Biden’s Blind Spot: “Our Constitutional Principles” Include State Rights Over Elections

Below is my column in The Hill on the selective reliance on “our constitutional principles” has become in the voting rights debate. The Biden Administration and the media often ignore countervailing principles over the right of states to establish rules governing elections. That leaves many in the public uninformed of issues that could ultimately undo parts of these bills in the courts.

Here is the column:

As the fight over election reform heats up in Congress, the White House is ramping up the rhetoric, declaring that President Biden and Vice President Harris are “incensed by the anti-voter laws that are trampling on our constitutional principles.” It is a mantra repeated on an array of liberal news sites, but the coverage tends to be selective in what constitutional principles are being abridged. “Our constitutional principles” include state power over elections.

While the president decries an “unprecedented attack on democracy,” the federalization of elections being pursued by Democrats actually would contravene what the Framers considered a core protection of democracy. By ignoring those countervailing principles, the Democrats are creating a dangerous blind spot in these proposed laws. The resulting litigation could leave core election rules in doubt heading into the next round of elections.

When the Constitution was written, the Framers expressly warned of the need to keep the federal government at bay in elections. South Carolina constitutional convention delegate Charles Pinckney noted that “great care was used to provide for the election of the president of the United States independently of Congress; to take the business as far as possible out of their hands.” It was done, he explained, because Congress “had no right to meddle with it at all.” Many Framers feared the power of the central government and wanted to prevent the abuses of Great Britain in the use of executive powers.

This view was reflected in the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, which confines the power of Congress to determining “the day on which [electors] give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Where Congress is left with the timing of such elections, states are left the manner in which those elections are held.

Not only did this state control over elections advance the purpose of decentralization of authority, it reflected the strong federalism principles in the Constitution. States were viewed as “laboratories of democracy,” with each pursuing different approaches to governmental functions, including elections. They also were closest to the voters, who could more readily change laws and policies on the state level.

These are “constitutional principles” that framed the system of elections in the United States, but they are routinely ignored in Democratic calls to pass these laws to “defend democracy.” The failure to consider these countervailing principles has left many voters unaware of the likely constitutional challenges if even one of two election reform laws are passed. The Constitution protects the right to vote but also the right of states to set the manner of voting. You cannot protect one by negating the other. If states deprive “millions” of voters of the right to vote, as claimed by Democrats, then they will be stopped by the courts.

The problem for Democrats is that not only are voter-identification laws popular with voters but are likely to be upheld by the courts, along with other provisions dictating conditions for voting. Absent a federal takeover of elections, laws like the one in Georgia are likely to be upheld.

In McPherson v. Blacker (1892), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that line of state control in holding that the Constitution “leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively” how a state conducts presidential elections and stressing that the state legislature’s power “can neither be taken away nor abdicated.” There may be more leeway on congressional elections, since the Elections Clause expressly gives Congress the power to “make or alter such regulations.” However, the clause still leaves to the states the primary role in establishing the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections. But the Democrats’ proposed changes would sweep across all state and federal elections and flip the balance of the Constitution.

Many of us have long encouraged Congress to use its spending powers to create better election practices. Congress has spent billions, but problems continue. Congress could condition funding on uniform election practices, but many states could well decline federal funds rather than surrender control over elections. Moreover, by withholding massive funds or imposing duties on states, Congress could cross the line into unconstitutional “commandeering” or “coercion” of the states.

The two main House bills seek just such a sweeping federalization of elections. The “For the People Act” (H.R. 1), for example, would negate state laws on voter identification and vote-curing rules and “ballot harvesting,” bar the purging of voter lists, dictate registration and removal conditions, and impose other federal rules in a massive 800-page takeover of elections.

The “John Lewis Voting Rights” Act (H.R. 4) is equally comprehensive. It seeks to negate the Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down the coverage formula for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The law would not only impose a new interpretation that places states again under federal controls but would impose pre-clearance limits for all states for changes that impact minority voters, from the setting of political boundaries to the imposing of voter-ID rules to using “at large” districts.

