Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law

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. I am making a good MONEY (500$ to 700$ / hr )online on my Ipad .Last month my pay check of nearly 30 k$.This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not go to office.PRw I d0 not claim to be others,I just work. You will call yourself after doing this JOB,It’s a REAL job.Will be very lucky to refer to this WEBSITE.

    I hope,you can find s0mething………..>>>>► http://money32.ezyro.com/

  2. I love science. Scientists, especially the great ones (e.g., Newton, Pasteur), have made human life immeasurably better. Vaccines in particular are a magnificent achievement. (Conspiracy theories about them are based on superstition and ignorance.)

    That said, the Left needs to stop spreading panic, lies, and half-truths about Covid, about immunity, about the vaccines. You need to stop hectoring people. Persuade them; don’t try to shame them. You are not helping your, otherwise noble, cause. And you are actually harming science.

    Here is just one half-truth that is being used to create irrational fear and to shame people: That the proliferation of Covid variants is caused by the unvaccinated — that the unvaccinated cause more Covid variants to appear. Such statements reveal a glaring ignorance about *how* and *why* viruses mutate. If you do not understand the “how” and the “why” (especially for this type of virus), then please just stay out of the debate.

    One obvious fact should give you pause, before making such an irresponsible and harmful claim: Each year, the composition of the flu vaccine changes. Why? Because the flu strains change, i.e., the virus mutates. Why might a virus mutate? To get around a host’s defenses — i.e., to penetrate immunity, natural or vaccinated.

    Such facts about viral evolution have been known for decades.

  3. Sure the State’s rights. Lets pretend we don’t notice all the ignorant people around who have worked their way towards the levers of power and who have also never opened any American History book, much less Samuel Eliot Morrison’s. I suppose given the stopping of the Gulf Stream and the impending effects on civilization, none of this melodrama really matters. America becomes fascist, ruled by the power-mad? Big deal. that’s just how much of the world functions already.

    1. How may of the same posts will ATS make? He gets Yahoo news but doesn’t know what it says or means. He likes to post headlines absent any human thought.

  6. “Vocal anti-vaccine broadcaster dies from COVID-19 complications”

    “Friends say Dick Farrel encouraged them to get the vaccine after he was infected”

    https://www.wptv.com/lifestyle/taste-and-see/vocal-anti-vaccine-broadcaster-dies-from-covid-19-complications

    “WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Former South Florida talk show host Dick Farrel, known and beloved by fans for his over-the-top right-wing opinions, has died from complications from COVID-19.

    “On Facebook, Farrel advocated against getting the coronavirus vaccine and was skeptical of Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, and his recommendations concerning the coronavirus. Friends said after contracting the virus he changed his point of view.” -T.A. Walker

    2. From the WPTV article:

      ‘”COVID took one of my best friends! RIP Dick Farrel. He is the reason I took the shot. He texted me and told me to ‘Get it!’ He told me this virus is no joke and he said, “I wish I had gotten it!” said Farrel’s close friend Amy Leigh Hair on her Facebook page. She told WPTV, “I was one of one the people like him who didn’t trust the vaccine. I trusted my immune system. I just became more afraid of getting COVID-19 than I was of any possible side effects of the vaccine. I’m glad I got vaccinated.”‘

      As Lindsay Graham said recently:

      “No one’s being asked to go off to fight radical Islam or fight a foreign enemy. We’re being asked to make responsible medical decisions. Take the vaccine.”

      Trump was vaccinated. Get vaccinated.

      1. “Get vaccinated.”

        Thank you for considering *my* health history and *my* current health status.

        It is blind decrees like that that destroy your (and Fauci’s) credibility. As does the fact that he attempts to take credit for the accomplishments of others, is a power-luster, a pathological liar, a megalomaniac — and endorses science in the service of a dictatorship (China). How quickly people forget the scientists who supported Nazism.

        1. ‘Thank you for considering *my* health history and *my* current health status.’

          It’s not all about you, Sam, but I’ll amend what was said:

          Trump was vaccinated. Get vaccinated — if your doctor gives you the go-ahead. Consult with your doctor, first.

          1. “It’s not all about you, Sam . . .”

            When it comes to *my* health, it sure the hell is.

            It’s about each *individual’s* health — which the collectivist Left blithely dismisses.

