After this current political storm calms

Regardless of your feelings on the 2016 elections, I think that we have uncovered a hole that is not covered on a constitutional level.

What is the appropriate remedy for a fraudulent election?

We need to have this gap filled. For the sake of argument, let’s say that we discover that a foreign nation was found meddling in our election. and that a candidate and staff was involved. We had to ponder this with the birther movement. I know I contemplated it. What if we found out that the President was not eligible to hold the office?

Considering the damage that can be done by this fraud of a President, what is the best remedy? Yes, we have an impeachment process for high crimes and misdemeanors, but that is just a removal from if the Senate so decrees it.

I think that it should be more serious. I think that the Presidency should be voided. all appointments rescinded, even if they were confirmed by the Senate. It is fruit form the poisonous tree.  Void all executive orders, and any bills that the fraudulent President signed would be placed on hold pending the swearing in of the new president.

The tricky is this… do you install the other Presidential candidate? it seems to be the most fair process. Since the normal path of succession would place the Vice President int he Presidency, this would not work since they are enjoying that same poisoned fruit.

This is not an easy issue to wrestle with. Of course we know that in our current situation we are not going to see any change. This needs to be written now, and once the current administration is out, we can put it forth. I think that after this calms we have a shot seeing both side being able to tackle this objectively. I hope that it would never be used.

Is it really an imposition to ask for…

The Supreme Court has rules that states cannot ask for any more ID that the initial form to register a voter…

They find that it is too much of an imposition to ask that there be more enforcement than a simple check-box to have the signer note that they are a citizen unless penalty of perjury.

Is it really?

In most states I have to present local ID to pay by check.

In some states to use an ATM card, one must present legal ID.

To get a library card, one must normally present legal ID.

To cash a paycheck, one must present ID.

 

The law requires that a person voting for a federal candidate, they must be a citizen, but we will just take their word for it.

Why is it too intrusive? We are not talking about a poll tax as the cost for a state issued ID is minimal. Shit, make it free if they can show financial hardship!

 

All state issued ID’s should require proof of citizenship.

The other night I had my first person with a Tribal ID card. You bet I took it, as it is LEGAL ID, and it was not expired.

If I am presented with a  Marticula Consular card, I will not admit that person to the bar. If my employer wants to permit it, that is fine and I will submit my two weeks notice on the spot. (My day job requires e-verify so I am covered there)

 

We have laws that have served us well with common sense for ages. Yes, we have had crap laws (and still do) that were stricken as they were discriminatory or contrary to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. This is not one of those situations.

It is high time that the states start asserting their rights and opt out of assisting the federal government with various areas within their authority until the feds re-discover the fact that they are not the end all, be all of our country’s well being.

 

Gay Marriage; States rights, federal rights, or human rights

By Eyes_open

 

As the Supreme Court takes on the issue of California’s Proposition 8, and the federal DOMA, and Jeb Bush weighs in that he believes marriage should be a states rights issue, where do you stand on the issue of same-sex marriage, and why. Is it a matter that should be left to each state, should the federal government be involved and to what degree. Or is this a constitutional violation of civil rights, placing it in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Is it too much of a hardship to ask for ID to vote?

I tested the waters on this one yesterday on my personal Facebook account and got some pretty good hits.

So I thought I would open the topic up to the world.
Every state in the union requires that you be a US citizen to vote, and there is a reminder to this by the check box on the registration form. Now they say that the only voter fraud has been ten votes. Remember when I was still listed as a felon due to miscommunication between the states? Technically I was not illegible to vote, though I certainly did, and in a few presidential elections. (It has all been cleared up, so I am back to being perfectly legal as it should have been before)

Pennsylvania and eight other states require photo ID in order to vote.
The more liberal of my party (an I am sure more from across the board) fee that the cost of a state ID card is a poll tax and therefor is a deterrent to voting. In the case of Pennsylvania a non-drivers license (as Oregon calls it) is only $13.50 for five years. I have a hard time feeling that it would deter many form voting.
I had heard over the weekend that one in four blacks would not be able to vote if that were upheld. REALLY? one in FOUR?!? How the hell are they cashing their checks, writing checks, buying liquor (malt or other), flying, getting hotels, accessing secure areas, going to a bar, etc.