Key provisions in both bills would collide headlong into Supreme Court cases. For example, Democrats want to force the disclosure of super PACs and “dark money” groups, despite Supreme Court cases holding that anonymity is a protected part of political speech. (Just last month the Court voted 6-3 to strike down California’s donor-disclosure law.) They also seek a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision in Citizen’s United, which upheld the free speech rights of corporations.

To justify such intervention in an area of state control, Democrats and legal experts redefine what is a violation of state election authority. However, the Constitution is a bit more difficult to “re-imagine” than policing or education. Indeed, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority, struck down the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 to a state law. The court held that “Congress does not enforce a constitutional right by changing what the right is.” Kennedy stated that the court has been the final arbiter of what the law means since Marbury v. Madison and it is not in Congress’s power “to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.” (Not to be outdone, various legal experts are calling not just for court-packing but challenging the very concept of judicial review.)

In today’s political environment, even raising such countervailing constitutional principles risks being denounced as a racist. It is an all-too-familiar pattern, as politicians and the media dismiss constitutional concerns. The result is that, when courts inevitably overturn provisions, some citizens are again enraged — not at the Constitution’s drafters but at judges.

President Biden may be “incensed by the … trampling on our constitutional principles,” but you cannot be selective in your outrage or your principles. The Constitution works as an indivisible whole to bring balance and to protect against the concentration of power in our electoral system. We will not be able to address election controversies until we agree to respect all — not just some — of our constitutional principles.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

211 thoughts on “Biden’s Blind Spot: “Our Constitutional Principles” Include State Rights Over Elections”

  1. The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution prescribing an election is a “Day,” one “Day” – nothing more, nothing less.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  2. Turley Disengenous (As Usual)

    Since Trump’s defeat, Republicans have been very busy changing election laws. In 8 states Republicans are changing laws to give (Republican) legislatures the power to overrule established election officials. It seems that Secretarys Of State and County Election boards cannot be trusted to support election lies. Professor Turley, however, is not inclined to address these irregular efforts.

    1. perhaps you should learn how to spell before you use such big words that you obviously don’t understand

      1. Gray Anonymous, you’re the one Alan keeps calling ‘stupid’. And Alan knows you’re a fellow Trumper. But he calls you ‘stupid’ anyway.

        1. No, yellow anonymous. You are trying to hide your true identity. That particular gray anonymous knows, I know and most everyone else knows.


          1. No, Gray Anonymous. Alan is very clear about who he means is stupid. And you most certainly fit the description. Don’t pretend Alan means someone else.

            1. “Alan is very clear about who he means is stupid”

              You clearly are.

              1. Gray Anonymous,

                Alan might be be a crabby old bore. But he has been strikingly honest in his assessment of you. Alan knows you have been a drag on these comment threads. And Alan has said so many times. Despite advancing feeblness, Alan nails it every time he describes you as ‘Anonymous The Stupid’.

                1. You are playing the same game you always play. That you have a new icon doesn’t make you any smarter, but at least you now have a consistent icon even if you use others.

                  Anyone can compare what I write under S. Meyer to what you write under this alias or your others. I don’t have to define yellow anonymous because we know who is writing when the icon appears. Of course if you wish to act Stupid do so. You can be known that way as easily as you can be known as yellow anonymous.

                  Why don’t you add a bit of on topic content of your own and demonstrate that you can be known as something other than Stupid.

                  This time I will use my name and icon so it is clear. I don’t normally use it with those that litter the blog with stupidity.

                  1. Shut up, Meyer! You’re besmirching Alan’s good name. Alan may not be as sharp as he was, but he has more integrity than you.

    2. State constitutions identify the legislature as responsible for elections. The Legislature has delegated some of those powers. The Legislature is taking that power back. A large motivating factor was Secretary’s of state and County election boards abuse of their power by implementing election procedures in direct violation of laws passed by the legislature. Judges refused to support the election laws on the books. The Legislature has, rightly so, taken power away from the abusers. The people, as always will be the final arbiters.

