One thing that wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to add an amendment to the Constitution.
But yeah congress can pass laws that are later deemed unconstitutional and rejected by the supreme court. However, the founders didn't want to federalize elections and the courts have said that states get to decide how their elections are run but then they struck down state laws requiring IDs.
I totally support voter ID especially after the shitshow this time. I don't know of any other country where someone can walk in off the street and vote like in the US. I really wish we could add that amendment.
Me too, I absolutely support voter ID. But your prior comment got me thinking, if voter ID is unconstitutional according to federal appeal courts (not SC as far as I know) then how do they get away with requiring Purchaser ID's and background checks for firearms?
That's a good question, the 2 positions are not consistent. I'd love to hear the mental gymnastics the courts would have to go through to explain it. I bet they'd use some case law instead of logic.
But would it be unconstitutional if congress passed a law saying you do need an ID to vote?
One thing that wouldn't be unconstitutional would be to add an amendment to the Constitution.
But yeah congress can pass laws that are later deemed unconstitutional and rejected by the supreme court. However, the founders didn't want to federalize elections and the courts have said that states get to decide how their elections are run but then they struck down state laws requiring IDs.
I totally support voter ID especially after the shitshow this time. I don't know of any other country where someone can walk in off the street and vote like in the US. I really wish we could add that amendment.
Me too, I absolutely support voter ID. But your prior comment got me thinking, if voter ID is unconstitutional according to federal appeal courts (not SC as far as I know) then how do they get away with requiring Purchaser ID's and background checks for firearms?
That's a good question, the 2 positions are not consistent. I'd love to hear the mental gymnastics the courts would have to go through to explain it. I bet they'd use some case law instead of logic.
Patriot Act if I remember correctly. They, also, passed or about to pass Patriot Act 2.0 with the full grace of the SWAMP.