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
As far as I can tell it is not a violation of the Constitution.
Another one that proudly demonstrates his utter ignorance of all things legal. As the Judge succinctly stated
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists" be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere"it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less ... .Though you should read the full opinion to get an education from a Buffoon appointed Judges on some aspects of the First Amendment. storage.courtlistener.com
I think this judge's actions are now bordering on treason for aiding/abetting a foreign invasion of the US. Probably should throw him in Gitmo while it is determined whether his actions rise to this crime.
I think you should continue to irrefutably demonstrate your ignorance about all things law related.
You can read the Judge's opinion to see how wrong you are and how adeptly the Judge bi***h slaps all of the Buffoon's argument from every angle possible. www.courthousenews.com
Oh and Treason can only occur during a shooting war.
just show'em that real ID?
problem?
#2 | Posted by itchyp
Yes, there is a problem with using Real ID.
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
I missed this - what post number?
Bull F*****g s**. My post. drudge.com
Your post. drudge.com
F****g POS troll.
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
For starters, what MAGA calls "free-speech" seems to be more hatred towards others and violence-provoking speech.
No, there's no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment reason.com The article also briefly covers the "fighting words" exception.
Ten short videos on the First Amendment by Volokh. www.youtube.com