      1. Iowan, before you praise this effort, realize that Democrats might someday take those legislatures. Then the shoe could be on the other foot. Nevertheless we don’t want ‘any’ legislature overturning the will of state voters.

        1. Nevertheless we don’t want ‘any’ legislature overturning the will of state voters.
          Investigating irregularities of handling vote tallys, is the very definition of protecting the will of the voters.
          You should have noticed i clearly said the voters will be the final arbiters.
          All of this would never had come to light if county election officials and the Secretary of State had simply followed the law.

          1. Iowan, no court, in any state, has prosecuted County Election Officials for ‘failure to follow the law’.

    3. What a ——- nut job.

      State legislatures, exclusively, conduct federal elections, with the sole exception of Congress setting the time and date.

      In the first election in 1788, states imposed voter criteria as male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres on the time and date set by Congress.

      Voter presentation at a polling place and voter identification and certification is understood.

      Elections are controlled.

      Elections in America occur on one “Day” and are controlled by state legislatures.

      The concept is really quite simple, unless your intent is to cheat, as is the case with communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America.

    4. “In 8 states Republicans are changing laws to give (Republican) legislatures the power to overrule established election officials.”
      A fifth grader knows that legislators trump “established election officials” ( i.e., bureaucrats) each and every time. You don’t like democracy? Fine. But at least get the hierarchy straight. Oh and those laws actually don’t limit voting; they just insure integrity of the voter – an anathema to Dims, I understand.

    5. “. . . Republicans are changing laws to give (Republican) legislatures the power to overrule established election officials.”

      You are seriously confused.

      A state’s power to enact election laws derives from Federal and State constitutions. Such laws are not decreed by “election officials.” Those officials are empowered to *execute* laws that are passed by a state legislature.

      Civics 101: Legislatures pass laws. Executives execute them.

  3. Anonymous the Stupid, you seem to be making one Stupid point after another without saying anything. Are you able to deal with tangible arguments or are you relegated to the he-l of one dumb argument after another.

  4. A “Day” is a single 24-hour period.

    A “Day” is not a minute before the “Day,” or a minute after the “Day.”

    Vote-by-mail is unconstitutional because it is impossible for elections to be conducted through the mail in one “Day’s” time, according to the Constitution.

    The vote was a solemn affair to be taken absolutely seriously by those few who were “entitled” to present themselves at a polling place and vote.

    The Founders never intended for every citizen to vote.

    The Founders did not require that every citizen vote.

    The Founders understood that the vote mattered relatively little, as the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution holds dominion.

    The vote existed merely to elect the designated number of officials whose duty it was to implement, support and perpetuate the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

    Voters must present and certify at voting places on the “Day” of the election, per fundamental law.

    The Founders/Framers established a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democracy.

    Restricted voting was the clear intent of the Founders and Framers.

    Voters in 1788 must have been male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres.

    Turnout was 11.6% by design in the Founders/Framers’ first election of 1788.

    The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (4 iterations reveal they meant it) required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” a defacto restriction on voters and voting.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America propagate the lie that the vote was implemented to enable them to “…vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.”

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America want common Americans to believe that the Constitution guarantees that they can vote themselves an endless supply of “benefits,” “entitlements” and various and sundry “free stuff.”

    One man, one vote democracy is impossible and always ends in dictatorship.

    America has arrived.

    Chaos America, 2021 is living proof.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    – Alexander Fraser Tytler

    Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

  5. There is no longer Constitutional respect from the left and its Democrat operators. They are looking toward totalitarianism.

  6. Right…and voter ID laws are really “trampling on our constitutional principles.” The Democrats are propagandizing through a very thin veil. Hopefully, most Americans will not be as blind as some on this forum. Federalizing election law is just one tactic in the long strategy of capturing the center. They’re also going after local police departments, with the upcoming Soros-funded abolition ballot amendment being the test case. The Party that controls the means to vote and the means of force…well, it then controls everything.

  7. Voting rights are not in question. That’s already defined as any citizen 18 years older who is not a felon or deemed incompetent by a Court.

