Patterico's Pontifications

3/30/2021

Washington Post Fact Checker Gives President Biden 4 Pinocchios

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:19 am



[guest post by Dana]

After Georgia’s Governor Kemp signed the state’s voting bill, President Biden came out the following day and wholly condemned it. Part of his criticism focused on his belief that it limited voting hours:

“What I’m worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at five o’clock when working people are just getting off work.”

— President Biden, in remarks at a news conference, March 25

“Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can’t cast their vote after their shift is over.”

— Biden, in a statement “on the attack on the right to vote in Georgia,” March 26

For his inaccurate claims, the Washington Post gave President Biden four Pinocchios:

On Election Day in Georgia, polling places are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and if you are in line by 7 p.m., you are allowed to cast your ballot. Nothing in the new law changes those rules.

However, the law did make some changes to early voting. But experts say the net effect was to expand the opportunities to vote for most Georgians, not limit them.

While the report notes that University of Georgia political scientist Charles S. Bullock III suggested that the President may have been referencing an earlier draft of the bill and not the final copy, it’s good to see accuracy taking priority over the obvious inaccuracy of the President’s claims.

Anyway, while the Georgia law contains the outrageous ban on water being provided to voters in a state where lines extended up to 10 hours last year, it now looks like Florida Republicans will follow suit and also make it illegal to provide water to voters waiting in line:

Florida Republicans are considering a bill that would effectively make it a crime to give voters food or drink, including water, within 150 feet of polling places.

According to the text of an elections bill introduced last week, state law currently prohibits offering voters assistance within 100 feet of polling locations; H.B. 7041 proposes expanding that zone to 150 feet and includes a prohibition on giving “any item” to voters or “interacting or attempting to interact” with voters within that zone.

State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia, a Republican from Spring Hill, said in a committee meeting last Monday that the ban would include “food or beverages.”

Is there no end to the pernicious influence of Trump’s “stolen election” lies on the GOP:

“Congratulations to Georgia and the Georgia state legislature on changing their voter rules and regulations,” Trump said in a statement through his Pac, Save America, which repeated his baseless allegation that fraud was a factor in his election loss to Biden. “They learned from the travesty of the 2020 presidential election, which can never be allowed to happen again. Too bad these changes could not have been done sooner!”

–Dana

49 Responses to “Washington Post Fact Checker Gives President Biden 4 Pinocchios”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (fd537d)

  2. Good for wapo. Biden’s president. While there are flaws with the GA law he needs to focus on those and not misstate what’s actually happening.

    Time123 (8f95ad)

  3. Washington Post Fact Checker Gives President Biden 4 Pinocchios

    4 cases of Ensure would be more practical.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  4. The water thing, while stupid and vicious, is really mostly a shiny object. The real harm of the Georgia bill is that it openly calls for the state legislature to commandeer the verification and counting of ballots by local districts,

    T

    o simplify: The state board, which now will be fully controlled by the Republican legislative majority, is unilaterally empowered to take over (among other things) the process of disqualifying ballots across the state. Given that Georgia Republicans have helped promote false allegations of voter fraud, it’s easy to see why handing them so much power over local election authorities is so worrying.

    The greatest area of concern here for Democrats is Fulton County, home to Atlanta and a disproportionate number of Black voters. Republicans have baselessly alleged that this Democratic bastion was a major site of fraud, citing (among other things) a purported video of ballot-stuffing in the county. Though official investigations, court cases, and independent fact-checks found no evidence of such fraud — in the video or otherwise — the myth that it happened persists.

    The new bill would allow Republicans to seize control of how elections are administered in Fulton County and other heavily Democratic areas, disqualifying voters and ballots as they see fit.

    https://www.vox.com/22352112/georgia-voting-sb-202-explained

    We’re moving to the point where Republican dominated legislatures are determined to ensure that swing states don’t swing.

    Victor (4959fb)

  5. Never forget; it is the policy of the podium-protecting Royalists to use lethal force and shoot United States citizens, including women and veterans, ‘breaking in’ to the U.S. Capitol yet not but welcome, feed, house — and in San Diego, TEACH— not shoot, foreign nationals ‘breaking in’ to the United States proper illegally crossing the border.

    Got it.

