Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

What can we do to get a reasonably honest election?

By Publius Huldah

A disaster of monumental proportions is likely to be ahead for our Country if we don’t take emergency action to get at least a reasonably honest election. Not only the President’s seat, but also the entire US House, the Houses in the State Legislatures, one/third of the seats in the US Senate, and a proportional number of seats in the State Senates, are all at stake in the upcoming election.

We are faced with irrefutable proof that the Marxists intend to steal the election. And they will not content themselves with stealing only the President’s seat – they seek to steal every seat on the ballots.

So we need to face up to the problem and take immediate action.

1. What does Congress have constitutional authority to do?

The President and Vice President are supposed to be elected using the procedures set forth in Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment to our US Constitution. But we have ignored those provisions for a great many years; and it’s too late to obey them for the upcoming election of President and Vice President.

But Congress still has constitutional authority to invoke Article II, §1, cl. 4, which invests in Congress the power to determine the time of chusing the Presidential Electors and the Day on which they vote. That date is currently set for November 3, 2020.

Pursuant to Article I, §4, cl. 1, Congress may make laws determining the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding the federal elections to Congress.

Since we know that Trump ballots have been tossed into dumpsters, and election offices have been flooded with fake Biden ballots; the best course of action would be for Congress to make a law which reschedules the November 3 election to a later date; and cancels everything which has been done so far respecting the election (at least since the primaries).

Congress could then exercise its constitutional authority to establish common sense procedures respecting the “Time, Place and Manner” of voting in the upcoming elections. For example, Congress could pass a law providing that:

· Every registered voter who wants to vote must physically appear at his officially designated place of voting and produce proof of identity.

· Election Day should be one day – not weeks and months before & after the date set for the election.

· Absentee voting should be restricted to those who are out of the Country or out of State due to military service, service in the diplomatic corps, missionaries stationed overseas, businessmen stationed overseas, etc.

We used to do it this way.

But the Marxists came in with their hard luck stories about how these requirements were harsh, unfair, discriminatory, and so forth; and so our side [as usual] caved in and went along with the demands which stripped us of the ability to have even reasonably honest elections.

However, because Marxists now control the House, Congress lacks the ability to act as suggested above.

2. What does the US Supreme Court have constitutional authority to do?

Article I, §4, cl. 1 provides that the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting in federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State & Federal governments [LINK]. Accordingly, and consistent with the Principle of “Separation of Powers” and the “political question” doctrine [LINK], the Judicial Branches of State and federal government have no lawful authority to substitute their views on these issues for those of the Legislative Branches.

Even so, with respect to the upcoming elections, lawless federal and state judges have been usurping power by substituting their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting, for the views of State Legislatures. Some judges are ruling that because of COVID-19, voters shouldn’t be required to go to the polls – everyone must be allowed to vote by mail; and the time for counting ballots must be extended.

Obviously, the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to substitute their views respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of voting for those of the legislative bodies. Instead, the Supreme Court’s Duty is to issue orders and judgments which adhere to what the Constitution says.

So the Supreme Court should overturn the usurpatious orders of state and federal judges who attempted to usurp power over this issue. They should remind The People of our Country that only the State Legislatures and Congress may address these issues – that judges must keep their hands off. The power isn’t given to the Judicial Branches.

But a recent case out of South Carolina indicates that the most we will get from the Supreme Court is an unprincipled “cut the baby in half” compromise.

South Carolina law provides that a witness must sign an absentee ballot for the ballot to be valid. The Marxists (or their dupes) objected to this requirement and sued. Using COVID-19 as the excuse, the federal judge disagreed [!] with the statutory requirement for a witness, and said the State couldn’t enforce it. South Carolina election officials applied to the US Supreme Court for a stay of the lower Court’s order. 1

On October 5, 2020, in Andino v. Middleton [LINK], the Supreme Court stayed the Order, except to the extent that any ballots cast before they granted the Stay and received within two days of their Order may not be rejected.

So the Supreme Court’s Order is nothing for us to celebrate. The Supreme Court is allowing several days’ worth of unlawful ballots to be treated as valid; and thus are rewarding the trial judge’s usurpation of powers [which were granted to the South Carolina Legislature], by allowing these unlawful ballots to be counted.

