re: Trump will sign Executive Order Mandating Voter ID

quote:

---

I mean a bunch of this already happened at the state level in 2020.

---

Which has no relevance to my question whatsoever.

quote:

---

Nothing stopping it from happening the next time a democrat takes office.

---

The Constitution stops a President from doing so, assuming states rights people like myself are correct and keep fighting.

The question is why "conservatives" want to give this power to the President with unilateral, unchecked power.

So you've given up on states rights?

Is that the latest update in "real" conservatism?

quote:

---

. Feels like idiocracy is here early.

---

I watched a video earlier about how one of the worst things the internet has done is amplify discussion on certain topics without a corresponding trend in education on the subjects. And that REALLY struck me with the discourse on here and how it's declined, especially post-Q (when the floodgates of Braxtynns from Broussard really opened).

And this isn't an argument from authority or some counter to the "expert" criticism by MAGA types. We're talking the very basics, like...formulating and stating political principles. As you said, it's team-based, with no principles whatsoever. Hell, people on here can barely state their principle without looking elsewhere to be told what they should be (for today, subject to change at any time).

quote:

---

If you are unable to acknowledge that these policies are already being used a

---

Not at the federal level, which is the relevant factor for this discussion.

quote:

---

and then thinking that some combination of the goodness of their hearts, judges, or respect for the constitution

---

Our current system, the Constitution, and our case law prevent them from even trying, federally. You do understand that Trump is the one who is trying this, not Democrats, right?

quote:

---

1) haven’t been been paying attention
2) aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are
3) are arguing for the sake of argument because you’re 2) and have dug your heels in

---

4. I understand the relevant discussion about federalism and the dangers of eroding states rights/power in that system.

quote:

---

AI generated answer to the question of the trump admin’s record in court:

---

Again, has no relevance to the discussion

quote:

---

Isn't this a state issue?

---

Pretty much to an extent. States have always been granted certain leeway in managing their own elections. Consider (big) things like special elections to replace a Congressman that has died or left office. States do this differently. Or look at ranked choice in Alaska or Maine and Nebraska splitting their electoral college votes. Plus all of the other procedural and administrative stuff.

On the flip side, there are federal statutes that impose national regulations on elections. An obvious example is that elections for Federal Office are required to be held on the first Tuesday of November. There are also a litany of federal laws that require things like making voting places handicap accessible or requiring active duty military serving overseas to have a more lenient voting process.

None of these required a Constitutional Amendment and all of them were shoved down the state's throat under the Supremacy Clause.

So the basic answer is that elections are a mish mash of state and federal law. I don't think an Executive Order regulating elections would survive legal scrutiny but I do think a federal statute would depending on how it was written. But that would require some level-headed Democrats to sign on to stop a filibuster and that ain't happening anytime soon.

Another tool is the same one they used to force states to adopt drinking ages and speed limits. The Feds acknowledge that states have authority under the principles of federalism but they're not going to appropriate federal election funds to states that don't mandate certain public safeguards. But federal election funds are a drop in the bucket compared to the interstate and infrastructure money they get. California would just laugh at them the same way the President laughed at Dr. Evil when he demanded one million dollars. Even a poor state like New Mexico would have a line of liberal billionaires offering to pay them the replacement value of the money.

quote:

---

So you've given up on states rights?

---

Does the EO even cover state elections? I’m not a conservative, but I honestly don’t care about that argument if it doesn’t.

I’m very much in favor of voter ID. I’d want to see a more permanent solution that can’t be undone by some corrupt leader that takes office later. Until then, I’m fine with this being kicked around.

I want to see who objects to it and why.

quote:

---

So you've given up on states rights?

---

When a city/state cant govern itself in a responsible manner, which involves all blue ones, they cede their independence.

quote:

---

Multiple people in this thread have argued we should ignore the Constitutional limits on Presidential EOs, which is bat shite insane, too.

---

Yea, we need to do more than have an EO, but if the EO the best we can do in an effort to save the nation from the evil left, you have to do it.

quote:

---

So, let’s assume that in some bizarro world that this EO passes legal scrutiny. What’s to stop a Dem POTUS from issuing an EI to vote on say, Facebook.

---

That would mean democrats legitimately win an election.

quote:

---

Does the EO even cover state elections?

---

States have had the domain of running elections since the founding, I believe. That's how the Founders envisioned it.

Also, what is a "state" election, exactly? The Senate and Electoral College votes are "state elections", right?

quote:

---

I’m very much in favor of voter ID. I’d want to see a more permanent solution that can’t be undone by some corrupt leader that takes office later.

---

How would an EO be any different?

Opening this door means that "some corrupt leader" could just as easily make voter ID illegal