    Memo to Xi & Vlad- who needs tank ,uniforms and rifles: cut loose w/a few million pesos for coyotes, have ’em haul up the suckers to the Rio Grande and have’em shout the ol’ speakeasy password as they storm the South and invade:

    ‘Joe sent me.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  6. For his inaccurate claims, the Washington Post gave President Biden four Pinocchios

    For God’s sake, they outta go back and review his 50 year record– much of it printed in their own paper– start w/his 1988 flame out; then peruse the Congressional Record.

    They’d use enough Pinocchios to make Disney sue.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  7. IF it is so important that votes in long lines be given water, I suggest two solutions that are better than allowing partisans to “help”:

    1. Have more polling places, get better poll workers or take other steps to avoid “10 hour long lines” — the lack of water is not the problem here.

    2. Have water provided by the county poll workers, not by partisans.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  8. Victor,

    I think the water part is more than just a shiny object. While I agree that it isn’t the worst part of the bill, I think it is a solid indicator of the tremendous influence Trump still has on the GOP. It also demonstrates just how far the Party is willing to go to appease him (and his MAGA base). That speaks volumes about the current status and future of the GOP. What’s disgusting about it is that it’s all essentially based on Trump’s lies, which too many GOP leaders are still more than willing to believe.

    Dana (fd537d)

  9. @7 The GA bill doesn’t prohibit poll workers from providing water.

    whembly (28d712)

  10. We’re moving to the point where Republican dominated legislatures are determined to ensure that swing states don’t swing.

    Partisan legislative advantage is as old as the republic. The Democrats held a deathgrip on Congress for 50 years last century through effeictive use of the gerrymander.

    And perhaps this move is a reaction to the nationwide Democrat domination of the voting bureaucracy. But that never bothered you, did it?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  11. @7 The GA bill doesn’t prohibit poll workers from providing water.

    Good. But the real problem is a system that results in long voting lines. Such long lines also makes one wonder what the point of mail ballots and early balloting is. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think that it’s not necessary to have 10- hour long voting lines.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  12. Dana, I don’t think you have a leg to stand on in this water thing. It’s just a talking point on both sides. What is reprehensible is polling places that cannot handle the local voters in a reasonable time. The water thing is just eyewash, so to speak.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  13. I find it strange that someone who is a serial plagiarist would end up on the wrong side of the fact-checker’s ledger.

    Hoi Polloi (2f1acd)

  14. Well poll workers could hand out water to people standing in line far away for hours. Or poll workers could be inside helping with the polls. Or a cash strapped county could hire enough poll workers to do both. The latter seems unlikely.

    I would be delighted if counties did everything possible, and had the money to, to keep lines to a minimum. Even better would be ensuring that early voting opportunities and ready access to mail in voting made long lines unnecessary.

    But notice what the Republican legislature actually focuses on – not dealing very directly with lines but making sure they’re as miserable as possible.

    And, as said before, what is really happening is that the gerrymandered state legislature of Red states are taking every possible step to make sure they maintain complete direct control of election processes, taking what has historically been fairly nonpartisan affairs (in theory at least) into the direct and very partisan hands of the Republican party. Why anybody would think that’s a step towards election integrity is beyond me.

    Victor (4959fb)

  15. The water restriction prevents activist groups from distributing water, not the poll workers or a regular citizen. Surprised you haven’t corrected this yet.

    It makes sense since we ban bribes for votes. You can’t hand out packs of cigarettes either.

    NJRob (a9faed)

  16. Kevin @ 12,

    I disagree with you and stand by my point at #8.

    Dana (fd537d)

  17. Speaking of Trump’s lies, the rubes are starting to ask uncomfortable questions.

    Trump’s Millions

    Former President Donald Trump continues to rake in huge piles of cash, but very little of that money has gone toward the causes for which donors believe they are giving. At the heart of various fundraising projects are misleading solicitations that appear primarily to target desperate and loyal middle and lower-income Trump supporters.

    Between November 3, and January 31, Trump raised more than $255 million from voters on the claim that the money would fuel the legal warfare needed to contest the election results. According to Bloomberg, however, by December 4 the total spent on overturning the election was just $8.8 million.

    Worth reading the whole thing.

    But the source of the article is as shocking as what it contains.

    If American Greatness has gone commie, will the true believers create an America Greaterness site to continue the crusade?

