President Trump keeps insisting that he can unilaterally change the rules for voting in the midterms. It's not just that he's *wrong*; it's that there's no mechanism through which he could even *try.*
The election fraud was by SCOTUS justices in 2024. This piece by Professor Vladeck provides a powerful refutation of the fake history and fake law of the SCOTUS justices in their per curiam opinion in Trump v. Anderson.
SCOTUS justices outright lied when they misrepresented that “federal officers” de facto and de jure “owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,” so “powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’ ”
Copious plain text of our Constitution plainly proves the truth of James Madison’s representation to the people in Federalist No. 45 about the design and operation of our original Constitution:
“Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. [State legislatures and therefore individual voters of each state] must in all cases have a great share in [the president’s] appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it.”
Cyrus, federal law (5 U.S.C. Section 3331) requires virtually every federal employee to expressly acknowledge that his or her first, foremost and constant duty is to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, and that includes "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The primary reason that the First Amendment secures the freedom of thought, expression, communication, association and assembly is to emphasize that all of us have the right and power to support and defend our Constitution, including against domestic enemies, including, specifically, those who manage to procure a position in national government. Speaking out to support and defend our Constitution against such domestic enemies hardly constitutes evidence that such enemies' assertions of "election fraud" were "overstated."
Thank for the article, Mr. Vladeck . I believe I saw my representative, Derek Schmidt from Ks, standing next to Trump , I guess he thought he could win by gerrymandering, found out that plan basically backfired on him. Since he staff members make other plans like nationalizing the vote. You have to an ID card here I. Ks. The only congressional seat is held by Representative Sharice Davids. A graduate of Harvard, I think? There has not been a democrat in the second district since Obama, was in office. I voted for President Obama twice and felt that he was the best candidate for president over Senator John McCain. They hated Secretary Clinton. I caucus in Parsons, Ks. I was elected in Neosho County, to watch the polls during, the Presidental race where Senator McCain, won by 16 percentage points. I didn’t not like Trump when he ran for office. I felt all his promises he made in 2016 he rebuffed them. This is Trump 2.0. Retribution seems to be his game in the courts by using them, as his opponents. As for Justice Alito perhaps he is like, Justice Thomas who took money according to propublica, because he complained he wasn’t getting paid enough, money from our government. Perhaps Justice Alito is doing the same? That has yet to be proven. I watch the arguments on C- SPAN and find these arguments are very vague indeed. This court belongs to the people of this nation and doesn’t belong to this current administration.
Clearly unconstitutional, but as I posted about this on my Linkedin page, it may all be about delay- the President's MO. Throwing mid-term results into court and then not being able to seat a new majority in the House. Not the only means, just another one. Death of our democracy, by thousands of cuts. What is the breadth of a "political question."
Trump could even call for a crowd of "Patriots" to assemble in Washington DC on January 4, 2027, to march to the Capitol to encourage new Congress not to seat "fraudulently elected" Democrats.
Peaceful transfer of power was a hallmark of our country. Jan 6th tried to upend that. We'll see what 2.0 will be. Not just Trump, nor dirty tricks in politics. Power is not easily relinquished. Luke 10:19,21 "Behold, I give unto you the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing by any means hurt you.."
Are you seriously implying that Jesus taught that self-serving power was good? By citing a Bible chapter in which he teaches that the Samaritan was the true neighbor of the man who had been robbed and left for dead, because the Samaritan was the one who had mercy on a stranger? Jesus, the one who said "Blessed are the merciful" and "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Prediction: The Supreme Court will not announce its tariff decision until after the State of the Union speech next week. I think that’s a positive sign they will rule against Trump. They would have zero desire to sit in the front row and listen to his dressing down, probably to include estimates of their low collective IQ.
Our voting system is not state by state it's county by county. Every county in every state counts votes. That system will save us at midterms because the people who run individual counties are proud of their jobs and know they do things correctly
I realize that this is a rabbit trail (thanks for the "catnip for the curious"), but the thought of a Supreme Court retirement and subsequent nomination in an election year that "already" promises to be epic is fascinating. It's hard to imagine that the Trump administration (exhibits A & B, (or B&B) Bondi and Blanche) will nominate anyone who even cosplays as a moderate.
How will Susan Collins balance her "concerns" with loyalty to the President who could sink her chances? What will retiring Thom Tillis do?
