Thank you for that clear and concise explanation! Your interpretations always, always provide clarity on the important issues before We, the People. Hopefully, all Senators read this so they also can understand the true concept behind the SAVE Act.
Shocking that Grassley opposes SAVE given all the shenanigans in Minnesota and the thousands of mail-in ballots with no chain of custody in swing states. It is patently obvious that allowing the flood of illegal immigrants was an attempt to import a new client class of voters. Grassley needs to wake up to the fact that we are in the midst of a soft civil war and to vote accordingly.
This is the quiet scandal no one wants to admit: the Constitution never changedβCongress did. The NVRA didnβt expand the electorate, but it handcuffed verification and let confusion harden into orthodoxy. For thirty years, critics hid behind process while pretending enforcement itself was unlawful. The SAVE Act blows that dodge apart. It doesnβt defy courts; it answers them. It doesnβt disenfranchise voters; it enforces a rule everyone claims to support. Citizenship isnβt a suggestion, and elections arenβt a trust fall. If Congress created the mess, Congress can clean it up. Anything less is legislative cowardice dressed as caution.
"To impose a sudden documentary requirement, even one aligned with constitutional principles, risks litigation chaos, administrative disruption, and confusion among lawful voters."
And that is why laws must be given very careful consideration and not be implemented based on making things easier but consider the ramifications of what a new law will have.
But it simply makes sense that a non-citizen should not have a vote in how the nation is governed. Does anyone believe that if an American went to another country and was not a citizen and a proposed law effected the citizens of that country detrimentally that it was fair for that person to have a vote? Of course not so why should it be different in the U.S.?
Originally, only landowners were allowed to vote, and women were not. We need to return to those days. Renters vote on property tax issues, raising costs for landlords, who then stop doing upkeep on their properties, and wine-guzzling, emotion-driven women are skewing logical voting.
America citizens period zero committees zero court case zero drama πππ = Zero for control Freaks
As I read your explanation, Alexander, (from England ) it's registration that does not require proof of citizenship, not the actual casting of a vote.
Providing birth certificate or citizenship documentation verification is about as straight forward as you can get. Do that.
Thank you for that clear and concise explanation! Your interpretations always, always provide clarity on the important issues before We, the People. Hopefully, all Senators read this so they also can understand the true concept behind the SAVE Act.
Grassley is a RINO. He also took kickbacks from Venezuela. He needs to retire and let a patriot take his senate seat.
Shocking that Grassley opposes SAVE given all the shenanigans in Minnesota and the thousands of mail-in ballots with no chain of custody in swing states. It is patently obvious that allowing the flood of illegal immigrants was an attempt to import a new client class of voters. Grassley needs to wake up to the fact that we are in the midst of a soft civil war and to vote accordingly.
This is the quiet scandal no one wants to admit: the Constitution never changedβCongress did. The NVRA didnβt expand the electorate, but it handcuffed verification and let confusion harden into orthodoxy. For thirty years, critics hid behind process while pretending enforcement itself was unlawful. The SAVE Act blows that dodge apart. It doesnβt defy courts; it answers them. It doesnβt disenfranchise voters; it enforces a rule everyone claims to support. Citizenship isnβt a suggestion, and elections arenβt a trust fall. If Congress created the mess, Congress can clean it up. Anything less is legislative cowardice dressed as caution.
Well said
"To impose a sudden documentary requirement, even one aligned with constitutional principles, risks litigation chaos, administrative disruption, and confusion among lawful voters."
And that is why laws must be given very careful consideration and not be implemented based on making things easier but consider the ramifications of what a new law will have.
But it simply makes sense that a non-citizen should not have a vote in how the nation is governed. Does anyone believe that if an American went to another country and was not a citizen and a proposed law effected the citizens of that country detrimentally that it was fair for that person to have a vote? Of course not so why should it be different in the U.S.?
Originally, only landowners were allowed to vote, and women were not. We need to return to those days. Renters vote on property tax issues, raising costs for landlords, who then stop doing upkeep on their properties, and wine-guzzling, emotion-driven women are skewing logical voting.
Well, maybe no proof of citizenship. OK π I get it. However, at the end of the day we better have valid ID and active in person voting.
I think the fraud that has gone on with the voting sham needs to be totally straightened outπ
And you know if it has to be a passport or federal stamp on your ID that needs to come in to playπ³οΈβ