4 ms·

I would guess most people don't have a proof of citizenship handy. This would get even worse if the effort to get rid of birthright citizenship succeeds, how wo

I would guess most people don't have a proof of citizenship handy. This would get even worse if the effort to get rid of birthright citizenship succeeds, how would you even prove you are a citizen? This would be less of a problem if the US had some sort of national ID issued by right, but we don't, and the same people pushing for requiring ID for voting would be against creating one. They hate the idea of a national ID. My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work? All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional?

pseudalopex 8mo ago
> My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work? Trump told Congress to ban most mail ballots. > All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional? Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. And the constitution said Congress could decide elections of Congress. They have the power. They need an explanation enough people would accept.
- natebc 8mo ago
  It's not really up to Trump or Congress though is it? Elections are run by the several states.
  - pseudalopex 8mo ago
    I edited my comment. But before you replied I thought. Congress can decide elections of Congress.
    - natebc 8mo ago
      Ah, yeah, I see now that I've refreshed. Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone. I don't have much hope for Congress doing the same.
      - pseudalopex 8mo ago
        > Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone. How could the Supreme Court justify Congress could not decide elections of Congress?
        natebc 8mo ago
        It's unlikely that they could because of the ... well the Elections Clause other than the Senators bit I suppose. My broader point was that the Judical Branch itself is starting to show some signs of backbone regarding the unchecked flexing going on in the Executive Branch. I was more talking about where you said: > Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. That generally, maybe, hopefully the Executive Branch will get a surprise or two as well. I can be naively hopeful at times.
Spivak 8mo ago
Yeah, I think most people who want proof of citizenship are forgetting that your driver's license (even your REAL ID) isn't a proof of citizenship. It's passport, certificate of naturalization, or birth certificate. Restricting voting to people with passports and who happen to have a birth certificate handy is going to make the first election with the requirement weird as hell and probably backfire on Republicans if their goal is winning at any cost. Requiring some form of ID that your state is willing to accept as good enough is a very different beast than proof of citizenship.

pseudalopex 8mo ago

> My state does all elections by mail now. How would this even work? Trump told Congress to ban most mail ballots. > All this is on top of the fact that elections are run by the states, not the national government. Would such a law even be constitutional? Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. And the constitution said Congress could decide elections of Congress. They have the power. They need an explanation enough people would accept.

natebc 8mo ago
It's not really up to Trump or Congress though is it? Elections are run by the several states.
- pseudalopex 8mo ago
  I edited my comment. But before you replied I thought. Congress can decide elections of Congress.
  - natebc 8mo ago
    Ah, yeah, I see now that I've refreshed. Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone. I don't have much hope for Congress doing the same.
    - pseudalopex 8mo ago
      > Yes, it will get tricky with the current Supremes. Hopefully the signs we're seeing around Obstruction and Contempt in the federal courts lately indicate the _maybe_ the Judiciary is finding it's backbone. How could the Supreme Court justify Congress could not decide elections of Congress?
      - natebc 8mo ago
        It's unlikely that they could because of the ... well the Elections Clause other than the Senators bit I suppose. My broader point was that the Judical Branch itself is starting to show some signs of backbone regarding the unchecked flexing going on in the Executive Branch. I was more talking about where you said: > Experts said no. But this Supreme Court surprised experts before. That generally, maybe, hopefully the Executive Branch will get a surprise or two as well. I can be naively hopeful at times.

Spivak 8mo ago

Yeah, I think most people who want proof of citizenship are forgetting that your driver's license (even your REAL ID) isn't a proof of citizenship. It's passport, certificate of naturalization, or birth certificate. Restricting voting to people with passports and who happen to have a birth certificate handy is going to make the first election with the requirement weird as hell and probably backfire on Republicans if their goal is winning at any cost. Requiring some form of ID that your state is willing to accept as good enough is a very different beast than proof of citizenship.