Imagine a better alternative. Suppose that President Trump announces today that the new California law has made all future elections unconstitutional and illegal, because foreigners are now allowed to tilt the outcome. Neither he nor the Republican House and Senate will accept the credentials of anyone elected by California (one of eight states, incidentally, that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens).I can imagine that, but what's the mechanism for not counting the votes of Presidential electors appointed by California? Does the Office of the Federal Register have the authority to do that? Would they exercise it?
Imagine after November's vote that California's two Democratic senators and 53 members of Congress (39 of whom are Democrats) are not seated until a new California election purges all illegal aliens and other foreigners from the voter rolls in federal elections. No California presidential votes will be counted in 2020. Imagine the federal government requiring voter IDs and declaring it a felony punishable by permanent forfeiture of future U.S. citizenship if a non-citizen votes illegally in any federal election.
The California Secession
States control their own ballots for their own state and local elections, and they can let non-citizens vote if they want to do. However, in Federal elections, they must ensure that only citizens vote. If they knowingly register non-citizens to vote without ensuring that those non-citizens can be excluded from Federal elections, they're out of order. What's to be done about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Sounds like CA is about ready to have intrastate warfare. The disenfranchised are all those CA citizens who have grudgingly accepted the descent into the third world because "well, it was a vote." How do they feel to see the scale swung so blatantly against them? When there is no chance of a fair vote to shape their future, the only recourse is to, as the grunts say, "move, or shoot".
There are a couple of problems with Ponte's "alternative." One is that the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the House's refusal to seat Adam Clayton Powell was unconstitutional. The other is that upon seating, it would take a 2/3 majority to expel a Congressman. It's much the same for the Senate, and it's unlikely that one party will get an outright 2/3 majority of either house, or that enough Progressive-Democrats would side with the Republicans to expel.
Regarding Electors, each State sets its own rules for selecting them, and the Constitution is silent on whether an Elector must be a citizen.
Eric Hines
"One is that the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the House's refusal to seat Adam Clayton Powell was unconstitutional."
Interesting. On what grounds, I wonder?
In any case, the imaginary scenario is entirely just, in my opinion. That's what should happen, even if it's extremely unlikely.
Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
The Supremes ruled in Powell v McCormack that that clause is the exclusive and exhaustive list of qualifications for being a member of the House of Representatives; the House can't add to the list when it refuses to seat a member. The vote was 7-1. Fortas recused due to his own scandal that led to his resignation a month before the ruling was published. Stewart dissented on the grounds the matter was moot, and the Court should not have taken the case at all, Powell having already been seated, after all. In the special election that ensued from Powell's having been refused seating, his constituents thumbed their collective nose at the House and reelected him with 81% of their votes. On this second pass, the House accepted the will of the constituency.
The corresponding clause regarding Senators is similarly terse.
Eric Hines
Thank you. It seems, then, that Congress needs to alter some state regulations.
"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 Place of Chusing Senators."
I guess the court threw out the bit about "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members".
But, if each House really were the judge of elections of its members, judging elections where non-citizens are allowed to vote illegitimate would seem to be possible.
Hm. Apparently, the resulting Federal Contested Elections Act allows candidates to the House, and sitting members of the House, to challenge general elections, and apparently a House committee decides the matter. The decisions cannot be appealed, even to the USSC.
I actually hadn't even heard about this yet.
I'd say its shocking, but it's California.
The thing is, we may be seeing the beginnings of some sort of rebellion against all this in the counties and cities joining the lawsuit against the Governor. A whole chunk of coastal Southern California has apparently begun to have had enough of this nonsense. Perhaps other counties will also join and soon we may get that California Split. At least we aren't all taking all this sitting down.
You know, taking a second look at that piece, I'm not sure it's correct (I wish he'd had a link).
He says: "the State of California began to automatically register illegal aliens who have driver licenses to vote. This new law immunizes illegals against any state criminal penalty for registering and voting."
First, unless the state said they were going to register illegals they're probably not- illegals who get a license are supposed to say so and have an identifying mark on their license (perhaps this is no longer true, but it was, at least), so if they don't say so, they're already violating the law and would just be compounding their lawbreaking. If they don't, I would see this as something that might discourage illegals because they would now be liable for illegally registering to vote. Even if there are no prosecutions of this now or in the immediate future, the recent refutations of the recent California law by many municipalities should have the illegals on guard that some jurisdictions may seek to prosecute, if not now, at some point in the forseeable future.
I could be wrong about all this, I just haven't seen enough yet to persuade me it's true.
Post a Comment