- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Trump to issue EO requiring voter ID before midterms
Posted on 2/13/26 at 9:54 pm to Brosef Stalin
Posted on 2/13/26 at 9:54 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Yes. Do you believe one person by himself should be able to set the election rules for the whole country?
It’s not his fault there aren’t 60 people setting the rules. Since that is the case, what is the move?
0
Posted on 2/13/26 at 9:56 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Remember, if Trump can do it so can a Democrat president.
In other words, a democrat president can already do this. They don’t need precedent m.
All the reason to ensure a liberal traitor can’t cheat to win the presidency.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:04 pm to exiledhogfan
quote:
Yes, the rules are set. It's this crazy thing called our Constitution. And it says the states set the rules for their own elections.
Where does it state that?
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:07 pm to exiledhogfan
quote:
Yes, the rules are set. It's this crazy thing called our Constitution. And it says the states set the rules for their own elections.
If 75% of the country supports voter ID, then have them contact their representatives in Congress and have them convene a constitutional convention to change the Constitution.
That's how it's supposed to work
You are wrong.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), also known as the Motor Voter Act, is a United States federal law signed into law by President Bill Clinton on May 20, 1993, that came into effect on January 1, 1995.[1] The law was enacted under the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and advances voting rights in the United States by requiring state governments to offer simplified voter registration processes for any eligible person who applies for or renews a driver's license or applies for public assistance
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (also known as the “NVRA” or “motor voter law”) sets forth certain voter registration requirements with respect to elections for federal office. Section 5 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities at State motor vehicle agencies. Section 6 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities by mail-in application. Section 7 of the NVRA requires that States offer voter registration opportunities at certain State and local offices, including public assistance and disability offices. Section 8 of the NVRA contains requirements with respect to the administration of voter registration by States and requires States to implement procedures to maintain accurate and current voter registration lists.
Then in 2013, this decision was based on the NVRA -
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7-2) in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA), Inc., that the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 pre-empts an Arizona voter registration law requiring documents showing proof of citizenship.
"Today’s decision is a significant victory for U.S. citizens and their ability to register to vote without burdensome requirements. In our democracy, if you don’t vote, you don’t count, and the Arizona law was a blatant effort to keep some citizens from making their voice heard in our elections,” said Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
The Court affirmed a lower-court decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found that Arizona’s Proposition 200 conflicted with the NVRA and that the NVRA takes precedence over the state law. The decision was based on the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections.
So clearly, the federal government can pass laws that dictate how registration for and voting in federal elections will be done.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:23 pm to FLTech
quote:
#2 - it will fast track it to the supreme court and if the supreme court follows the Constitution then we should have this in the bag
please point out where the president has authority to order voter ID. I’m with you on hoping it makes it to the court. I cannot wait to see what the SG comes up that won’t get them laughed out of oral arguments.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:24 pm to FLTech
quote:
2 things..
Trump is begging the Dems to make this an issue. Look how stupid they are going to look fighting for illegals to vote
#2 - it will fast track it to the supreme court and if the supreme court follows the Constitution then we should have this in the bag
Either way, it's a win/won for America
While true, if it stays an EO and not a bill, the next Dem in the White House will cancel it day one.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:30 pm to Laugh More
quote:I’d prefer he actually concentrate his political capital l and time on something effective at getting voter ID enacted.
He wants this issue out in the open so the American People can see the arguments that Dems make AGAINST secure elections.
quote:I guess if you want symbolism over substance.
Pretty smart actually.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:32 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
The idea that Congress can set the rules for national elections is questionable.
Is it, though?
quote:
Article I Legislative Branch
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 (sic) Senators.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:34 pm to The_Duke
quote:Same way we got the Patriot Act and Obamacare. Wanted a win for the team without considering the merit of the idea.
It blows my mind how short-sighted these folks are on topics like this. They love it when Trump dictates because he is their guy, but Trump won't be there forever.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:37 pm to djsdawg
quote:So do you think a president can suspend the 2A with an executive order because it’s too flawed to work
This isn’t a realistic option.
That crazy thing is too flawed to work in this moment in time. It’s being used to destroy from within.
in this moment in time?
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:38 pm to bigjoe1
78 Nobel Economist said Biden-nomics would be wonderful for America. Hmmmm.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:54 pm to HeadLightBanDit
quote:
but when he wins, it's ALL good.
Thats inaccurate. He indicated there was still fraud in the last presidential election. I think he won that one
Posted on 2/13/26 at 10:56 pm to bigjoe1
The President does have power under the “take care” clause. I would suspect that will be the legal basis.
Posted on 2/13/26 at 11:37 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
I’d prefer he actually concentrate his political capital l and time on something effective at getting voter ID enacted.
You don’t think these things can work in tandem?
I’ll never understand people who say things like he is focusing ONLY on a certain thing or that these things are mutually exclusive.
Multi-tasking and having many things in player the same time is a thing. You know this, right?
Posted on 2/14/26 at 2:31 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Same way we got the Patriot Act and Obamacare. Wanted a win for the team without considering the merit of the idea.
---And the best example you can give is two bipartisan legislative laws.
Posted on 2/14/26 at 2:46 am to Warboo
quote:
This is just a way to fast track it to the SCOTUS.
Yep.
Its why the raids on Maricopa and Fulton happened and probably more to come.
The states were entrusted to hold elections, this does not constitutionally allow them to control who gets elected, regardless of what some people think.
I dont see how SCOTUS can allow this nonsense to continue. For friks sake in california you now use a touchtone screen to issue yourself your own license and the address is used to mail ballots to you. That is utter nonsense.
Posted on 2/14/26 at 2:50 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
The idea that Congress can set the rules for national elections is questionable. There's no way a president has that power. Remember, if Trump can do it so can a Democrat president.
Correct, he is NOT setting rules, he is merely trying to enforce the ones the states have refused to, as they are directed to under the constitution. Due to their dereliction of duty the federal govt will step in to help.
And please stop with this shat "if we do it they will do it later" whiny shat. They killed millions of people with a virus to stop him. WTF do you think they will do next if we continue to play nice???????????????????????????
Posted on 2/14/26 at 2:54 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Yes. Do you believe one person by himself should be able to set the election rules for the whole country?
Are you referring to JFK bringing out the national guard to ensure blacks could vote. Yeah I think that was the right decision.
I also think the blatant cheating now is a civil rights violation on all those who legally vote and have that vote negated by ballot box stuffers.
Posted on 2/14/26 at 3:05 am to exiledhogfan
quote:
Yes, the rules are set. It's this crazy thing called our Constitution. And it says the states set the rules for their own elections.
So you are saying southern states can go back to stopping any blacks from voting? That is what you just said. Explain to us why they had to stop. Was that some guy named JFK. He was part of the executive branch, or was he part of state govt?
Posted on 2/14/26 at 3:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
So do you think a president can suspend the 2A with an executive order because it’s too flawed to work
in this moment in time?
In this example Trump would be trying to pass an EO to ensure a state did not take away your 2nd amendment rights.
That is what he is doing here. He is trying to ensure your civil rights, the right to vote, is not negated by ballot stuffers.
He is not changing anything just trying to ensure states uphold the constitution with fair elections.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News