Federal judges in both New York and Texas have blocked the deportations of Venezuelan men likely to be deported under the Trump administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act ... read more
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a pair of orders by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had barred the government from removing noncitizens who are designated as members of a Venezuelan gang under a March 15 executive order issued by President Donald Trump. read more
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that would dramatically overhaul how federal elections are run, a move that follows years of exaggerated claims from Trump about mail ballots and noncitizen voting. read more
California Elections Code 2208 codes.findlaw.com
Jfc, you equate mental capacity with IQ. My prior speculation about your lack of knowledge about law is confirmed and can be expanded more generally. JFC
If $1.50 is considered a poll tax and illegal, then the same should be applied on all the gun ownership restrictions. Like I said, I think this will finally be challenged in court and tossed because it does not follow the precedents on any other rights.
Seems you know very little about the Court and even less about law. Voting regulations and gun regulations are judicially completely different animals. Guess you haven't noticed the ruling favorable to gun rights which I wholeheartedly support.
Btw, that $1.50 in today's dollars is $14.89. www.dollartimes.com
I ordered a birth certificate from the State of Texas about 15 years ago and it was about $20.00.
I think this will likely go to the USSC and this 'poll tax' nonsense will be tossed.
I wouldn't call it nonsense and I wouldn't be so certain.
In 2008 when the SC upheld voter ID it specifically noted that Indiana provided free ID because of that so does every state that requires ID. The absence of a fee avoided 1966 precedent that $1.50 to register is a "poll tax."
The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483.[fn16] The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver's license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana's BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.[fn17] [*199] www.bloomberglaw.com
It just no longer seems to me like this bill is nearly as disenfranchising as some would have us believe if I will still be able to vote with my current ID card.
Nope.
Another option: require new voters to show proof of citizenship when they register. For most new voters, that isn't a problem; they show a birth certificate or passport at the bureau of motor vehicles to get a REAL ID, and that proof can be used for voter registration. (The REAL ID is not itself proof of citizenship, because they are available to noncitizens who are in the U.S. legally; it is the underlying document shown by a citizen to obtain a REAL ID that can be used for voting purposes.) www.ncsl.org
"(b) Documentary proof of United States citizenship."As used in this Act, the term documentary proof of United States citizenship' means, with respect to an applicant for voter registration, any of the following: www.congress.gov
What connects any of those documents to your physical person?
#28 | Posted by oneironaut
Nucking Fidiot pontificates about s**t they don't know s**t about. From today's per curium:
Per Curiam succeed on the merits of this action. The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to "judicial review'" as to "questions of interpretation and constitutionality" of the Act as well as whether he or she "is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older." Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163'164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term "alien enemy" is defined to include "all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States." 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees' rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that "TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review." Reply in Support of Application ToVacate 1. "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law" in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard "appropriate to the nature of the case." Mullanev. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order thatthey are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.drudge.com
Stick to s**t you know something about which from what I've seen is nothing.
#4 | Posted by oneironaut
#9 | Posted by BellRinger
Today the Court specifically ruled in favor of due process not summary removal. Do keep up. drudge.com
Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations for now
Nope, not what the Court said. They effectively changed venue from DC to the place of detention, Texas. In a direct slap of the Buffoon, they can bring habeas petitions to challenge their detention and removal. In other words, instead of summary removal they get due process before being removed. drudge.com
As I already stated, the overreach is stating any requirement that the States place on voting is considered a 'tax'. That is what needs to be challenged in court.
You may think you stated something but it certainly was not self evident. What state imposed requirements that are not a "tax" are considered a "tax?"
Court's consider the payment of money to exercise a right a tax. That's why I opposed mandatory training and insurance obligations to own a gun. You can't tax Constitutional rights.