    The issue is that Democrats oppose every attempt to prevent voter fraud. They oppose voter ID, and call it racist, although most black people support voter ID. Voter ID laws are not associated with lower black turnout. But Democrats just keep repeating the claim that voter ID is racist, because people don’t do their own research.

    Democrats now want nationwide mail in voting, although it is associated with a high risk of fraud. They used to agree on this internationally known fact. t

    Democrats oppose efforts to stop vote harvesting. The only thing preventing someone from throwing away ballots is the integrity of strangers.

    There is consistent fraud and elder abuse in “helpers” filling out ballots for the elderly in old age homes. In TX, Dems and Repubs came together in a rare moment of unity, when they created a law that would turn nursing homes into polling places, with poll workers. This was to address the rampant problem of nursing home workers filling out ballots against the elderly voters’ wishes. ( Nationwide, there is an effort on the Left to claim that this well-documented voter fraud does not exist.

    The states have the Constitutional right to develop their own election rules, responsive to the will of the people. Yet here the Left government goes again, disregarding the Constitution, demanding that the Democrats shall set the rules for the entire nation, in a manner that would allow fraud.

    Over and over again, Democrats accuse Republicans of what they, themselves, are guilty of. Going against the Constitution is a common example.

    1. Karen: You need to stop. Democrats do not oppose voter ID laws. They oppose rules limiting what ID voters can use, like student IDs with photos, for example, or forcing people to go to the BMV for a photo ID.

      Several states use mail in voting exclusively. There is absolutely NO evidence of fraud with mail in voting. That’s a Trump lie.

      There is no proof of “vote harvesting” going on either.

      All you do is repeat what you heard on alt-right media you tune into for daily affirmation.

      1. what ID voters can use, like student IDs with photos, for example,
        Student ID does not provide legal address.
        Going to the DMV is not a burden. It would be a fraction of the burden the govt force citizens to endure to purchase a gun. An enumerated right, that is not to be infringed.

        I have dispatched with the current talking points provided to you. Maybe your betters will give you a few more talking points.

  8. Anyone here remember the good old days when the Choice Architects were merely nudging our behavior towards better decisions? That soft paternalism has morphed into hardcore authoritarianism. By their actions, Democrats are no longer feigning fidelity to our constitution. They have decided the 2020 election was the last act of a dying constitutional republic or the death of the Democratic party.

    It’s time for the American people to put down the popcorn and stand up for the republic.

    1. They are beginning to stand up. The school board meeting I was at last night was pretty rambunctious. Respectful but spirited. I hope these parents and community members keep coming with fire in their souls.

  9. State jurisdiction over federal authority does NOT apply if individual constitutional rights are being violated. Congress has the constitutional authority (under Article I powers) and a sworn duty “to enforce the U.S. Constitution” if voters’ rights are being violated. Ratified in 1789.

    1. Ashcroft, the SCOTUS determines if Constitutional rights are being abridged and the most recent case out of AZ tells us that you are waving strawmen at us. GA and TX are not promulgating any laws that affect any minority differently than anyone else. THERE IS NO DISPARATE TREATMENT.

    2. Ashcroft, must mean that the requirement in New Hampshire for voter ID is unconstitutional. You know, the great state represented by his hero Joe Biden. Ashcroft must mean the unconstitutional no early voting allowed in New Hampshire. Ashcroft must have overlooked the four weeks of early voting in Georgia. Ashcroft some how finds the idea of vote harvesting in the constitution. Ashcroft could have done a little research to apply to his thinking but he didn’t. Ashcroft just gets up in the morning and takes his Solent Blue pill just like he’s told to. Good boy Ashcroft. Good boy.

  10. Excellent and scholarly article. There was a time when people would have nodded in approval. It’s cute that the professor still thinks these people have any sense of duty to the law. They don’t.

    The Court said federal bans on evictions are not lawful. They aren’t. But you see what is happening. That is only a small part of the lawlessness going on.

