re: California refuses to turn over voter rolls in the investigation into voter fraud

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for the law or precedent that requires VOTER ROLL submission.

---

The statute gives the Federal Government the authority to conduct this business. As such, it logically follows that the Federal Govt shall have the authority to create the method or means to conduct this business.

The statute need not describe exactly how the business is to be conducted. The statute grants the authority to the Federal Govt, and it follows by logic that the Fed Govt shall then dictate reasonable means, methods and procedures to conduct this business.

If any State or Municipal authority objects to a procedure, the remedy is to prove in Federal Court that the FedGov's specific objectionable procedure is Arbitrary and Capricious. Failing that, FedGov's procedure stands and the State must comply.

IMHO, this is logical and makes sense. The Left has gotten accustomed to ignoring the law. Trump must end this.

"Arbitrary and Capricious" is an incredibly high standard to prove. In essence, the offended State official must prove that the FedGov's procedure has no rational connection to its stated purpose.

LOL @ California. California law allows voter information to be sold!

quote:

---

Alex Padilla

---

Here's the problem

quote:

---

And what legal basis and what law do you think gives him the ability to compel a state to give up to the executive branch.

---

the supremacy clause. do you even central high little rock 1957?

should we send in the 101st airborne?

Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," notwithstanding the contrary law any state might have. In the important 1958 case of Cooper v Aaron, in which the Court considered the efforts of state authorities to block integration of Little Rock's Central High School, the Court unanimously declared, "No state legislator or executive or judicial official can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it....If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a mockery." Federal law, not state law, is "the supreme law of the land." Despite the efforts of some states, even today, to "nullify" federal laws they disapprove of, few things in constitutional law are any clearer than the fact that any such efforts are grossly unconstitutional. What remains a much more difficult question under Article VI is when a state law or action, which is at least arguably consistent with federal law, in fact creates sufficient conflict so as to justify finding it "preempted."

i'd like to buy buckeye for what he knows and sell him for what he thinks he knows