By Rich Kozlovich
On April 26, 2025 posted this article at Liberty Nation News, Voter ID: Where the President, the People and the Constitution Stand, saying "popular doesn’t necessarily equal constitutional".
He goes on to explain:
DC District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that states don’t have to make voters show ID at the polls or show proof of citizenship to register. Trump is a fan of voter ID requirements, and so are most Americans, according to polling. But if the Constitution doesn’t support that position, then neither public opinion nor the president’s order makes it legal.
First, the DC District is filled with leftist political hacks, and she's one of them. He then goes on to point out the Constitution defines the rules governing the federal government's role in national elections quoting the first paragraph of Article I, Section 4 which reads:
“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.”
He went on to explain:
Each state is explicitly granted the authority to determine when, where, and how US senators and representatives are elected. Then there’s an exception to that authority: Congress can legislate it at any time (well, all except the polling places). Note the lack of authorization for a president to override the states. The federal government can step in, but it has to be through the standard legislative process ......
He goes on to justify Judge Kollar-Kotelly's ruling noting there's nothing in the Constitution that allows the President to short circuit the legislative process, and she's right, but since when did that matter to the judiciary? All of a sudden the leftist hacks in the federal judiciary are in love with the actual wording in the Constitution, incapable of seeing any penumbras or emanations of the Constitution to justify the President imposing voter ID on the states.
Penumbras and emanations of the Constitution is a concept created by the judiciary, that also appears nowhere in the Constitution, but it allows them to bypass the legislative process in order find imaginary rights in order to impose laws on the nation no one passed, like the abortion, and the Chevron decisions. It's kinda like how Hollywood twists inconvenient history in their movies with the attitude, "if it didn't happen that way, it should have".
Yet, clearly it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only citizens should be allowed to vote. So, why wouldn't that justify taking the position the President was merely enforcing an unwritten law. An unwritten law that was an obvious and understood unwritten law. An unwritten law that didn't need to be written through the legislative process?
Andrea posted this article in 2021, Clarence Thomas identifies the greatest danger in America, saying :
Article III of the Constitution of the United States establishes a “supreme Court.” .........While Art III limits somewhat the nature of the cases the Supreme Court may hear, it does not impose any checks or balances on the Supreme Court’s power. Then, in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall extended the Court’s power, holding that Article III’s grant of authority inevitably gave the Court the power to overturn unconstitutional legislation. The result is a Supreme Court that has freely rewritten the Constitution to achieve political ends—and turned the Court itself from what should be a neutral judicial institution into one that has become the partisan center of D.C.
The Constitution gave Justice Marshall no such authority. The Constitution says the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary is in the hands of the Congress, not the Supreme Court.
The public is hugely in favor of Voter ID with 98% of Republican, 84% of independents and 67% of Democrats in support. Five states already require it, another 40 are considering doing so, and currently there's legislation introduced by Rep. Chip Roy of Texas that's passed the House called "The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act", that's in the Senate. But it must meet the 60-vote threshold to get voted on. Why 60 votes?
In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn, or 60 of the current 100 senators. Today, filibusters remain a part of Senate practice, although only on legislation.
Will it pass the Senate? Who knows? If all 53 Republicans sign on, including Murkowski, Collins, Mitch McConnell, which is iffy, that would take seven Democrats to cross over. Given the mental and moral unfitness of so many Republicans in the Senate, I don't think it can happen unless at least a minimum of ten Democrats cross over, and I really don't see that happening.
So, why is it the courts can't find even one little penumbra or tiny emanation to justify Trump's policy? Because the federal judiciary is rife with incompetent, not very bright, corrupt political hacks who can't be fired. That's what needs changing.
No comments:
Post a Comment