Now don’t f**k it up, BUILD THE WALL!
GOP officially has President, House & Senate
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Depends on who the Senate elects as majority leader.
And if they have to, Vance can come to The Senate when they are in seasion and when he does he becomes head of the Senate. We have had a VP head of the senate before, been a long time. Some have floated this as a possibility.
They have 2 years to enact enough positive change to solidify positions to avoid a ‘blue wave’ in 26
The Trump Administration will need to come up with some way to counter the leftist activist in the MSM. I would think the best way to do that is complete transparency, having a staff dedicated to confronting MSM with truthful facts. Every lie or half truth the MSM puts out for public consumption should be crushed with facts. No more of this Trump said inject bleach, fine people BS. Kill the MSM lies with facts on their own airwaves.
Election integrity is issue #1.
Proof of ID/citizenship in all federal elections would be a start.
Mandatory signature verification and make ballot harvesting illegal would be a good wrap up.
I was thinking of requiring every new drivers license and SS card of the last four years to be scrutinized very closely if possible and any illegal be fingerprinted and dna registered at least and possibly removed if found guilty of any serious criminal offenses
Suspect we will hear a LOT about this after Trump gets inaugurated. They need the corrupt libs to certify the results.
I think Trump is treating this as if everything has to be done within 2 years. Note he said DOGE will have its work done cutting government waste by July 4th, 2026. Trump told Tom Homan he only had 60 days to secure the border.
He's committed to getting immediate results. If he can, that means they can primary any remaining RINOs in the 26 midterms, which also means they can begin to hammer through legislation the final 2 years.
How we do in the 26 midterms should tell us a lot about our chances of holding onto the White House in 2028.
This will end up in SCOTUS if he does it. The constitution puts control of elections with the states. Like it or not. This is the huge problem with EO’s. I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold this EO, no EO going to have precedent over the constitution. Congress has a role and can pass laws.
I am for it, but really dumb IMO to try doing this with an EO.
The only hope is a bill from Congress to get to the President’s desk.
And no matter how it is approached, SCOTUS will be reviewing because a lawsuit will happen.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholars
constitutioncenter.org
The Elections Clause: States’ Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
cha.house.gov
Wrong assumption...we just went through another 4 years of Obama. If you look close enough you can see where the strings were attached on old Joe.
This will end up in SCOTUS if he does it. The constitution puts control of elections with the states. Like it or not. This is the huge problem with EO’s. I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold this EO, no EO going to have precedent over the constitution. Congress has a role and can pass laws.
I am for it, but really dumb IMO to try doing this with an EO.
The only hope is a bill from Congress to get to the President’s desk.
And no matter how it is approached, SCOTUS will be reviewing because a lawsuit will happen.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
The Elections Clause: States’ Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
To me this is a sticky area as a state’s rights proponent.
The presidential election is an election administered by each state to select electoral college electors, regardless of how said states may stupidly word their ballots to suggest otherwise.
In my opinion, the only way that this can really be adjusted appropriately is by constitutional amendment, which isn’t happening any time soon.
There really are no federal elections. Even the presidential election really is 50 state elections, which is why the popular vote doesn’t mean anything in the presidential election. And the Constitution specifically says that the federal government can not tell individual states how to run their elections.
This is also why the Electoral College will never be done away with and we will not be adopting a straight popular vote anytime soon. The Electoral College benefits/gives more say to the individual states, especially the smaller states (such as Montana, Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Mississippi, Alabama, et al).
To eliminate the Electoral College and go to a popular vote (which is what Dems want), it would take a constitutional amendment.
A constitutional amendment would take - along with the passage of Congress - a 3/4 vote of the states (or the people). The 3/5s of the states that are conservative (like those smaller states mentioned above) would never allow this to happen. Those states would be cutting their own throats. Of course, they did the same thing with the ratification of v the Sixteenth Amendment, but that’s another story.
Once again, it proves that America is not a democracy - at least not a direct democracy - but a republic, which is exactly what our founding fathers - especially those geniuses such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison - wanted our government to be.
Last edited:
You’re assuming he’s not going to push Congress to pass federal election law.This will end up in SCOTUS if he does it. The constitution puts control of elections with the states. Like it or not. This is the huge problem with EO’s. I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold this EO, no EO going to have precedent over the constitution. Congress has a role and can pass laws.
I am for it, but really dumb IMO to try doing this with an EO.
The only hope is a bill from Congress to get to the President’s desk.
And no matter how it is approached, SCOTUS will be reviewing because a lawsuit will happen.
Interpretation: Elections Clause | Constitution Center
Interpretations of Elections Clause by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
The Elections Clause: States’ Primary Constitutional Authority Over Elections
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration
And you’re right, the constitution puts control over elections in the hands of state legislatures, but Congress does have the ability to pass regulations for Federal elections.
Is a presidential election a federal election? We aren’t really voting for a president but instead for which electors in our state that will vote for president, right? Maybe I’m too far removed from my high school government class, lol.
Like I said earlier in the thread, the presidential election is really like 50 individual state elections which each state choosing who it wants, with the winner getting all of those state’s electoral votes. So it’s really not a federal election.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
This is from article 3. There are some things that the scotus can take from this. Congress is explicitly given the power to determine the time of choosing electors. In other words they can determine the day of federal elections or even multiple days if they wished.
Both article 2 and 3 give congress some power to regulate elections amongst the states. The 14th provides some limitations as to what they can do. If the law is written by congress and limited to picking the day of elections it should pass scrutiny. The things that would be questioned would be paper ballots requirements. However article 1 section 4 is more broad in ita declaration of laws by congress. Meaning if congress passed a citizenhip requirement it doesn't interfere with the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment could be interpreted as already saying citizens and only citizens are allowed to vote. It also gives congress broad powers to pass laws involving the 14th amendment.
I think the constitution should be interpreted as giving congress power to write laws that deal with federal elections. They should be limited in scope and not infringe on race, sex, or paying a tax to vote. The tax is where you run into problems for id requirements as the driver license payment is a tax. However if states.gave them for no charge then that could be worked around. In other words you would still be allowed to test and when you pass the requirements the state then simply issues the id with no charge.
An EO will not work, and congress must be the place to enact this law. If it would ever pass now is the time to pass it.
This is from article 3. There are some things that the scotus can take from this. Congress is explicitly given the power to determine the time of choosing electors. In other words they can determine the day of federal elections or even multiple days if they wished.
Both article 2 and 3 give congress some power to regulate elections amongst the states. The 14th provides some limitations as to what they can do. If the law is written by congress and limited to picking the day of elections it should pass scrutiny. The things that would be questioned would be paper ballots requirements. However article 1 section 4 is more broad in ita declaration of laws by congress. Meaning if congress passed a citizenhip requirement it doesn't interfere with the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment could be interpreted as already saying citizens and only citizens are allowed to vote. It also gives congress broad powers to pass laws involving the 14th amendment.
I think the constitution should be interpreted as giving congress power to write laws that deal with federal elections. They should be limited in scope and not infringe on race, sex, or paying a tax to vote. The tax is where you run into problems for id requirements as the driver license payment is a tax. However if states.gave them for no charge then that could be worked around. In other words you would still be allowed to test and when you pass the requirements the state then simply issues the id with no charge.
An EO will not work, and congress must be the place to enact this law. If it would ever pass now is the time to pass it.
They will **** it up. Just watch. Republicans are the best at ****ing up an orgasm.
Trump always does this, and people always misread what he's doing. Look at this thread.
This wasn't Trump saying he thinks he can force us to go to required ID and paper ballots.
This was about Trump speaking out about these things, which forces the left to admit THEY DON'T WANT IT.
Then the discussion becomes "But why don't you want it? Your voters do, why are you against it???"
But we can't arrive at that discussion, till Trump first says he's about to force it. Then the left goes 'The fvck you are!", then we are off.
Trump's detractors take him literally, but not seriously. Trump's supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
That's because Congress is half dems, 25% solid pubs and 25% RINOs.
Which is really Congress is 75% dems. Which is why nothing gets done when pubs, on paper, have the majority. The reality is we never do.
Similar threads