    Dave (1bb933)

  18. #15
    Correct.
    The law allows for poll workers to set up tables/stations with water inside the 150ft limit. They will accept donations of water and make them available to the people in line inside the 150′
    Outside the 150′ limit the activists can set up a food truck if they want. 150ft is a line of 25 people at 6 foot COVID spacing so this isn’t that big of a deal unless they’ve only got one voting booth

    I read that Montana and New York already have similar rules although one could argue that in NY case the water has less than $1 value

    steveg (02d731)

  19. #15
    The prohibition on giving food or water is not limited to “activist groups” but applies to anybody:

    But the language in the law doesn’t ban only political entities from handing out water.

    Keith Williams, general counsel to Republican House Speaker David Ralston, told PolitiFact: “Any individual other than a worker at a polling place is prohibited from handing out water, etc., within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of the line.”

    Election law experts reached similar conclusions.

    “I read the solicitation provision and the prohibition on food and water at the polls to be separate prohibitions in the law,” said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine election law professor. “It is not limited to those who are soliciting votes.”

    Justin Levitt, a Loyola Marymount University law school professor, told PolitiFact: “I read, and I believe courts would read, SB 202 to prohibit anyone from giving food or water to any voter in line.”

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/29/josh-holmes/facts-about-georgias-ban-food-water-giveaways-vote/

    Victor (4959fb)

  20. I would note also that the impact of the Georgia law is not just within 150 feet of the polling place. The language says within 25 feet of the line. This implies a prohibition on providing water to somebody in line even if the line is a mile from the polling place.

    Victor (4959fb)

  21. I’m surprised DCSCA hasn’t posted this:

    40 years ago today, Ronald Reagan was shot outside a Washington hotel

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. The link to the NY and Montana regulations is at the Washington Post behind the paywall

    steveg (02d731)

  23. #20
    Because poll workers are sworn not to electioneer?

    https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ttCdjl706t8J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/29/no-delaware-doesnt-specifically-prohibit-food-or-water-polls-like-georgia/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Montana: “On election day, a candidate, a family member of a candidate, or a worker or volunteer for the candidate’s campaign may not distribute alcohol, tobacco, food, drink, or anything of value to a voter within a polling place or a building in which an election is being held or within 100 feet of an entrance to the building in which the polling place is located…”

    “New York’s election code also mentions a prohibition on distributing food and drink — unless it is of little value and no candidate is identified with supplying the food: “Except any such meat, drink, tobacco, refreshment or provision having a retail value of less than one dollar, which is given or provided to any person in a polling place without any identification of the person or entity supplying such provisions.”

    steveg (02d731)

  24. @22. ‘I’m surprised DCSCA hasn’t posted this…’

    The fact you did– and I didn’t– and could care less BTW– says more about your mind set than mine.

    But since you brought it up, one has to admire the tenacity of Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt…and especially the late Jim Brady.

    ‘Assassination Attempts:

    Andrew Jackson – On January 30, 1835, Andrew Jackson was attending a funeral for Congressman Warren Davis. Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot him with two different derringers, each of which misfired. Jackson was incensed and attacked Lawrence with his walking stick. Lawrence was tried for the attempted assassination but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. He spent the rest of his life in an insane asylum.

    Theodore Roosevelt – An assassination attempt was actually not made on Roosevelt’s life while he was in the office of president. Instead, it occurred after he had left office and decided to run for another term against William Howard Taft. While campaigning on October 14, 1912, he was shot in the chest by John Schrank, a mentally disturbed New York saloon keeper. Luckily, Roosevelt had a speech and his spectacle case in his pocket that slowed down the .38 caliber bullet. The bullet was never removed but allowed to heal over. Roosevelt continued with his speech before seeing a doctor.

    Franklin Roosevelt – After giving a speech in Miami on February 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara shot six shots into the crowd. None hit Roosevelt though the Mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak, was shot in the stomach. Zangara blamed wealthy capitalists for his plights and those of other working people. He was convicted of attempted murder and then after Cermak’s death due to the shooting he was retried for murder. He was executed by electric chair in March, 1933.

    Harry Truman – On November 1, 1950, two Puerto Rican nationals attempted to kill President Truman to bring attention to the case for Puerto Rican independence. The President and his family were staying at the Blair House across from the White House and the two attempted assassins, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, tried to shoot their way into the house. Torresola killed one and wounded another policeman while Collazo wounded one policeman. Torresola died in the gunfight. Collazo was arrested and sentenced to death which Truman commuted to life in prison. President Jimmy Carter freed Collazo from prison in 1979.