              1. If you got jabbed just shut up & mind your own biddness. The Jabbed have nothing to worry about, correct? Or do they….

                SamFox

              2. Actually, it sounds like Sam detests collectivists who use a health “emergency” to usurp individual rights, to destroy an economy, and to plunge Americans into despair. If that’s having a “chip” on my shoulder, then I wear it, proudly.

                1. Sam is one of those guys who thinks that he’s smarter than everyone else — a guy with all the answers.

                  1. One of the sad consequences of living in an anti-intellectual culture is that the personal attacks are witless, repetitive, boring.

                    At least try to craft one that I didn’t hear in the schoolyard.

    3. Anonymous the Stupid is in love with anecdotes. He doesn’t understand what an anecdote is or what it means. That, plus only looking at headlines, makes for pretty dumb commenting.

      Farrell was in the high-risk group, so IMO he should have gotten the vaccine. He took a risk and paid the price. Some people climb mountains, race cars and motorcycles, and some swim the English Channel. They all take risks, but at least they lived and lived free lives instead of doing the bidding of bureaucrats like Fauci, who should never have been a leader for this disease at this time. Fauci’s lack of quality for this type of situation is well documented.

    1. The author is “a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

      The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, socialism, constitutional reform, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

      In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.

      Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. -Wikipedia

      1. “The Heartland Institute . . .”

        If that’s supposed to be a counter-argument, you need a refresher course on fallacies.

        1. Don’t expect counterarguments from Anonymous the Stupid. He has a name that immediately tells you that nothing he says is worthwhile.

      2. Anonymous the Stupid, how is that responding to the article? It isn’t yet you post this and it doesn’t even includeHaas’ name.

    2. “Attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science.” (Fauci)

      Spoken like a true megalomaniac.

  8. If one wants an education they read Sowell. The left for almost 60 years has been unable to debate him because he deals in facts not feelings..

  9. Jonathan: Racial entitlement has always been a big part of our electoral system. Poll taxes and voter ID laws, and outright violence, have been used to prevent Black people from voting. William F. Buckley, a strong advocate for racial preferences. wrote an essay “Why The South Must Prevail” where he said whites are “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally”. Buckley believed whites are part of the “advanced race”. The Electoral College, that Buckley liked just fine, was a compromise to permit Southern slave-owning states to have an outsized influence on the history of the country. The Framers of the Constitution, many of whom were slave owners, feared popular democracy in which the President would be chosen by the popular vote. So the Electoral College is a part of our racist past and needs to be eliminated.

    Fast forward to last year’s election when, in states like Georgia, black voters took advantage of mail-in voting to push Biden over the finish line. That was an earthquake in electoral politics. Trump immediately recognized the problem. He knew that if Black and other minorities were allowed to vote in large number the GOP’s chances to prevail in close elections was in jeopardy. That’s why he fought so hard to overturn the election in Georgia and other states–going as far as to incite an insurrection on Jan. 6. So to prevent a repetition of the GOP debacle last year Republicans in states like Georgia have passed new Jim Crowe era voter suppression laws. In Georgia it is illegal for election officials to mail out absentee ballot applications to all voters. Drop ballot boxes still exist but have been greatly reduced–especially in Black neighborhoods. Under the new law it is a crime to offer water to Black voters waiting to vote in long lines in the hot Georgia sun. The law also gives the GOP state legislature the right to remove any county election official when the vote does not favor the GOP candidate. This goes way beyond the “manner of voting” you talk about in your column. It is an attempt to follow the old white supremacy playbook–if you can’t win in an open, fair and free election then suppress the vote!

    In support of these racist voting laws you say voter ID laws are “popular” with voters. That’s true but grossly misleading. According to a recent Monmouth poll voters do favor voter ID laws (81%). What the poll also indicates that 71% say in-person voting should be made easier. And 69% favor favor electoral changes that would mandate early voting and mail-in voting in every state for federal elections. These are measures being pushed by the Dems. I can’t find any poll that supports the voter suppression laws–like in Georgia. In a recent Gallop poll 61% of voters support the abolition of the Electoral College.

    In your skewed and erroneous interpretation of what the Framers intended it appears you are the one with a “blind spot”. You are apparently keenly aware your defense of racist voting suppression laws makes you vulnerable to the “risks of being denounced as a racist”. I say if the shoe fits wear it!

