see legal immigrants/green card holders... but as someone who has lived abroad and is married to a GCH, that would be extremely strange. I can't imagine voting in South Korea, for instance, even if I lived there in the same city for 5 years.
I just don't think there is a judge alive (even ones rubber-stamped through confirmation) who is going to say "illegal aliens can vote."
A judge may not say that the Constitution requires it, but at least for local elections, I don't see a constitutional violation to allow it for local elections.
Just to be clear: obviously, I'm just arguing the constitutional issue. I don't agree with the policy. Here in Europe, even leftist parties agree that illegals have to be removed from the country.
I could see legal immigrants/green card holders... but as someone who has lived abroad and is married to a GCH, that would be extremely strange. I can't imagine voting in South Korea, for instance, even if I lived there in the same city for 5 years.
South Korea is far more rational when it comes to immigration. But even there, I don't think their Constitution actually prohibits it. It's just that no politician would think he'd get away with allowing it.
I think localities can select the manner in which voting is conducted, not who can vote. You're influencing and partaking in a collective federal event so being free to dictate all aspects of your participation could disenfranchise voters in other localities. Otherwise, you'd have some places where children can vote, some places where no one 65+ can vote, some places where whites can't vote, etc.
And yes, I also believe there are means by which voting can be conducted that can disenfranchise external voters.
But then here's what I don't understand. Even before the amendments guaranteeing votes for women and blacks, there were some states that allowed that (even for federal elections). North Carolina for example until it was abolished in the early 19th century. Wyoming also had female suffrage before that hated 19th amendment.
Obviously, there is no place where whites can't vote, because that is a violation of the 15th amendment.
I think there is nothing to prevent a state to say that 16-year-olds can vote.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
This only says that it guarantees that someone who is 18 or older can vote, not that it mandates that everyone younger cannot.
I don't know. My only thoughts are that any legislature can vote to enact any statute they want on any subject matter, and the respective executive government "can" or will operate within the framework of those statutes until the moment they're successfully challenged in a court with sufficient jurisdiction. But, someone has to sue, and there are suits that are quick and easy due to overwhelming precedent, and suits that aren't so clear that hinge on the headbutting of different precedent and possible new interpretations of constitutional law.
In the cases you mentioned, it's possible that other states would have standing to challenge NC and Wyoming and would have been successful in doing so but chose not to for some reason. I'm not clear on precedent either, but the fact that US states share such uniformity in who gets to vote suggests that precendent has filled in the apparent gaps.
Sedition against the constitution in the US capital? Well now abbot and desantis know where to put all illegals, let’s make dc enjoy the fruits of their labors when their electorates won’t even speak English in a few years.
It’s the separation of virtue signaling and actually living with their decisions. They want illegals to vote when they are a small enough population that they are a booster to the current establishment. If we began shipping in even half of the “asylum” illegal immigrants coming across to DC you would see a massive tonal shift. Either DC would begin doing overnight Biden flights or this measure would quietly disappear.
I mean, the DC license plates literally say "Taxation Without Representation" on them, so it's not like they are subtle about their flaunting of the rule of law.
Not surprised but I would imagine this would get struck down. They use the argument that they are living in the city but they have no legal grounds to be there
D.C.'s move toward noncitizen voting comes after New York City last year passed similar legislation to allow the city's 800,000 noncitizens to vote. That bill was overturned in June by a state court, which ruled it violated the New York Constitution.
So it will likely get knocked down, but leave it up to these idiots to grand stand anyway because whether it fails or not, they think it will get them votes.
I've been thinking about voting rights a lot. I've come down firmly on the side of, "if you're not from there, you don't get a vote." I'm also potentially on the side of, "if at least one of your parents aren't from there, you don't get a vote."
If I move to, say Japan, I should never get to vote. Period. If I have a kid with a Japanese woman, my kid could vote. If a couple moved to Japan and had a kid, that kid would not be able to vote. Similarly, if I move to Montana from Washington, I don't get to vote in Montana elections, but would obviously be able to vote in federal elections. If I move from Seattle to Cle Elum, I don't get to vote in local elections, but do get to vote in state and federal elections.
I think voting should be tied to generational occupancy. If you don't want your family to live somewhere for multiple generations, or if you want to move away from where your family is from -- fine. But you don't get to vote. For 2 generations.
I know the entire system is probably unworkable. Maybe there could be exceptions for moving from areas of similar population size within the same state/country. I dunno. But it would help solve the problem of rootless cosmopolitans overwhelming smaller communities after they fuck up the cities they come from.
Someone really ought to make a court case out of this, say that illegal aliens voting violates their rights as a citizen and if it makes to SCOTUS, they may just agree.
Thrown out due to lack of standing
One of the most retarded ideas ever to grace the folds of my think-ball. Why would any union or elections in general ever even happen if this is the case? Why would one state agree to be bound to such an "election" in another state? Whole USA destroyed at a conceptual level with this one line of tyrant bullshit. A good sign that the USA is occupied.
Yep. Sucks, don't it? Anyway, have you seen the latest circus? I love to eat my bread while I watch the circus.
Circuses are boring, buy guns, learn to press your own ammo, get some land and set up fbi scarecrows
Not knowing the relevant precedents, I would say that it is highly unlikely. Can a locality not set its own rules for its own offices?
This type of voting law was thrown out somewhat recently in NYC iirc.
Voting is a right for citizens only. I believe SCOTUS would very quickly affirm that unanimously
I saw that comment, but that was thrown out based on the NY Constitution.
