Congress has the power to take federal elections out of the hands of the states.

[Spamature]

All this hand wringing over what the Republicans are doing at the states level.
Yet, they could be made moot if the Dems would just step up and make a bold move.
I say make if so bold that Republicans beg Schumer to offer up the previous voting bills.



They have Reconciliation and there is a lot of money that exchanges hands during federal elections. There is a chance to regulate and make transparent both the players and the money, enough that it would affect the budget to the extent required by for consideration in the budget,

But if there was an agency for the money and process to go through, if congress would just create it. This is in addition to the cost that the federal govt might incur, separating federal and state elections responsibilities in every state in prescribed ways.

The filibuster is irrelevant and can be used by the Dems just as ruthlessly in the future, as the GOP is using it now.

 

[sensible don]

All these voter restrictions the righties are pulling off - they are not worried about the feelings of the other side and the filibuster rules. Dems need to teach them the consequences of losing an election and following the greatest loser. Move forward and stop playing games, mumbles aint gonna do nothing to help you - he enjoys doing nothing and getting paid - just like the monthly govt tit suckers on here.

 

[Spamature]

All these voter restrictions the righties are pulling off - they are not worried about the feelings of the other side and the filibuster rules. Dems need to teach them the consequences of losing an election and following the greatest loser. Move forward and stop playing games, mumbles aint gonna do nothing to help you - he enjoys doing nothing and getting paid - just like the monthly govt tit suckers on here.

I believe the GOP would fold under this type of pressure and drop any attempt at blocking the original legislation.

Imagine an agency that could, during a federal election, be able to bring their media to task and demand retractions for misinformation ? Or a situation where the names and sources of their dark money is exposed, and all political donations in federal elections are accounted for.

They would run from that prospect like it was Trump Tweet questioning their loyalty.

 

[Dawg]

You two libs begging for the Civil War you dream of

 

[Colorforms]

You two libs begging for the Civil War you dream of

And the other day he was asking "what freedoms to democrats want to give away to the federal government?" It's almost like they have no self awareness what so ever.

 

[Dawg]

And the other day he was asking "what freedoms to democrats want to give away to the federal government?" It's almost like they have no self awareness what so ever.

So very true

 

[Spamature]

You two libs begging for the Civil War you dream of

Why ?

Are you Retropublicans going to start a civil war if you can't cheat at the state level in federal elections ?

 

[Spamature]

And the other day he was asking "what freedoms to democrats want to give away to the federal government?" It's almost like they have no self awareness what so ever.

That isn't a freedom being giving away. That is a freedom being giving back to the voters.

The freedom of information on who is funding which candidate.

The freedom of being able to hold cheaters accountable.

The freedom of all federal election being held on equal ground without outside interference from state politicians meddling in federal elections, and all voters being treated equally regardless of which state they live in.

It is the freedom you hate and want to keep out of the hands of the people.

 

[Colorforms]

That isn't a freedom being giving away. That is a freedom being giving back to the voters.

The freedom of information on who is funding which candidate.

The freedom of being able to hold cheaters accountable.

The freedom of all federal election being held on equal ground without outside interference from state politicians meddling in federal elections, and all voters being treated equally regardless of which state they live in.

It is the freedom you hate and want to keep out of the hands of the people.

You can mentally masturbate it as much as you want, but you want the federal government to take power from the states. You fascists are bold ones.

 

[Dawg]

That isn't a freedom being giving away. That is a freedom being giving back to the voters.

The freedom of information on who is funding which candidate.

The freedom of being able to hold cheaters accountable.

The freedom of all federal election being held on equal ground without outside interference from state politicians meddling in federal elections, and all voters being treated equally regardless of which state they live in.

It is the freedom you hate and want to keep out of the hands of the people.

Yet is a secret who's buying Hunters ART or should we say buying the President?

Jason Chaffetz: Hunter Biden's art scam – with his work selling for $500K, we need to know who's buying | Fox News

Where's the Freedom there you post of?

 

[Spamature]

You can mentally masturbate it as much as you want, but you want the federal government to take power from the states. You fascists are bold ones.

Then the Founding Father were the same Fascist you keep going on and on about today.

Because they most definitely put that authority into the Constitution.

Stop trying to promote your anti-American ideals and insults against them.

 

[Spamature]

Yet is a secret who's buying Hunters ART or should we say buying the President?

Jason Chaffetz: Hunter Biden's art scam – with his work selling for $500K, we need to know who's buying | Fox News

Where's the Freedom there you post of?

Is Hunter Biden running for federal office or a member of Congress ?

If not, then your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Start your own thread if you want to promote ca-razy winger conspiracy theories.

 

[Colorforms]

Then the Founding Father were the same Fascist you keep going on and on about today.

Because they most definitely put that authority into the Constitution.

Stop trying to promote your anti-American ideals and insults against them.

The founding fathers didn't usurp the state's rights to hold an election. That's what YOU want to do.

 

[RickWA]

All this hand wringing over what the Republicans are doing at the states level.
Yet, they could be made moot if the Dems would just step up and make a bold move.
I say make if so bold that Republicans beg Schumer to offer up the previous voting bills.