    In many ways courts are to blame for this attitude. For decades they have been treating Law as if it were Play Doh that can be molded to fit any current ’emergency’ or fashion. Now others have taken the hint. To them the courts are just obstructive, old hacks to be ignored when a decision doesn’t go their way. They have the Play Doh in their hands now.

    1. Anyone who has seen children work with Play Doh knows it gets rock hard after a while and is extremely difficult to make workable again.

  11. Excellent article. One comment – at one time there was a children’s rhyme – “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” WHO CARES if someone is called a “racist” for standing for what is right? Calling people names has become a racist tactic used by the real racists, those who put race over everything else.

  12. Turley’s idea of constitutional principles must be a POTUS calling states to “find” votes. How about getting the DOJ to declare corruption? How about getting sham audits? And what constitutional principles was it to have members of congress vote against the counting of votes? What principles was it to have taxpayer money go into the pocket of Trumps? Turley has some nerve talking about constitutional principles when he defended a POTUS who had no principles whatsoever in all American Presidential history.

    1. I think it’s time for Jonathan to leave the Democratic Party, they are tyrants.

    2. Ever notice that FISH stinks?
      Hey Fishwings, care to comment on the electoral issues at hand vis a vis the Constitution? Care to opine on Biden’s having his pet CDC take over property with banning evictions, an act that everyone (except Lawrence Tribe) knows is contra to the Constitution? Nope, this person only wants to talk about Trump!!!

    3. How about getting the DOJ to declare corruption? — FishWings

      LOL, the pot calling the kettle black…

      The primary reason I read Dr. Turley is simply because he is principled. He doesn’t ignore or misrepresent inconvenient facts when they conflict with his political views. We may not always agree, but he has earned my respect.

      Which is refreshing after four years of Democratic politicians, intelligence operatives and their useful idiots crying over Hillary’s “stolen” election — enduring the hysterics, misrepresentations of fact and attempts to manufacture evidence against him, I must confess to developing a grudging respect for President Trump. Watching Democrats descend into the madness of Trump Derangement Syndrome so deeply that Lindsey Graham began sounding reasonable in comparison during the Kavanaugh hearings was simply… unbelievable.

      And now you decry vote audits in swing states as a “sham” despite actual circumstantial, statistical and anecdotal evidence that something was amiss in the last election? That Voter ID laws are some nefarious plot to suppress minority voters when over 70% of all Americans consistently, in poll after poll, support Voter ID laws, including minorities?

      What about the principle that we should avoid even the appearance of impropriety? What about transparency and accountability in our electoral process? What about restoring the public’s confidence in the principle of “one man, one vote”?

      Riddle me this: What do Democrats have to hide?

      1. I must confess to developing a grudging respect for President Trump.

        This precisely encapsulates my personal, political evolution over the course of the Trump presidency. With so many (and such particular) forces arrayed against him, I ended up amazed that he was still standing at the end, even though he was not remotely my choice at the start. (And, with such particular forces brought to bear against him with such stupefying and deafening unity, in the face of easy-to-verify counterfactuals, I was moved to look deeper into their arguments and realize that a good nine out of ten times it was he and not his opponents who was speaking accurately and acting in accord with our laws and customs, no matter how loudly they proclaimed that he was the one demolishing norms.)

        I still wouldn’t want him as a neighbor, I don’t think, but if I had to point at the fascist in the room it obviously wouldn’t be Trump.

  13. The 15th Amendment and others gives Congress the power to enforce voting rights. When states punt into place laws that disenfranchise otherwise eligible votes Congress needs to strip up. JT leaves this out.

    1. You might want to actually read it. By the way, NONE of the state laws mentioned fall under this category. ANYONE who is registered in ANY state can vote. They just have to prove who they are and follow state laws, such as voting in person at specified polling places.

    2. When states punt into place laws that disenfranchise otherwise eligible votes
      Name one.

  14. Biden is a dishonest piece of garbage. He doesn’t have a principled bone in his body other than the principles of self enrichment and self aggrandizement. Pointing out the inconsistencies implies surprise at how he is behaving. There is nothing to be surprised at. He is fortunate that the vast majority of the press is the same dishonest garbage and gives him cover for the never ending stream of lies that emanates from him and his minions.

