Four Democrats Pass Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote
Four Democrats Pass Bill Making It Harder for Married Women to Vote
You're viewing a single thread.
364 comments
-
IANAL but in my reading of the text of the bill the only way for a married woman that took her partner's last name (that wasn't in the military with her married name) to be able to vote if this becomes law is for them to spend at least $30 to get a USA Passport card. This would tick all the boxes the bill requires for these women:
- Government ID
- Shows citizenship status (by nature of it being a Passport)
- Shows place of birth
- Shows the married last name
...or as I'm calling it:
This is violation of the 24th Amendment banning poll Taxes.
In this case, its a required fee married women must pay to be able to use their Constitutional guaranteed right to vote granted by the 19th Amendment. How is this not a poll tax by another name on married women?
-
Worse getting the card is a major pita with the documentation and photo and having to mail it for first time.
-
At this point the constitution is more of a guideline.
-
To the GOP it's just rough paper to wipe their asses.
-
-
It always seems to me that this wouldn't be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy. I know $30 can be a significant sum (plus the pictures and other expenses) but it would be less of a hurdle if
- relevant offices were within reasonable distance
- they were sufficiently manned
- all or part of the process could be done online
- the government actually strives to make these processes as user-friendly as possible
This is something Americans rarely talk about because it's just assumed that everybody knows? Maybe somebody could explain to a EU dweller.
edit: maybe I didn't phrase this properly. I'm fully aware that preventing people from voting has a long "tradition" in the US; my question was more general I guess, and meant as an "in addition to the points already mentioned".
-
Those in power absolutely know these things but making things more difficult is the actual point. Voter fraud is extremely rare. The justification is all bull shit.
It's ultimately about preventing people who might vote Democrat from voting. If it affects a ton of Republican voters that's fine so long as it hits disproportionately more Democrats.
-
It always seems to me that this wouldn’t be such a big problem if the US had a working bureaucracy.
As a European I have no expectation you'd had this nugget of US history, but I can fill in the gap. After slavery was outlawed in the entire USA in the 1850s (post civil war) racist bigots enacted laws preventing black Americans from using their newly gained Constitutional rights. There were lots of examples of this. In many of the southern state local leaders instituted poll taxes, which was a required fee that someone would have to pay before being able to vote, but these same laws gave exemptions to anyone whose grandfather had voted in a prior election. Because whites had a long history of voting they were exempt from these taxes. Because newly freed slaves whose grandfathers had not been allowed to vote hadn't, the poll tax applied only to blacks. This disenfranchisement was deliberate on the part of white leaders with the intent to suppress black voting.
This is obviously fairly fucked up way to run a country, so the people of the USA passed an amendment to the US Constitution banning poll taxes on everyone. This is the 24th Amendment (passed in 1964). Better late than never.
So this new requirement on married women to pay at least $30 to get a passport card is a de facto poll tax which is outlawed by our Constitution (24th Amendment) also because it violates the 19th Amendment (the one that gave women the right to vote) as this law specifically targets married women (and not married men).
-
I knew that, but how does it answer my question?
-
You're absolutely correct, but Donald Trump dgaf about the constitution, at most he sees it as an inconvenience, something that other people have to do or something to wave like a flag, not something for him personally to actually obey. And the scotus has no intention whatsoever of holding him to it.
-
-
Consider this too. A woman has all of her ducks in a row with her married last name, and then divorces her POS republican husband. Now she needs to re-establish her identity all over again.
For the ladies out there (or anyone getting married) keep your last name. My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
-
My partner kept theirs, and it tickles them pink when the systemic chauvinism gets reversed and I get called by their last name.
Same here. :)
-
But doesn't this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
-
They didn't. People who know the wife assume her name will be the same and mistakenly call them the same.
-
-
-
They could waive the fee as part of it?
-
They could do that but besides still being shitty, it may not satisfy the 19th Amendment. The text of the Amendment read:
- The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Making married women jump through the arduous hoops of obtaining a passport card (and indirect costs associated with it such as postage and photography costs) could still be possibly considered "abridged" in violation of this Constitutional Amendment. This is especially true when this new bill effectively singles out married women. Married men don't have to do any of this so it could also still be a violation on the "on account of sex" portion of the Amendment.
-
How about making Bubba from bumble-fuck Arkansas have to drive to some major city to register for his right to vote?
See how that can be seen as an undue burden on voting?
-
-
here's the issue.
There's been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there's a cost to exercise the right. Since people with no knowledge about the subject made sure to make it as expensive as possible to enjoy a right, the psychopaths in office now have precedent.
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another. So . which do you think will fall first?
-
Is there an amendment that bans a tax on gun ownership?
If not, then your argument has no standing
-
is there an Amendment that bans a tax on any right?
if not then your argument has no standing.
Point is, requiring people to pay to exercise rights is now enshrined. and we watched it happen.