They have Reconciliation and there is a lot of money that exchanges hands during federal elections. There is a chance to regulate and make transparent both the players and the money, enough that it would affect the budget to the extent required by for consideration in the budget,

But if there was an agency for the money and process to go through, if congress would just create it.

The filibuster is irrelevant and can be used by the Dems just as ruthlessly in the future, as the GOP is using it now.

Just so we’re clear on this, if ANY party ever decides to revoke our FEDERAL system - which is the very foundation of this nation - and make a centrally dominant entity of America… they will be rescinding the legitimacy of our union. I will, in fact, renounce my citizenship and leave. It’s a deal breaker.

You leftists destroy everything you touch. Everything.

 

[Spamature]

The founding fathers didn't usurp the state's rights to hold an election. That's what YOU want to do.

I gave you the section of the Constitution that explicitly says they can.

Did you forget that ?

Or was it just something you purposely chose to ignore because you didn't want to believe it ?

 

[Colorforms]

I gave you the section of the Constitution that explicitly says they can.

Did you forget that ?

Or was it just something you purposely chose to ignore because you didn't want to believe it ?

Yes, where the CAN. The founders gave the states the right to run their own elections. The federal government respected that until you fascists came along.

Oh, and according to the federalist papers, the provision is only used in emergencies:

Unconstitutional Provisions
Is the “For the People Act” constitutional? The obvious answer for anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers is a resounding “No,” because there is no grant of power given to the federal government to simply take over elections.

This bill’s supporters would likely disagree with that claim and quote Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as justification, which says:

The times, places, and manner of holding elections, for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

To the casual observer, this could reasonably appear to be a general grant of power to Congress to take over and regulate elections nationwide, but it’s not.

Of course, the first clue that this isn’t a general grant of power for ongoing operations can be seen in its placement. It is not among the 18 specifically enumerated powers listed in Article I, Section 8 where one can find grants of power for routine ongoing operations of the federal government, such as coining money, establishing post offices, etc.

This provision was in the U.S. Constitution primarily in case a few large states refused to hold congressional elections, thereby weakening the Congress or perhaps even depriving Congress of the ability to act for lack of a quorum. It was also possible that some states would be unable to hold elections due to invasion. While this did not happen during the War of 1812, it came close to happening in such states as Maryland, where the British attacked Fort McHenry. Had the British succeeded in their attack on Fort McHenry, it could have been possible that the State of Maryland would have become sufficiently disabled that it could not have conducted that year’s elections without support from the federal government or perhaps neighboring states.

An explanation of the intent of Article I, Section 4 can be found in the Federalist Papers, No. 59, written by Alexander Hamilton:

They have reserved to the national authority a right to interpose, whenever extraordinary circumstances might render that interposition necessary to its safety.

Hamilton explained further:

Suppose an article had been introduced into the Congress empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?

This wording of Article I, Section 4 was hotly debated when the U.S. Constitution was being ratified because the Anti-Federalists saw the dangers it might lead to. The Anti-Federalists suggested an amendment to clarify the discretion with which the Congress was to restrain itself from using Article I, Section 4 as an excuse for an electoral takeover. Number 16 of their proposed amendments said:

That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times, places, or manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, or either of them, except when the legislature of any state shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or rebellion, to prescribe the same.

The Anti-Federalists’ Amendment 16 was never passed because the intent as explained in the Federalist Papers, No. 59 was considered clear and sufficient at the time, and its intent was respected by Congress until the middle 1960s. Looking back, it appears that Anti-Federalist Amendment 16 should have been passed to keep the federal government from interfering with state elections based on political whim.

Stop the Radical "For the People Act" (H.R. 1/S. 1) Unconstitutional Federal Takeover of Elections : The John Birch Society

Democrats in Congress are seeking to pass the "For the People Act" (H.R. 1, S. 1, and S. 2093) a draconian and unconstitutional election bill that would federalize American elections and decimate election integrity.

jbs.org

 

[Spamature]

Just so we’re clear on this, if ANY party ever decides to revoke our FEDERAL system - which is the very foundation of this nation - and make a centrally dominant entity of America… they will be rescinding the legitimacy of our union. I will, in fact, renounce my citizenship and leave. It’s a deal breaker.

You leftists destroy everything you touch. Everything.

Another fake Constitutional interpretation.

ONE MORE TIME PEOPLE !

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:


The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So let's please move past your nonsense and threats and deal with the topic.

 

[Dawg]

Is Hunter Biden running for federal office or a member of Congress ?

If not, then your post has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic.

Start your own thread if you want to promote ca-razy winger conspiracy theories.

His Daddy is the President

Who pays $500,000 for poss poor ART unless they want a favor from Daddy?

You post of FREEDOM and never paid for it!

 

[Spamature]

Yes, where the CAN. The founders gave the states the right to run their own elections. The federal government respected that until you fascists came along.

Again with call the Founding Father Fascist because they don't agree with you.

Why do you hate them ?

Is it because they gave you a democracy, and you don't want it anymore ?

 

[Spamature]

His Daddy is the President

Who pays $500,000 for poss poor ART unless they want a favor from Daddy?

You post of FREEDOM and never paid for it!

So ?

It still has nothing to do with the topic.

If you are incapable of discussing actual politics on a political board I understand.

But that does not mean you should substitute actual discussion with your Hunter Biden fixation.