But our good Justices, Thomas and Alito, and Gorsuch as well, would have granted the Stay in full and disqualified all the unlawful absentee ballots.

Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion suggests that, like the majority, he doesn’t understand that the Judicial Branch has no constitutional authority to alter State election laws re the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding elections:  he pointed out that the actions of the lower Court violated Supreme Court precedent [!] that (1) an unelected federal judge ordinarily shouldn’t make public health decisions which overrule State Legislatures, and (2) federal courts ordinarily shouldn’t alter state election rules in the period close to an election. Yikes!

So while the Supreme Court might “give” us some relief from the massive cheating, it seems unlikely that they will provide a principled defense of our Constitution.

3. What must State Governments do?

State governments may be the only way salvage, at least to some extent, the upcoming election. Since the Judicial Branches of the State and federal governments have no constitutional authority to change the decisions of the Legislative Branches respecting the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections; State Governments should instruct the Election Officials for their State that they must obey & enforce the election laws passed by their State legislature and not the usurpatious orders of judges. Judges have no constitutional authority to change what the State Legislatures do on this issue!

Election officials should also be shown that judges have no power to enforce their orders & judgments – that they depend on the Executive Branches of the federal or State governments to enforce them. We are doomed if Americans remain unable to grasp this simple concept.

Endnote:

1 The better course of action would have been for South Carolina to nullify the lawless opinion of the federal judge by refusing to enforce it. Remember! Federal judges have no army – they can’t enforce their Orders. They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal gov’t to enforce them. Who thinks President Trump would send in the National Guard to force South Carolina election officials to allow cheating in the upcoming election? If those officials had been familiar with what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), they would have known this.

 

 

 

Duckduckgo is posting their annoying ads on my page without my permission.  I strongly object to their ads; and advise all to not use duckduckgo.  They claim to protect your privacy – but they invade MY site to tell you how much they love “privacy”!

October 15, 2020 Posted by | 12th Amendment, Andino v. Middleton, Article I Sec. 4, Article II Sec. 1, Elections Clause, federal judges, Mail-in voting, Nullification, political questions | , , , , , , , , | 33 Comments

Mail-in voting? A “political question” which only State Legislatures and Congress may decide

By Publius Huldah

It has become obvious that one of the purposes of the COVID-19 scam is to bring about unrestricted mail-in voting in the toss-up and Red States so that the upcoming presidential election can be stolen by the Left for the senile Joe Biden and his constitutionally ineligible running mate, Kamala Harris.

On September 9, 2020, the Left achieved their goal for the Red State of Tennessee – unless the Tennessee State government enforces the US Constitution and rejects the federal judge’s unconstitutional order.

1. The absurd Order from the US District Court, Middle District of Tennessee

The Tennessee Code permits mail-in voting for certain categories of people [Tenn. Code § 2-6-201]; but requires those who register by mail to appear in person at the official place of voting and bring proof of identity when they vote for the first time [Tenn. Code § 2-2-115 (b) (7)].

Our elections are already tainted by the “ghost voters” described in Deroy Murdock’s article (published 2017) [here]. Murdock showed that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who didn’t exist were registered to vote. But that number wasn’t sufficient to elect Hillary Clinton; so the Left needs more ghost voters. With mail-in voter registration, dead people can be registered to vote; and with unrestricted mail-in voting, those dead people can vote forever.

The Plaintiffs in this action claim to be distressed about the statutory requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) appear in person to vote because it forces them to choose between their “health” [they might catch COVID-19 if they go to the polls] and their right to vote. 1

On September 9, 2020, federal judge Eli Richardson issued a preliminary injunction which has the effect of setting aside, for the upcoming presidential election, the statutory requirement – established by the Tennessee Legislature – that persons who registered by mail, show up in person the first time they vote.

Here is Richardson’s 29 page Order.