-
The 24th amendment very specifically bans polling taxes
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
-
Miller v. US, 230 F2d 489 “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.”
US Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California 110 US 516: “The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.”
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973) “… there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights”
Also in Murdock: “a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”"
-
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Irrelevant to this conversation.
Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.
By this logic, voter registration isn't in the constitution, so you might be able to make the argument that it violates the 14th, 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments. Again, by this logic, regardless of if people have proper voting registration or any voting registration at all, they should still be able to vote anyways. The 4 Democrats mentioned in the above article pass a law against the above.
The state cannot diminish the rights of the people.
Tell that to the Republicans that introduced the above bill.
there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights
What about the right to protest of UCLA students last April being violated because of false claims of anti-semitism, or the right to protest of Columbia students last March because of similar false claims? Did the US care about imposing sanctions or penalties on those people, or did they just detain and deport them instead?
a person cannot be compelled “to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.”
Again, tell that to Republicans that introduced the above bill.
-
-
-
-
-
one cannot tax one right and hand wave another
Clearly you're wrong because ones been being taxed and the other hasn't. There's a direct ban on poll taxes in the constitution, there is no such things for guns
-
-
-
-
Then you need to work on your reading comprehension because neither of these statements above you were in support of the tax
-
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dont stop! I'm playing sad violin music to back you up! keep typing, think of the children who wont get to fire guns without your continued effort.
-
Jesus Christ what's the matter with you! I didn't think id see the same type of insulting children here as on reddit. What ever happened to civil discourse?
-
Sorry guy, no one's going to pity an ammosexual trying to equate a tax on guns to a poll tax.
-
Umm. I don't own a modern firearm
Don't be so antagonistic. No one's asking for sympathy. Why so angry?
-
Lol up and down this thread crying about gun taxes. "Why so angry?" You're that kind of redditor lol. I'd say go back, but I'll bet you're one of the ones that actually earned your ban.
-
Um. You ok ? What have I said to offend you so? Did I call you a name or something?
I'm a bit confused as to why you won't just have a civil discussion?
-
Yep. Totally that kind of troll.
-
-
-
-
-
( sad violin music intensifies, with frett pounding added to simulate bullet firing noises )
Its about time someone spoke up for pew-pew owners rights. Why do the anti school shooting folks get all the press?
How dare everyone not consider my gawd-given personal rights to mass casualty tools.
/s
-
-
-
-
-
So which amendment bans taxes on gun ownership. Must have missed that one.
-
There isn't one, the poster made it up.
-
-
There’s been a tax on the second amendment for decades. Having to pay the fees for licensing, and the classes, means there’s a cost to exercise the right.
I looked at the receipt for a recent gun purchase, a rifle, and there are zero taxes or fees on it except sales tax which applies to nearly all items (such as video games or automobiles) for sale. There were no required licenses or classes to purchase or own this firearm.
-
in your state. Where I am there are requirements for everything. from buying ammo to getting separate licenses for long guns and pistols.
the weapon itself is not what I'm talking about. of course that's taxable.
-
So your beef is with a State (or municipal) government. That isn't quite the same as a restriction at the Federal level that we're discussing here.
-
It is though. The constitution is the law and it does give supremacy to the feds. Meaning a state or municipal law gives way to federal laws when there are none.
-
Again, I think this is a tangent, but even you admit that you are able to buy a gun and own in with these taxes in place. Your 2nd Amendment right is clearly intact. There's no Constitutional right protecting gun ownership from taxation. Where that isn't the case with voting. The 24th Amendment protects your right to vote without any fee. Gun ownership has no corresponding Constitutional protection.
-
No. In my state you cannot unless you pay for the classes , fingerprinting and background checks , etc..
Do not get me wrong I am for classes , and background checks.
I don't believe those should cost the prospective owner though.
Now if there was no cost and those were required, I wouldn't say a word. I hope my point is a bit clearer
-
No. In my state you cannot unless you pay for the classes , fingerprinting and background checks , etc…
That's sounds like, yes, with extra steps. I understand not liking the extra steps, but they aren't unconstitutional.
Now if there was no cost and those were required, I wouldn’t say a word. I hope my point is a bit clearer
Your point is clear, but not supported by the Constitution. Taxes and fees, by themselves, aren't prohibition of freedom. Poll taxes are, as they are specifically called out as outlawed by the Constitution.
-
It has been established as I shared it earlier. .
But quite frankly in this timeline it doesn't matter trump and his Nazi cronies will do as they please
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I have multiple guns. Never paid for a class, don't need a license. Only cost was in the guns and ammo. Now, I WAS taught at an early age how to handle guns safely, and am damn near brainwashed to handle them thusly (I never leave a bullet in chamber and I still clear my weapons every time I even touch them.) That said, I do need to stop being a lazy ass and finish building my ak47 instead of leaving it half assembled. Still needs a couple of American parts and I will not risk being dinged with an illegally built firearm.
-
In your state.
-
-
364 comments