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

[ThisIsMe]

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]

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

 

[kyzr]

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]

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]

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]

This trashy liberal bill is a direct assault on state election laws and clearly an unconstitutional power grab.

 

[BluesLegend]

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]

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...

Source is:

https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=AC024DD44D4D977B0324A48366A2

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.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

Falsehoods flow about HR 1, the US voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r

www.politifact.com

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

 

[Crepitus]

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.

 

[Orangecat]

There is no new laws.

There is law.
There are laws.
Please decide.

 

[Crepitus]

Elected dems know they stole this last election...or they wouldn't be trying so hard to stack the deck.....

Increasing access to voting is "Stacking the deck"?

I guess it is, according to the QOP:

In Supreme Court, GOP attorney defends voting restrictions by saying they help Republicans win

The response was a remarkable moment at a pivotal time for voting rights.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[berg80]

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?

Falsehoods flow about HR 1, the US voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r

www.politifact.com

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.

Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...

www.everycrsreport.com

 

[busybee01]

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?

Falsehoods flow about HR 1, the US voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r

www.politifact.com

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.

 

[pknopp]

There is no new laws.

There is law.
There are laws.
Please decide.

I do not have to decide anything. There is NO new law. The OP was full of crap.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Obama won’t go after legal pot users in Washington, Colorado

President Obama says that recreational pot smoking in Washington and Colorado is not a major concern for his administration: "We've got bigger fish to fry."

www.seattletimes.com

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.

 

[Orangecat]

I do not have to decide anything.

True, being a useful idiot means decisions are made for you. My bad for assuming otherwise.

 

[busybee01]

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]

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?

Falsehoods flow about HR 1, the US voting rights bill

Opponents of a voting rights bill would have you believe that the legislation will allow murderers, teenagers, welfare r

www.politifact.com

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.

Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections

In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...

www.everycrsreport.com

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]

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.