So maybe if i went to SCOTUS kagan and sotomayor would dissent. This is still as open and shut as possible, ESPECIALLY in DC.
DC elections are weird, but they are pretty much federal elections, aren't they?
I just wish there were tangible punishments for enacting boldly unconstitutional laws.
I disagree. They're not federal officeholders. Congress can overrule local election laws, but if it doesn't, I do not see (and I repeat that I know little of this specific matter) how this could be unconstitutional.
You know what the punishment is for boldly unconstitutional laws in many European countries? The law being upheld (because there is no judicial review).
I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
I just don't think there is a judge alive (even ones rubber-stamped through confirmation) who is going to say "illegal aliens can vote."
I could see legal immigrants/green card holders... but as someone who has lived abroad and is married to a GCH, that would be extremely strange. I can't imagine voting in South Korea, for instance, even if I lived there in the same city for 5 years.
A judge may not say that the Constitution requires it, but at least for local elections, I don't see a constitutional violation to allow it for local elections.
Just to be clear: obviously, I'm just arguing the constitutional issue. I don't agree with the policy. Here in Europe, even leftist parties agree that illegals have to be removed from the country.
South Korea is far more rational when it comes to immigration. But even there, I don't think their Constitution actually prohibits it. It's just that no politician would think he'd get away with allowing it.
I think localities can select the manner in which voting is conducted, not who can vote. You're influencing and partaking in a collective federal event so being free to dictate all aspects of your participation could disenfranchise voters in other localities. Otherwise, you'd have some places where children can vote, some places where no one 65+ can vote, some places where whites can't vote, etc.
And yes, I also believe there are means by which voting can be conducted that can disenfranchise external voters.
But then here's what I don't understand. Even before the amendments guaranteeing votes for women and blacks, there were some states that allowed that (even for federal elections). North Carolina for example until it was abolished in the early 19th century. Wyoming also had female suffrage before that hated 19th amendment.
Obviously, there is no place where whites can't vote, because that is a violation of the 15th amendment.
I think there is nothing to prevent a state to say that 16-year-olds can vote.
This only says that it guarantees that someone who is 18 or older can vote, not that it mandates that everyone younger cannot.
I don't know. My only thoughts are that any legislature can vote to enact any statute they want on any subject matter, and the respective executive government "can" or will operate within the framework of those statutes until the moment they're successfully challenged in a court with sufficient jurisdiction. But, someone has to sue, and there are suits that are quick and easy due to overwhelming precedent, and suits that aren't so clear that hinge on the headbutting of different precedent and possible new interpretations of constitutional law.
In the cases you mentioned, it's possible that other states would have standing to challenge NC and Wyoming and would have been successful in doing so but chose not to for some reason. I'm not clear on precedent either, but the fact that US states share such uniformity in who gets to vote suggests that precendent has filled in the apparent gaps.
They're going to turn the US into one of my Tropico saves.
Off topic but I saw that game available on Steam. Is it worth it?
It's pretty fun. I wouldn't call it great, but it's a unique, competent city builder game.
Tropico 4 is the pinnacle of the series.
Cool. I’ll download it. Very cheap.
Sedition against the constitution in the US capital? Well now abbot and desantis know where to put all illegals, let’s make dc enjoy the fruits of their labors when their electorates won’t even speak English in a few years.
Wasn’t the dc mayor whining about then getting sent to her area?
It’s the separation of virtue signaling and actually living with their decisions. They want illegals to vote when they are a small enough population that they are a booster to the current establishment. If we began shipping in even half of the “asylum” illegal immigrants coming across to DC you would see a massive tonal shift. Either DC would begin doing overnight Biden flights or this measure would quietly disappear.
They speak English now? Maybe English words, but the meanings they're using are entirely inaccurate.
I mean, the DC license plates literally say "Taxation Without Representation" on them, so it's not like they are subtle about their flaunting of the rule of law.
This is why DC should not have statehood or any voting rights on a national stage
That and the nations capital shouldn’t be a state due to favoritism in budgeting.
Not surprised but I would imagine this would get struck down. They use the argument that they are living in the city but they have no legal grounds to be there
Leftists would embrace the arrival of hostile parasitic aliens from Mars if it meant pissing off the conservatives.
I mean it’s the easiest way for a foreign state to dictate some policy by just flooding an area with agents and having them vote
Well it's a good thing they don't get any actual Congressional representation then.
So it will likely get knocked down, but leave it up to these idiots to grand stand anyway because whether it fails or not, they think it will get them votes.
How is that even legal.
I've been thinking about voting rights a lot. I've come down firmly on the side of, "if you're not from there, you don't get a vote." I'm also potentially on the side of, "if at least one of your parents aren't from there, you don't get a vote."
If I move to, say Japan, I should never get to vote. Period. If I have a kid with a Japanese woman, my kid could vote. If a couple moved to Japan and had a kid, that kid would not be able to vote. Similarly, if I move to Montana from Washington, I don't get to vote in Montana elections, but would obviously be able to vote in federal elections. If I move from Seattle to Cle Elum, I don't get to vote in local elections, but do get to vote in state and federal elections.
I think voting should be tied to generational occupancy. If you don't want your family to live somewhere for multiple generations, or if you want to move away from where your family is from -- fine. But you don't get to vote. For 2 generations.
I know the entire system is probably unworkable. Maybe there could be exceptions for moving from areas of similar population size within the same state/country. I dunno. But it would help solve the problem of rootless cosmopolitans overwhelming smaller communities after they fuck up the cities they come from.
This is nothing short of treason.
New York and Commiefornia tried this. Both lost in court.