I believe hr1 is unconstitutional, and I know it won’t pass the Senate unless the Democrats kill the filibuster, but my question is what happens if Joe Mansion doesn’t stand firm and they do kill the filibuster? Will the supreme Court be able to do anything about it? I understand they built something into the bill that will make that difficult. Have they won if they kill the filibuster and pass that bill? Or will the Supreme Court be able to overturn it?
what aspect of the law are unconstitutional?
Ignoring states rights. And don’t bother sending me out to get the whitches broom. What I said can stand on its own.
1 Like
As per the actual Constitution
“ 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.”
So if Congress set a Federal standard for choosing Representatives and Senators to Congress then it is not unconstitutional.
Now would the States have separate systems for those elections?
Doubtful.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to find a law unconstitutional when the Constitution explicitly allows that legislation.
1 Like
Not disagreeing but i am sure there are sections they may address. Won’t know until it’s close to being a law.
SCOTUS won’t touch it with ten foot pole.
Meh depends on the final version
BTW…is this the same Ex democrat from old forum?
So if the Democrats can kill the filibuster, all is lost? We won’t see another fair election, or another Republican President in my lifetime?
This is going to be good…
Is it true that in a 1892 Supreme Court ruling, the justices affirmed that the Electors Clause grants the exclusive authority to the state legislatures to define the method of appointing presidential electors? And wouldn’t that make it unconstitutional for congress to force states to permit presidential voting by mail?
If senates want to give up their right so be it. People are stupid that way.
Nope. It would not.
Congress has the authority to determine how federal elections are executed. That does not impinge on state legislatures deciding how Presidential electors are appointed.
The Electors clause and the Elections clause are not the same thing.
What about this Supreme Court filling?
U.S. Supreme Court
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
McPherson v. Blacker
No. 1170
Argued Oct. 11, 1892
Decided Oct. 17, 1892
146 U.S. 1
Syllabus
The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.
Electors =/= Elections
Repeating yourself doesn’t make your argument stronger.
If passed, hr1 would invalidate Georgia’s election law, and the voter reform act passed in other States, and it would seem those States might want to challenge and draw one in the supreme Court. 20 Republican senators have said that it’s unconstitutional. But I understand that there’s a provision in h1 that would make it impossible for the Supreme Court to hear the challenge. Is that true? And wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?
it would be mandating the place of chusing thoufgh, which they have no power to do
