States have no power to regulate federal elections

[Liberty]

It's not unconstitutional. The ability of 5 political hacks on the court to deliberately misinterpreted the document does not change the facts. Everyone can read it for themselves, and nothing in it says states cannot limit the terms of the representatives in Congress.

The constitution vests the power to interpret the law in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court holding the final possible say on the matter. When the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, based on the dictates of the constitution. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

please quote the constitution where it says the word interpret, thanks.

 

[Leweman]

If states have no say in federal elections how can they bar felons from voting? Some states also have legacy constitutional statements barring the "insane" or "idiots" from voting-- although obsolete.

The states have the power to require voting registration. Felons can be barred from voting because it is a form of liberty that has been taken away with due process of the law.

And doesn’t state law regulate how states cast their Electoral College votes? Meaning some states have it so the winner takes all of the electoral votes while a few have it so the winner is based on the highest number of votes in a congressional district like Maine and Nebraska.

Aren't those examples of "regulating federal elections"?

No. State law does not dictate how electors vote. State law dictates how the states choose their electors. Once chosen, the electors retain the right to vote for whomever they wish. Such "faithless electors" are not unheard of. There have been over 100 instances of an elector voting for a person other than whom they were "supposed" to vote. In 1836 the Virginia electoral group refused to vote for the VP candidate for whom they were supposed to vote, and by doing so prevented anyone from having a majority, forcing the matter to be determined by the Senate.

29 states have laws that state the electors must vote for the candidate that wins. Failure to do so is considered a misdemeanor up to a 4th degree felony in some states. Sounds like a state law dictating how electors vote to me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's not unconstitutional. The ability of 5 political hacks on the court to deliberately misinterpreted the document does not change the facts. Everyone can read it for themselves, and nothing in it says states cannot limit the terms of the representatives in Congress.

The constitution vests the power to interpret the law in the judicial branch, with the Supreme Court holding the final possible say on the matter. When the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, then that is the final word, based on the dictates of the constitution. So yes, it is unconstitutional.

You haven't a clue to of what Constitutional law is. Hell we could have 6 Supreme court justices interpret that we should worship the great oak god and using your opinion on how this country is run the great oak god would become supreme being because of 6 people interpretation? I really don't think that will work.

 

[gekaap]

please quote the constitution where it says the word interpret, thanks.

o_0 Interpreting the law is what judicial power is. Just like creating laws is what legislative power is.

 

[gekaap]

29 states have laws that state the electors must vote for the candidate that wins. Failure to do so is considered a misdemeanor up to a 4th degree felony in some states. Sounds like a state law dictating how electors vote to me.

Actually, the laws require that electors vote for the candidate for whom they pledged themselves. The constitutionality of these laws has never been heard by the courts.

 

[Liberty]

please quote the constitution where it says the word interpret, thanks.

o_0 Interpreting the law is what judicial power is. Just like creating laws is what legislative power is.

ok, so you should be able to quote where the constitution says judges interpret the constitution. i cant find it, so please, i am asking you to help me.

 

[gekaap]

ok, so you should be able to quote where the constitution says judges interpret the constitution. i cant find it, so please, i am asking you to help me.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[Navy1960]

Oregon v. Mitchell

2. But under Art I, § 2, the States have the power to set qualifications to vote in state and local elections, and the whole Constitution reserves that power to the States except as it has been curtailed by specific constitutional amendments. No amendment (including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the other Civil War Amendments) authorizes Congress' attempt to lower the voting age in state and local elections. Pp. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 124-131.

Page 400 U. S. 113


3. The literacy test ban is constitutional under the Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in view of the evidence of racial discrimination that Congress found in various parts of the Nation: racial discrimination resulting from literacy tests, the educational inequality stemming from the "separate but equal" rule, and other racially discriminatory practices. Pp. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 131-134.

4. The provisions forbidding States from disqualifying voters in national elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors because they have not met state residency requirements and establishing absentee balloting rules are valid under Congress' broad powers to regulate federal elections and maintain a national government. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 134.

OREGON V. MITCHELL, 400 U. S. 112 :: Volume 400 :: 1970 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

It does appear that when a state attempts to enter into the realm of regulating what are clearly constitutional powers reserved for Congress it has overstepped it's authority. However, a state does have every right to set qualifications for any state office as well as electors for that office.

 

[gekaap]

It does appear that when a state attempts to enter into the realm of regulating what are clearly constitutional powers reserved for Congress it has overstepped it's authority. However, a state does have every right to set qualifications for any state office as well as electors for that office.

State office. The Presidency is a federal office.

