New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

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

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
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.
Look boy, you posted of Freedom to know who's funding politicans but since it's Senile Biden you want to cry it's no one's business who's buying Joe!
 

Colorforms

Senator
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 ?
LOL are you really an idiot or do you just play one here?


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?
The article was NOT meant for fascist take overs of states rights, unlike you POS's would like to believe. But, I do see just how badly you want the federal government to take over as many of our freedoms as possible.

Oh, and as for being a dishonest POS who can't sustain a discussion without lying or slandering others. You are so becoming not worth my time.
 

Spamature

President
Look boy, you posted of Freedom to know who's funding politicans but since it's Senile Biden you want to cry it's no one's business who's buying Joe!
Well son, this would be the solution to what you are ranting about if it has to do with elections.

Why do I have to explain the simplest things to you retropubs.
 

Spamature

President
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:


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:


Hamilton explained further:


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:


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.


Yeah ?
And that is their interpretation, but it is not what is in the Constitution. But since this applies equally to all 50 or 51 or maybe even 52 states, that objection of singling out a particular state in not part of the subject. And as your article states Congress has not had respect for that view for the last 60 years.

Also this is not on a whim. At the state level your retropubs are trying to take the right to vote from the people and give it to themselves. If anything this is a needed measure to preserve voting rights in federal election regardless of how they are destroyed by retropubs in state elections.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Yeah ?
And that is their interpretation, but it is not what is in the Constitution. But since this applies equally to all 50 or 51 or maybe even 52 states, that objection of singling out a particular state in not part of the subject. And as your article states Congress has not had respect for that view for the last 60 years.

Also this is not on a whim. At the state level your retropubs are trying to take the right to vote from the people and give it to themselves. If anything this is a needed measure to preserve voting rights in federal election regardless of how they are destroyed by retropubs in state elections.
Name the "52" states_____________________go
 

Spamature

President
Obama said there were 57

Only a fool counts his chicks before they hatch
Yeah he said it 13 yrs ago this week and you wingers are still harping on it.

Well this thread is more about cooking retropublicans goose than it is about counting chickens.
 

RickWA

Senator
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.
Nope. The foundational premise of this country is one of united autonomous states. I can’t help it if you failed your sixth grade history class that taught you this.

Individual states and local entities more accurately reflect our values and needs - that’s why our system is calibrated in such a way. Furthermore, this fact was the condition on which the original colonies agreed to unite. Change the condition and you invalidate the union.

Eat your Wheaties, leftist. Normal, decent, competent people tire of your inferiority.
 

Spamature

President
Nope. The foundational premise of this country is one of united autonomous states. I can’t help it if you failed your sixth grade history class that taught you this.

Individual states and local entities more accurately reflect our values and needs - that’s why our system is calibrated in such a way. Furthermore, this fact was the condition on which the original colonies agreed to unite. Change the condition and you invalidate the union.

Eat your Wheaties, leftist. Normal, decent, competent people tire of your inferiority.
Look, I know you think if you repeat misinformation enough it becomes your truth.

Maybe your 6th grade history teacher said different, and you have never checked for yourself. I did it for you, and did you the favor of putting that part of the Constitution in a post to you.
The simple fact is that what I propose is exactly what the Constitution says the congress can do.

No, if, ands, or buts.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Yeah he said it 13 yrs ago this week and you wingers are still harping on it.

Well this thread is more about cooking retropublicans goose than it is about counting chickens.
Yet it was YOU that posted 52 states...............
 

Spamature

President
Yet it was YOU that posted 52 states...............
50 and 51 too.

Regardless of when the regulations in the law would fully go into effect, I allowed for future states to be included. Maybe we will have 49 by then when they make NC and SC one state as they should be. Or 48 or 47 if they do right by America with ND and SD and/or Virginia and West Virginia.
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
50 and 51 too.

Regardless of when the regulations in the law would fully go into effect, I allowed for future states to be included. Maybe we will have 49 by then when they make NC and SC one state as they should be.
RUN AND DODGE
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Says the poster yammering about Hunter Biden in order to change the subject.
Congress IS taking over and lib sheep will now go Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Democrats lie about lying about voter ID (msn.com)

As the old saying goes, 'be careful what you ask for'

‘Staggering’: Biden breaks from agenda to grapple with bloodshed plaguing big cities (msn.com)

Well now you got what you ask for and Biden is going after black folks as he did in the 90's!

What do dem/libs do best, LIE about LYING and libs suck it up like kittens and cream, what's that white stuff all over libs faces :)
 
Last edited:

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
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!
Ummm. seems like this sheot went on for 4 years under the Greatest Loser - or is that different now - hypocrisy - gotta love it!
 
Top