How about unpredictable Lisa Murkowski?
I'm stocking up on popcorn....and hoping you are right!
At what point do we as a Country push back on this and him?? This is beyond illegal and unconstitutional. I can say as an American that he won the 2024 Election. I can also say as an American that he lost the 2020 election. What’s the problem here? Balls and strikes. He’s gonna try this bullshit at the mid terms?? We ain’t going for this shit. Just cause he knows he’s going to lose the mid term election he’s going to fix it?? That’s not how America works. This isn’t Russia. We have checks and balances. If we don’t say enough is enough what’s not to say he won’t just say you know what no 2028 Election or because of the divide in the country or because we found out that the Democrats stole the 2020 election I’m going to be President for 4 more years and we won’t have another election until 2032. We can’t just make this shit up on the fly and make rules. We have rules and we have a constitution. Cause if he wants to pull that then we can just say you’re not fit to be President and remove him from office. We have two presidents can fill in for him that are more than capable of Obama and Bush. He is trying to push for more and more. First it was a suggestion and now it’s a command.
Thanks so much for this. It improved my mood which was pretty much despairing about what Trump's been threatening. But, what if by some chance the SAVE act does pass in the Senate? Could you please address that (so I don't have another anxiety attack)?
Posting ICE at the polls would likely violate 18 USC §592. Long shot: There is also a law that would allow a magistrate to authorize troops (possibly National Guard in state status?) to enforce court process. 42 USC §1989. It could be possible to enjoin ICE’s presence and circumvent the Administration’s potential intransigence regarding enforcement. Long shot, as I said, but maybe?
Interesting, but if it comes to that, the presence of National Guard troops at polling places would likely be just as intimidating to many people as would the presence of ICE troops or any federal forces.
Then there's the question of how such a deployment would square with 18 USC §592.
Also, as others have said, the latter law might not be much of a deterrent to administration officials ordering federal agents to polling places, since it only threatens future punishment and president Trump could pardon them beforehand (right?).
Section 592 makes it illegal for a federal official, military or civil, to use troops or armed men at the polls. It would not apply to state officials. It might be just as intimidating to have NG as ICE, unless perhaps NG is only there temporarily to arrest the offending federal official and chase off ICE. Under the hypothetical, NG would be deputized by the magistrate so would have legal authority. I doubt it would come to this ever, either, but could be a useful concept to keep in reserve. I don’t think a president can pardon someone in advance of the commission of a crime. Section 1987 of title 42 mandates prosecution of the crimes therein, which includes §592 (most likely), but I don’t know if a court would uphold that in light of potential separation-of-powers concerns. Anyway, it’s on the books.
Re: your comment on the second lowest number of merits decisions in 160 years. I have seen little commentary on the effect of the shadow/emergency docket on the Court, but it must be disruptive. Any change in a longstanding routine is inherently disruptive. Everything affects productivity. While the justices project an "above it all" sense about the Court, the new way of proceeding adds lots of extra work, often unexpectedly. The cases carry with them lots of conflict. Few among us are unaffected by conflict, and compartmentalizing is easier said than done. The Trump Administration's treatment of the Court, as though it exists to serve only one master, seems like part of the explanation for the shrinking of the Court's role as the reviewer of last resort with respect to cases that have worked their way through the system.
Speaking of 'Blue Moon', we watched the Linklater movie last. You seen it? If so, what did you think about your fellow Austinite's latest? (Not exactly Slaker quality.)
Additional provisions of our Constitution are even more relevant. They all speak specifically to the very issue of how to identify qualified voters. The People established that state legislatures determine who is qualified to vote for U.S. Representatives, Senators, President and Vice President.
Article I, Section 2:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and [such] Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
Amendment XVII:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
Article II, Section 1:
The President "shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . ."
Amendment X:
"The powers" relevant to this issue that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The relevant powers prohibited by our Constitution to the states (and also the powers not delegated to the federal government) included those addressed in Amendments XIV, Sections 1 and 2, and Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
Long story short, "We the People of the United States" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble). We the People are "citizens," who comprise "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." (Amendment XIV, Section 1). We the People declared that "No State" has any power to purport to "make or enforce any law" that does or would "abridge [any] privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or to "deprive any person" (citizen or not) "of life, liberty, or property" before affording such person all "process of law" that is "due" or to "deny to any person" (citizen or not) of "the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment XIV, Section 1).
