Posted on 11/02/2008 4:30:48 AM PST by careyb
Here is what the Constitution says:
"The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
Note the last several words. The election has to be on the same day throughout the United States.
In my opinion, early voting violates this principle in two ways:
1. It says "day" not "days". Which means the election should be held on a singular day, not over multiple days.
2. It says "the same throughout the United States." Early voting laws vary from state to state. It is certainly not "the same throughout the United States."
Is this just me?
(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...
I think the franchise should be limited to people who do not get their living or a portion of it from the government. Such people are a natural constituency for ever increasing spending.
Let’s take this case to the Supreme Court NOW and cancel this election. We can reschedule it about 6-8 more months.
The manner of choosing Presidential electors is left up to the states. In fact, a state's governor could appoint all of its Presidential electors, and that would be completely constitutional.
Isn’t it somewhere in the Constitution that the election will be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?
They are referring to electors, not voters. All electors must meet on the same day, not voters. If what you claim is true, absentee ballots would be illegal.
It was also the State laws, and how they attempted to comply with Federal Laws...such as by the standards being the same before the election as after; and complying with the Safe Harbour law.
To me, the "their votes" clearly refers to the electors, not the People. The Founding Fathers did not see the electors being chosen by popular vote. They thought Governors would appoint them.
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The Congress may determine the Time but most of the responsibility is on the States. Has Congress determined the Time? I suppose states could say the ballots are "collected" during the prior month and actually "cast" on 11/4, a la absentee ballots.
It has happened a smattering of times over the years, including one of the more recent examples of an Elector deliberately swapping the President and Vice Presidential candidates names.
“What do y’all think?”
I’m with you.
EVERYthing that has been done to “improve” voting has done little more than subvert and corrupt the process, and tilt the results towards liberals and their efforts to tamper with the integrity of the vote.
We should go back to the “old way”: that is to say, register IN ADVANCE, then show up and vote on the first Tuesday in November (with absentee ballots for a select and justified few who otherwise could not make it to the polls).
No “early voting”
No “mail-in ballots”
No “Motor Voter”
No “Provisional ballots”
No “Same day registration/voting”
Restricted absentee balloting
In effect, we should make it HARDER to cast your vote, not easier. This filters out the fraud by default, in that voting takes effort and dedication.
In my state (Connecticut) there is even a ballot provision this year to “extend” the voting age downward to age 17, in state primary elections! Absolute nonsense, though it will probably pass.
I guess I’m a curmudgeon, but proud of being one. I’ll go so far as to say that I think the voting age should be raised back up to age 21 nationally. There was a reason the founding fathers selected this age - and that was in a time when young men often had to begin “making it on their own” earlier in life.
Just some thoughts,
- John
Another "yes", unless a mechanism is created to make sure votes are not duplicated, amd not opened or counted until the prescribed "official" day.
Additionally, the reason for absentee voting should be narrowly defined, and not trivial, as simply for "convenience."
Civic duty doesn't tolerate "convenience."
As someone who voted initially at the age of 19 (for GWB in '00), I completely agree. The only problem is a) would a Constitutional amendment even get to Congress and b) even if it gets that far, would it even be ratified by half of the state, let alone 2/3rds that's required?
Early voting is another way to cheat...anyone who knows and cares what the founders intended will be voting on the day that was picked. First Tuesday of November anything else is unconstitutional...
Absolutely correct.
Article I, Section II of the Constitution provides:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
So the state legislatures are free to pick their Electors in any manner they see fit, subject only to the Constitutional limitation on the number of Electors and the prohibition on elected officials serving as Electors.
Currently, every state legislature has directed that their Electors be appointed based on popular vote; however, any state legislature could decide to have their state's Electors appointed by the legislature, by the governor, or by spinning a roulette wheel.
That should read "Article II, Section I."
I'm only dyslexic when I tpye.
That should read "Article II, Section I."
I'm only dyslexic when I type.
The OPERATIVE clause is:
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors ...
Since Congress has determined that 11/4 (this year) is Election Day (the Time of choosing electors), it seems to me that any early voting law enacted by any State is unconstitutional.
I refer to:
Article VI (2):
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This supremacy clause has been called the “linchpin of the Constitution”, since when state laws conflict with national laws enacted within the powers granted to Congress, the national laws prevail.
Since Congress has determined what day is Election Day, and has made NO allowance for States to enact their own early voting laws ... early voting should be unconstitutional Q.E.D.
Anyway - thats my 2 cents ...
Yep. And social programs aren’t on the list of deliniated congressional powers, but we have them. We aren’t supposed to have standing armies, funded for more than 2 years for the same purpose, but we have them. The government is supposed to protect property rights, but if it wants to sell your proprety to developers for more taxes, that’s just fine.
We are so far out in the weeds from original constitutional intent and have been for so long it’s really no wonder Obama sounds like a good thing to all the sheeples.
You’re right. There is less room for fraud and manipulation if all the votes are cast on one day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.