Re: 10 states now developing eligibility-proof demands
WABob, I think I follow your point, regarding the McCarthy bill - technically, it doesn't really exempt anything. They may have included such language in an attempt to reduce opposition to their bill.
I'm not sure I follow how that relates to Burges's bill. Are you suggesting that Burges wrote her bill with the intention of opening things up to all kinds of corruption?
Arizona passed a couple of "landmark" pro-gun laws last year.... I'm not complaining about the laws, but I recognize that the AZ legislators' motives may not have been anything more than political posturing in advance of the mid-term elections.
Do you think Burges has some "hidden agenda" with her new bill?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Josh, I think you're correct that the federal gov't has no standing to challenge these laws, but I'm afraid that they may try anyway. As WABob pointed out, the Nebraska law may be especially vulnerable, since it includes provisions which are even more stringent than the U.S. Constitution.
The point I wanted to make, was that Obama and Holder don't need to win the legal battles - they only need to keep the laws locked up in court until the 2012 elections are over.