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?
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.
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.
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?
Bruh I don’t give a single solitary fuck what you think. Poll taxes are bad and any justification of them or any other form of voter suppression deserves a round “fuck you.”
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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:
…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?
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.
Same here. :)
But doesn’t this mean you now have to get a passport card if you took their last name?
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:
source
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?
Oh shut the fuck up.
Removed by mod
Bruh I don’t give a single solitary fuck what you think. Poll taxes are bad and any justification of them or any other form of voter suppression deserves a round “fuck you.”
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.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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
That’s sounds like, yes, with extra steps. I understand not liking the extra steps, but they aren’t unconstitutional.
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.
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.