Won't this Bill (HR1) be immediately challenged in the Courts as Unconstitutional if it gets rammed through Congress with an end to the Fillibuster?

[mrjurrs]

Up to a point. States may enact their own rules, but they must be universal.

Not exactly, they must be universal within the state and may not go against federal laws governing state elections.

 

[Glitch]

Not exactly, they must be universal within the state and may not go against federal laws governing state elections.

The feds cannot govern State elections, they may only regulate State elections with regard to the US House of Representatives and US Senators. Congress has no constitutional authority over local and State elected offices. Nor does Congress have the constitutional authority to declare State holidays, like they are attempting to do in H.R. 1

 

[mrjurrs]

The feds cannot govern State elections, they may only regulate State elections with regard to the US House of Representatives and US Senators. Congress has no constitutional authority over local and State elected offices. Nor does Congress have the constitutional authority to declare State holidays, like they are attempting to do in H.R. 1

Congress can pass any law they want under the constitutional authority granted to them in the enumerated Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: ... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If someone is 'injured' by that law, they can go to court to seek redress for their injuries. Article 3 could then declare that action unconstitutional (all or part), or allow it to stand.

Since the holiday would be on the Constitutionally enumerated election day and would be a public holiday, I'm not sure your claim about state holiday is correct. If states don't choose to have the day that would be their choice, (please note, MLK Day coincides with Robt. E. Lee Day in AL and MS).

 

[Glitch]

Congress can pass any law they want under the constitutional authority granted to them in the enumerated Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Necessary and Proper Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: ... "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

As the Necessary and Proper Clause clearly states, it only pertains to "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers" granted to the federal government by the US Constitution. It is not a power to give Congress unlimited power to do whatever they please. The may only make laws for which they have been granted the authority.

If someone is 'injured' by that law, they can go to court to seek redress for their injuries. Article 3 could then declare that action unconstitutional (all or part), or allow it to stand.

Since the holiday would be on the Constitutionally enumerated election day and would be a public holiday, I'm not sure your claim about state holiday is correct. If states don't choose to have the day that would be their choice, (please note, MLK Day coincides with Robt. E. Lee Day in AL and MS).

Any time Congress oversteps their constitutional authority someone gets "injured." In this case Congress is attempting to usurp a power that is exclusively the authority of the States under the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, the States are the "injured" party and the law will be tossed as unconstitutional.

 

[mrjurrs]

As the Necessary and Proper Clause clearly states, it only pertains to "the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers" granted to the federal government by the US Constitution. It is not a power to give Congress unlimited power to do whatever they please. The may only make laws for which they have been granted the authority.


Any time Congress oversteps their constitutional authority someone gets "injured." In this case Congress is attempting to usurp a power that is exclusively the authority of the States under the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, the States are the "injured" party and the law will be tossed as unconstitutional.

I'm done. Your understanding of the Constitution aligns with my understanding of botany. I know it's about plants, but I don't know specifics. You know the Constitution is about govt, but you don't know the specifics.

 

[Rich2018]

The feds cannot govern State elections, they may only regulate State elections with regard to the US House of Representatives and US Senators. Congress has no constitutional authority over local and State elected offices. Nor does Congress have the constitutional authority to declare State holidays, like they are attempting to do in H.R. 1

But the people can pass constitutional amendments, that say the feds can.

 

[tanj]

Many years later, the :"places of choosing Senators" was changed by a constitutional amendment.

but not the manner of selection. that would encompass what we call election laws for the most part.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

But not the manner of selection. That would encompass what we call election laws for the most part.

So there is no difference between Congress appointing Senators and governors doing it?

 

[tanj]

Your cite proves my point. SCOTUS invalidated one part of that massive bill (65 years after it passed). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still on the books, indicating that Congress does in fact have the power to tell states how to run elections.

unfortunately that is simply not supported by the constitution. the congress has some sway in the handling of elections, but not completely. the only way that congress making election law changes would be supported is by faulty rulings of a packed and expanded supreme court. just because a law exists doesn't make it automatically constitutional. unfortunately there is a long and drawn out process for gettiing it to the supreme court in order to correct the situation. it took eleven years and a civil war to overturn Dredd Scott...

 

[tanj]

So there is no difference between Congress appointing Senators and governors doing it?

it was not governors. originally it was the state's legislatures. you know. those people who are supposed to make state's election laws?