"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." (Amendment XV).
"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." (Amendment XIX).
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax," i.e., on account of wealth. (Amendment XXIV).
"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." (Amendment XXVI).
The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, in 1754 Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for and meaning of all the foregoing. Suffrage is the quintessential speech of sovereigns under our Constitution.
"In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
Barry, see my post in this thread quoting our Constitution and Montesquieu. Voter ID laws aren't necessarily prohibited by our Constitution, but they also aren't necessarily permitted by our Constitution. It's not the label of the law that is dispositive. It is the substance and sometimes even the purpose of the so-called law that is dispositive.
The bottom line is that all conduct of all legislators and all executive or judicial officers (state or federal) must be judged by the standards established by the People in our Constitution. That's the point of Article VI establishing and emphasizing "the supreme Law of the Land," emphasizing that only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our "Constitution" can be part of "the supreme Law of the Land," and establishing and emphasizing that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are always "bound" in all conduct "to support [our] Constitution."
it’s beginning to look less and less like the 2020 election fraud claims were “overstated”
Not according to the results of every single lawsuit that was brought seeking to challenge those results.
The election fraud was by SCOTUS justices in 2024. This piece by Professor Vladeck provides a powerful refutation of the fake history and fake law of the SCOTUS justices in their per curiam opinion in Trump v. Anderson.
SCOTUS justices outright lied when they misrepresented that “federal officers” de facto and de jure “owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people,” so “powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’ ”
Copious plain text of our Constitution plainly proves the truth of James Madison’s representation to the people in Federalist No. 45 about the design and operation of our original Constitution:
“Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. [State legislatures and therefore individual voters of each state] must in all cases have a great share in [the president’s] appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it.”
Cyrus, federal law (5 U.S.C. Section 3331) requires virtually every federal employee to expressly acknowledge that his or her first, foremost and constant duty is to "bear true faith and allegiance to" our Constitution, and that includes "support[ing] and defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
The primary reason that the First Amendment secures the freedom of thought, expression, communication, association and assembly is to emphasize that all of us have the right and power to support and defend our Constitution, including against domestic enemies, including, specifically, those who manage to procure a position in national government. Speaking out to support and defend our Constitution against such domestic enemies hardly constitutes evidence that such enemies' assertions of "election fraud" were "overstated."
Thank for the article, Mr. Vladeck . I believe I saw my representative, Derek Schmidt from Ks, standing next to Trump , I guess he thought he could win by gerrymandering, found out that plan basically backfired on him. Since he staff members make other plans like nationalizing the vote. You have to an ID card here I. Ks. The only congressional seat is held by Representative Sharice Davids. A graduate of Harvard, I think? There has not been a democrat in the second district since Obama, was in office. I voted for President Obama twice and felt that he was the best candidate for president over Senator John McCain. They hated Secretary Clinton. I caucus in Parsons, Ks. I was elected in Neosho County, to watch the polls during, the Presidental race where Senator McCain, won by 16 percentage points. I didn’t not like Trump when he ran for office. I felt all his promises he made in 2016 he rebuffed them. This is Trump 2.0. Retribution seems to be his game in the courts by using them, as his opponents. As for Justice Alito perhaps he is like, Justice Thomas who took money according to propublica, because he complained he wasn’t getting paid enough, money from our government. Perhaps Justice Alito is doing the same? That has yet to be proven. I watch the arguments on C- SPAN and find these arguments are very vague indeed. This court belongs to the people of this nation and doesn’t belong to this current administration.
As to Hillary… she is exhibit A in how the right purposefully attacks and destroys our promising leaders.
(Maybe exhibit B, after Obama.)
Let’s not forget the Swift-boating of John Kerry.
Might I suggest referring to the SAVE act as the SAVE TRUMP act? Or is it too honest?
Clearly unconstitutional, but as I posted about this on my Linkedin page, it may all be about delay- the President's MO. Throwing mid-term results into court and then not being able to seat a new majority in the House. Not the only means, just another one. Death of our democracy, by thousands of cuts. What is the breadth of a "political question."
Trump could even call for a crowd of "Patriots" to assemble in Washington DC on January 4, 2027, to march to the Capitol to encourage new Congress not to seat "fraudulently elected" Democrats.
