Can States ignore new HR-1 voting requirements? (Like blue states ignored immigration law)

Should States ignore HR-1 voting requirements (if passed) like blue states ignore immigration laws?

  • Yes, the Constitution says that state legislatures set voting laws.

    Votes: 16 88.9%
  • No, the US should have standardized voting laws.

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,599
Reaction score
860
Points
210
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
I find the supremacy clause a bit suspect, simply because the enumerated powers declared exactly what the federal government was allowed to do, anything beyond that was left to the states, and to the people.

So, the supremacy clause either vetos the enumerated powers, and allows congress to violate the constitution from time to time, or, perhaps the supremacy clause has a different meaning or is related to something else?

Thoughts?
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
2,531
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
Tens of millions of people worldwide have received a COVID vaccine
The one or two so may have died (no proof) gets a fear mongering thread
It's all they have left, don't take it away from them. They lost the election and the left has won the culture war
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
17,687
Reaction score
9,056
Points
1,255
Location
The AL part of PA
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
I find the supremacy clause a bit suspect, simply because the enumerated powers declared exactly what the federal government was allowed to do, anything beyond that was left to the states, and to the people.

So, the supremacy clause either vetos the enumerated powers, and allows congress to violate the constitution from time to time, or, perhaps the supremacy clause has a different meaning or is related to something else?

Thoughts?
Exactly! The apparent contradiction means that the USSC would have to rule on constitutionality.
The US Constitution says what the USSC says it says. They are the only interpreters.
So IMHO, if any state ignores HR-1 the USSC would need to rule on their specific voting laws' constitutionality, which is a dodge, but that's my understanding of how it could work.
 

task0778

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
7,056
Reaction score
4,822
Points
1,065
Location
Texas hill country
I do not believe the current SCOTUS could or should rule in favor of HR 1, the federal gov't cannot dictate to the states on how to run their elections. But in any case, I believe HR 1 will never get through the Senate anyway. They can't pass that through reconciliation. Now, if they can abolish the filibuster then that's another story, but Joe Manchin and the chick from Arizona have said they won't do that.
 

Jets

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2019
Messages
2,278
Reaction score
1,058
Points
210
The lines between the state and the national government have to be determined by SCOTUS. When the framers designed the Constitution, they placed an internal check within Congress that has since been repealed. The Senate was supposed to be chosen by the state legislatures to give them a voice in Congress, The idea being if a majority of states agreed, the Senate would consent to such legislation.

Without that check, the courts now determine that line.
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
1,182
Points
1,918
Location
Wisconsin
This trashy liberal bill is a direct assault on state election laws and clearly an unconstitutional power grab.
 

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
52,058
Reaction score
19,469
Points
2,630
Location
Trump's Army
Dems are gifting themselves taxpayer funded campaign money. If someone donates $100 to AOC or Pelosi taxpayers are forced to gift them another $600 in a 6 to 1 taxpayer funded campaign funding scam.
 

Jim H - VA USA

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
1,906
Points
1,908
Tens of millions of people worldwide have received a COVID vaccine
The one or two so may have died (no proof) gets a fear mongering thread
This image shows the current VAERS database for US people who have received one of the COVID vaccines. I retrieved it moments ago.

It only includes death, serious reactions, and permanent disability (I only selected those, rather then include all reactions). For each instance, you can actually look up the details for every individual case. Actual table has hundreds of lines...

1615142856819.png


Source is:

Note that this VAERS data does not assign causation; it simply lists reported events after receiving one of the COVID vaccines.

953 deaths reported so far in the US.
 
Last edited:

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
46,545
Reaction score
11,889
Points
2,040
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

Why are you against it? Seems like a reasonable set a rules to me.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
46,545
Reaction score
11,889
Points
2,040
Dems are gifting themselves taxpayer funded campaign money. If someone donates $100 to AOC or Pelosi taxpayers are forced to gift them another $600 in a 6 to 1 taxpayer funded campaign funding scam.
Debunked in the OP.
 

Crepitus

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
46,545
Reaction score
11,889
Points
2,040

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,192
Reaction score
3,500
Points
970
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however, has significant authority to determine how these elections are run, and may direct states to implement such federal regulations as the federal government provides. This authority can extend to registration, voting, reporting of results, or even more fundamental aspects of the election process such as redistricting. This report focuses on Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate how states administer elections.

Congress’s authority to regulate a particular type of election may vary depending on whether that election is for the Presidency, the House, the Senate, or for state and local positions. Further, there may be variations in what aspects of elections are amenable to regulation. Consequently, evaluating Congress’s authority to establish election procedures requires an examination of a variety of different proposals and scenarios.

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.

 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,838
Points
290
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections. If states refuse to comply then they can be denied representation in Congress.
Well that's the most stupidest thing I heard
Obviously you have never read the Constitution. That makes you the dumb one. Congress can expel a member for any reason.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,838
Points
290
Supremacy Clause
Primary tabs

See Preemption; constitutional clauses.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government.
So is states following federal drug laws?
That was a choice made by powerful people not to go after said states with legal weed. But you are correct, they could have if they wanted to.

But it's not legal, it's the same as sanctuary states
No it is not. States are not required to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration law.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,838
Points
290
This trashy liberal bill is a direct assault on state election laws and clearly an unconstitutional power grab.
The Constitution directly gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections.
 

busybee01

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
20,031
Reaction score
3,838
Points
290
House Democrats passed HR-1, new voting laws, which may not be Constitutional, since the "State Legislatures" are to set those.

So my question is, can States keep writing their own state voting laws and ignore the new HR-1 Laws?

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however, has significant authority to determine how these elections are run, and may direct states to implement such federal regulations as the federal government provides. This authority can extend to registration, voting, reporting of results, or even more fundamental aspects of the election process such as redistricting. This report focuses on Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate how states administer elections.

Congress’s authority to regulate a particular type of election may vary depending on whether that election is for the Presidency, the House, the Senate, or for state and local positions. Further, there may be variations in what aspects of elections are amenable to regulation. Consequently, evaluating Congress’s authority to establish election procedures requires an examination of a variety of different proposals and scenarios.

Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.


Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

It gives Congress the power to override or alter regulations set by state legislatures in federal elections.
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
1,182
Points
1,918
Location
Wisconsin
This trashy liberal bill is a direct assault on state election laws and clearly an unconstitutional power grab.
The Constitution directly gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections.
What does that have to do with presidential elections? I saw Representatives and Senators, not presidential elections.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top