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.
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.
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 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.