Tag Archives: Cornell Law School

Who Should Vote In American Elections?

Posted on by

In the beginning days of America, only land owners were allowed to vote because it was assumed that they had a stake in the game. Later male citizens were allowed to vote. Women were not voting at that time because it was assumed that the man in the house represented the family. There were few single-parent families in those days, and generally women were expected to be married and in families. Obviously that has changed, and women now have the right to vote. But should non-citizens have the right to vote? There does not seem to be agreement on that question.

According to the Cornell Law School website:

18 U.S. Code § 611 – Voting by aliens

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless—

(1)the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2)aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3)voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose, but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or more of such Federal offices.

On April 2nd, Zero Hedge reported the following:

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and two top U.S. lawmakers on March 31 sued President Donald Trump over a recent executive order that aims to enforce the law against illegal immigrant voting and election dates.

“The Executive Order seeks to impose radical changes on how Americans register to vote, cast a ballot, and participate in our democracy—all of which threaten to disenfranchise lawful voters and none of which is legal,” says the lawsuit, filed by Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias in federal court in Washington.

Trump’s March 25 order has multiple sections. Several deal with laws that bar foreigners from registering to vote or from voting in federal elections. Trump directed the independent Election Assistance Commission to require proof of U.S. citizenship in its mail voter registration form, ordered U.S. officials to work with the Department of Government Efficiency to review voter rolls to identify noncitizens who are already registered, and told the U.S. attorney general to prosecute individuals who have illegally registered or voted.

Another prong takes aim at how some states in recent years have begun counting mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day, which the order says contravenes federal law.

A third portion says the Election Assistance Commission shall stop providing federal funds to states that don’t comply with the laws on election dates and noncitizen voting and voter registration.

The U.S. Constitution’s election clause says that states can set election dates, although Congress can alter them.

“Outside of the Elections Clause, other provisions in the Constitution place certain requirements and limitations on the regulation of elections—but none allows the President to override the will of the States or Congress in this space,” the new suit states.

The legal challenge also says that the Election Assistance Commission is an independent agency over which the president, who appoints commissioners, has no control, and that federal law lets applicants who vote in federal elections attest to citizenship with a signature as opposed to requiring proof from documents such as a passport.

Not allowing people who are not citizens to vote does not disenfranchise anyone who is legally allowed to vote. One wonders why the Democrats brought this suit (other than simply to harass President Trump).

Recognizing The Procedure Put In Place By The U.S. Constitution

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article about the the Defend The Guard Act recently passed in the New Hampshire State House.

The article reports:

The New Hampshire State House passed the Defend The Guard Act in a 187-182 vote on Thursday, which, if passed in the Senate and signed by the Governor, “would prohibit the deployment of the New Hampshire National Guard into overseas combat unless Congress first votes to declare war.”

This is much-needed legislation as the Biden Regime plunges the U.S. into foreign wars left and right, all while leaving American national security vulnerable and our borders wide open.

Defend The Guard has been introduced in other states, including Arizona.

Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers’ SB1367 “Defend the Guard” would have “Prohibit[ed] the National Guard of Arizona from being released into active duty combat unless the U.S. Congress has passed an official declaration of war, or has taken another official constitutional action as outlined.” After Senate Republicans passed this bill with zero Democrat support, Toma stonewalled it in the House, according to a Capitol insider and Bring our Troops Home founder Dan McKnight.

According to Cornell Law School:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002.

If passed, this new law will force the federal government to abide by the U. S. Constitution–at least as far as the New Hampshire National Guard is concerned.

An Unconstitutional Poverty Program

Posted on by

Yesterday The Conservative Treehouse reported that Oakland, California, is beginning a program to provide $500/month with no strings attached for up to 600 families. The goal is to bridge the income gap between rich and poor. But they have forgotten a few things. First of all, the participation strictly limited to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities. That is unconstitutional. Actually, this is the beginning of reparations. Secondly, providing a monthly income to someone without requiring any work from that person does not motivate that person to get a job or progress further in the job that they have.

According to the Cornell Law website:

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The most prominent civil rights legislation since Reconstruction is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Congress, using its power to regulate interstate commerce, enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title 42, Chapter 21 of the United States Code. Discrimination based on “race, color, religion, or national origin” in public establishments that have a connection to interstate commerce or are supported by the state is prohibited. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. Public establishments include places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels, motels, and trailer parks), restaurants, gas stations, bars, taverns, and places of entertainment in general. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing with employment discrimination. 

The judiciary, most notably the Supreme Court, plays a crucial role in interpreting the extent of the civil rights, as a single Supreme Court ruling can alter the recognition of a right throughout the nation. The federal courts have been crucial in mandating and supervising school desegregation programs and other programs established to rectify state or local discrimination.

Because the program is privately funded, they may be able to avoid compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Some Perspective You May Not Have Heard

Posted on by

On Sunday John Fund posted an article at the National Review that provides a slightly different perspective on the murders in Connecticut on Friday. The first thing Mr. Fund points out is that mass murders are not becoming more frequent–their frequency has actually declined.

The article reports:

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

Obviously the statistics do not mask the horror of what happened, but we do need to put this in perspective. I don’t think it helps that every newscast has at least three stories about the shooting or that a lot of the information being put out is false.

Mr. Fund mentions the two aspects of this tragedy that are not being widely discussed–how we treat the mentally ill and the fallacy of creating gun-free zones.

Mental illness has played a major role in many of these shootings. The article reports:

First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”

There will always be a danger of someone being wrongly committed to a mental institution, and there will always be an issue about how institutions treat the mentally ill and how much room is available at these institutions. A blog called “The Anarchist Soccer Mom” posted an article on Friday entitled, “Thinking the Unthinkable.” The writer states her challenges and fears in dealing with her own teenage son who has threatened to take her life and his own. She states that she is unable to have him committed until he actually follows through on his threat.

The article also reports on the failure of gun-free zones:

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Please read the entire National Review article by John Fund. The article cites many of the facts that the media seems to have ignored.

Enhanced by Zemanta