Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Entry: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

The Democrats’ hysteric reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision staying premature litigation against a presidential order that might eventually regulate mail-in ballots is unsurprising. From Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s over-wrought dissent alleging the result will be “chaos” and Time magazine’s twaddle that the high court is “rigging” the elections, to blather about Trump subverting the Constitution, the reactions are unmoored from reality.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California reinforces the separation of powers, while the underlying dispute brings to the fore legal questions about administration of federal elections, and political questions about Democratic Party leaders’ refusal to stop noncitizens from voting.

The Constitution imposes on states the duty to prescribe the time, place, and manner of federal elections. It confers on Congress the power to preempt those regulations. However, neither Congress nor the president may decide who can vote. Rather, the Constitution requires that each state align eligibility to vote in federal elections with its requirements for its state legislature. So far, no state permits noncitizens to vote in these elections.

In the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Congress delegated to the executive branch certain powers to regulate how the states implement their elections. Citing those powers, President Trump issued an Executive Order in March that directed, to the extent feasible and lawful, the Department of Homeland Security to compile and deliver to states lists of citizens eligible to vote. It also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to develop uniform standards for mail-in and absentee ballots.

No changes would be made until the agencies completed their deliberations, issued proposed rules, and the rules became effective. The order did not impose any........

© RealClearPolitics