- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In shocking news, Lisa Murkowski just announced she will not support the SAVE ACT
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:01 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:01 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 611)
The previous claim:
quote:
The federal gov already has that power and it was given by the founding fathers.
You must be a US citizen to vote. Period.
This does not change anything. It enforces it.
So did the founding fathers move forward in time to 1996? And are we now considering US Code to be part of the constitution?
Also, that's not the same thing at all to what is being proposed with the Save Act.
So it doesn't remotely support your original claim.
However, maybe we should start enforcing this 1996 law and holding states that aren't enforcing it responsible.
1
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:02 pm to High C
Actually, I think that’s correct. If so, it’s not as bad as I thought. Frankly, it’s not much of a change from the current status quo…
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
She’s right from a constitutional perspective
Voter ID is smart policy, but it has to be done by states.
It was wrong in 2021 for dems to federalize elections
Wrong now for gop
Principles have no place, esp in this forum.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:06 pm to deltadummy
It can and will be done by the states. They just have to be required to actually do it.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:11 pm to SPEEDY
quote:
Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this.
OK, Lisa. What is your idea on how to do it?
I agree with previous poster who stated that requiring ID to vote in federal elections is simply making sure the guidelines set forth in the Constitution are followed. How the states implement that is up to them and shouldn't take a whole lot.
Voters had to prove who they are when they registered. It's not some gigantic hurdle to cross.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:14 pm to SPEEDY
She should have been booted from GOP years ago
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:16 pm to SPEEDY
Federal offices need uniformity.
Every other nation has that.
Every other nation has that.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Voter ID is smart policy, but it has to be done by states.
quote:
It was wrong in 2021 for dems to federalize elections
I must have missed dems proposing voter id standards to protect free and fair elections... Also, this bullshite about We CaNt FeDeRaLiZe ElEcTiOnS is hilarious considering we have campaign finance laws and a whole arse Voting Rights Acts that absolutely interjects the Federal Govt into elections.
This post was edited on 2/10/26 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:36 pm to SPEEDY
Rogerthecuckers Repiblicans 
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:43 pm to 3down10
quote:
That doesn't mean I want to federalize the elections. Because if you give the federal government that power, it also means they can start forcing states like my own to no longer require voter ID.
The Federal Government already has “that” power. They have laws saying that only citizens can vote. This was explained well a few posts above yours. All this would do is say that the states have to ensure that the law that is already on the books is properly enforced.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:47 pm to Penrod
quote:
The Federal Government already has “that” power. They have laws saying that only citizens can vote. This was explained well a few posts above yours. All this would do is say that the states have to ensure that the law that is already on the books is properly enforced.
If they already have that power and the laws already exist, why the need for a new bill?
This post was edited on 2/10/26 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 2/10/26 at 2:49 pm to deltadummy
quote:
Principles have no place, esp in this forum.
Allowing elections to be stolen, allowing democrats to ruin this country through draconian policies, because of "principles" is the epitome of retarded and violates my primary principle - Don't be stupid.
No one is going to respect you for your principles when democrat policies are enacted nationwide.
Murkowski's argument is dumb. Voter ID has nothing to do with "time, places, and manner." Manner would be paper ballots vs machines. The requirements for voting in federal elections are strictly the purview of the federal government.
If it's not, then states can allow 4 year olds to vote. States can allow people to vote multiple times. States can prevent certain groups from voting. If States cannot permit these voting practices, then that undeniably means that the federal government can put controls on elections.
How does the Constitution allow the federal government to enact a voting age but not voter ID? There is no logical answer to that question.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 3:04 pm to 3down10
quote:
If they already have that power and the laws already exist, why the need for a new bill?
The answer is in the post to which you responded. And even better, it’s in a post just uphill of that.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 3:23 pm to SPEEDY
There needs to be a revolt about this issue. You have to have an ID to literally do everything important in life but vote. It's illogical unless you plan to cheat. Prove me wrong.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 3:31 pm to SPEEDY
Sweeping election reform is identifying yourself?
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:24 pm to 3down10
quote:
So did the founding fathers move forward in time to 1996? And are we now considering US Code to be part of the constitution?
You are playing word salad.
You must be a US citizen... period. Nothing left to be said about where ... it's law.
The next issue is how to ensure that the law is enforced. No federal election law is enforced at the state level.
quote:
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
1) Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Main federal agency that investigates violations of federal election laws, including § 611.
Sometimes assisted by:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies (e.g., ICE or USCIS) if immigration status is involved.
2) Prosecution
U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (federal prosecutors under the DOJ)
Decide whether to bring charges.
Handle the criminal case in federal court.
3) Oversight within DOJ
Public Integrity Section of the DOJ Criminal Division
Oversees and coordinates election-crime prosecutions nationwide.
Nothing in the save act is a removal of a states right. And NOBODY, including you, has even remotely explained how it would.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:21 pm to 3down10
quote:
These states that do not have it and are allowing illegals to vote are the ones that should be held accountable.
In what manner?
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:30 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Allowing elections to be stolen, allowing democrats to ruin this country through draconian policies, because of "principles" is the epitome of retarded and violates my primary principle - Don't be stupid.
Sums up Libertarians.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:34 pm to djsdawg
quote:
In what manner?
You appoint people to over see the elections, invalidate any elections that were not properly monitored, require them to do another election if needed.
Charge the people responsible for allowing the illegal votes with a crime resulting in fines and/or going to prison.
Not required for states that already do these things, only those who don't have legit voter ID.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:35 pm to 3down10
Betting odds on the SAVE ACT becoming law have actually gone up since this retard made this announcement.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News