    Gerald Ford – Ford escaped two assassination attempts, both by women. First on September 5, 1975, Lynette [‘Squeaky’] Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, pointed a gun at him but did not fire. She was convicted of attempting to assassinate the president and sentenced to life in prison. The second attempt on Ford’s life occurred on September 22, 1975 when Sara Jane Moore fired one shot that was deflected by a bystander. Moore was trying to prove herself to some radical friends with the assassination of the president. She was convicted of attempted assassination and sentenced to life in prison.

    [Fromme was paroled from prison on August 14, 2009, after serving approximately 34 years. She published a book about her life in 2018. Reaganomics!]

    Ronald Reagan – On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot in the lung by John Hinckley, Jr. Hinckley hoped that by assassinating the president, he would earn enough notoriety to impress Jodie Foster. He also shot Press Secretary James Brady along with an officer and a security agent. He was arrested but found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was sentenced to life in a mental institution.’ -source, thoughtco.com

    Perhaps you’re more of a Foster fan:

    “My mom had been a publicist, and she was very clear that she tried to guide me to make sure that I wasn’t just going to be known as the person who was involved in the shooting of the President. She said, if you want to have a career that is not about this, so you are never going to talk about it. You’ll do whatever you need to do for the court case, and then that’s it. You won’t talk about it.” – Jodie Foster

    source– https://uproxx.com/viral/jodie-foster-career-link-john-hinckley-jr-reagan-assasination-attempt/

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  25. We’re moving to the point where Republican dominated legislatures are determined to ensure that swing states don’t swing.

    So your answer is that the Democrat-dominated Congress should intervene and take over voting across all of the states, to ensure that swing states don’t swing?

    JVW (ee64e4)

  26. But the source of the article is as shocking as what it contains.

    If American Greatness has gone commie, will the true believers create an America Greaterness site to continue the crusade?

    I was stunned and amazed when I read that American Greatness piece this morning. Is the writer something like Allahpundit at Hot Air — a heretic who’s kept around so the regulars will have someone to beat up on? Is the editor finally outing himself as a Deep State hack? Or is the Former Guy just not all that worth defending anymore when he’s not in power?

    Radegunda (f4d5c0)

  27. HR1 does not, unlike the Georgia Bill, put a legislature in direct control of local election boards and oversees their counting of votes. It simply sets uniform rules for voting.

    It is in fact one of the faults of HR1 that it will not prevent states like Georgia from having their gerrymandered partisan state legislatures in a position to commandeer local election boards.

    Victor (4959fb)

  28. It looks like not being able to give someone water in line with you is not entirely true. You need to read the actual law. The link to the article shows what was added by the new law to current law. It is not illegal to give a fellow human being standing in line with you to vote a drink of water, unless …

    “‘You can’t provide water for people about to vote’ is just false. What you cannot do under the new Georgia law is deploy people in National Rifle Association t-shirts and MAGA hats to hand out free Koch-brothers-financed, Federalist Society–branded pizza [or water] to voters.”

    Joe Biden Botches the Georgia Voting Law

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  29. HR1 does not, unlike the Georgia Bill, put a legislature in direct control of local election boards and oversees their counting of votes. It simply sets uniform rules for voting.

    It is in fact one of the faults of HR1 that it will not prevent states like Georgia from having their gerrymandered partisan state legislatures in a position to commandeer local election boards.

    Victor (4959fb) — 3/30/2021 @ 11:08 pm

    US Constitution Article II Section 1:

    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…

    Only a state legislature may make changes to election laws for Electors. Any other party making changes to the election laws for Electors is unconstitutional. The federal government is not a state legislature and setting “uniform rules for voting” is therefore unconstitutional because only state legislatures may make rules about electoral elections.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  30. Tanny,

    You would probably enjoy reading the entire Constitution someday, including this part:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    Art. I, sec, iv.

    Victor (4959fb)

  31. 7. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 3/30/2021 @ 11:53 am

    IF it is so important that votes in long lines be given water, I suggest two solutions that are better than allowing partisans to “help”:

    1. Have more polling places, get better poll workers or take other steps to avoid “10 hour long lines” — the lack of water is not the problem here.

    2. Have water provided by the county poll workers, not by partisans.

    The bill, I read does two things along these lines:

    1. Require that a note be made of any lines that last over an hour with the idea of making changes for the next year (but this is most likely to happen in presidential elections – and since when is an hour tolerable anyway?)