So let’s cut 29 pages of bunk down to its essence: Richardson ruled that the Tennessee Legislature’s requirement that the first-time voters (who registered by mail) physically appear at the polls, imposes a “moderate burden” on voting rights; and the State failed to show the Court that Tennessee has a “legitimate state interest” to justify that burden. 2

Even worse: Throughout his Order, Richardson writes repeatedly [some 20 times] of Plaintiffs’ “First Amendment right to vote”; and says at the end of para 31 of his Order,

“…it is likely that Plaintiffs will prevail on their claim that the first-time voter requirement violates the First Amendment right to vote…”

But the First Amendment makes no mention of a “right to vote”. 3 Furthermore, in footnote 22 of his Order, the Judge says:

“In a prior order, the Court declined to address any suggestion that there is no First Amendment right to vote, for any purposes at all, by mail in particular… The Court was well aware that McDonald supports such a suggestion, but the Court simply did not need to opine on that matter. The Court likewise does not need to do so here…”

What? The Judge declined to address whether or not a First Amendment right to vote actually exists even though he has already determined that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the requirement that first-time voters (who registered by mail) show up in person to vote “violates the First Amendment right to vote”!

2. Why do Plaintiffs and the Judge repeatedly speak of a “First Amendment right to vote”, when the Judge isn’t prepared to say that such a right even exists?

They may be aware that the federal court has no jurisdiction over this case; but are attempting to fake it by claiming that the case “arises under the Constitution” via the First Amendment.4

The judicial power of the federal courts is limited to those few categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, clause 1, US Constitution. Not one of the categories invests the federal court with jurisdiction over this case. This case can’t be said to “arise under the Constitution” because there is no “right to vote” in the US Constitution; and the remaining categories listed in Article III, §2 are clearly inapplicable.

So it appears that Plaintiffs have fabricated a mythical “First Amendment right to vote” in order to provide a pretext for the federal court to exercise jurisdiction in this case – and that the federal judge let them get away with it.

3. Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution, negates the absurd claim that there exists a federal constitutional right to vote.

At Article I, §2, cl. 1, the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” [italics added]

Accordingly, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives. 5

With four later Amendments, the States agreed that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay a tax (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment). It is important to note that these four amendments do not grant the “right” to vote to the persons described in the Amendments – merely that the suffrage will not be denied to those persons on account of their race, sex, etc.

So the States retained their original authority to set whatever qualifications for voting they deem appropriate, subject to their agreement that they would not deny suffrage on account of a Citizen’s being in one of those four categories.

So there is no “right to vote” set forth in the US Constitution. To the contrary, voting is a privilege granted or denied on the basis of whether applicants meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitution. 6

4. What does our Constitution say about how the President and Vice President are to be elected?

Article II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment set forth the procedures for electing President and Vice President. Those procedures are described here under the subheadings, “Electors appointed by States were to choose the President” and “The 12th Amendment establishes procedures for voting by Electors”.

Our current procedures bear no resemblance to the Constitutional requirements. 7 It’s too late to obey the Constitution for the upcoming presidential election; so let’s see what our Constitution says about the federal elections to Congress.

5. US Constitution: the “times, places and manner” clause

Pursuant to Article I, §4, clause 1, State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for US Representatives 8 and US Senators.9

This clause also provides that Congress may make laws which override such State laws.

So the power to determine the time, place and manner of holding such federal elections is delegated exclusively to the Legislative Branches of the State and federal governments.

It is up to the State Legislatures to decide which “burdens” are appropriate with respect to the place of voting – with Congress having power to override what a State Legislature decides. The Judicial Branches of the state and federal governments may not substitute their views as to which “burdens” are appropriate and which are not. These are “political questions” granted to the Legislative Branches to decide; and the Judicial Branches – state and federal – may not lawfully interfere. 10

It is clear that “manner of voting” includes such matters as a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting. This is what our Framers contemplated, as shown by their words quoted in footnote 8 below. When a State legislature decides that personal presence is required – that decision can be overturned only by Congress.

So Judge Richardson’s view that the Tennessee Legislature doesn’t have a good reason for requiring first time voters (who registered by mail) to vote in person and present ID is irrelevant, and his Order is ultra vires.

6. What is the State’s remedy against the unlawful Court order?

So! You have seen that determining the “place and manner of voting” is a political power delegated exclusively to the State and federal Legislatures. It is thus a “political question”; and the federal [and state] Judicial Branches may not substitute their views for those of the Legislative Branches.

And since there is no “right to vote” contained in the US Constitution, the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction over this case. This case doesn’t “arise under the Constitution” or fit within any of the other categories of cases enumerated at Article III, §2, cl.1, US Constitution.