Peaceful transfer of power was a hallmark of our country. Jan 6th tried to upend that. We'll see what 2.0 will be. Not just Trump, nor dirty tricks in politics. Power is not easily relinquished. Luke 10:19,21 "Behold, I give unto you the power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing by any means hurt you.."
Are you seriously implying that Jesus taught that self-serving power was good? By citing a Bible chapter in which he teaches that the Samaritan was the true neighbor of the man who had been robbed and left for dead, because the Samaritan was the one who had mercy on a stranger? Jesus, the one who said "Blessed are the merciful" and "Blessed are the peacemakers"?
Anything corrupt and chaotic is possible by scheme of this regime.
I’m most worried about voter intimidation thru the use of ICE at polls.
Lawyers like yourself&Marc Ellias&some judges will probably curtail Trump’s more ridiculous ideas about the law.
Well said. My thoughts are identical.
There is a law prohibiting the use of troops or “armed men” at the polls. It seems possible to get an injunction against that as well.
I hope so, but Trump, Noem, Bondi seem dismissive re legal decisions
True, although they have often complied. But see my note below on a long-shot potential enforcement mechanism.
Prediction: The Supreme Court will not announce its tariff decision until after the State of the Union speech next week. I think that’s a positive sign they will rule against Trump. They would have zero desire to sit in the front row and listen to his dressing down, probably to include estimates of their low collective IQ.
Our voting system is not state by state it's county by county. Every county in every state counts votes. That system will save us at midterms because the people who run individual counties are proud of their jobs and know they do things correctly
I realize that this is a rabbit trail (thanks for the "catnip for the curious"), but the thought of a Supreme Court retirement and subsequent nomination in an election year that "already" promises to be epic is fascinating. It's hard to imagine that the Trump administration (exhibits A & B, (or B&B) Bondi and Blanche) will nominate anyone who even cosplays as a moderate.
How will Susan Collins balance her "concerns" with loyalty to the President who could sink her chances? What will retiring Thom Tillis do?
How about unpredictable Lisa Murkowski?
I'm stocking up on popcorn....and hoping you are right!
For all practical purposes, DOJ is now the law firm of Bondi and Blanche.
At what point do we as a Country push back on this and him?? This is beyond illegal and unconstitutional. I can say as an American that he won the 2024 Election. I can also say as an American that he lost the 2020 election. What’s the problem here? Balls and strikes. He’s gonna try this bullshit at the mid terms?? We ain’t going for this shit. Just cause he knows he’s going to lose the mid term election he’s going to fix it?? That’s not how America works. This isn’t Russia. We have checks and balances. If we don’t say enough is enough what’s not to say he won’t just say you know what no 2028 Election or because of the divide in the country or because we found out that the Democrats stole the 2020 election I’m going to be President for 4 more years and we won’t have another election until 2032. We can’t just make this shit up on the fly and make rules. We have rules and we have a constitution. Cause if he wants to pull that then we can just say you’re not fit to be President and remove him from office. We have two presidents can fill in for him that are more than capable of Obama and Bush. He is trying to push for more and more. First it was a suggestion and now it’s a command.
Thanks so much for this. It improved my mood which was pretty much despairing about what Trump's been threatening. But, what if by some chance the SAVE act does pass in the Senate? Could you please address that (so I don't have another anxiety attack)?
I forgot to ask you also about what Suki mentioned, which is can we stop ICE from intimidating voters at the polls?
Posting ICE at the polls would likely violate 18 USC §592. Long shot: There is also a law that would allow a magistrate to authorize troops (possibly National Guard in state status?) to enforce court process. 42 USC §1989. It could be possible to enjoin ICE’s presence and circumvent the Administration’s potential intransigence regarding enforcement. Long shot, as I said, but maybe?
Interesting, but if it comes to that, the presence of National Guard troops at polling places would likely be just as intimidating to many people as would the presence of ICE troops or any federal forces.
Then there's the question of how such a deployment would square with 18 USC §592.
Also, as others have said, the latter law might not be much of a deterrent to administration officials ordering federal agents to polling places, since it only threatens future punishment and president Trump could pardon them beforehand (right?).
