Search results for query: *

It's literally the provision I quoted. The California wealth tax on wealth over $30 million accumulated in California, would continue to be paid after a California resident moved out of California, based on the fraction of the last ten years lived in California. That's the bit of about...

The "exit tax" proposed in AB-2088 isn't an income tax or technically a separate tax at all, it comes from the calculation of wealth tax: As you can see, it explicitly only applies to "the portion of wealth subject to the tax", i.e., the portion which was made in California. While it is a...

It's probably unconstitutional on its face, but it can't be challenged in the courts unless it actually passes into law -- right now, it's just a proposal. There is a (very thin) argument that because wealth accumulates over time, California is in fact taxing wealth that was made in California...

I would point out here that you're moving the goalposts from your previous argument that "SCOTUS made it up out of thin air!" to "I disagree with SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution!" Ironically, it is you who are concocting from "thin air" this vague and indeterminate yet somehow...

No, the Supreme Court did not "make shit up". They enforced the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which very explicitly establishes that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Residency...

The Supreme Court struck down extended duration residency requirements in 1972; see Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 US 330. Moreover, SCOTUS emphatically rejected the entire line of argument that you're making even earlier, in the 1965 decision Carrington v. Rash:

That varies from state to state. In almost all states, felons currently in prison cannot vote. In some states, voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of sentence. In some states, voting rights may be restored. In some states, voting rights are never restored. In some states...

Well, technically yes. The only Constitutional guarantees for voting rights are those laid out in the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, which state that voting rights cannot be denied based on race, color, former slavery, sex, failure to pay taxes, or age past...

Yes, and this is a *good thing*. The problem is that not every state has consistent and accessible procedures like that, and some states notably have them on paper but not in practice.

*sighs* It's not that you can vote without ID. It's that the primary point at which a voter's identity is verified is at *registration*, not at the point of vote. At the point of vote, there is no way to correlate an ID to valid voter status. Several states also generally have voter ID...

I don't disagree with you; it's simply that you asked what the situation currently is.

It tends to be a partisan effort to shift the election by making it extremely difficult for certain categories of people to register to vote and/or have necessary ID. For example, Alabama passed very strict voter ID laws in 20-15, then specifically closed every single DMV office in counties that...

It varies widely from state to state, honestly. Some states it's very easy, others it's super difficult, especially because in some areas, there's only one government office for hundreds of miles and it's only open like, one day a week.

If we want a fair and consistent voting standard and ID is part of the voting process, then clearly having consistent access to voting ID is a key element, and that falls in the federal aegis. None of this BS where, "Well, technically there's a free ID option, but you have to jump through...

No, but it does make the sensible response going, "We're not doing this unless it's done right." That said, the Republican position on this is pretty mashed up contradictions, because they want voter ID, but they don't want a national ID or even national *guidelines* on ID; just look at how...