Federalizing The V**e (Page 2): In other words you don’t know !! Unless you consider such. Things as the federal gov making it a law that women can v**e. You don’t have a clue why it...

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

Uh, I guess that you don't understand the part about Congress taking over the e******n laws from the state legislatures.... Does that need an explanation?

In other words you don’t know !!
Unless you consider such. Things as the federal gov making it a law that women can v**e.

You don’t have a clue why it is assumed to be federalizing the e******n.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

In other words you don’t know !!
Unless you consider such. Things as the federal gov making it a law that women can v**e.

You don’t have a clue why it is assumed to be federalizing the e******n.

You are really thick sometimes, the federal government is proposing total control over the e******n process, this is not about women v****g, it is about how when and where you can v**e, it is about taxpayer funded campaigns, it is about drop boxes, v**er ids, it is about how many days of early v****g, v****g hours, v**e harvesting.... It is about total federal control Denny, how is it that you can sometimes be so uninformed?

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

You are really thick sometimes, the federal government is proposing total control over the e******n process, this is not about women v****g, it is about how when and where you can v**e, it is about taxpayer funded campaigns, it is about drop boxes, v**er ids, it is about how many days of early v****g, v****g hours, v**e harvesting.... It is about total federal control Denny, how is it that you can sometimes be so uninformed?

Well at least you trying by bring bringing up specifics .
Now tell me what the law says about drop boxes
You are tgd one making the a claim you have no back up for. !!!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Well at least you trying by bring bringing up specifics .
Now tell me what the law says about drop boxes
You are tgd one making the a claim you have no back up for. !!!

Maybe later Denny, I did download the pdf and I will search it using acrobat. Right now I am watching that old guy.... Brady take apart the Eagles.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Fotoartist wrote:

Only problem is this is not a Very conservative majority on the court. I only count 4 very conservative Justices. And certain provisions of the Dem bill to suppress the Republican v**e could pass. Not to mention their attempt to create two new states.

That is why we need to delay this crap in the senate until 2023.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

Uh, I guess that you don't understand the part about Congress taking over the e******n laws from the state legislatures.... Does that need an explanation?

Thats why I am asking and you have yet to explain how the e******ns are being “ totally “ (in your words ) federalized. You continue to make generalized statement. And nothing else .

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Architect1776 wrote:

That is why we need to delay this crap in the senate until 2023.

In other words” obstruct for partisan reasons .

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Blurryeyed wrote:

That's not true, the law would be challenged but I am very unclear as to how it would be challenged because Article I, Section IV, Clause I reads as follows;

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding E******ns 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."

Lets assume HR 1 etc passes and becomes law this year. And it takes 2 years for the Court to overturn it-- not the least bit unusaul timing. That might gaurantee Trump's loss in the 2024 e******n. So if the court does overturn that e******n will Trump have any recourse to have another e******n. Will the overturned law. overeturn that e******n? Too many questions with no answers

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

boberic wrote:

Lets assume HR 1 etc passes and becomes law this year. And it takes 2 years for the Court to overturn it-- not the least bit unusaul timing. That might gaurantee Trump's loss in the 2024 e******n. So if the court does overturn that e******n will Trump have any recourse to have another e******n. Will the overturned law. overeturn that e******n? Too many questions with no answers

I am certainly not an attorney, I do take in interest in the courts and some of the cases that come before it. I think that were the law to pass and become challenged that if the court were to take it up they would do so quickly, for them to rule in favor of the challenge after the e******n and the assumption of power of the other party it would shake our country to its core, I don't know how you can remove a party from the White House especially a year or two into an administration.

I will say however that I don't think that it would make it to the SCOTUS my opinion which, is only worth about 2 cents, is that the lower courts would rule that the legislation is constitutional based on the clause I posted earlier and I think that SCOTUS would let the lower court ruling stand by not taking it up.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DennyT wrote:

In other words” obstruct for partisan reasons .

Like the democrats did over 300 times in 2020.
Libs are really stupid as usual.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

It sounds like the Constitution gives Congress the ability to pass laws and make changes to the e******n processes of the states, other than changing the places of choosing the Senators.

So we can't claim the bill is unconstitutional.

It would be a Federal power grab, which will irritate conservatives while the libs are in power.

But that door swings both ways.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Architect1776 wrote:

Like the democrats did over 300 times in 2020.
Libs are really stupid as usual.

Neither party has a monopoly on doing nothing!!

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

mwalsh wrote:

It sounds like the Constitution gives Congress the ability to pass laws and make changes to the e******n processes of the states, other than changing the places of choosing the Senators.

So we can't claim the bill is unconstitutional.

It would be a Federal power grab, which will irritate conservatives while the libs are in power.

But that door swings both ways.

The clause about the Senate is a bit outdated, Senators at the time that the constitution was adopted were appointed by state legislators, I suspect that particular portion of the clause has no meaning today.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

DennyT wrote:

Neither party has a monopoly on doing nothing!!

Stands to reason that the republicans would use it more than the democrats, democrats are progressive in nature, always trying to bring change to our society and our government, republicans tend to want to keep things much as they are and make incremental improvements.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Blurryeyed wrote:

The clause about the Senate is a bit outdated, Senators at the time that the constitution was adopted were appointed by state legislators, I suspect that particular portion of the clause has no meaning today.

Of course.

But this legislation would give the Feds power over e******ns never seen before.

I can buy into the need for some uniformity in the state e******n laws, that v****g rights deserve some protection across the states, and that even in modern times v****g rights have been suppressed.

Think Missippi 4 or 5 or 6 years ago when the courts had to be used to prevent the GOP lawmakers from closing driver license offices in predominantly black areas and making it difficult to get a photo ID. Actually the courts reversed the efforts as the offices had already been closed for "budget" reasons. It happened, it was blatent v**e suppression, and it took their Supreme Court to curb it.

But this federal bill seems overreaching.