  15. Lefties thrive in chaos.

    Regardless of the consequences, they will upend our governance to grab power.

    As an aside, read some of the Lefty posts on this blog. Up is down and wrong is right.

    Many Lefties are intellectually dishonest.

  16. The Democrats push to Federalize Presidential and Congressional Elections is every bit as dangerous as Trump’s involvement in January 6th insurrection to the future of our Democracy. All any future President would need to remain in power would be a Congress of the same party. We need more checks on Washington D.C.’s power (President and Congress) not less.

  17. How can I ” vote early and often” if my state requires me to show up at a polling place with my photo ID in order to cast my ballot?
    The Dems are in favor of my multi vote fraud. Aren’t they?

    1. No they aren’t! Early and often is a joke and you know it. Democrats are in favor of stopping voter suppression and allowing people to vote. Republicans want to pick their voters.

      1. JH, it’s time to reread the Constitution. Professor Turley is correct!

        1. He’s read it, he just doesn’t care. His namesake is spinning like a turboprop in his grave

      2. JH – I hoping this isn’t a repost. Google returned an error when I tried to post at first.

        What “voter suppression” are you talking about? Permission to require voter ID? Permission to cleanse registered voter rolls of dead or relocated voters? Permission to validate ballots based on date of posting/arrival and/or chain of custody? Whose legal vote would be suppressed by these measures?

        On the other side, please – truly I’m asking – put on your “Republican conspiracy theory” hat and try to consider thoughtfully, actually thoughtfully, the potential effects of these measures supported by Democrat lawmakers:

        * Prohibition on requiring a voter to show a government-issued ID or be vouched for or in some other way to provide reasonable proof that s/he is the person on the registered-voter list.

        * Permission – or requirement – to allow same-day voter registration, without requirement that these registrations be verified as real, unique, and legal voters in the district.

        * Prohibition on cleanup of voter rolls, thus allowing me to vote not only in my now-home state but also in the important swing state I moved from.

        * Permission – or universal requirement – to allow mail-in balloting on a “push” basis, thus allowing friends of mine to vote not only in the important swing state they moved to, but also in their prior home state where they retain a house. (They said their daughters, who still live in that house and are as true-blue as they are, would undoubtedly do the right thing and toss those unneeded ballots… not that it would matter in that state. But what if their living situation were reversed?)

        * Permission – or requirement – to count all received ballots as valid, regardless of when they are postmarked/when they arrived/whether there is any kind of chain of custody to indicate they are validly cast.

        * Permission – or requirement – to disallow poll watchers.

        * Support for unsupervised ballot drop boxes.

        Can you see how these measures, theoretically proposed to provide an easier path to voting for those who aren’t currently bothering, can also dramatically increase the potential for election shenanigans? Can you stretch your mind further to see how some Republicans can reasonably wonder whether that effect is, for Democrat lawmakers, a feature (and maybe even a primary feature) rather than simply an unintended consequence? And that the resistance of Democrat lawmakers to any sort of mitigating action against that unintended consequence suggests that maybe it isn’t unintended after all?

      3. Uh, you might want to do some historial research. Democrats have been involved in fraudulent elections since Andy Jackson was in the White House. It’s a well-known fact that the Chicago Mob ran the 1960 elections in Illinois and put JFK in the White House,

      4. “Early and often is a joke”

        That statement is not a joke. It has been superceded by ballot stuffing and over counting votes.

        A lot of statistics demonstrate voter suppression is not a problem, but undercounting and over counting along with phony ballots is. Very few people actually believe what you say but many that don’t believe say it anyway. Dishonesty is prevalent on the left.

