-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A federal judge finds a Trump data system (SAVE) to verify voters is unlawful
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
Pommer
Future History Slab Carver
- Sep 13, 2008
- 25,667
- 15,591
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Please for to allow me to explain:
This court rule that the Executive Order(s) that this program (SAVE) relied upon to give the program legitimacy, could not be used to get around that fact that such a database would have to be a creation of Congress, not the executive branch.
If President Trump would like a database like this, he can use his legendary negotiating foo to get a relevant law through our bicameral Legislature.
Or go without.
The President has to follow the same rules…this is “bad” to you, for some reason?
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 49,283
- 51,583
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
If you had bothered to read the OP, you would have seen that a plaintiff was an American citizen who was booted off the rolls by SAVE.
SAVE was excluding American citizens; that's why the judge was right.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The judge is wrong. The executive order doesn't violate the law. Instead, it supports the US Constitution.
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,862
- 4,509
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You mean this part of the Constitution?
Article I
Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Please show me where it states what the Executive branch's role is in elections.
-- A2SG, good luck finding it.....
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Trump ain't trying to prevent Americans from voting. The SAVE America Act is 100% legal.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,690
- 11,457
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
He may not be trying to, but that's what's happening.
Plainly, it is not. The fact that it (maybe) accomplishes a goal that you feel is legal and constitutional does not change the fact that it does so via illegal methodology. The ends do not justify the means - you cannot violate the law just because you want to fast-track around accomplishing something via the established legal channels.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No one is preventing Americans from voting. The SAVE Act is not unconstitutional.
Upvote
0
CaspianSails
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2019
- 608
- 304
- 67
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It is we test, clloct data, refine and test. This process has not changed substation since programming began. The program is only as good as the code written and must undergo refinement over time. Those affected need only demonstate they are citizens eligible to vote to be reinstated to the rolls.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 603
- 555
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
Why should a post that contains only ad hominem attacks and no argument to the essence be taken seriously?
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 603
- 555
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
You should have stressed Biden appointed.
And add America hating liberla, foreign born, activist communist, agenda driven.
You disappointed me.
Upvote
0
- May 12, 2011
- 10,690
- 11,457
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The lawsuit currently being discussed was brought by an American citizen who was prevented from voting because he was removed from the voter rolls in error under Trump's executive order creating the SAVE system. Ergo, your statement is false.
My mistake - I thought we were talking about the SAVE system, which is the topic of this thread. The law you are referring to has not been passed, so it is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I guess that you should read the facts again. The facts don't support your position.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
An example of 1 citizen is not a symptom of a real problem.
The SAVE Act will be law and Constitutional as soon as it is passed by the Senate and signed by President Trump.
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
There was no attacks. None. Why do you appear to have a problem honestly answering an honest question?
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2007
- 4,469
- 4,343
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
You don't see the irony do you? How many citizens would constitute a problem?
Upvote
0
- Dec 3, 2006
- 10,098
- 6,809
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
How many illegal voters would constitute a problem for liberals?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