    2. Provide for the possibility of self service water stations being placed along the line.

    What’s ridiculous about this is that, if this is to be considered a bribe, or even used as cover for distributing flyers when nobody is looking is that p[partisans can in other cases do so much more:

    1. Tell people the other party doesn’t want them to vote.

    2. Help people register to vote. It seems now, in Georgia, you’ve got to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles before you can register to vote or maybe even maintain your old registration. There may be some exceptions – most important on college campuses.

    3. Call people up on the phone

    4. Drive people to the polls.

    But all these other things, though, probably cost more time and effort and money.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  32. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 3/30/2021 @ 11:57 am

    The Democrats held a deathgrip on Congress for 50 years last century through effective use of the gerrymander.

    Forty years, 1954-1994. In the 1960s it probably didn;t make any difference. So this was after the 1970 and the 1980 Censuses. Also 1990, but a lot of House members retired in 1992 becase of the House Bank scandal, reapportionment and the expiration of the period during which long serving members of Cngress could put old campaign funds into their own pocket.

    and then came Clinton making Democratic members of Congress look like rubber stamps – although he though votes in which all Republicans voted against and Democrats were split would make Republicans look partisan.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  33. Victor @31. hat;s what Tanny said.

    There are three kinds of elections:

    1. Purely state elections

    2. Elections for Congress

    3. Elections for presidential electors (Congress can set only the date)

    Maybe a 4th kind, presidential primaries

    Congress can make and alter regulation only for category 2. But it might be an administrative nightmare to have different regulations. You could most easily do this with elections held on different days. New York City went back to the old voting machines for one mayoral election – in 2013 I think. Bi member of Congress was being elected.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  34. Sammy,

    I agree I confused votes for presidents with votes for Congress. I also agree that it would be peculiar to have different voting systems for one v. the other , let alone different systems for state v. federal elections.

    I disagree, by the way, that “state legislature” refers only to the bare text of state statutes as interpreted by federal courts and does not include initiatives, or state executive/judiciary interpretations of those statutes or relevant state constitutional language.

    Victor (4959fb)

  35. Tanny,

    You would probably enjoy reading the entire Constitution someday, including this part:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    Art. I, sec, iv.

    Victor (4959fb) — 3/31/2021 @ 8:34 am

    You might try to be a little less condescending as I have read the whole US Constitution as well as most of Joseph Story’s 1833 three volume 900 page publication of Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. The part of the Constitution I referenced addresses electoral college elections. Regarding the presidential election which is electing electoral college representatives, Congress is not allowed to make changes unless they amend the constitution.

    As with many laws Congress passes I believe much of HR1 violates article 1 section 8 of the enumerated powers of the federal government.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  36. Tanny,

    I am glad I am discussing this with someone well read. And I do try to be less condescending, but temperamentally, I am just basically sarcastic.

    Now as for substance. Why do you think HR 1 violates Congressional power pursuant to Art.I, sec. iv?

    Victor (4959fb)

  37. Sammy Finkelman (6975b4) — 3/31/2021 @ 9:24 am

    Thank you Sammy. While I was composing my response you chimed in. It takes me a while to compose a comment because of Parkinson’s which limits my ability to type I use Siri dictation then to the best of my ability make manual corrections. I appreciate your correction.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  38. Now as for substance. Why do you think HR 1 violates Congressional power pursuant to Art.I, sec. iv?

    Victor (4959fb) — 3/31/2021 @ 9:59 am

    Well let’s start with the constitutional authority statement of the bill.

    Constitutional Authority Statement

    [Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 2 (Monday, January 4, 2021)]
    [House]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    By Mr. SARBANES:
    H.R. 1.
    Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
    to the following:
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
    [Page H51]

    Here’s the clause.

    Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 – Powers of Congress
    Clause 1

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    I’m assuming that they mean general Welfare as their constitutional authority since nothing else is applicable.

    The US Constitution dot net website defines Welfare as:

    Welfare
    welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

    Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

    How about we ask what some people call the father of the constitution James Madison about the meaning of the word Welfare in this context? Letter from James Madison to Andrew Stevenson regarding the general welfare clause.

    In the US Constitution “common defence and general welfare” is to be used to pay down debt incurred by the states for the revolution. Not as some think to create any law under the sun.

