Posted on 10/31/2022 12:51:35 PM PDT by cotton1706
Yes, its a separation of powers issues.
When it comes to redistricting and othe election issues, what some state courts have done is declare something “unconstitutional” merely because they, the sitting judges don’t like the result, though the Constitution itself expresses no such definition vlaued by the sitting judges.
Ah, the Constitution deniers are at it again.
My recent fav is existential.
None of this stuff going on will threaten our existence.
““The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” “
Keep in mind that EVERY DAMN COMMA in the Constitution was scrutinized by men who, at 10 years old, were far smarter than any of us. If they said “Legislature”, they meant LEGISLATURE.
End of discussion.
“Keep in mind that EVERY DAMN COMMA in the Constitution was scrutinized by men who, at 10 years old, were far smarter than any of us. If they said “Legislature”, they meant LEGISLATURE.
End of discussion.”
That’s exactly right.
I take it the states can enact the rules governing the election but they cannot enact rules that violate the US Constitution, like discriminating based on race. Of course, that opens its own bag of worms as discrimination might be assumed by liberal justices based on disparate impact reasoning. For example, white participation was 60% and black participation was only 40%, so the federal government must impose “corrections.”
“A Republic if you can keep it.” - Ben Franklin
“ There are no federal elections.”
Yes. It’s hard to explain to people that all elections, even those for President, are state elections. They usually can get that Congress-critters are elected by state voters, but the problem comes when trying to explain the indirect election of the Pres and VP via state electors.
The idiot author should have ended his article right there. He answered his question in the first sentence. The Constitution "imposes" ('requires' would be a better qualifier) a republican form of government.
The Supreme Court decides cases in law FWIW. That's also in the Constitution, Jim.
KABOOM!
I like the criminally run mentally ill one we have now, scuse me while I throw up in my hand
Deep State’s pet SCOTUS just did this...
"Extreme"..."awesome"..."radical"...and many others. All just droppings from the pop-culture.
Federalize all local police forces, federalize all the elections.
Weaponize the DOJ, IRS, and THe FBI against the People,,,,,,,
Even Gomer Pyle would know where this is going.
Thats a Re-pubic not a Republic
That would mean the states ratified the US constitution knowing no matter what their state constitution said their legislature could override it.
The states jealously guarded their sovereignty which was enshrined in their constitutions, and if their constitution outlined a process for laws being enacted - including election laws - they planned to honor it.
I can't imagine them agreeing that a body created by the state constitution could override that constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.