Activist judge PERMANENTLY OVERTURNS President Trump's requirement of proof of citizenship to vote

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2017349701994008776

[libertybele]

I'm sure the GOP is busily drafting legislation. 

[mystery-ak]

I'm sure the GOP is busily drafting legislation. 

...or a strongly worded letter...

[Fishrrman]

Where is the Supreme Court on this?

[Kamaji]

So, on what basis did Trump have the constitutional authority to issue this particular EO?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

To let this stand is to throw away the Constitution.

[Kamaji]

Link to the opinion:  https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/218-2025-10-31-Memorandum-opinion.pdf

What provision in the Constitution gives the President the power to set requirements for elections by executive order?

[Smokin Joe]

Link to the opinion:  https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/218-2025-10-31-Memorandum-opinion.pdf

What provision in the Constitution gives the President the power to set requirements for elections by executive order?

At what point would the Founders have permitted non-citizens the vote?
This should not even be an issue, but for the Alinskyite efforts of attorneys.

Common sense says you do not allow foreigners to determine the course of your country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Link to the opinion:  https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/218-2025-10-31-Memorandum-opinion.pdf

What provision in the Constitution gives the President the power to set requirements for elections by executive order?

Art IV Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.


In the reverse, where in the Constitution can a single judge prevent a state from having a Republican Form of Government?

[massadvj]

Where is the Supreme Court on this?

I am betting the SCOTUS will let this decision stand. No originalist would vote to overturn it.

[Free Vulcan]

I don't believe states have plenary power to manage elections, especially for Federal candidates. If that were the case then it would bed a wild west of whatever rules they want to go by, which isn't that far from what it is now.

An EO may not be the vehicle to enforce it, but proof of citizenship in national elections is a basic requirement.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

An EO may not be the vehicle, to enforce it, but proof of citizenship in national elections is a basic requirement.

If not required, there are 2 billion Indians and Chinese that can select our representatives instead of Americans.

By mail-in ballots.

[Free Vulcan]

If not required, there are 2 billion Indians and Chinese that can select our representatives instead of Americans.

By mail-in ballots.

Post of the day.

[Hoodat]

What provision in the Constitution gives the President the power to set requirements for elections by executive order?

What provision in the Constitution gives any person the right to vote?

[andy58-in-nh]

Ultimately, it will take an act of Congress to ensure that only citizens of the United States can vote.

The Constitution does not directly address the matter, as it was silently assumed that only citizens would ever have that right (and not all citizens, at that.) See Article II sections 1 and 2, which deal with state administration of Federal elections.

As of 1924, all states had banned non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and in 1996, Congress added criminal penalties. Otherwise, voting rights are a matter of state law, not Federal law, with these exceptions:

    The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870.
    The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
    The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes.
    The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.

Otherwise, the President simply cannot act to restrict voting rights by executive order, no matter how much we may desire the outcome. 

[Smokin Joe]

Ultimately, it will take an act of Congress to ensure that only citizens of the United States can vote.

The Constitution does not directly address the matter, as it was silently assumed that only citizens would ever have that right (and not all citizens, at that.) See Article II sections 1 and 2, which deal with state administration of Federal elections.

As of 1924, all states had banned non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and in 1996, Congress added criminal penalties. Otherwise, voting rights are a matter of state law, not Federal law, with these exceptions:

    The 15th Amendment gave African American men the right to vote in 1870.
    The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave American women the right to vote.
    The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes.
    The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age for all elections to 18.

Otherwise, the President simply cannot act to restrict voting rights by executive order, no matter how much we may desire the outcome.

The disingenuous pert of all that is that there is NO inherent Right of non-citizens to vote in our elections. Therefore denying non-citizens the ballot is not restricting a voting right (that simply does not exist).

It would be like denying a citizen of an African Nation running for the oval office. That "right" does not exist.

What country or countries permit non-citizens to vote in their National elections?

[andy58-in-nh]

The disingenuous pert of all that is that there is NO inherent Right of non-citizens to vote in our elections. Therefore denying non-citizens the ballot is not restricting a voting right (that simply does not exist).

It would be like denying a citizen of an African Nation running for the oval office. That "right" does not exist.

What country or countries permit non-citizens to vote in their National elections?

As crazy as it is, there are states that currently allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. And if they wanted to, they could expand that "right" by state legislative action and state executive approval. But that's because the U.S. Constitution does not directly address the matter, and thus leaves it up to the states.

So again: we need a Federal statute to prevent what the vast majority of us know is wrong, but which certain states (I'm talking to you, California), controlled as they are by left-wing globalist loons, can't keep going down that dangerous road.   

[Smokin Joe]

As crazy as it is, there are states that currently allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. And if they wanted to, they could expand that "right" by state legislative action and state executive approval. But that's because the U.S. Constitution does not directly address the matter, and thus leaves it up to the states.

So again: we need a Federal statute to prevent what the vast majority of us know is wrong, but which certain states (I'm talking to you, California), controlled as they are by left-wing globalist loons, can't keep going down that dangerous road.

If you read down this timeline, you will see where Citizenship (in some cases not even naturalized citizens, but those born or who became so at the Founding) was required to vote from the onset.

Arguing against that requirement of citizenship to vote flies in the face of historical practice, precedent, and common sense.

Once again, I pose the question: What country or countries permit non citizens to vote in their elections?

[Bigun]

If you read down this timeline, you will see where Citizenship (in some cases not even naturalized citizens, but those born or who became so at the Founding) was required to vote from the onset.

Arguing against that requirement of citizenship to vote flies in the face of historical practice, precedent, and common sense.

Once again, I pose the question: What country or countries permit non citizens to vote in their elections?

  

[roamer_1]

At what point would the Founders have permitted non-citizens the vote?
This should not even be an issue, but for the Alinskyite efforts of attorneys.

Common sense says you do not allow foreigners to determine the course of your country.

That is not the question. The question is whether he has the Constitutional authority to demand it as an Executive Decree.

He does not.

@Kamaji 's right.

[Kamaji]

What provision in the Constitution gives any person the right to vote?

That's not the issue.  What part of the Constitution gives the President the authority to set rules for elections by executive order?

[Smokin Joe]

That is not the question. The question is whether he has the Constitutional authority to demand it as an Executive Decree.

He does not.

@Kamaji 's right.

Does he have that Constitutional authority?

No.

SHOULD HE NEED IT?

Again, no.

The question the SCOTUS needs to settle, in the absence of a statute requirement, is whether non Citizens are able to legally vote in US Elections.
I'm not sure how you'd get that before the bench, aside from one State challenging another State's AG or other ruling that nonCitizens could vote, but on a basis of original intent, practice, precedent, and common sense, it should be a slam-dunk.

[Kamaji]

Does he have that Constitutional authority?

No.

SHOULD HE NEED IT?

Again, no.

In other words, by your own admission, the court was correct - Trump's EO is unconstitutional and the court is doing the correct thing by permanently enjoining enforcement of the EO.

[Smokin Joe]

In other words, by your own admission, the court was correct - Trump's EO is unconstitutional and the court is doing the correct thing by permanently enjoining enforcement of the EO.

That, however, does not mean the EO was wrong in principle, just that he did not have the authority to make that determination.

[Kamaji]

That, however, does not mean the EO was wrong in principle, just that he did not have the authority to make that determination.

Squirm as you will, the EO was unconstitutional.

What that means is having to do the hard, dreary work of legislating - work that is now infinitely harder because conservatives have been so doggedly ignoring the process of building political powerbases - real powerbases, not covens of conspiracy theorists rotting in the woods - and the logrolling and compromise that inevitably requires.  This is what happens when you turn your back on the process Reagan used to build his powerbase, when you ignore the need to prioritize your policies, not worry about who gets the credit, and realizing that it's a victory if you get just 51% of what you're looking for, which necessarily implies that the other guy gets 49% of what he wanted.

