House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 7:49 PM

GoldenBoy89 said:
None of those things are constitutional rights.

Where in the Constitution does it say that voting a right?

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 8:08 PM

RileyG said:
Ok? Regardless. Why is requiring an ID a bad thing? That’s what I don’t understand. Forgive me.

I remember when democrats were mandating an ID for proof of getting a covid vaccine.

Valletta · Friday at 9:10 PM

A2SG said:
Um, that's irrelevant to the point I made. Even if every single American supported, say, the government banning guns, it would still be unconstitutional.

Since it is unconstitutional to impose a fee or any form of tax on the right to vote, then the government would have to provide any and all required IDs for free, even for those who may be able to afford it. Charging anything for required ID would be unconstitutional.

That part seems to be missing from the SAVE act.

-- A2SG, gotta wonder why.....

Fourteenth Amendment Section 2 (My emphasis)

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

This is what the Constitution says. What this is really about is that 13 states do not have voter ID, and all 13 of those states voted for Biden and Harris.

A2SG · Friday at 11:14 PM

Valletta said:
Fourteenth Amendment Section 2 (My emphasis)

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

This is what the Constitution says. What this is really about is that 13 states do not have voter ID, and all 13 of those states voted for Biden and Harris.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I never argued against the idea of requiring voter ID, nor have I made any claims about the citizenship status of anyone, in any context. My only point was that, according to the 24th Amendment, requiring any form of tax or payment in order to exercise the right to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional.

So, to keep it simple: requiring voter ID is fine, but having to pay for it ain't.

-- A2SG, not sure how much clearer I can make it......

A2SG · Friday at 11:23 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that voting a right?

15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 24th Amendment, 26th Amendment.

-- A2SG, terse and to the point, that's my motto.....

Oompa Loompa · 2026-02-14T00:08:23-0600

A2SG said:
15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 24th Amendment, 26th Amendment.

-- A2SG, terse and to the point, that's my motto.....

No. Those only say that voting cannot be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color, or sex.

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:11:43-0600

A2SG said:
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I never argued against the idea of requiring voter ID, nor have I made any claims about the citizenship status of anyone, in any context. My only point was that, according to the 24th Amendment, requiring any form of tax or payment in order to exercise the right to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional.

So, to keep it simple: requiring voter ID is fine, but having to pay for it ain't.

-- A2SG, not sure how much clearer I can make it......

Just because there’s an Amendment that says “Congress will pass no law” doesn’t mean that they’re “not allowed” to try.

This is normal.

It might look partisan, but it’s necessary to keep the friction of the Three Branches of our government busy fighting amongst themselves, thereby getting “less done”, which would, hopefully, at least do “less harm”.

Those people who consider themselves to be “Constitutional originalists” will well understand this.
Trump’s going to do wonders for our Fair Land simply by making us survive his “leadership” for upwards of two terms under his wise and masterful handling of the Ship-of-State.

We need Trump (or a Harding or a Buchanan), every once in a while, they’re good for us, in that “Nietzschian” sorta way. They’re not going to be the most pleasant of Presidents, but that’s exactly their “strength”…they apply friction between to the courts and the legislature by getting the latter to push as far as they can. If the Executive can convince Congress that it (Congress) wants a king-lite President, that’s what we get.

How any of this is in any way “Conservative”, goes back to the the John Kenneth Galbraith “definition” of (the conservative movement) in 2002. [edit; NOPE]

A2SG · 2026-02-14T00:15:23-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
No. Those only say that voting cannot be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color, or sex.

Read the Amendments. What do they specifically say cannot be denied or abridged?

-- A2SG, it is explicitly mentioned, after all....

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:15:25-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
No. Those only say that voting cannot be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color, or sex.

Are you suggesting that since the main Articles of the Constitution are devoid of the words outright expressing an affirmative right to vote, we shouldn’t expect we have one?

A2SG · 2026-02-14T00:17:50-0600

Pommer said:
Just because there’s an Amendment that says “Congress will pass no law” doesn’t mean that they’re “not allowed” to try.

This is normal.

It might look partisan, but it’s necessary to keep the friction of the Three Branches of our government busy fighting amongst themselves, thereby getting “less done”, which would, hopefully, at least do “less harm”.

Those people who consider themselves to be “Constitutional originalists” will well understand this.
Trump’s going to do wonders for our Fair Land simply by making us survive his “leadership” for upwards of two terms under his wise and masterful handling of the Ship-of-State.