 

[Navy1960]

It does appear that when a state attempts to enter into the realm of regulating what are clearly constitutional powers reserved for Congress it has overstepped it's authority. However, a state does have every right to set qualifications for any state office as well as electors for that office.

State office. The Presidency is a federal office.

I'm aware of that, and that's my point, however electors are choosen within the state and there are several cases that support the notion that States can set qualifications for electors in any manner they see fit. However, that is not the same as setting a qualification for a candidate for that office. We all know that in our respective states we do not vote for the President directly or at least I hope so. So for example, the law passed here in Arizona recently that set forth requirements for President are and should be found to be unconstitutional as they violate the Supremacy Clause. This is also the feeling of the Sec. of State here. who happens to be a Republican. However had Arizona let's say passed a law that required an elector to produce a birth certificate etc. etc then that would most likely pass constitutional muster as that is clearly a state isuue.

 

[Leweman]

Also, maybe a bit off topic, but how is it constitutional for states to hold early voting now?

 

[Navy1960]

Also, maybe a bit off topic, but how is it constitutional for states to hold early voting now?

Clause 4: Election day“ The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

If your talking about in the primary, for that I'm not sure, this is just a personal opinion here, but I believe that a state can hold it's primary anytime they choose. It's really up to the political parties within the state to make that call. However, that would not keep a state from just telling their respective parties to go jump in a river and hold it when they wish, except the party might limit their representation at the convention that sort of thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oregon v. Mitchell

2. But under Art I, § 2, the States have the power to set qualifications to vote in state and local elections, and the whole Constitution reserves that power to the States except as it has been curtailed by specific constitutional amendments. No amendment (including the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the other Civil War Amendments) authorizes Congress' attempt to lower the voting age in state and local elections. Pp. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 124-131.

Page 400 U. S. 113


3. The literacy test ban is constitutional under the Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, in view of the evidence of racial discrimination that Congress found in various parts of the Nation: racial discrimination resulting from literacy tests, the educational inequality stemming from the "separate but equal" rule, and other racially discriminatory practices. Pp. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 131-134.

4. The provisions forbidding States from disqualifying voters in national elections for presidential and vice-presidential electors because they have not met state residency requirements and establishing absentee balloting rules are valid under Congress' broad powers to regulate federal elections and maintain a national government. 400 U. S. 118, 400 U. S. 134.

OREGON V. MITCHELL, 400 U. S. 112 :: Volume 400 :: 1970 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”

It does appear that when a state attempts to enter into the realm of regulating what are clearly constitutional powers reserved for Congress it has overstepped it's authority. However, a state does have every right to set qualifications for any state office as well as electors for that office.

As long as it's nondiscriminatory states have liberties to regulate as they see fit.

 

[Navy1960]

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

1.The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
2.State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artcile 2. SEc. 5
Clause 5: Qualifications for office“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's fairly clear what power's are vested in the Federal Govt. and what powers are vested in the states and setting qualifications for President as is the case here in Arizona clearly is at odds with the Supremacy Clause.

Art. VI Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

1.The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
2.State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.
The opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artcile 2. SEc. 5
Clause 5: Qualifications for office“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's fairly clear what power's are vested in the Federal Govt. and what powers are vested in the states and setting qualifications for President as is the case here in Arizona clearly is at odds with the Supremacy Clause.

Art. VI Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Laws of the United States

Which laws? California law? Hawaii's law? North Carolina's law?

 

[Gunny]

The provisions in the Constitution governing federal elections confirm the Framers' intent that States lack power to add qualifications. The Framers feared that the diverse interests of the States would undermine the National Legislature, and thus they adopted provisions intended to minimize the possibility of state interference with federal elections. For example, to prevent discrimination against federal electors, the Framers required in Art. I, §2, cl. 1, that the qualifications for federal electors be the same as those for state electors. As Madison noted, allowing States to differentiate between the qualifications for state and federal electors "would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone." Similarly, in Art. I, §4, cl. 1, though giving the States the freedom to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," the Framers created a safeguard against state abuse by giving Congress the power to "by Law make or alter such Regulations." The Convention debates make clear that the Framers' overriding concern was the potential for States' abuse of the power to set the "Times, Places and Manner" of elections. Madison noted that "t was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power." Gouvernor Morris feared "that the States might make false returns and then make no provisions for new elections." When Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge moved to strike the congressional safeguard, the motion was soundly defeated. As Hamilton later noted: "Nothing can be more evident than that an exclusive power of regulating elections for the national government, in the hands of the State legislatures, would leave the existence of the Union entirely at their mercy."


