Tennessee figured it out

[lennypartiv]

More states should do this. Congress in DC should do this. This is the way to move America in the right direction.

---Tennessee Bill Would Prohibit Voting Against Trump Immigration Policies---

Tennessee bill would prohibit voting against Trump immigration policies

The legislation could mean jail time and a fine for those supporting sanctuary policies designed to protect migrants.

www.newsweek.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

More states should do this. Congress in DC should do this. This is the way to move America in the right direction.

---Tennessee Bill Would Prohibit Voting Against Trump Immigration Policies---

Tennessee bill would prohibit voting against Trump immigration policies

The legislation could mean jail time and a fine for those supporting sanctuary policies designed to protect migrants.

www.newsweek.com

Aaaand that's unconstitutional.

Don't care that I'm a conservative, that's unconstitutional and unnecessary.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I can't go along with that at all

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a state proposes a bill keeping people from voting against something, what part of the Constitution does that violate?


Grok:

A state law or bill that would prevent people from voting against something would likely violate several parts of the U.S. Constitution:

1. First Amendment: This amendment protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to express dissent or opposition through voting. By preventing someone from voting against a measure, the state would be infringing on an individual's right to express their political views.
   • Relevant Text: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
2. Fourteenth Amendment: Specifically, the Equal Protection Clause of this amendment states that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. A law that selectively allows voting for one side of an issue but not the other could be seen as unequal treatment under the law.
   • Relevant Text: "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
3. Fifteenth Amendment: While this amendment primarily deals with race, its broader interpretation regarding the right to vote for all citizens could be invoked. Preventing votes against a measure could be interpreted as disenfranchising certain voters based on their viewpoint, which could intersect with other protected classes.
   • Relevant Text: "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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
4. Nineteenth Amendment and Twenty-Sixth Amendment: These amendments extend the right to vote to women and to those 18 years and older, respectively, reinforcing the principle that voting rights should not be abridged.
   • Relevant Text (Nineteenth): "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."
   • Relevant Text (Twenty-Sixth): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Such a bill would likely be challenged in court as unconstitutional under these amendments for undermining the democratic process, freedom of expression, and equal protection under the law. Legal challenges would focus on how the bill effectively silences opposition, which goes against the fundamental principles of democratic voting where every eligible voter should have the right to cast their vote for or against any issue or candidate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

NO.

BAD.

STOP DOING STUPID SHIT.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

NO.

BAD.

STOP DOING STUPID SHIT.

Defeats the intent of free elections

 

[TemplarKormac]

Defeats the intent of free elections

Precisely.

 

[progressive hunter]

More states should do this. Congress in DC should do this. This is the way to move America in the right direction.

---Tennessee Bill Would Prohibit Voting Against Trump Immigration Policies---

Tennessee bill would prohibit voting against Trump immigration policies

The legislation could mean jail time and a fine for those supporting sanctuary policies designed to protect migrants.

www.newsweek.com

why did you lie??

it clearly says vote for sanctuary status not against trumps policy

 

[Scoutster]

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No.


There is no reason for Republicans to start acting like democrats.

 

[theHawk]

So if the state law isn’t necessary, then why has no politician been charged or jailed for aiding and abetting felon criminals?

It’s true, we shouldn’t need a law to prohibit the attempt to pass sanctuary laws. Theoretically such sanctuary laws should be unconstitutional and unenforceable. But certainly local government officials assisting known criminals is illegal and they should be prosecuted. For some reason they never have though. We obviously need laws to allow states to prosecute local county and city level officials that intend to break federal law through bogus city law.

 

[Leviticus]

You gotta love how they're not even pretending to support democracy anymore.

 

[theHawk]

Aaaand that's unconstitutional.

Don't care that I'm a conservative, that's unconstitutional and unnecessary.

I can't go along with that at all

The premise of the OP and the linked article is a lie.

The law proposed isn’t to jail people for “disagreeing with the President’s agenda”.

This is a leftwing hack fake News site that is quoting a leftwing lunatic democrat making these accusations.

The actual law that is being proposed simply gives the state the power to prosecute city officials that intend to violate federal immigration laws.

From the article:
Senate Bill 6002 came as part of a special session of the Tennessee General Assembly, aimed at delivering Lee's plans to deal with illegal immigration in the state.

The legislation includes creating a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division (CIEO), changes to state-issued IDs for legal immigrants, and launches incentives for local governments to participate in federal law enforcement under 287(g).

It also creates a Class E felony for local leaders or officials who adopt or maintain sanctuary policies meant to protect immigrants lacking permanent legal status from federal authorities, despite the status being banned already in the state

 

[theHawk]

You gotta love how they're not even pretending to support democracy anymore.

You gotta love fake news site making a false accusations about a law, by citing a radical leftwing Democrat politician.

 

[Leviticus]

So if the state law isn’t necessary, then why has no politician been charged or jailed for aiding and abetting felon criminals?

It’s true, we shouldn’t need a law to prohibit the attempt to pass sanctuary laws. Theoretically such sanctuary laws should be unconstitutional and unenforceable. But certainly local government officials assisting known criminals is illegal and they should be prosecuted. For some reason they never have though. We obviously need laws to allow states to prosecute local county and city level officials that intend to break federal law through bogus city law.

The reasons sanctuary laws are legal and constitutional is because states have no legal obligation under the constitution to enforce federal laws.
This goes way back to the 1800's when northern states began passing laws prohibiting state officials from aiding federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. States can't interfere in FEDERAL agents in the enforcement of federal law but can not be forced to actively assist those agents. These laws are the basis for modern sanctuary laws in states like California.

 

[theHawk]

No.


There is no reason for Republicans to start acting like democrats.

They aren’t.

Shame on you for believing the headlines of a Fake News organization like “Newsweek”.

The actual bill is to allow the State to toughen immigration enforcement and to outlaw cities from violating federal immigration laws.

 

[theHawk]

The reasons sanctuary laws are legal and constitutional is because states have no legal obligation under the constitution to enforce federal laws.
This goes way back to the 1800's when northern states began passing laws prohibiting state officials from aiding federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. States can't interfere in FEDERAL agents in the enforcement of federal law but can not be forced to actively assist those agents. These laws are the basis for modern sanctuary laws in states like California.

No one is forcing them to enforce the federal law. They are simply saying they cannot actively assist known criminal aliens. Assisting aliens is in fact interfering in the federal agents’ enforcement of the federal laws and you know that.

 

[Mac1958]

If this is true, yikes.

We'll be seeing more of this.

 

[lennypartiv]

You gotta love how they're not even pretending to support democracy anymore.

You've got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.