    1. “Why The South Must Prevail” where he said whites are “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally”. Buckley believed whites are part of the “advanced race”

      Dennis, you tend to link many things together and present things in a fashion appealing to you that may or may not be true. Truth doesn’t seem to be your objective, so you prefer to use your created words over the more reasonable approach of using the words and intent used by those you speak about.

      I do not intend to defend Buckley. His writing and history can defend what he said better than I can and certainly represent the truth better than you can do concerning what he said.

      Understand, I don’t agree with everything Buckley said or did. Some of that disagreement might have something to do with the fact that the world doesn’t remain static. It changes with time, as do the people. Leftists tend to distort reality, time and place.

      I will not defend what was in that article, nor do I know if anything needs defending. I am only going to deal with what I know about it. I guess you never read it, so whatever you say is likely grossly flavored by the left of today, who by any standards are far more racist than is acceptable by the norms of the times you are referring to.

      What proof do you have that Bill Buckley wrote the article? We can presume you have none.

      “a strong advocate for racial preferences.”

      This statement can mean many things. Those on the left advocating affirmative action can be said to have racial preferences.

      “advanced race”

      You put that in quotes. Whose quotes were they? Did they come from the article? What does “advanced race” mean. Were the Aztecs an advanced race compared to many other Indian tribes in the western hemisphere?

      You linked Buckley to the electoral college and spoke for him. I should say you spoke for yourself rather than him. The attitude of saying whatever you want about another person should not be looked upon kindly.

      “prevail … culturally”

      Most important and entirely forgotten by the left is culture. Do you think all cultures are identical? Do you believe results are not impacted by culture? That is a problem with the left. They blame everything on racism, forgetting culture plays an important part. If one looks at different cultures in the world, one will note the effect one’s culture has on their successes and failures.

      Dennis, I don’t want to bore you with a lengthy discussion of culture because not only will you be bored, but angered as well. Culture, in your mind, has no right to challenge the left’s continuous total focus on racism that the left is promoting while we speak.

      (Please note I didn’t read the following paragraphs because I didn’t want the urge to respond to them, so if anything further was mentioned about Buckley, please forgive me.)

      1. S. Meyer: I forgot to mention that for all of you out there who are loyal Trump followers you don’t want to miss Trump’s latest merchandise promotion, i.e., scam. For a minimum donation of $50 you can get the “Trump Official Card”. You have a choice between 4 different versions. One of the cards is labelled “Offical Card”. Apparently in an effort to get the cards out ASAP Trump failed to spell check. Never one of his strong suits. Maybe it should have just been called the “Fecal Card”. Another card features a golden eagle that some say closely resembles the imperial eagle of the Nazis. The promo doesn’t say what benefits, if any, go with the card. But a word of warning! You will probably be disappointed if you try to use the “Trump Official Card” for a discount when you next dine at the Trump Grill in the Trump Tower. I mean business is business!

        1. “S. Meyer: I forgot to mention that for all of you out there who are loyal Trump followers you don’t want to miss Trump’s latest merchandise promotion, i.e., scam. For a minimum donation of $50”

          Dennis Trump supporters are real. They will pay $50 and more to support Trump even if the token present has no financial value.
          On the other hand, Biden supporters frequently had to be paid to make sure they voted for Biden. …And what did those Biden supporters get? A senile President whose brainpower is worth less than a piece of paper that acknowledges thanks.

    2. What the poll also indicates that 71% say in-person voting should be made easier. And 69% favor favor electoral changes that would mandate early voting and mail-in voting in every state for federal elections.
      Do you even think about this stuff, or just cut and paste talking points sent to you.

      If 69% want extended voting, all they have to do is elect people to the state legislature that will write that law. The Feds cant mandate it. It is specifically an enumerated power to the States to manage elections.
      (Oh. The has NEVER been a federal election. Its no wonder leftist are so confused about everything, They know almost nothing about the governmental structure they live under.)

    3. Did you skip the part where Democrats owned all those slaves and did all that segregating?

      There are your racists who should pay reparations.

      1. INB dimms always forget about all the white men that died to get slaves to be free. They also never mention that there were a few black slave owners back then. And some white slaves.

        SamFox

    4. Dennis M—“Fast forward to last year’s election when, in states like Georgia, black voters took advantage of mail-in voting to push Biden over the finish line.”

      LOL, YOU LIE!! You are pushing the FAKE narrative the Biden actually won. What were the millions of unneeded mail in ballots for? To collect for ballot box stuffing. Trump was getting so many votes so fast, compared to Biden, that the switch vote algorithms in the Dominion & other machines broke! LOL That’s why the swing states stopped in the wee hrs of the morn. They had to figure out how far Biden was behind so they could stuff in illegal votes for Biden.

      Actually it was ballot box stuffing & CCP hacking that ‘pushed’; Biden’s FAKE victory. I have seen Mike Lindell’s Absolute Proof videos.

      Before you brown your shorts & obfuscate & call him & me names because I said “Mike Lindell’s videos”, try showing us his proof isn’t real. You can’t so you’ll do the run of the mill jive dimm fascists always do & smoke screen the subject by attacking the messenger rather than disproving the message. Funny. Lindell offered 5 MILLION $’s to anyone who can disprove his Absolute Proof & other videos. Why don’t you take a shot…

      Absolute Proof video–

      https://ugetube.com/watch/absolute-proof_gF9EtOB431ooPlF.html

      Then there is Deep Capture, a proof of election fraud site by Patric Byrne. Mr. Byrne didn’t vote for Trump, but he tells the truth about the fraud that “pushed Biden over the finish line.”

      https://www.deepcapture.com/

      SamFox

    5. “So the Electoral College is a part of our racist past and needs to be eliminated.”

      That’s a racist interpretation of the Electoral College.

      It was in fact designed to accomplish two things in the selection of a chief executive: Avoid the court intrigues endemic to history. Avoid the tyranny of the majority. (See Federalist 68.)

    6. “The Electoral College, that Buckley liked just fine . . .”

      Some people have a fetish for ad hominem.

    7. You absolutely ignore all the fraud in states such as Georgia ?. You can not even be considered worthy of opinion when you think all that mail in voting was not the last minute angle of attack by the fraudsters pining for a prog win. Too blind to see the forest for the trees. For people like you it’s always about race…you would likely be aghast if you had to judge a man on his character alone. It’s always about race with you tunnel visioned progs…I’d wager as well you are the kind that would support the ends justify the means to get your desired outcome politically.

  10. Biden just thinks he’s smarter than the rest of us. The moneyed interest in this nation own a lot of rental property. The turned on a dime against Trump. What makes Joe think they won’t turn on him in a New York minute. Joe used to know what side his bread is buttered on but in his present mental state he’s forgotten both the butter and the bread. You can bet that there are many who ask why they gave campaign contributions to this guy. Duh.

  11. https://silverstatetimes.com/stories/606414657-more-votes-counted-than-cast-in-nevada-2020-general-election-analysis-of-voting-files-shows

    The non-partisan Voter Reference Foundation (VRF), which officially announced its launch this week, compared the states’ official certified vote totals to the state official voter files, which indicate how many individual Nevada voters were recorded as actually having cast ballots last November.

    It found that 15 of Nevada’s 17 counties certified more ballots cast than there were individual voters recorded as voting. Clark (5,869 more) and Washoe (2,191) had the largest discrepancies, according to the analysis.

    This is something I’ve been wanting since Obama was elected.
    When the polls close, within 30 minutes, the number of cast ballots is a hard number to meet. No excuses. There would be allownces. Overseas ballots is the only exception I can come up with.

  12. if Voter ID laws are “Jim Crow 2.0,” then Vaccine Passports are Jim Crow 3.0 They disproportionally impact Blacks (and Latinos).

    1. Funny, dimms want a vax ID, but not one for voting. There is a contradiction hiding around here some where…

      SamFox

  13. Over 100 comments and not a single example of a law that does/would disenfranchise a single eligible voter.

    This blog needs a better class of trolls

    1. This blog needs a better class of trolls

      They’re trolls for a reason, so that isn’t happening. They also don’t do facts, they do feelings and predictions. Silberman for example feels he and JT are ideologically aligned and would be BFF’s. if not for FOXNEWS. The only way they would align is for JT to suffer a massive stroke and lose all left-brain activity.

      1. Olly says, “Silberman for example feels he and JT are ideologically aligned and would be BFF’s. if not for FOXNEWS.”

        I don’t feel. Don’t ask a person how he “feels.” That’s what Oprah does because “feelings” can’t be wrong. I demand to know what people “think” which requires reasoning. Even you would agree with that Olly as much as it pains you to say so.

        I also never ask a man his business. I only ask what are his pleasures!

        I know that Turley and I are ideologically aligned, and you do too. In this country, there are two kinds of people- those who support Trumpism and those who don’t. Whatever else he is, Turley ain’t no Trumpist. There is no indication that he is, and every indication that he isn’t.

        I stand by that pronouncement. Do you doubt it?

        1. In this country, there are two kinds of people- those who support Trumpism and those who don’t.

          You’ve conveniently built your conclusion on a strawman created by the Left. That would be like me believing he and I are aligned because of Bidenomics. If you believe you have an ideological soulmate in JT based on that, then you’re being naively optimistic. Yup, NPD.

          1. Olly,

            I looked up NPD. Noteworthy Patriotic Democrat. Thanks for the compliment. But you really shouldn’t have. I’m not worthy.

            I did not claim that Turley and I would be soulmates. I’m just saying that he and I would see eye-to-eye more than you and him. I’m sure he would be polite to your face, but once you turned your back he would glance at me and roll his eyes.

            1. Typical of NPD. The one with Narcissistic Personality Disorder created his own abbreviation using the word Noteworthy. How NPD of him.

        2. In this country, there are two kinds of people- those who support Trumpism and those who don’t. jeffsiberman

          Bullsh*t — this is a false binary choice which simplistically and misleadingly divides over 320 million Americans into a “you’re either with us, or against us” paradigm. No doubt Shrub (43) appreciates your ideological support — I wouldn’t be so sure about Turley.

          1. Silberman has proven himself to be an internet turtle. He will stick his neck out to accuse our host of being a sellout to FoxNews, but when faced with the prospect of confronting Turley directly via email, he crawls into his safe space.

            It’s really quite pathetic to watch him manufacture a Turley doll that is his ideological bff after his Keyboard Warrior attacks on him.

            1. Olly conjures:

              “It’s really quite pathetic to watch him manufacture a Turley doll that is his ideological bff after his Keyboard Warrior attacks on him.”

              Can you put this into English? Stop with all the slang and cryptic references. If you got a point, make it plainly.

              For the last time, I have not ruled out emailing Turley. I don’t even know if what you provided is a valid address. Nor am I aware that you were authorized to publish it. Most high profile individuals do not publish their email because they don’t want their inbox flooded. I respect the man’s privacy even if you don’t.

              Darren, can we please get a ruling?

              Jeff Silberman

              1. ” I don’t even know if what you provided is a valid address. Nor am I aware that you were authorized to publish it. …Darren, can we please get a ruling?”

                Jeff is hedging again. Even on something as simple as this. He needs a mommy.

                SM

                1. Well, I’ll be. Kinda proves that I’m not a stalker because I never considered pestering Turley by searching for his email.

                  Have all you Trumpists been carrying on email conversations with Turley? If so, how come I have never read someone posting, “Turley told me in an email that…..”

                  Who among you will tell us that Turley responds to their emails? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

                  JS

                  1. I’m not a Trumpist, Jeff. I’m a fellow Dem. But this email nonsense is just silly. You’re asking Darren to get involved?

                    OLLY’s an arrogant guy, IMO, so it’s not a surprise that he would reach out to JT by email…and then encourage you to do so, as well. OLLY’s a jerk.

                    1. I’m just trying to determine if there is any policy on contacting Turley. I don’t want to bother him if he does not desire to encourage emails from contributors. And I don’t want to waste my time composing an email if his reply is out of the question.

                      That seems obvious enough.

                      JS

  14. The voting laws being passed in Georgia and Texas expand voting for those eligible to vote. The only restriction falls on those not eligible.

  15. Turley says:

    “If states deprive “millions” of voters of the right to vote, as claimed by Democrats, then they will be stopped by the courts.”

    It’s reassuring to read that Turley acknowledges that the Republican plan to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters will not be successful! Hooray!

    1. Obviously Prof. Turley’s decision not to use the subjunctive, a valid grammatical choice in these benighted times, means that he.”acknowledges … the Republican plan to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters.”

      Mm hmm.

      1. Jamie,

        You are being sarcastic, yes? Far be it for me to challenge Turley’s analysis of the Constitutional law of electioneering, but in the article he cited, he wrote in 2020:

        “After the divisive 2000 election, I called for Congress to use federal funding to force uniformity in election laws and standards.”

        That is precisely what the Democrats are attempting, but Turley argues persuasively that they are overreaching. Fair enough. But my understanding is that the overriding concern of Democrats is the changes in the law being made by Republican state legislatures enabling the substituting of chosen Electors if the Legislature finds that “people are saying” that there was massive voting fraud. Perhaps, the Democrats are overstating the risk of this power grab, but Turley, to my knowledge, has yet to comment on this kind of legislation.

        As is often the case with Turley, his legal disputations are clinical and generally avoid speculating on the bona fides of the parties. Rather, he presumes that both sides have no ulterior motives, but Turley’s insouciant attitude is rather too disarming in these benighted times as you say.

        1. Jeff Silberman, you tell us that Professor Turley said that he encouraged funding for federal control of elections. After the divisive 2000 election, “I called for Congress to use federal funding to force uniformity in election laws and standards”. Search as I might I can not find a source for his comment. Please help us out with a source for Professor Turley’s 2020 comment. I have a sneaking suspicion that he was calling for a standard place and time for elections as prescribed by the constitution and the allowance by the states to conduct the details. We would never go so far as to suspect you of quoting anything out of context because of your stellar track record. SOURCE PLEASE!

          1. TiT,

            I didn’t say what you said I said. I found that quote from an article he wrote linked in his Blind Spot article. I resent your insinuating that I would try to lift a quote out of context! What do you take me for? Trump?

        2. Jeff, you neglected to include this statement of Turley’s, and instead changed the context with a selective quote.

          “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.”

          Note that states could decline such funding, giving them autonomy, but even then there was a danger of Congress coercing states, which would be unconstitutional.

          But, there again, you exhibited an insouciant attitude towards facts and context.

          1. Karen,

            I did not deny what you quoted. I simply quoted what Turley said-

            “After the divisive 2000 election, I called for Congress to use federal funding to force uniformity in election laws and standards.”

            We will have to go back and research precisely what Turley had in mind 20 years ago. But it would not be the first time that his views have evolved since then. You may recall back then he favored increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices by adding 1 or 2 additional justices every few years- a gradual increase in the number on the bench in lieu of a “court packing.”

            You like that word, “insouciant” do you? Did you have to Google it? Be honest!

            I often worry that my vocabulary will be unfamiliar to Trumpists. After all, it is well known that Trump speaks at a 4th grade level- https://www.newsweek.com/trump-fire-and-fury-smart-genius-obama-774169

            I want to congratulate you that you speak at a much higher level than your typical Trumpist though your thinking needs a lot of work. Keep it up!

            1. Of course Karen Googled “insouciant” or got it from someone else’s writing. She likes to try to throw around big words so as to appear sophisticated, but the substance of what she writes gives her away.

    2. How can they not be successful? The federal courts are stacked with right wing ideologues. Whatever abuse the States inflict on their voters will be shrugged-off by the federal judiciary.

      1. Whatever abuse the States inflict on their voters

        What abuse. It is very tiring to keep reading the accusations of voter restrictions, and disenfranchisement, but never a single example is given, Not even one anecdotal story about the the financial strapped minority women that just could not cast a vote because of ?????.
        Nope, nothing

        1. Iowan2, One must also have a ID to get welfare. Long list of what ID’s are needed for. The dimms like to shade their racist bigotry of low expectations against people of color with fancy rhetoric. Bottom line; dimms think people of color are too stupid to know how to get an ID for voting, though these same people are expected to get ID for a million other things. Just like the rest of us.

          SamFox

    3. Jeff:

      I’ve quoted you the election integrity laws for Georgia and Texas. I’ve provided links. They in no way infringe upon the voting rights of any legal voter. Period. The end. Why do you keep repeating this misinformation?

      The only reason why Democrats get away with such propaganda is because some people don’t do their research and believe what they told, and others are willfully blind. You can provide them with glaring evidence that the Democrats are baldfaced lying to them, and they will simply not respond, change the subject, or ignore it, and then keep on repeating what has been proven to be untrue. That is not ethical.

      1. Karen,

        I don’t believe that you sent those links to me, perhaps someone else. In any event, and with all due respect, I would prefer a legal expert’s analysis, not yours, of the legal effect of the new laws. Has Turley discussed these new laws in detail? I see that he just posted an article about dog mauling which is very germane and helpful to our current predicament.

        You accuse me of being “willfully blind”? Me? An atheist? Look who is talking! As long as I live, don’t you Trumpists ever dare accuse me of being blind! Soon enough the blinders will come off your eyes when your faith leader Trump is exposed as the corrupt liar he has always been, but you were too enthralled to see it. I only wish I could witness your physical reaction when it suddenly dawns on you that all your hopes which you have placed on Trump have been for naught.

        1. Jeff–LOL LOL LOL!!!

          You silly peeps have been making fools of yourselves ever since Mr. T came down the escalator. .

          DOJ & FBI spying. Muleear, impeachments, wishful thinking turned to super lies…yet you can’t touch the man.

          If all you do is wish against Mr.T with one hand & spit in the other…

          For Pete’s sake dude, it’s been over 4 YEARS of trying to snag Mr. T with something, ALL to no avail!
          If you numb nuts had any real proof against 45, we’d all know by now! Fake stream median would be shouting from the rooftops!

          All you mostly do is PROJECT on to Trump & his HUGE voting base what the fascist dimm party, fake stream propaganda ‘news’ media what YOU are up to, want to do & have planned.

          So what’s wrong with making America Great Again? It’s heck of a lot better than the managed decline dimms & RINOs have facilitated on the USA fort he last several decades. Myself, I don’t like fraud elections. I don’t want to see the USA forced into a vassal state of the NWO’s one world government.

          We have read Cloward & Piven, Rules For Radicals & other leftist commie How To Take The USA Down instruction manuals. We have read the Constitution. We like freedom better. So do the Cubans, those in Russia, China, Venezuela & many other countries.

          You really need to hear what those that have escaped communism, fascism & other repressive form of government have to say about about the crap government controlled country you want to turn the USA into. They been there, lived under that!

          SamFox

          1. SamFox,

            If you despise this country, leave. Good riddance.

            Jeff Silberman

            2. Jeff anon–I am not the one who despises the USA. I am not a fascist dimm antifa blm terrorist. I like this country. I like the US Founders & the form of government they bequeathed us. Yeah we have some issues to fix, but fewer than before. Give US time & we will keep making life better for ALL US citizens.

              We were doing a pretty decent job under Trump, making good progress in spite of radical dimms & fake republicans…then you New World Order fools showed up via a super fraudulent election to wreck the place.

              You who defend the color revolution, stand by fascist blm & antifa & support communism, socialism & totalitarian fascism the Benedict Iscariot dimm party is foisting on the USA are the real problem & haters of the USA.. You can do your BS projection all you want. But those of us who love the USA & want to Make America Great Again see through your deceptions, lies, fake accusations of ‘racism racism racism’ & other forms of deception.

              If YOU don’t like the way the US was founded, move to Valenzuela. They already have all the poverty, lack of work, healthcare,TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL ect you want. They are also low on food since the people had to eat the zoo animals, so pack a lunch.

              SamFox

  16. “The Supreme Court JUST RECENTLY decided that the CDC does NOT have the authority to impose an eviction MORATORIUM & Biden just acknowledged it OUT LOUD, but they’re doing it anyway because they know that nobody will stop them. That is dictatorship and impeachable. DO SOMETHING!”

    Impeach Biden. There’s plenty there that Biden has done that is impeachable. Impeach him, Republicans. Do it.

    But they won’t do it because Biden is “one of them” and part of their club. For shame.

    1. Gray Anonymous, if Biden acknowledged lack of court support, he’s being honest. So how is that deserving of impeachment??

      The truth is that Biden is annoying the Bernie Bros by not acting faster on this.

      1. “if Biden acknowledged lack of court support, he’s being honest. So how is that deserving of impeachment?”
        ***
        Because he is admitting that he is being dishonest.

        It isn’t a “lack of court support” but a lack of Constitutional [highest law in the country] support that is the problem.

        He is admitting that he is breaking the law and breaking his oath of office–not that either ever meant much to him.

        .

        1. Young, actually he’s not breaking the law or the actions are unconstitutional. Neither issue was addressed by the Supreme Court. All it did was state that the CDC did not have authority to extend the moratorium. Problem is the moratorium was in place for a year and was extended several times without any complaint.

          The interesting thing is that everyone keeps saying what Biden is doing is unconstitutional without pointing out exactly why. Even the Supreme Court didn’t actually opine that it was. Only one justice believed it is, but that opinion was just a belief. The merits of the case were not sufficient to claim what the CDC did was indeed unconstitutional.

          It’s actually a muddled area that Biden is effectively exploiting. Only congress can clarify the issue, not the court and until it does Biden can still claim the CDC is within it’s authority to extend the moratorium.

          Trump played that game with his tax returns fight with congress.

          1. All it did was state that the CDC did not have authority to extend the moratorium.

            Only congress can clarify the issue, not the court and until it does Biden can still claim the CDC is within it’s authority to extend the moratorium.

            It’s actually a muddled area that Biden is effectively exploiting.

            The only thing muddled is Biden’s brain and your “logic”. You state accurately the Court ruled the CDC did not have the authority to extend the moratorium. It was further stated by the Court that any extension beyond July 31st would be unconstitutional. Therefore, while Biden can extend the moratorium, he does so knowing the Court has ruled the CDC does not have the authority and that such an act would be a willful, unconstitutional act.

            Now about those trigger-happy impeachment Democrats standing up for the rule of law. Where are they?

            1. “The next time someone tells you Mitt Romney is just really principled, remind them he couldn’t even be bothered to speak out against Biden canceling property rights in defiance of the Supreme Court.”

            2. Therefore, while Biden can extend the moratorium, he does so knowing the Court has ruled the CDC does not have the authority and that such an act would be a willful, unconstitutional act.

              Just to amplify your accurate comment. SCOTUS stated “only congress can issue such an order.”

          2. “The interesting thing is that everyone keeps saying what Biden is doing is unconstitutional without pointing out exactly why.”

            That’s easy. There is no Constitutional authority for the government (let alone a health agency) to outlaw evictions and to suspend property rights. In a constitutionally limited republic, the government can *only* do that which is permitted by the Constitution. Further, in such a political system, *Congress* passes laws — not the unelected, wannabe tyrants at the CDC.

            There is a frightening inversion in this country: Government can do whatever it pleases — “just powers” be damned. While a private individual can only act with the permission of the government — individual rights be damned.

      2. One thing, I think I said in a comment here awhile back that courts are squandering their prestige and we will see a time when their decisions are ignored or evaded. But it came faster and more nakedly than I expected.

      3. Biden is showing contempt for the court and the constitution. He is acting like a dictator. Impeach!

        1. Impeached or sent to a home for the memory impaired, preferably with no children within reach. He’s a grabby old fart.

      4. Gray Anonymous, if Biden acknowledged lack of court support,

        A court opinion that states the CDC lacks constitutional authority to issue a moritorium on collecting rent, is not a lack of support. It is a clear statement the action violates the Constitution.

      5. Anon, the dark,– BAD try. You left out the ““The Supreme Court JUST RECENTLY decided that the CDC does NOT have the authority to impose an eviction MORATORIUM & Biden just acknowledged it OUT LOUD, but they’re doing it anyway…” part. Biden? Honest? You been smoking with Hunter or what???

        He is going to do it anyway doesn’t reek of honesty. It stinks.

        SamFox

    2. If you paid more attention to the facts, instead of finding reasons to bash Biden, you would know that in at least 26 states only 10% of COVID rent assistance claims have been processed. I live in one such Republican-controlled state, which is not doing much to help those who need the assistance connect to the assistance that is there, ready to go. Without a moratorium, court dockets would get clogged, there would be a glut of rental properties on the market, which would suppress rents and property values and those who got evicted would have a black mark on their credit that might make it impossible to get another place to live. Biden acknowledged what court said but said he was buying time so that the money that is there can get paid out. He relies on public health laws, and said that the massive homelessness that would result from the eviction moratorium being lifted would result in a public health crisis, which is true. Buying more time helps both renters and landlords. The money is there.

  17. The old excuse that going to the DMV is hard to get to is baloney. In my Mom’s late senior apartment building we were asking her neighbors if they didn’t have an ID or drivers license. On the first floor of her 50 room complex; they all replied that they had one.

Comments are closed.