  18. Biden is establishing an illicit position of power he does not have the right to and illegally exercising power he does not have, by using the tried and true method of successful coups, “acting as if.”
    The Constitution hasn’t changed.
    It’s been revoked for 90% of the People of this country.
    The Constitution has been replaced by the left via carefully crafted media propaganda, social media and governmental indoctrination with the Rule of Fiat and the Rule of Whatever It Takes, To Seize and Hold Power, as the governing documents of The 21st Century United States.
    Elected and appointed officials are unabatedly illegally, illicitly seizing and comandeering power, rights and authority they do not have, and exercising their will and agenda as if they do, while aggressively upping the ante of violence, hate and fear against anyone who questions them, challenges them, objects, exercises dissent or God forbid DARES to exercise their now defunct Constitutional Rights.
    The Constitution has been hijacked and replaced with a hollow impostor that is being used against The American to fundementally transform America into a New combination of The Fourth Reich and A Stalinist/Maoist Utopia because, one, facist, totalitarian death cult political system just isn’t enough to embrace and incorporate the depth and caliber of evil the Democrats have planned for The United States.
    All because the prissy, gutless, sniveling, quaking Neville Chamberlain cowards in government, handed Constitutional power over piece by piece to treasonous criminal strong arming coup extortionists like Czechoslovakia was handed over to Hitler, in exchange for faux peace, a fake veneer of safety, for not rattling their self righteous polarized hypocritical moral self image by accusing them, for not calling them names, not threatening their jobs, not labeling them racist and not outing them for being the like minded collaborators they really are.
    The despicable cowards who swore an Oath to preserve protect and defend The Constitution and The Constitutional Republic are unwilling and incapable of honoring their pledge, their Oath and fulfilling their duty to use their legitimate Constitutional Authorty to do something.
    This is how the “as if” becomes the “is now.” Because no one stops them when they can.
    No dictatorship in history EVER seized absolute power and established itself with the intention of coexisting with anyone they deem a threat to their securing and preserving their hold on power and the Democrat left has made it clear they are not going to change that basic tenet of tyranny now.
    The People have the Right to Self Defense.
    When the Law and those whose duty it is to preserve protect and defend The Constitutional Republic and It’s People fail, then it’s The Peoples turn to take matters into their own heavily armed hands.
    This time in American History is what the guns are for.

    1. Perfect…just perfect. For some people in this country violence is always the answer. It’s appalling. It’s dangerous.

      1. Hmmm, let’s see now. Wasn’t the United States the result of VIOLENT revolution? Has ANY country ever been changed without revolution?

      2. For some people in this country violence is always the answer.

        That’s quite a statement following on the the heels of the summer of love. Violent and deadly riots across the Nation, Dozens of cities, 100’s of murders, and 10’s of thousands of violent felonies.
        What does Kamala Harris say? Yes it’s happening, it should be happening and it’s not going to stop

        Yes the Democrats for their KKK to todays BLM and antifa, using violence to terrorize the people.

  19. It’s becoming very clear that, in the minds of progressives and their social justice warrior foot soldiers, the Constitution is just an archaic hindrance put in the way of progressives getting their way and they have absolutely no problem making the Constitution completely irrelevant by constantly b a s t a r d i z i n g it into oblivion.

    To SJW’s the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are flawed because of who wrote them and antiquated because of when they were written regardless of the actual content of the documents.

    Social Justice Warriors: The 21st Century Scourge

  20. BIDEN and his Legal/SOCIALIST ADVISORS view the Constitution as being in their way. SO they make up what it says. Lawerence Tribe/Garland are Radical Leftist. They try to be BULLIEs. They know they will lose in the courts and in the Supreme Court. They have proven they will ignore the Supreme Court ruling unless its what they want. They know, unless they get their way, come 2022 its going to be a wipe out for the DEEM’s and Biden.

    1. And of course your lord and savior Trump was a law abiding paragon! Give it a rest.

      1. President Trump was not, is not, a “Lord and savior”, but it would be nice if you and others who constantly complain that he broke laws to enumerate exactly WHAT laws he broke. I have never seen you or anyone else do that. All you and others of your inclination only rant “he broke laws, he is a fascist (obviously without knowing what a fascist is), he is authoritarian, etc. And I am not talking about his (Trumps) constant use of hyperbole.

        1. Well Karen, there’s this law and that law and who knows how many times he broke them.

Comments are closed.