    If this bill is about electing senators, then why didn’t they use article 1 section 4 which you pointed out gives them authority? I don’t even have to go to the text of the bill to know that their authority is wrong.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  39. If I had time, it would be interesting to figure out what authority Congress has cited for other legislation affecting voting, e.g. setting uniform voting days or the age of voters. Regardless I can’t get too upset if someone cites a general authority by Congress for doing legislation if other more specific parts of the Constitution serve the same purpose.

    Is your argument that the bill fails because they are not citing the right part of the Constitution, or that it’s unconstitutional per se?

    Victor (4959fb)

  40. Is your argument that the bill fails because they are not citing the right part of the Constitution, or that it’s unconstitutional per se?

    Victor (4959fb) — 3/31/2021 @ 11:49 am

    Both, because the bill contains items other than voting for Senators there is no constitutional authority for HR1. Unfortunately many of the laws Congress passes are not in the article 1 section 8 enumerated powers of the federal government and the 16th amendment.

    From HR1’s Constitutional Authority Statement

    About Constitutional Authority Statements
    On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Rule XII. Rule XII, clause 7(c) requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

    Under their own rules the Constitutional Authority Statement is invalid since it does not give them constitutional authority to make the law they are making in HR1.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  41. Can you point to a specific item in the bill for you think there is no constitutional authority? Someone I know suggest that the Republican Guaranty clause is also pertinent, which would be kind of ironic I suppose.

    I note also that to the extent the intention is to alleviate prior voting rules that discriminated against minority populations that the 15th Amendment comes into play.

    Victor (4959fb)

  42. The mention of senators in Article I, Section 4 is a vestige of the original selection by state legislatures, and rendered moot by the 17th Amendment, surely.

    Dave (1bb933)

  43. I don’t see how the new and even old disclosure requirements are to violation of the First Amendment.

    But just based on what they believe their constitutional authority is to even an act a bill such as this is a reason it should be vetoed or not even voted in the Senate.

    I also believe that it violates the concept of limited federal government which is not against big government (see post office). The federal government should have as little control as possible. If it’s not an enumerated federal power then they should stay out of it.

    I’m tired (Parkinson’s fatigue) and I’ll have to get back to you later, but I don’t see a reason to provide any more information than I already have.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  44. Well we can disagree whether rules to make campaign contributions transparent, and to reduce the role of money in political campaigning violates the First Amendment.

    I continue to be curious as to which provisions you think are beyond any specific enumerated powers.

    As to the “concept” of limited government, that’s not actually part of the constitution in the very literal sense of being part of the language of the Constitution. The closest is Amendment X, and that, literally, merely states a truism – that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. It, on its own, does not set particular limits on those powers.

    Finally, if the people writing the bill have their reasons for keeping their constitutional authority vague, it’s a fault but not a mortal defect. Ultimately it would be up to some court to decide if the government has the pwoer to enact these laws even if it botched its explanation.

    Victor (4959fb)

  45. The closest is Amendment X, and that, literally, merely states a truism – that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states. It, on its own, does not set particular limits on those powers.

    That seems to me a rather tendentious reading.

    What it actually says is that powers not granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states. That sets a very particular and specific limit on the federal government’s powers, at least to the extent we can agree on what the words in the constitution mean.

    You’re right in the sense that, apart from a very small number of things declared off-limits, almost any power could theoretically be granted to the federal government by amending the constitution, up to and including repealing the Bill of Rights and Amendment X.

    But consensus on any subject of sufficient importance to justify an amendment seems an unlikely process for the foreseeable future.

    Dave (1bb933)

  46. process prospect

    Dave (1bb933)

  47. 41. Tanny O’Haley (8a06bc) — 3/31/2021 @ 12:51 pm

    On January 5, 2011, the House of Representatives adopted an amendment to House Rule XII. Rule XII, clause 7(c) requires that, to be accepted for introduction by the House Clerk, all bills (H.R.) and joint resolutions (H.J.Res.) must provide a document stating “as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

    Under their own rules the Constitutional Authority Statement is invalid since it does not give them constitutional authority to make the law they are making in HR1.

    But nothing in House Rule XII says the the source of authority has to be correct!

    Most members of Congress have probably gotten around to citing Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 as boilerplate.

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

  48. *34 errata.

    Last sentence should read:

    No member of Congress was being elected.

    I hit two keys just to the left of the ones for the word “No”

    Sammy Finkelman (6975b4)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2726 secs.