Yeah, and technically "law enforcement" isn't necessary either...

I don't disagree that "washing" the voter rolls through the ERIC system (already exists) is a great way.

But we have an issue. SOME states are NOT ALLOWED to validate citizenship! And most states DO NOT.

So, an 11th grader in FL High School gets a form, fills it out BEFORE they are 18. Signs it saying they are a citizen.
The teacher is effectively authenticating the ID, for which none is provided. If they are illegal, they are told ahead of time, nothing can happen, they are not 18!

Then, when they turn 18, the state mails them an ID with their signature. And if they ONLY vote by mail, they NEVER have to produce ID or proof of anything.
If you get the raw data, these are "PRE" voters (status), vs. ACT (active), and I believe INA (Inactive).

There are so many loop holes. We find people with 4-5 middle names (our systems are just not designed for it), so they change the middle name/initial, or the ordering of the middle names [BTW, islands use multiple middle names to prevent accidental inbreeding]...

The ultimate challenge is that US Citizenship should be required. And THAT, I believe is the FEDERAL governments job to track. While it doesn't have to be an ID, it must be an identifier (a new PUBLIC SSN, concept, versus the PRIVATE one that you would use to access things, and a changeable PIN for authentication outside of the federal system).

But if there is ONE central agency that KNOWS if you are a citizen, dead or alive. It can at the least "authenticate" the one state you should be voting in.
Although, I have to question if I own land, and pay taxes in 2 states... Shouldn't that give me a right to vote in those states? [And would this mean that professional atheletes who pay taxes in most of the states they play games in... would be able to vote there too?]

It gets interesting...

Sounds like you sort of spit out the word "subjectivists" as an insult. I didn't state that the idea IS sound; I stated that I believe the idea is sound. Every vote cast for Prez & VP, Senator, and Representative affects every single person in this country. The idea of a consistent voting method--so the coastal elitists snobs vote the same way as everyone in flyover country--makes perfect, logical sense to me, even though the "dark side" of that idea was fully illustrated by HR1 (and by S1).

And there are things in life that are, by nature, subjective. They simply can't be viewed objectively. Here's one example: The question of whether or not these chicken wings are too hot.

What is "too hot"? What's too hot for me may not be too hot for you. And what's too hot for someone else may not be too hot for me.

Oh, you can objectively say that my Habanero sauce sits at 300,000 on the Scoville scale, but there is no objective way to determine whether or not that's a higher number than any one of us can handle.

I think you'll enjoy it, especially if you are interested in the "gun culture" and enjoy truly heroic characters.
The freest people through history have been nomads. America has been the exception.

Thank you FFA! You've cured me! I'm not white...I'm "melanin-challenged"!

Obviously that's a white-European-male conspiracy against women and the melanin endowed, just as pro basketball is a plot against short people.
It's clear and obvious to anyone under 35 years old and college educated. It's consensus.

A Federal ID is not necessary as long as the states have the power and the will to investigate each other's voter registrations and search for duplicates. There should be simply a federal offense with a 20-year prison sentence for anyone found to be registered and voting in more than one state, or as more than one person, or falsifying voter information in order to vote multiple times.
As far as the 50%, take heart. Almost all Americans are exposed to 13 or 14 years of Liberal brainwashing by the time they are 18, but only half of them believe it.

Much of what we have in the Constitution was based on four centuries of British Common Law. The Constitution was written with those precedents in mind. And as you point out, that is why having Constitutional scholars as Justices is so important because, yes, SCOTUS did ignore not only historical precedent but a plain reading of the Constitution when they institutionalized anchor babies (which exist in no other country on earth btw) and when they blocked the Census from including a question on Citizenship. By blocking that question, they inherently violated the very sovereignty and integrity of our elections by allowing non-citizens to vote.

So it's not in the Constitution, but only in "historical precedent". That historical precedent has been broken by SCOTUS, which did not allow the citizenship question in the census.

It is madness. It's absolute insanity. And people will die.

Rainman0720, you ROCK!!! Way to see the light!

Thanks FFA. I just downloaded the PDF of the book and read the Intro ...

" . . . The boiling, shimmering image in the glasses gave a surrealistic appearance to the approaching choppers, but Henry could make them out well enough. Three of them. Bell turbine model, Jet Ranger or its descendant. A door gunner with a belt-fed machine gun poking out of the right side of each one. Possibly the Belgian MAG-58, but more likely M60s, he thought with derision. They should have brought armored Apaches carrying napalm, he thought. Or nukes. A grin split his face. Oh, those poor bastards."

Damn. I am hooked.

"Day of the Rope" is a recent book written by Devon Stack (online known as Black Pilled). It's a short book, a little over 100 pages, more to follow. The SPLC and ADL have deemed it pure hate. Good on them.

I finally got around to reading "Molon Labe" just last year. Creative solutions to truly systemic problems; solved, one beautifully engineered disappearance at a time.

I bought some acreage in Wyoming with thoughts of relocating. Backup plan. However, I don't want to move, and then be forced to keep on moving. Creative solutions to systemic problems. It's a good time to be an engineer.

This is madness. At present, only 6% of commercial pilots are female. There are sound reasons for this. Perhaps it's time that I finish my GA Cert.

I want to ask those same people this: If you were going to have open heart surgery, would you rather be operated on by a surgeon who got his/her license to practice medicine by excelling in school and finishing at the top of the class, or by a surgeon who got a license to practice medicine based on race or gender?

This is not an easy decision, even when you go to the constitution and the agreements whereby the states entered a federation.

As I see it, the states have authority to make their own rules. The Texas case was that those rules, the state laws governing elections, were not adhered to and rules were illegally changed. Thus it was not the state deciding on what happened but biased administrators and law breakers.
Again, as I see it, HR1 limits the states in making and enforcing laws, therefore unconstitutional. There would be some constitution limitations eg, on defining who is a voter, (but could a state legally enfranchise aliens, give gender X two votes each?) and racial discrimination.

I am curious how other federations, Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, etc handle this, I suspect there is strict central control over elections.

Particular thanks to TheRealBill for very informative comments.

United just announced they promise to hire at least 50% of pilots on basis of race or sex.
Ability to safely control the plane is no longer relevant in hiring pilots at United.

Have you read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? It's fictional account of one man being pushed to his "Day of the Rope."
(It's available online as a free e-book now. Hard copies are rare and expensive - like early printings of Rand's fiction.)

This is the classic question of national jurisdiction which is so misunderstood by many regarding the 13th and 14th Amendments. A nation only has original jurisdiction over its own citizens. It may have (secondary) jurisdiction over visitors such as tourists or those with work permits, but those jurisdictional questions are a matter of treaty - not any original claim either by the individual to such a State or by the State over such an individual just because the individual is found on lands belonging to the State. Thus a person's nationality properly defines their allegiance as well as the original national jurisdiction under which they can not only be prosecuted for wrongdoing, but be afforded the privileges of citizenship.

When the Fourteenth Amendment made citizens out of the former slaves following the Civil War, note the language which was used to do so granted citizenship to those who had no national allegiance but lived within the boundaries of the United States. Thus it did NOT apply to foreigners living in the United States. It did not apply to Mexicans. It did not apply to the Chinese either. Why? Because they had a nationality - a foreign allegiance - even if they had set it aside to come to the United States. Only the former slaves - who had not been recognized as citizens of any other nation - properly qualified. Of the Amendments to the Constitution, the Thirteenth was one of the few which was an administrative measure and which is effectively dead. (The Eighteenth was rescinded by the Twenty-First.)

Note: The Supreme Court rulings which have created "anchor babies" are based on the mistaken notion that anyone born on US soil is entitled to citizenship. This is a blatantly false notion which belies every notion of nationality in the history of the world. Nationality has always been an inherited trait irrespective of the place of birth. One of the best things we could do for our national sovereignty is to correct this egregious judicial ruling by Legislative fiat - over the which the Legislature is "king" by virtue of explicit grant of power in the Constitution.

It should also be noted that prior to blacks and women gaining the right to vote, only males of voting age were considered true citizens and only males of voting age were considered for apportionment in the House of Representatives. Historical precedent here is crystal clear. Even though the Census counted everyone, their nationality and sex was also listed and if one was not an American either by birth or by naturalization, they were not counted towards representation in the House.

In that same interview is where Friedman disabuses Donahue of the notion of angels in government.

Reading that, I hear Rearden saying to the judges "I don't recognize your right to control the sale of my metal."

I recall seeing a Donahue show where Milton Friedman exposed the ICC as being a component of government parasitism. The video is on YouTube: "Milton Friedman on Donahue - 1979"
https://youtu.be/1EwaLys3Zak?t=635

Here is another good interview (Donahue / Friedman): https://youtu.be/DvNzi7tmkx0

This was Back In The Day when interviews were actually cordial and productive.

I would add to your comments about the framers and this topic that they explicitly considered and rejected Congress making the rules. As noted in the SCOTUS case of OREGON v. MITCHELL that I referenced elsewhere, one of the Justices cites the record of the changes and reasonings offered regarding that aspect.

Specifically the original proposal was:
"The iqualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors in the several States, of the. most numerous branch of
their own legislatures." Art. IV, § 1.

"The times and places and manner of holding the
elections of the members of each House shall be prescribed by the Legislature of each State; but their provisions concerning them may, at any time, be altered by the Legislature of the United States." 8 Art. VI, § 1."

Clearly we can see the initial thought was to let the Congress control it when they deemed fit. This was soundly rejected:

--
On August 7, Gouverneur Morris moved to strike the last clause of the proposed Art. IV, § 1, and either to provide a freehold limitation on suffrage or to add a clause permitting Congress to alter the electoral qualifications."

This motion was opposed by Oliver Ells- worth, George Mason, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. Ellsworth protested that the proposal favored aristocracy. If the legislature could alter qualifications, it could disqualify a great proportion of the electorate.' Mason voiced a similar objection.

"A power to alter the qualifications would be a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature."

To the same effect Madison said:
"The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fun- damental articles of republican Government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the Legislature."
The proposed motion was defeated by a seven-to-one vote," and no substantive change in Art. I, § 2, was pro- posed or made thereafter.

Thus, Alexander Hamilton accurately reported the in- tent of the Convention when he wrote in The Federal- ist No. 60 that the authority of the national government "would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the
times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature [i. e., Congress]." (Emphasis in original.)
--

And a final note from that case:
"And in United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, the Court was careful to point out that it is the "right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted" which is a privilege of United States citizenship amenable to congressional protection. Id., at 315 (emphasis added). See also Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3230) (CCED Pa.)."

So we can see that the Founders did in fact consider the possibility of the Legislature having that authority as well as the risks and dangers of it, and ruled those risks as "too damned high!", one might say, to be allowed that authority.

Interesting...thanks.

Not even interstate commerce! That was one of the original nails in the constitution coffin! ICC ruling that an Iowa farmer violated ICC and federal rules by growing more wheat than permitted to, then feeding the wheat to his chickens. Ruling was the chicken eggs or chickens might be involved in interstate commerce. Not that they were just that they might be. One of the few political topics that would get my Dad's temper up....mentioning the ICC! Not sure if the farmer lost the farm or not but he was certainly penalized for exceeding his wheat planting allotment,