 

[Rich2018]

So there is no difference between Congress appointing Senators and governors doing it?

None at all...provided they use similar criteria.

 

[mrjurrs]

unfortunately that is simply not supported by the constitution. the congress has some sway in the handling of elections, but not completely. the only way that congress making election law changes would be supported is by faulty rulings of a packed and expanded supreme court. just because a law exists doesn't make it automatically constitutional. unfortunately there is a long and drawn out process for gettiing it to the supreme court in order to correct the situation. it took eleven years and a civil war to overturn Dredd Scott...

Once a bill becomes law, it is constitutional until an Article 3 court says it isn't (that can be done by placing a hold on implementation of the bill_. Your main point is simply incorrect. I never said it had full control, that's why I used the VRA as an example. SCOTUS ruled after 50 years (and incorrectly imo) that a portion of the bill was unconstitutional. The remainder of that bill remains in force. The Elections Clause grants that authority.
"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."

 

[tanj]

So there is no difference between Congress appointing Senators and governors doing it?

considering that the constitution never mentioined governors doing it, im wondering where the idea of a single person appointing the states' senators comes from?
the original idea was that the people of the state choose the state's representation in the house and in the senate.

If HR1 only had items in it that dealt with election of senators and representatives there would be no constitutional issue along those lines. but when it paints with a broad brush that includes the same election processes of president and vice president, it crosses the line.

to return to the title of this thread, the whole point of packing the court, as is being considered and advocated for, is so that such laws will not be efectively challenged in the court.

 

[Rich2018]

Not exactly, they must be universal within the state and may not go against federal laws governing state elections.

That's what I meant

ie: the rules must apply equally.

 

[American]

WTF? It also allows congress to override most of what the states have put into place.

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.

Yeah, and so far they are failing, because this idiot bill is an attempt to completely nullify state control and make Democrats a single party majority in the US govt; and everyone sees that. **** the Democrats, because the Constitution also guarantees a Republican form of government even to each state.

Federalist No. 59 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 17th Amendment basically opens the possibility that the States have zero check on federal power. We don't need HR 1 to make the situation worse.

 

[CaughtInThe]

We, Americans, are fighting about making it harder to vote.









What freaking century is this?

 

[JasperL]

Yeah, and so far they are failing, because this idiot bill is an attempt to completely nullify state control and make Democrats a single party majority in the US govt; and everyone sees that. **** the Democrats, because the Constitution also guarantees a Republican form of government even to each state.

Federalist No. 59 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 17th Amendment basically opens the possibility that the States have zero check on federal power. We don't need HR 1 to make the situation worse.

The bill only does that if Democrats win elections, by getting more votes. There's nothing sinister in that outcome.

 

[Rich2018]

Mandatory voting would fix all these voting issues.

 

[JasperL]

but not the manner of selection. that would encompass what we call election laws for the most part.

The 'manner' is by popular vote, as opposed to being appointed by the state legislature. The 'manner' isn't how to dole out absentee or vote by mail ballots.

 

[DataPoint]

HR1 will easily be sustained by SCOTUS.

Congress has constitutional authority to make rules for federal elections.

 

[tanj]

The 'manner' is by popular vote, as opposed to being appointed by the state legislature. The 'manner' isn't how to dole out absentee or vote by mail ballots.

all ballots are toward the selection of electors. the number of the popular vote has never had any other official significance.

 

[Glitch]

HR1 will easily be sustained by SCOTUS.

Congress has constitutional authority to make rules for federal elections.

There are no federal elections. All elections are held by the States.

 

[bearpoker]

Yeah, and so far they are failing, because this idiot bill is an attempt to completely nullify state control and make Democrats a single party majority in the US govt; and everyone sees that. **** the Democrats, because the Constitution also guarantees a Republican form of government even to each state.

Federalist No. 59 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The 17th Amendment basically opens the possibility that the States have zero check on federal power. We don't need HR 1 to make the situation worse.

The filibuster is not in the constitution, so it wouldn't be relevant in a court challenge. I'm sure there would be challenges whether there is a filibuster or not.

 

[highroller]

Yes, it will require a Constitutional Amendment to change that.

What constitution are you reading?

 

[highroller]

There are no federal elections. All elections are held by the States.

And all elections are subject to federal regulations if congress chooses. This isn’t an opinion, this is a fact.