So the pretended Order of September 9, 2020, is ultra vires and lawless, and the State of Tennessee has no obligation to obey it.

The duty of the elected and appointed State and local officials is to obey the US Constitution. When the dictates of a federal [or State] judge contradict the Constitution, State officials must side with the Constitution and against the judge. 11

And what will happen if the State of Tennessee refuses to comply with the Judge’s order? The Judge can’t enforce his Order. He has to depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce it. 12 Do you believe that President Trump will send in federal troops to force the State of Tennessee to comply with Judge Richardson’s ultra vires Order?

Note:  In addition to the Offices of President & Vice-President, many other offices will also be on the Ballot:  the entire US House of Representatives is up for grabs.  So is the House in the State Legislatures all over the Country.  1/3 of the US Senate will be on the ballot; and a proportional number of Senate Seats on State Legislatures throughout the Country will be on the ballot.

EVERY REPUBLICAN LEGISLATOR NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND:  Your Seat is likely to be stolen in this upcoming election.

So you better wake up and get your State Legislature to smack down the federal & state judges who are assisting the Left in stealing your Seat.  And if Congress doesn’t act, they will lose control of the Senate and most likely every seat in the House.

Why should the Left stop with stealing only the Presidential election when they can also steal YOUR seat?

Endnotes:

1 How do they get their groceries?

2 Order at paras 29 – 31.

3 The First Amendment says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress’ powers to make laws – it doesn’t grant a “right” to vote!

4 In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton states that cases “arising under the Constitution” concern

“…the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the US Constitution]…” [boldface added].

In the 3rd & 13th paras, Hamilton illustrates what “arising under the Constitution” means: He points to the restrictions on the power of the States listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a State exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov’t sues the State, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.

5 The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provides that those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House are eligible to vote for US Senators.

6 With the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Congress usurped the retained power of the States to set and enforce eligibility standards for voting. In a series of 3 papers, the last of which is here, I show how the assertions about The Federalist Papers made by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments, are false.

7 Our disregard of these constitutional provisions doubtless contributed to the creation of the current chaos.

8 Our Framers told us what “times”, “places” and “manner” mean:

In Federalist No. 61 (4th & 5th paras), Alexander Hamilton shows that “Time” refers to when elections are held. He explains that under the Articles of Confederation [our 1st Constitution], States had been conducting elections from March to November; and that uniformity in the time of elections is necessary “for conveniently assembling the [federal] legislature at a stated period in each year”.

“Place”: Hamilton also points out that the suffrages of citizens living in certain parts of the States could be defeated by restricting the place of election for Representatives in the House to “an INCONVENIENT DISTANCE from the elector” (2nd para). [caps are Hamilton’s].

“Manner” of holding Elections refers to such things as paper ballots or show of hands, the place of voting, and whether the States will be divided into congressional districts for purposes of electing Representatives. James Madison discusses the “Manner” of holding Elections in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 2, August 9, 1787:

“Mr. Madison: … the Legislatures of the States ought not to have the uncontrouled right of regulating the times places & manner of holding elections. These were words of great latitude. It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power. Whether the electors should vote by ballot or vivâ voce, should assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts or all meet at one place, shd all vote for all the representatives; or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district; these & many other points would depend on the Legislatures and might materially affect the appointments …. what danger could there be in giving a controuling power to the Natl. Legislature? Of whom was it to consist? 1. of a Senate to be chosen by the State Legislatures … 2. of Representatives elected by the same people who elect the State Legislatures…” [emphasis added]

Rufus King in the Massachusetts Convention said in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3, January 21, 1788:

“Hon. Mr. King rose … It was to be observed, he said, that in the Constitution of Massachusetts, and other States, the manner and place of elections were provided for; the manner was by ballot, and the places towns; for, said he, we happened to settle originally in townships…” [emphasis added]

9 When Art. I, §4, cl. 1 was drafted, the State Legislatures were to choose the State’s Senators to the US Congress – so the “place” of choosing the US Senators would be wherever the Legislature met. With ratification of the 17th Amendment, Congress gained oversight over State laws addressing the “place” of election of US Senators.

10 In Marbury v. Madison [link], decided 1803, the Supreme Court explained the concept of “political powers” and that the manner in which political powers are exercised is beyond the reach of the courts:

“By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. …whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive … [and] can never be examinable by the Courts.”