The Framers' discussion of the salary of representatives reveals similar concerns. When the issue was first raised, Madison argued that congressional compensation should be fixed in the Constitution, rather than left to state legislatures, because otherwise "it would create an improper dependence." George Mason agreed, noting that "the parsimony of the States might reduce the provision so low that . . . the question would be not who were most fit to be chosen, but who were most willing to serve."


When the issue was later reopened, Nathaniel Gorham stated that he "wished not to refer the matter to the State Legislatures who were always paring down salaries in such a manner as to keep out of offices men most capable of executing the functions of them." Edmund Randolph agreed that "f the States were to pay the members of the Nat[ional] Legislature, a dependence would be created that would vitiate the whole System." Rufus King "urged the danger of creating a dependence on the States," and Hamilton noted that "[t]hose who pay are the masters of those who are paid." The Convention ultimately agreed to vest in Congress the power to set its own compensation.


In light of the Framers' evident concern that States would try to undermine the National Government, they could not have intended States to have the power to set qualifications.


The Framers were unquestionably concerned that the States would simply not hold elections for federal officers, and therefore the Framers gave Congress the power to "make or alter" state election regulations. Yet under the dissent's approach, the States could achieve exactly the same result by simply setting qualifications for federal office sufficiently high that no one could meet those qualifications. It is inconceivable that the Framers would provide a specific constitutional provision to ensure that federal elections would be held while at the same time allowing States to render those elections meaningless by simply ensuring that no candidate could be qualified for office. Given the Framers' wariness over the potential for state abuse, we must conclude that the specification of fixed qualifications in the constitutional text was intended to prescribe uniform rules that would preclude modification by either Congress or the States.


There is further evidence of the Framers' intent in Art. 1, §5, cl. 1, which provides: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." That Art. I, §5 vests a federal tribunal with ultimate authority to judge a Member's qualifications is fully consistent with the understanding that those qualifications are fixed in the Federal Constitution, but not with the understanding that they can be altered by the States. If the States had the right to prescribe additional qualifications--such as property, educational, or professional qualifications--for their own representatives, state law would provide the standard for judging a candidate's eligibility.


Federal questions are generally answered finally by federal tribunals because rights which depend on federal law should be the same everywhere and their construction should be uniform. The judging of questions concerning rights which depend on state law is not, however, normally assigned to federal tribunals. The Constitution's provision for each House to be the judge of its own qualifications thus provides further evidence that the Framers believed that the primary source of those qualifications would be federal law.

Bullshit. The War of Northern Aggression decided by force who could regulate what, despite the plain English in the US Constitution.

 

[boedicca]

Oh good, I guess everyone agrees?

If you are going to copy and paste, at least have the decency to provide a source link.

 

[Leweman]

Also, maybe a bit off topic, but how is it constitutional for states to hold early voting now?

Clause 4: Election day“ The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

If your talking about in the primary, for that I'm not sure, this is just a personal opinion here, but I believe that a state can hold it's primary anytime they choose. It's really up to the political parties within the state to make that call. However, that would not keep a state from just telling their respective parties to go jump in a river and hold it when they wish, except the party might limit their representation at the convention that sort of thing.

Nope. Last year and the last Presidential Election they had early voting for over 30 states. That includes in person early voting. How is that constitutional?

 

[Gunny]

Also, maybe a bit off topic, but how is it constitutional for states to hold early voting now?

Clause 4: Election day“ The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

If your talking about in the primary, for that I'm not sure, this is just a personal opinion here, but I believe that a state can hold it's primary anytime they choose. It's really up to the political parties within the state to make that call. However, that would not keep a state from just telling their respective parties to go jump in a river and hold it when they wish, except the party might limit their representation at the convention that sort of thing.

Nope. Last year and the last Presidential Election they had early voting for over 30 states. That includes in person early voting. How is that constitutional?

It ain't.

 

[Navy1960]

Also, maybe a bit off topic, but how is it constitutional for states to hold early voting now?

Clause 4: Election day“ The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. ”

Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.

If your talking about in the primary, for that I'm not sure, this is just a personal opinion here, but I believe that a state can hold it's primary anytime they choose. It's really up to the political parties within the state to make that call. However, that would not keep a state from just telling their respective parties to go jump in a river and hold it when they wish, except the party might limit their representation at the convention that sort of thing.

Nope. Last year and the last Presidential Election they had early voting for over 30 states. That includes in person early voting. How is that constitutional?

I don't believe I commented on the constitutionality of early voting other than to show that early voting does set up a constitutional issue and at this moment in time is being challenged as is the Ohio same day registration law. You and I both know that because something may or may not be unconstitutional until such time there is a ruling from the SCOTUS on the matter then states will do as they please.