If you want to implement what this EO tried to do, then stop wasting time with conservative virtue-signaling - because that is all this EO was - and go back to the states and to Congress, where the real power to set the terms of elections lies.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

That is not the question. The question is whether he has the Constitutional authority to demand it as an Executive Decree.

He does not.

@Kamaji 's right.

What authority is referenced here?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=577138.msg3268642#msg3268642

[Kamaji]

What authority is referenced here?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=577138.msg3268642#msg3268642

Where does that provision give the President the unilateral power, by executive order, to set conditions or rules for elections?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Where does that provision give the President the unilateral power, by executive order, to set conditions or rules for elections?

Where does it say he specifically does not have authority?

You are spitting into the wind, putting it kindly.

Article says the United States.

[Kamaji]

Where does it say he specifically does not have authority?

You are spitting into the wind, putting it kindly.

Article says the United States.

You are nothing more nor less than a hypocrite.  Look carefully in a mirror, and you'll see a progressive staring back at you.

The Constitution provides that rules regarding elections are set by the states or by Congress.  By necessary implication the President has no independent authority to set terms or conditions for elections by executive order.

[roamer_1]

What authority is referenced here?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=577138.msg3268642#msg3268642

Unfortunately for the quick fix folks, that which is not exactly specified in the Constitution is left to the States respectively, and the People.

The specifics wrt elections within the Constitution do not specify that only citizens get to vote. That, technically, leaves the matter in the hands of state legislatures.

I might add that I am a declared Federalist, and my bias always leans that way, whether to the good or the bad. I am with all y'all that it's a no-brainer that only citizens should vote - And maybe it went without saying at the time of the Constitution's genesis...

But lawyers do what lawyers do, and the questions have to stay within the guardrails.

The other way that I think might be legally correct is to amend the specifics governed by the Constitution, but that cannot be done by an Executive Order, and must needfully require an act of Congress.

That appears to be the end of it. I think the judge made the right call.

[Smokin Joe]

Squirm as you will, the EO was unconstitutional.

What that means is having to do the hard, dreary work of legislating - work that is now infinitely harder because conservatives have been so doggedly ignoring the process of building political powerbases - real powerbases, not covens of conspiracy theorists rotting in the woods - and the logrolling and compromise that inevitably requires.  This is what happens when you turn your back on the process Reagan used to build his powerbase, when you ignore the need to prioritize your policies, not worry about who gets the credit, and realizing that it's a victory if you get just 51% of what you're looking for, which necessarily implies that the other guy gets 49% of what he wanted.

If you want to implement what this EO tried to do, then stop wasting time with conservative virtue-signaling - because that is all this EO was - and go back to the states and to Congress, where the real power to set the terms of elections lies.

Well, I am not "virtue signalling" over something that has been practice since the inception of this country.

It is the departure from having citizens only vote that is the anomaly here, partly because so damn many illegals have been moved into the US.

Get the invaders out of our country, don't count them for apportionment any more than you would count the troops of any other invading army, and don't let them vote.

It really isn't that difficult conceptually, and as a matter of historical precedent, it's what we have always done in the past.

One more time, I'll ask: What countries allow non-citizens to vote?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

One more time, I'll ask: What countries allow non-citizens to vote?

Or obtain welfare, or carry guns, or be elected to public office, or enter law enforcement.

Some people, notably leftists, believe procedure trumps everything rather than viewing through a rational and moral lens.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, I am not "virtue signalling" over something that has been practice since the inception of this country.

One more time, I'll ask: What countries allow non-citizens to vote?

silence is deafening, isn't it?

[DCPatriot]

Where does that provision give the President the unilateral power, by executive order, to set conditions or rules for elections?

Perhaps the only real solution here is to conduct a national campaign with rallies and to utilize the presidential bully pulpit to show how elections are being stolen with the current methods...electronic, post-election day counting, etc...   

...middle of the night plumbing 'emergencies', which emptied the ballot counting locations.