- 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: Trump will sign Executive Order Mandating Voter ID
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
Doesn’t matter at all. Voter ID should be a national law.
0
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:04 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Exactly. If voter ID can be requried by EO, it could be suspended by EO.
And that is the real debate of this thread.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:13 pm to KCRoyalBlue
Well if he does lose this in court, all he has to do is offer federal election assistance for states that comply.
Most of the whores will comply.
Most of the whores will comply.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 3:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A Constitutional amendment or the voters of that state changing things via democratic action
But we already know that democrats will never vote for requiring ID to vote. Why do you think this is?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are these laws unconstitutional? Im confident these were enacted due to liberals and the VRA.
I wonder how the "states rights conservatives" react to this.
quote:
As of late summer 2025, nine U.S. states have strict laws that require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. This means that if a voter does not have the required photo ID, they must take additional steps for their vote to count, such as casting a provisional ballot.
The states with strict photo ID laws are:
Arkansas
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Mississippi
Nebraska (law took effect in April 2024)
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Posted on 8/31/25 at 4:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I wonder how the "states rights conservatives" react to this.
This is way long overdue and absolutely should apply for all national/federal elections.
If state and local elections don’t want to require it , go for it as long as it doesn’t affect other states.
Edit:
You are such a fricking retard.
This post was edited on 8/31/25 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your AI answers not good at spelling fricktwat
It is precedent
It is precedent
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:25 pm to tigerfan 64
quote:
Are these laws unconstitutional? Im confident these were enacted due to liberals and the VRA.
Were any of those laws enacted by the Federal government? Or, are they all state laws?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:29 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
I DO object to the president just declaring this by executive order.
How do you expect it to be corrected? Voting on the issue? Ask congress to write a law (probably 1/2 of them are there by rigged elections)? When the system is broken in a way that prevents it from getting fixed you have to take a hammer to it and do some tapping.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I wonder how the "states rights conservatives" react to this.
Considering that logic in regards to voting lets states allow illegal invaders to participate it should make them realize absolutism is retarded.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:40 pm to KCRoyalBlue
I actually thought he signed this a while ago. interesting!
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:54 pm to KCRoyalBlue
quote:
Trump will sign Executive Order Mandating Voter ID
He better time it right so that it doesn't go to court before the midterms.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 5:55 pm to prplhze2000
I agree, this will be nixed by the court.
We're going to need a constitutional ammendment to get voter I'd a requirement across the states.
I think the country is ready for a try at such an ammendment. Would 34 states oppose it?
BTW, I'm no expert, but there is some language in constitution about congress have power to set regulations. Could this be route to voter I'd? If this route is used I doubt voter I'd would ever pass. Have to go through the people and states directly, not Legislature.
We're going to need a constitutional ammendment to get voter I'd a requirement across the states.
I think the country is ready for a try at such an ammendment. Would 34 states oppose it?
BTW, I'm no expert, but there is some language in constitution about congress have power to set regulations. Could this be route to voter I'd? If this route is used I doubt voter I'd would ever pass. Have to go through the people and states directly, not Legislature.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:09 pm to prplhze2000
Downvote away.
I'll be right.
Sure you want a president unilaterally changing voting procedures? Think of where that can go when you get a Dem president
I'll be right.
Sure you want a president unilaterally changing voting procedures? Think of where that can go when you get a Dem president
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP, I honestly can't respond to this in a negative light? When I was inducted into the USMC I carried an ID card on my person at all times and was issued a inactive reserve card I carried at all times until I was fully mustered out with an HD.
Why can't we have a picture-laden SS card and put all this nonsense to bed?
Why can't we have a picture-laden SS card and put all this nonsense to bed?
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:19 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
That would include me.
I recognize that there is a conceptual flaw in the way national elections are constructed by constitution, by legal precedent, and/or by assumptions made in practice. Maybe your sharp legal mind can sort this out for me.
I get and respect that the idea was to create some system that respected the independence of the states. So much so in fact, that they were constantly talking about and conceiving of ways to prevent a federal government from taking too much power. They wanted a form of confederation of states with just enough power in the federal government for war, regulating conflicts (interstate commerce) between the states, etc.
Over time, these separations of the states and minimization of the fedgov were shown to be insufficient and unworkable if we were going to continue to be a nation. The Civil War was one major crack in that system.
I think its obvious that certain election processes in one state can definitely affect the citizens of other states. I don’t even think that the vast majority of Americans even understand this wall of separation and assume that national elections are national in fact and in essence, and not processes of the individual states.
I think we SHOULD have one set of standards for voting in national elections.
I DO object to the president just declaring this by executive order. Trump is not the first POTUS to simply use “his phone and his pen”, and I think he is engaging in a counter-revolution to the one the Dems have been conducting on numerous fronts for decades and certainly in overdrive since Obama.
Trump is not so much establishing precedence as he is cementing it by participating in it on the opposite side, which legitimizes it. I don’t know how we put this genie back in the bottle.
Well, well, well. What do we have here. Reasonable opinions without brash bravado and over-the-top hyperbole. My goodness.
As others stated, this won't (or at least shouldn't) pass legal scrutiny, but IF it did (insert Dennis Hopper meme), I'd be interested in revisiting the ruling against states setting term limits for their federal reps/senators. Probably won't change anything, but I'd sure be curious to see that brought up again.
Tactically speacking, the current version of the Democratic party seems to have a knack for doubling down on idiotic positions. I always wanted to see an ad about the voter ID issue that shows fatigued customers having to show ID for video rentals, carpet cleaners, rental cars, etc. Some witty and clever thing that mocks the claim the requirement is discriminatory.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:20 pm to KCRoyalBlue
A federal judge in California has already ruled against it. Probably.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
Stated don’t have the right to rig elections. So, I’m fine with it.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:22 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Downvote away. I'll be right. Sure you want a president unilaterally changing voting procedures? Think of where that can go when you get a Dem president
Think of where it is RIGHT NOW, where blue states intentionally weaken their federal election security in such a way as to exclusively benefit one party, which impacts all Americans.
I understand how the left will react, if given the chance. They’re probably headed that way regardless of what the right does.
I also understand that the only thing that will save this country is balkanization of red and blue states. These sorts of measures will only speed up that process.
Posted on 8/31/25 at 6:23 pm to idlewatcher
quote:
Blue states aren’t even following their own laws. Frick them. Not a fan of transparency brah?
Nah… he just has TDS
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News