Marbury addresses the political powers exercised by the President. That same deference to the exercise of political powers has long been extended to the acts of the other political branch, Congress. Where the Constitution grants a political power to Congress, the manner in which Congress exercises the discretion is also beyond the reach of the Courts. So, for example, if Congress were to exercise the power granted to it by Article I, § 4, clause 1, to make a law banning mail-in voting; its action can never be examined by the Courts – the Courts may not substitute their views for those of Congress.

11 Marbury v. Madison also stands for the Great Principle that when an Act of one branch of government violates the Constitution, the other Branches must obey the Constitution and not the unlawful Act.

12 Alexander Hamilton made this same point over 200 years ago – see Federalist No. 78 (6th para). If law schools had made The Federalist Papers required reading, our Country wouldn’t now be in such a mess.

Duckduckgo is putting their ad on my website without my permission. This is an ad free site, and I object strongly to the ads.

September 20, 2020 Posted by | 12th Amendment, 1st Amendment, Article I Sec. 4, COVID-19 scam, dead voters, Elections Clause, Eli Richardson, ghost voters, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, mail-in voter registration, Mail-in voting, Nullification, political questions, Red States, Times Places and Manner clause, Toss-up states, US District Court Middle District of Tennessee, voter registration | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 32 Comments

Mail-in voting

By Publius Huldah

1. As to elections for LOCAL & STATE offices (where no federal elections are on the ballot): What does your STATE CONSTITUTION say? Does it prescribe any particular “manner” of voting? “Manner of voting” refers to a requirement of personal presence at the place of voting and to a show of hands, or voice votes, or paper ballots, or voting machines; etc., OR voting by mail or by internet or by telephone, etc. The Laws made by your State Legislature respecting “manner of voting” must comply with your State Constitution, or the pretended laws are unconstitutional.

So! For local & state offices where no federal office is on the ballot; the matter is determined solely by your STATE Constitution and the Statutes your STATE Legislature has passed.

2. As to elections for the FEDERAL House of Representatives or Senate: See Article I, §4, clause 1, US Constitution: It provides that State Legislatures have the power to prescribe the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding elections; but that Congress has an oversight power over the “Time” and “Manner” of election laws made by State Legislatures. [Remember, when Art. I, §4, cl. 1 was written, the State Legislatures chose the State’s Senators to the US Congress – so the “place” of choosing the Senators would be wherever the Legislature met.]

I wrote about Art. I, §4, clause 1, US Constitution here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/arizonas-proposition-200-what-the-constitution-really-says-about-voter-qualifications-exposing-the-elections-clause-argument/ under the subheading, The Dishonest “Elections Clause” Argument. Please study that.

It appears that Congress has not passed any Laws prohibiting or requiring mail-in voting in federal elections. (If anyone knows anything to the contrary, please let me know.) If Congress has not passed a law prohibiting mail-in voting, then States may permit it (assuming they are sufficiently foolish to do so). Congress does have the constitutional authority to prohibit mail-in voting in federal elections [and to continue to permit absentee ballots for members of the Military, diplomatic corps, Missionaries, etc.]

3. And remember: The 12th Amendment sets forth the totally different & separate procedures for electing President & Vice-President. We have ignored the 12th Amendment for a long time…

May 14, 2020 Posted by | Elections Clause, Mail-in voting | , | 11 Comments

The States Determine Qualifications for Voting and Procedures for Registration, and only Citizens may Vote

By Publius Huldah

1. Summary

The federal government is usurping the powers of the States, expressly retained by Art. I, §2, cl. 1, US Constitution, to determine qualifications for voting. And by perverting Art. I, §4, cl. 1, it is also usurping the States’ reserved power to determine procedures for registration of voters.

Consistent with Principles of Republican Government, every State in this Union has restricted voting to Citizens. 1 But on October 26, 2010 in Gonzales v. Arizona, a three judge panel on the US Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) construed the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and asserted that Arizona has no right to require applicants for voter registration to provide proof of citizenship. I wrote about it at the time HERE. On rehearing, the en banc Court of Appeals agreed with the panel; and on June 17, 2013, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed.

A few months thereafter, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers’ licenses; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional NVRA, passed “Motor Voter” providing that when one gets a drivers’ license, one is automatically registered to vote. 2

The federal government is unlawfully mandating that illegal aliens be allowed to vote in our elections.

2. The Concept of “Citizenship”

Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was a Godsend to our Framing Generation because it provided the new concepts our Framers needed to transform us from subjects of a Monarchy to Citizens of a Republic.3 Book I, Ch. XIX, defines “citizens”, “inhabitants” and “naturalization”:

· “Citizens” are the members of the civil society who are bound to it by certain duties, subject to its authority, participate in its advantages and in the rights of citizens [§212].

· “Inhabitants” are foreigners who are permitted to settle in the country and are subject to its laws, but do not participate in all the rights of citizens [§213].

· “Naturalization” is the process whereby the country grants to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society [§214].

So “citizens” have civic advantages and political rights which are not extended to “inhabitants” – and certainly not to aliens who have unlawfully entered a country.4

Accordingly, our Constitution permits only Citizens to serve in Congress (Art. I, §2, cl. 2 & §3, cl. 3); the President must be a “natural born Citizen” (Art. II, §1, cl. 5); Article IV, §2, cl. 1 & §1 of the 14th Amendment refer to the “privileges and immunities of citizens”; and the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments5 refer to voting by “Citizens”.

3. The Federalist Papers show that voting is a privilege of Citizens alone

The slaves in America were “inhabitants”, not “citizens”. They weren’t allowed to vote. Federalist No. 54 (5th para from bottom) tells us:

“…The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not…the same… [in the several States]. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives… the Southern States might… [insist]…that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens…” [boldface added]6

In Federalist No. 60 (1st, 2nd and last paras), Hamilton speaks of the “fundamental privilege” of citizens to vote, and that citizens who are conscious and tenacious of their rights would flock to the places of election to overthrow tyrants. In Federalist No. 61 (2nd para), Hamilton speaks of “the suffrages of the citizens”, and of voting as an “invaluable privilege”.

Over and over, The Federalist Papers show that voting is restricted to citizens:

“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffragees of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power…” (No. 22, 6th para from bottom)

“If we consider the situation of the men on whom the free suffrages of their fellow-citizens may confer the representative trust, we shall find it involving every security which can be devised or desired for their fidelity to their constituents (No. 57, 7th para) … “… that each representative of the United States will be elected by five or six thousand citizens…” (No. 57, 7th para from bottom)

“There is a peculiarity in the federal Constitution which insures a watchful attention in a majority both of the people and of their representatives to a constitutional augmentation of the latter. The peculiarity lies in this, that one branch of the legislature is a representation of citizens, the other of the States…” (No. 58 at 3.)

“…A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations …” No. 68 (3rd para)

4. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary shows our Founding Generation saw voting as restricted to citizens

Suffrage is:

“1. A vote; a voice given in deciding a controverted question, or in the choice of a man for an office or trust. Nothing can be more grateful to a good man than to be elevated to office by the unbiased suffrages of free enlightened citizens.”

Citizen is:

“5. In the United States, a person, native7 or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise…”

Franchise is:

“1. … the right to vote for governor, senators and representatives, is a franchise belonging to citizens, and not enjoyed by aliens…”

Inhabitants and aliens may not vote unless they become naturalized citizens and meet whatever additional qualifications for voting are set forth in the State Constitution. Naturalization is:

“The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, 8 vesting certain tribunals with the power.”

5. State Constitutions set forth the Qualifications for Voting

When we operated under the Articles of Confederation (our first federal Constitution),9 the States determined the qualifications for voting in state and local elections and in elections to the Continental Congress. These qualifications were set forth in the State Constitutions, and varied from State to State.

In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained (at Art. I, §2, cl.1) their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters; and ordained that those whom they determined were qualified to vote in elections to their State House of Representatives would thereby be qualified to vote for their federal Representatives to Congress.

Our Framers specifically rejected the idea that the new Congress or the State Legislatures would determine who was eligible to vote. Instead, only The People of each State were competent to define the right of suffrage for their State, and their definition was enshrined in their State Constitution. In Federalist No. 52 (2nd para), James Madison tells us:

“…The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government.10 It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper … To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper … To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention … must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments…”[boldface added]

Remember! Since the federal and state governments are merely “creatures” of constitutions, they have no power to determine who may vote. That power belongs to the “creators” of the governments. Only The People are competent to set the qualifications for voting; and our determinations are enshrined in our State Constitutions.

6. The States reserved power to determine procedures for voter registration

Our Constitution of 1787 created a federal government to which we delegated only “few and defined” powers [see chart]. Nowhere in the Constitution did we delegate to the federal government power to dictate procedures States must use in registering voters. Accordingly, it is a “reserved” power.11 Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration. Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent  in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. [at II. A. 2]:

“This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.

Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally “register” voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met.”

7. The federal government has usurped the States’ powers to determine who may vote and determine procedures for voter registration

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) purports to require States to “accept and use” a federal voter registration form! The Ninth Circuit asserted that since the federal form doesn’t require applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. This paper exposes some of the false arguments made by the Ninth Circuit’s three judge panel, and sets forth what Hamilton and Madison actually said as to the genuine meanings of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1: Arizona’s Proposition 200: What The Constitution Really Says About Voter Qualifications & Exposing The “Elections Clause” Argument.

But the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, swept Art. I, §2, cl. 1 under the rug and ignored Hamilton’s and Madison’s explanations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1.  Scalia asserted:

“The Clause’s [Art. I, §4, cl. 1] substantive scope is broad. “Times, Places, and Manner,” we have written, are “comprehensive words,” which “embrace authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections,” including, as relevant here and as petitioners do not contest, regulations relating to “registration”….” 12

Scalia said,

“…the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form…”

and concluded,

“… the fairest reading of the statute is that a state-imposed requirement of evidence of citizenship not required by the Federal Form is “inconsistent with” the NVRA’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form…”

IF Scalia understood that the NVRA was unconstitutional, it was his DUTY to say so even though Counsel for the State of Arizona apparently failed to raise the issue.

So what should we do when federal courts  – as here – issue unconstitutional opinions?

8. Our Framers said nullification is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression

The federal government has refused to control our borders and, as a result, we are being invaded. The federal government is demanding that invaders be allowed to vote in our elections. We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional dictates of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense. What does your State Constitution say about qualifications for voting? Demand that your State government enforce your State Constitution.

And Remember! As Hamilton told us in Federalist No. 78 (6th para), federal courts can only issue judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them. So the President’s “check” on usurping federal judges is to refuse to enforce their opinions. States must man up and obey the Constitution instead of unconstitutional dictates of the federal Legislative and Judicial Branches. Do you think that President Trump will send out US Marshalls or the National Guard to FORCE States to allow illegal aliens to vote? The iron is hot – the time to strike is now.

Endnotes:

1Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. says (2nd para):

“…Exercising its right to set federal voter qualifications, Arizona, like every other State, permits only U. S. citizens to vote in federal elections, and Arizona has concluded that this requirement cannot be effectively enforced unless applicants for registration are required to provide proof of citizenship…” [boldface added]

2 The California legislature thus violated Article II, Section 2, California Constitution which says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

3That Vattel had such influence is proved HERE.

4All men everywhere possess the rights God gave them. But in a civil society, the members possess political or civic rights which are not extended to inhabitants, lawful visitors, or illegal alien invaders.

5 With these four Amendments, the States agreed they would not deny suffrage to Citizens on account of race, being a female, not paying the tax, or being between 18 to 21 years of age. States retain power to deny suffrage to any Citizen on account of other factors (e.g., illiteracy, being on welfare, or stupidity).

6 Freed slaves were naturalized by §1 of the 14th Amendment.

7Vattel §212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” [See §§ 215-217 for other places babies may be born as natural-born citizens.]

8Art. I, §8, cl. 4, US Const.

9 The Articles of Confederation were ratified July 9, 1778.

10A “republic” is a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people.

11The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution … are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) [italics added]

12 Counsel for the State of Arizona made a major strategic error in [apparently] failing to challenge the constitutionality of the NVRA as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress and as in violation of Art. I, §2, cl. 1 and §4, cl.1, US Const. 

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

 

August 16, 2018 Posted by | Arizona's Proposition 200, Article I, Sec. 2, Elections Clause, National Voter Registration Act, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications | , , , , , , , , , | 24 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: