we are all hearing how congress is attempting to make major changes to the form of elections. to the point they are taking over elections.  This maybe unconstitutional. as so far as the vote for President goes.

yes, article 1 section 4 does specify that congress can make election rules. however after reading it closer, those rules only apply to the congressional elections.

here is the text from article1 section 4.

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.

See how it directly specifies only senator and representatives? that is a limiting modifier. means they can only change their level. NOT state level elections or the Presidential election.

next we go to article 2 section 1 that says it is up to the state and the states legislatures to choose who gets to be President. Its a weird way around . but its there.  heres article 2 section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

You see by stating that the state is to choose how it selects its electors it is saying it is up to the state to choose how to set up the poll that would select the electors.

so in conclusion, If the congress attempts to change presidential or state elections , that runs contrary to the constitution and according to marbury is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

But this is a simple opinion of a high school graduate on a blog site no one will see.


post script: some stuff I found in hr-1 that should be of concern

internet voter registration
online registration has little security of signature(including same day registration)
allows for registration via telephone (call in registration)
they can verify your signature on a ballot with the ballot signature.
allows no protection from non citizens voting if they simply say they are a citizen
allows someone to steal your ballot by changing your voter record by internet.
motor voter registration and worse,
any state or federal agency or even colleges on their forms will automatically register you to vote giving the option to opt out not in
requires grade schools to educate on voter registration
same day registration
same day at the poll changes to registration information.
allow political campaigns access to voter roles
pays states for all voting activies
allows for 3rd party collection of voter data
takes away states ability to delete records based on change of adress cards
approriates at least 25m$ for state voting efforts
gives money to states to get minors registered to vote
16 year olds registration to vote
voting by felons that judicial took away
what the ballot should look like
vote by mail
if you vote absentee you will always vote absentee(auto mail of ballots)
changes laws for native american voters
drop boxes for voting
national emergency all bets are off
mandates how states will redistrict(changes?)
dekletes year 05 redistricting
makes it harder to eliminate a voter from the roles (great for mutli state voting)
in jail you can vote
campaign finance changes
government contractors no longer have to declare
over rule citizens united???
campaign finance matching
spend as much as you want with no reporting
enhancement of PACs
wont allow candidate to tell pacs what he wants
changes code of conduct for federal judges (interfers with article 3)
campaign managers cant use donations to travel in airplanes
changes congressional conflict of interest rules
*house cant serve on boards of for profit companies.
forces any appeals to this bill to go to 1 court (DC) (bypassing article 3)


2 Replies to “Is HR-1 constitutional?”

    March 3, 2021
    The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker of the House
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    Minority Leader
    U.S. House of Representatives
    H-204, The Capitol
    Washington, D.C. 20515
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    Majority Leader
    U.S. Senate
    322 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    Minority Leader
    U.S. Senate
    317 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Madame Speaker, Minority Leader McCarthy, Majority Leader Schumer, and Minority Leader
    As the chief legal officers of our states, we write regarding H.R.1, the For the People Act of 2021
    (the “Act”) and any companion Senate bill. As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs
    and regulations on state and local officials. Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution
    and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal—and with presidential elections, exclusive—
    responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance. Accordingly, Members of Congress may wish to consider the Act’s
    constitutional vulnerabilities as well as the policy critiques of state officials.
    First, the Act regulates “election for Federal office,” defined to include “election for the office of
    President or Vice President.”1 The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords
    “Each State” the power to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” the state’s
    1 Sec. 1932The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    March 3, 2021
    allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to “determine the Time of chusing the Electors.”2 That exclusive division of power for setting the “manner” and
    “time” of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the “time, place, and
    manner” of congressional elections. That distinction is not an accident of drafting. After extensive debate,
    the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would
    be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.3 Accordingly,
    the Supreme Court, in upholding a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district, observed
    that the Electors Clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the [state]
    legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S.
    1, 27 (1892) (emphasis added). The exclusivity of state power to “define the method” of choosing presidential electors means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside
    voting, for example.
    Additionally, the Act’s regulation of congressional elections, including by mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (“ID”) laws, and mandating
    that states conduct redistricting through unelected commissions, also faces severe constitutional hurdles.
    As Chief Justice Roberts noted with respect to congressional elections, the Framers “assign[ed] the issue
    to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” Rucho v. Common
    Cause 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2496 (2019). Here, Congress is not acting as a check, but is instead overreaching
    by seizing the role of principal election regulator. And, under the proportionality doctrine announced in
    City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532 (1997), no other power bestowed by the Constitution permits
    Congress to confer voting rights disproportionate to what the Constitution itself already protects, which
    the Act does by, for example, imposing rights to mail-in voting, curbside voting, etc. What is more, where
    the Act requires state officials to carry out new federal rights it violates the principle that the “Federal
    Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command
    the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory
    program.” Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).
    Unfortunately, these constitutional deficiencies are only the beginning of the Act’s problems. As
    a matter of election administration policy, it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening
    to election integrity and voter confidence.
    2 U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cls. 2, 4
    3 See 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 109 (M. Farrand ed. 1911)The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    March 3, 2021
    Perhaps most egregious is the Act’s limitations on voter ID laws. Fairly considered, requiring
    government-issued photo identification at the polls represents nothing more than a best practice for election administration. Government-issued photo identification has been the global standard for documentary
    identification for decades. Nearly twenty years ago, in the Help America Vote Act, Congress required
    first-time voters who register by mail without proof of identification to present identification either to the
    county voter-registration office or at the polls. 42 U.S.C. § 15483(b). It thereby acknowledged the existence of voter fraud and the capacity of documentary identification to prevent it. 148 Cong. Rec. S10489
    (Oct. 16, 2002) (statement of Sen. Bond) (“By passage of this legislation, Congress has made a statement
    that vote fraud exists in this country.”). Then, in 2005, a bi-partisan commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker recognized the existence of in-person voter fraud
    and endorsed a photo-identification requirement. In the wake of these endorsements, states began passing
    voter ID laws, and over a decade ago the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law—one of the most
    robust in the nation. See Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).
    Voter ID laws remain popular, with thirty-five states requiring some form of documentary personal
    identification at the polls.4 Yet the Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement,
    as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to “attest[] to the individual’s identity and
    . . . that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.”5 This does little to ensure that voters are who
    they say they are. Worse, it vitiates the capacity of voter ID requirements to protect against improper
    interference with voting rights. Before the advent of voter ID laws, partisans stationed at polling places
    could challenge voters based only on suspicions about identity, a process that prompted concerns about
    voter intimidation. Robust voter ID laws, however, require all voters to present photo identification, i.e.,
    objective, on-the-spot confirmation of the right to vote that immediately refutes bad-faith challenges based
    on vaguely articulated suspicions. Fair election laws treat all voters equally. By that standard, the Act is
    not a fair election law.
    Adding to the threat of increased voter fraud, the Act would mandate nationwide automatic voter
    registration and Election Day voter registration. Such systems would provide too many opportunities for
    non-citizens and others ineligible to vote to register and cast fraudulent ballots before officials can take
    preventive action. States should determine appropriate methods for voter registration based on their own
    experiences with voting access and voter fraud.
    Exacerbating these problems, the Act would also limit how states maintain voter registration rolls
    as a means of ensuring election integrity. Unsurprisingly, most citizens are not vigilant about keeping
    their state and local election boards apprised of changes to residency that may affect the validity of their
    voter registrations. Consequently, as citizens move about the country, their voter registrations become
    moribund and transform into seedbeds for voter fraud. As a fraud-prevention measure, states and localities
    routinely remove the registrations of citizens who (1) have not voted in many consecutive elections, and
    4 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/24/republicans-voter-id-laws-461707; Voter Identification Requirements
    5 Title I Sub N § 1903.The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    March 3, 2021
    then (2) fail to respond to multiple efforts to verify current residency. Under the Act, however, States
    could not use a combination of voter inactivity and unresponsiveness to maintain voter lists but may instead remove illegitimate voter registrations only where officials obtain some other unspecified “objective
    and reliable evidence that the registrant is ineligible to vote.” Sec. 2502. This attack on reliable methods
    that states have been using to maintain voters lists without specifying any reasonable permissible alternatives belies any actual interest in preventing voter fraud. The objective, rather, seems to be to prevent
    meaningful voter list maintenance altogether.
    Next, the Act’s mandate that states undertake congressional redistricting by way of so-called “independent” commissions is profoundly misguided. The aim of this provision—to neutralize “political”
    gerrymandering—proceeds from the incoherent supposition that drawing congressional districts is something other than a political act. As with any legislation, drawing boundary lines for congressional districts
    requires officials to balance legitimate competing considerations, and in so doing advance some political
    interests over others. Independent commissions do not somehow negate the need for interest balancing
    and tradeoffs—they merely avoid accountability for the enterprise. At least when legislatures draw boundary lines voters may punish egregious behavior at the next election; not so with government-by-commission, which trades accountability for mythical expertise and disinterest. The republican form of government inherently rejects the idea that elites have some unique capacity to discern and implement the best
    policies. The American tradition instead embraces political accountability as the best way to advance the
    public interest. With respect to political redistricting, no ideal, perfectly balanced congressional boundaries exist, so we should let the people decide, through their elected officials, where to place them.
    Even more dismissive of robust political participation is the Act’s requirement that political speakers disclose their donor lists. All speech, whether attributed to an individual or not, facilitates robust
    political discourse by encouraging speech from a diverse array of viewpoints. The Act reflects an objective
    to name, shame, and blacklist those with differing or minority viewpoints. In other words, the goal is to
    censor those with whom the authors of the bill disagree. In the American tradition, the antidote for bad
    speech is more speech, not less. When people and organizations carry their chosen messages into the
    public arena, government should not cater to those who would intimidate or disrupt that same speech.
    Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps
    states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should
    be on building trust in the electoral process.6 Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass
    confusion and distrust—problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we
    will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the
    rights of our citizens.
    Justin McCarthy, Confidence in Accuracy of U.S. Elections Matches Record Low https://news.gallup.com/poll/321665/confidence-accuracy-election-matches-record-low.aspx (last visited February 19, 2021).The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    March 3, 2021
    Todd Rokita
    Indiana Attorney General
    Steve Marshall Leslie Rutledge
    Alabama Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General
    Ashley Moody Christopher Carr
    Florida Attorney General Georgia Attorney General
    Lawrence G. Wasden Daniel J. Cameron
    Idaho Attorney General Kentucky Attorney General
    Jeff Landry Lynn Fitch
    Louisiana Attorney General Mississippi Attorney General
    Eric S. Schmitt Austin Knudsen
    Missouri Attorney General Montana Attorney General
    Douglas J. Peterson Dave Yost
    Nebraska Attorney General Ohio Attorney GeneralThe Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    The Honorable Kevin McCarthy
    The Honorable Chuck Schumer
    The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    March 3, 2021
    Mike Hunter Alan Wilson
    Oklahoma Attorney General South Carolina Attorney General
    Jason Ravnsborg Herbert H. Slatery, III
    South Dakota Attorney General Tennessee Attorney General
    Ken Paxton Sean D. Reyes
    Texas Attorney General Utah Attorney General
    Patrick Morrisey
    West Virginia Attorney Genera

  2. “If the congress attempts to change presidential or state elections , that runs contrary to the constitution and according to marbury is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.”

    Sums it up, doesn’t it! Or should!
    Our dem & RINO Congress/Senate are Anti-American.

Leave a Reply