We need Trump (or a Harding or a Buchanan), every once in a while, they’re good for us, in that “Nietzschian” sorta way. They’re not going to be the most pleasant of Presidents, but that’s exactly their “strength”…they apply friction between to the courts and the legislature by getting the latter to push as far as they can. If the Executive can convince Congress that it (Congress) wants a king-lite President, that’s what we get.

How any of this is in any way “Conservative”, goes back to the the John Kenneth Galbraith “definition” of (the conservative movement) in 2002, [edit; NOPE]

Good point, and kind of why I said that it was "unconstitutional," rather than disallowed.

-- A2SG, this is more of that "interesting times" curse thing, ain't it?

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:19:35-0600

Pommer said:
Are you suggesting that since the main Articles of the Constitution are devoid of the words outright expressing an affirmative right to vote, we shouldn’t expect we have one?

Goodness, I write funny.

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:20:51-0600

A2SG said:
Good point, and kind of why I said that it was "unconstitutional," rather than disallowed.

-- A2SG, this is more of that "interesting times" curse thing, ain't it?

If you could go in and edit out my obvious three-pointer, that’d be swell, thanks.

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:26:31-0600

A2SG said:
Good point, and kind of why I said that it was "unconstitutional," rather than disallowed.

-- A2SG, this is more of that "interesting times" curse thing, ain't it?

We’ve all been treated to decade of “it’ll get to be better here in our Fair Land, if only ‘the other side‘ could be dealt with, once and for all!”*

Normal things suddenly become political mountains.

We’re still allowed to not fight, but we’re so used to it, it’s very easy to fall into, day-after-day.

*the sentiment, not an actual “quote” by anyone, probably.

Pommer · 2026-02-14T00:29:35-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
I remember when democrats were mandating an ID for proof of getting a covid vaccine.

Didn’t fall under HIPPA, wasn’t used for voting, which is what we’re talking about.

RileyG · 2026-02-14T00:53:16-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
I remember when democrats were mandating an ID for proof of getting a covid vaccine.

At my former job, it was required to be vaccinated for COVID to work there.

I’m not making this about Democratic vs Republican.

I’m a (very moderate) registered Republican, VERY MUCH pro-vaccine, and am fully vaccinated.

At the same time, I still respect people’s right to live as they choose.

RileyG · 2026-02-14T00:56:24-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
I remember when democrats were mandating an ID for proof of getting a covid vaccine.

To add. I live in Nebraska. When I voted in the election in 2024, I was required to show my ID.

It’s not about suppression.

It’s mostly common sense. IMO.

RileyG · 2026-02-14T00:58:38-0600

Why would anyone be against showing an ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote? I cannot wrap my head around how that would be controversial.

It sounds rather routine and normal. Eh?

I don’t know.

A2SG · 2026-02-14T01:13:50-0600

RileyG said:
Why would anyone be against showing an ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote? I cannot wrap my head around how that would be controversial.

It sounds rather routine and normal. Eh?

I don’t know.

I don't believe that providing ID is the issue here. I think the problem comes when obtaining that ID is limited or restricted based on any number of factors; possibly creating a system that is, or can be, rigged to prevent "certain people" from being allowed to vote.

-- A2SG, who are those "certain people"? You may well ask.....

Pommer · 2026-02-14T01:14:27-0600

RileyG said:
At the same time, I still respect people’s right to live as they choose.

Which is an admirable quality to possess, except their inaction puts people who don’t get to have the option to be vaccinated, at greater risk since the risk-pool is much larger than it needs to be.

Will vaccines harm people, yeah, they got funds to help them.
Will it kill me?
Maybe. But if enough of us will take that “risk” maybe less people will die?

Why would I respect someone who’s afraid to be a vital part of our mutual society?
(To be sure, I do, but only on the “they’re a fellow human being” level.)

Pommer · 2026-02-14T01:19:41-0600

RileyG said:
Why would anyone be against showing an ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote? I cannot wrap my head around how that would be controversial.

It sounds rather routine and normal. Eh?

I don’t know.

Checking to check is good.
Checking to make it harder for the people to exercise their right has always been frowned upon, eventually.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

House passes bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

​

Gumby

Gumby

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Gumby

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Gumby

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Gumby

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads