"the constitution is quite clear that citizens are the only ones considered in apportionment"
Where is this in the Constitution?

Other than they completely ignored the actual uniformity directly specified in the constitution, and have been doing so for a long time.

To wit regarding POTUS:
"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."

One day to choose electors, the same across the country.
Early voting stands opposite this. Extended voting stands opposite this. Arguably so does mail-in. Both of which they've tried to work around by not "counting" them until election day. Meaning they know there is a constitutional mandate that there is one day allocated to choosing electors.

And to your point about modifying the constitution via proper amendment, that is how we've done it in the past. In 1965 the federal congress tried to set a lower age criteria (18) across the board, but found they could only do that for federal elections. That was the result of a (divided) SCOTUS ruling.

In Oregon v. Mitchell the court upheld that the necessary and proper clause allows the legislature to set qualifications for federal elections, and federal elections only. Rather than having to maintain separate sets of rolls, an amendment was proposed and ratified fixing the age of adulthood for voting at 18. For citizens.

One thing is repeated across all references to voter qualification and apportionment: citizenship. Under the Necessary and Proper clause, Congress could mandate an ID. Why? Because the Constitution is explicit that only citizens are counted for apportionment and only citizens can vote. Thus, for federal elections, the Congress could enact law to mandate citizens, and only citizens, of the United States vote in federal elections.

But there is a tricky bit there. You see, in the aforementioned SCOTUS decision they upheld a Congressional ban on a state prohibiting a citizen from voting in their state if they can't prove residency. They did so under the notion that to do that in a federal election would be to infringe on your right to freely move about. No kidding:

"There is adequate constitutional basis for the residency provisions of the Act in §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as there is ample justification for the congressional findings that durational residence requirements abridge the right of free interstate migration -and that such requirements are not reasonably related to any compelling state interests."

and:
"
4. The.residency provisions of the Act are constitutional because Congress, while it does not have general authority to establish qualifications for voting in congressional or presidential elections, does have the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to' protect the privileges of United States citizenship, including the freedom to travel and to change one's residence."


Now I'd argue that today this does not hold true. Clearly today we can see that states have a compelling interest in only their citizens voting for their state officials at the federal level. In 1970 when this decision was handed down, the idea that people could vote in other states than where they live in enough numbers to make a difference was probably laughable.

Today, with our current capabilities this is not the case. That said, it is stunning to think they concluded that a state has no compelling interest in ensuring that only resident citizens of the state get to vote on who represents the state.

Where the Congress could improve things here (but clearly would not do so) is to establish a system for validating 1) Only citizens are voting in federal elections and 2) that said citizen is voting in only one jurisdiction for federal offices. This would be well within the N&P clause as well as in line with the above SCOTUS decision. Though that decision should be revisited and put into the dustbin.

At a minimum, the federal government, it could be argued, has a compelling interest in each state's offices only being voted on by residents of that state. Even if somehow the states do not.

Faced with having to maintain two sets of rolls, states may well extend their own ID requirement, implement one. In the end, however, the constitution is quite clear that citizens are the only ones considered in apportionment and have the privilege of voting (one of the things that case got right: voting is a privilege); as such mandating photo ID confirming citizenship as well as proper voting jurisdiction would fall under the N&P clauses.

Similarly, and thinking a bit further on it, state ID requirements are not actually an additional requirement being established, merely a means to validate the criteria (legal adult citizen who has not had eligibility lawfully stripped) have been met. Perhaps that is an approach proponents should focus on more - that the ID is to validate an existing constitutional requirement. It would have no effect the ideologues, but could be helpful for developing that understand in others.

Yes. although we have some weapons in our locker. I had to (not of my own volition, my mother in laws birthday) schedule a flight to New York. There were deals for American and Delta but they are now verboten for their BS racist policies and attempt to support voter fraud. So, I went back to United and found a decent price, and was able to pay the ferryman to get some bigger seats. The American flights same day were half empty, as was Delta. United was full. That tells me the silent majority is indeed fighting back, and using their money as a weapon. We must use anything we can to show our anger at these criminals and their attempts to secure the coup.

When a governmental organization has a structure that allows the use of violence to demand obedience then sociopaths will almost always be the ones seeking that position. There may be a few who are moral objective thinkers but they will be ineffective because they are outnumbered.
Participating in the process enamors those in power to believe they have been sanctioned to do whatever they can get the 'public' to agree to. Unfortunately the majority of the public are easily misled. The results will always be bad.
Choosing a political leader (or choosing the lesser of two evils) will result in choosing a slave master.
Haven't voted in decades. Don't participate with evil.
I have read the suggestions put forth of how the corrupt system could be modified to make it behave properly. The system has shown its ability to do whatever it wants and ignore those who would redirect it. A paradigm shift is needed.

Dare I say it? Day of the Rope. Talk, talk, talk, blog, post, harumph... and nothing changes. My property taxes go up 40% in one year and I just pay it. The Navarro Report shows the clear fraud in the US Presidential election. Nothing changes; "cleanest elections in history" we are told. Conservatives, Libertarians, Capitalists are Cancelled from their media platforms. Silence. Things are going to get a hell of a lot worse and when individual breaking points are reached, then we will see the results of cold, calculated retribution in context of taking down the criminal creatures.