Section 592 makes it illegal for a federal official, military or civil, to use troops or armed men at the polls. It would not apply to state officials. It might be just as intimidating to have NG as ICE, unless perhaps NG is only there temporarily to arrest the offending federal official and chase off ICE. Under the hypothetical, NG would be deputized by the magistrate so would have legal authority. I doubt it would come to this ever, either, but could be a useful concept to keep in reserve. I don’t think a president can pardon someone in advance of the commission of a crime. Section 1987 of title 42 mandates prosecution of the crimes therein, which includes §592 (most likely), but I don’t know if a court would uphold that in light of potential separation-of-powers concerns. Anyway, it’s on the books.
Today is the day to celebrate Presidents' Day which to me means celebrating all Presidents up to and including Obama and also Joe Biden.
Re: your comment on the second lowest number of merits decisions in 160 years. I have seen little commentary on the effect of the shadow/emergency docket on the Court, but it must be disruptive. Any change in a longstanding routine is inherently disruptive. Everything affects productivity. While the justices project an "above it all" sense about the Court, the new way of proceeding adds lots of extra work, often unexpectedly. The cases carry with them lots of conflict. Few among us are unaffected by conflict, and compartmentalizing is easier said than done. The Trump Administration's treatment of the Court, as though it exists to serve only one master, seems like part of the explanation for the shrinking of the Court's role as the reviewer of last resort with respect to cases that have worked their way through the system.
Speaking of 'Blue Moon', we watched the Linklater movie last. You seen it? If so, what did you think about your fellow Austinite's latest? (Not exactly Slaker quality.)
Additional provisions of our Constitution are even more relevant. They all speak specifically to the very issue of how to identify qualified voters. The People established that state legislatures determine who is qualified to vote for U.S. Representatives, Senators, President and Vice President.
Article I, Section 2:
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and [such] Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
Amendment XVII:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."
Article II, Section 1:
The President "shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . ."
Amendment X:
"The powers" relevant to this issue that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The relevant powers prohibited by our Constitution to the states (and also the powers not delegated to the federal government) included those addressed in Amendments XIV, Sections 1 and 2, and Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI.
Long story short, "We the People of the United States" to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves" did in June 1788 "ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Preamble). We the People are "citizens," who comprise "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." (Amendment XIV, Section 1). We the People declared that "No State" has any power to purport to "make or enforce any law" that does or would "abridge [any] privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or to "deprive any person" (citizen or not) "of life, liberty, or property" before affording such person all "process of law" that is "due" or to "deny to any person" (citizen or not) of "the equal protection of the laws." (Amendment XIV, Section 1).
"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." (Amendment XV).
"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." (Amendment XIX).
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax," i.e., on account of wealth. (Amendment XXIV).
"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." (Amendment XXVI).
The right to vote also is addressed expressly, albeit by a different name, in the powerful and famous second sentence of our 1776 Declaration of Independence: “to secure [our] Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Twelve years earlier, in 1754 Montesquieu, in "The Spirit of the Laws” emphasized the reason for and meaning of all the foregoing. Suffrage is the quintessential speech of sovereigns under our Constitution.
"In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject" (of the laws). "The freedom of every citizen constitutes a part of the public liberty; and, in a democratical state, is even a part of the sovereignty [of the people]." "[T]he enjoyment of liberty, and even its support and preservation, consists in every man’s being allowed to speak his thoughts and to lay open his sentiments."
The "exercise of sovereignty" by citizens is most clearly "by their suffrages, which [is an expression of citizens’ sovereign] will: [by voting and other exercises of the freedom of expression] the sovereign’s will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage, are fundamental to this government" so it is "important to regulate, in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given."
What’s so bad about Voter ID laws? See post below.
https://substack.com/@barrymarble/note/c-212654039?r=fz9vk&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Barry, see my post in this thread quoting our Constitution and Montesquieu. Voter ID laws aren't necessarily prohibited by our Constitution, but they also aren't necessarily permitted by our Constitution. It's not the label of the law that is dispositive. It is the substance and sometimes even the purpose of the so-called law that is dispositive.
The bottom line is that all conduct of all legislators and all executive or judicial officers (state or federal) must be judged by the standards established by the People in our Constitution. That's the point of Article VI establishing and emphasizing "the supreme Law of the Land," emphasizing that only federal "Laws" that were "made in Pursuance" of our "Constitution" can be part of "the supreme Law of the Land," and establishing and emphasizing that all legislators and "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States" are always "bound" in all conduct "to support [our] Constitution."