Dare I say it? You open the newspaper one morning and see a splash photo -- one of these creatures is hanging, naked, from a rope just outside the state house (you pick the house). No note, no manifesto. None are necessary. Within days, this action is repeated across the country, then migrates to Europe and then the World.

Day of the Rope. Things just need to get worse. And they will.

First, Congratulations. You used your Free Speech to engage in conversation.

You were NOT shut down, and through that conversation, you MIND was changed.

Unfortunately, 1/2 of the population of this country is SO BRAINWASHED, that the very thought of this process is being BANNED throughout the country, and in the press.

I used to be against a Federal ID. Unfortunately, I believe we need one for voting. I own a house in 2 states.
I could easily register to vote in both. I could, in fact, vote in both. When does it cross the line? What if I only vote for the president in one state?

But our problems are not our citizens. They are the ruling class. Their refusal to abide by the constitution, and our inability to put them in front of a firing squad. Bring back the firing squad for elected officials, and I bet things start to change after about the 5th or 6th public demonstration that we are serious, and will continue until the corruption ends!

Yup, that's it "in their Nut shells".

Take that any way you wish...! Laughing

Yes, this is a non - judgement zone. This is my go to place to learn what is really happening in this country. I too have little use for the Federal government other than the military and to a degree the Interstate Highway system. I too agree that the end is near and it may take a "miracle" to change the trajectory avoiding an armed conflict.

Information is NOT Knowledge! Where you get your information from and how you choose to accept it, research it and believe or disbelieve it is what makes for knowledge. That old adage, "We are here from the Government and here to help" is the biggest bullshit lie that far too many of us are willing to accept. Elected officials have just one ever present duty and it encompasses 95% of their entire being, get reelected at whatever the cost.

So, the states DID do "whatever they want" and they stole 2020. That did not go well. look beyond the simple answer, this has been an engineered effort over the last 80 years, using racial divides and emotional manipulation to culminate in covid. A criminal is a criminal, whether at state level or Fed, and we are infested with them. The rational approach does not work with these creatures. Another revolution is brewing fast.

Rainman, I think you tossed in the tuna too early. The only thing that would have stopped the theft of 2020 would have been a universal standard, paper ballots, both parties able to have observers anywhere, and voter ID. The moment you allow states to take control of federal elections you get EXACTLY what we got, one creepy corrupt secretary of state saying "we because of covid, we will start voting Aug01 and end Nov 30 or some such crap, and no way to stop, as the corrupt courts stopped every lawsuit to stop it. You want corrupt voting? Vote by mail. A dead cat can get a ballot in Oregon (dogs already do). They print huge numbers of them and they are everywhere, and then you just print a few more and slip them in. The total lack of nonesty and morality dictates a system where enough people are in the chain, to establish complete control so no a hole like the ones in Georgia (lets lock the room and pull out the suitcase and scan them over and over) or in Philly (keep the Republicans in a room 30 feet away to "observe") can happen. HR1 is just taking the techniques they perfected in the states and applying them everywhere. The people who proposed and voted for it, self indicted themselves for treason.

You have a healthy mind capable of re-examining your premises. I wish all were as astute and more concentrated on seeing the truth of any matter than remaining dogmatic. You are to be heartily congratulated for being willing to look at more than just your own view of the topic and deciding on what is best despite your own inclinations. Well done!

A note regarding the Founders. The Founding Fathers foresaw each State as having significant leeway in trying out different things, with the intent and understanding being that each State would be free to experiment and see what worked for its needs. The Founders eschewed forcing the States to comply on all but the weightiest moral principles precisely because they saw a monolithic Federal government as the quickest path to tyranny. States should be free to see what other States are doing and adopt or reject those notions as their voters see fit.

Centralization leads to control and prevents effective, targeted problem resolution. We can see this in every single Federal program from welfare to education to energy policy. The only effective central policies are those which proscribe a position and then leave it to the local peoples and their respective governments to follow a solution which works for them.

No apologies necessary...the key, as we all know, is that the constitution limits the federal governments responsibilities; meaning, No across the board rules about anything except our rights and perhaps interstate commerce.

And, unfortunately, who gets defined as "bad guys" is based solely on which side of the fence you're sitting on. From the left's perspective, we really are a threat to the country--or at least, to the country they're trying to create which makes us the bad guys.

"Whatever they want" was really just a way of saying "they don't all have to have the same election systems in place". But that was one of those phrases that if I'd been able to say it, with the inflection and sarcasm, it would have been clearer. Sorry.

It's not exactly that the states can do what ever they want, they have their own constitutions and that constitution must abide by the US Constitution...so if any more conformity was desired between the states, we could Amend the constitution in the proper way via majority of the states ratifying that amendment.

I know what you mean, rainman0720. Procedural uniformity through standardization has a great sound until the bad guys are in charge of setting the standards.

The Gulch is good for that, and usually with respectful comments that are uncommon these days. I have been 'recalibrated' a few times in my time here, frequently just by lurking.