Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Trump Signs Executive Oder To Put Limit On mail-in voting

Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order that the White House says is aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting.

“It’s about voter integrity, we want to have honest voting in our country because if you don’t have honest voting, you can’t have really a nation,” Trump said after signing the order in the Oval Office.

It’s not clear what authority Trump is relying on to carry out the order — given that states, not the president, have broad authority to run elections. Trump has repeatedly and baselessly argued that US elections are rife with fraud and has sought to require proof of citizenship to vote.

Trump acknowledged the order could be legally challenged by a “rogue” federal judge, but he added, “I don’t see how anybody can challenge it.”

The order also directs the Homeland Security secretary, in coordination with the Social Security Administration commissioner, to compile and transmit “State Citizenship Lists” to the chief election official of each state.

“The State Citizenship List shall be derived from Federal citizenship and naturalization records, SSA records, SAVE data, and other relevant Federal databases,” the order states. “The State Citizenship List shall be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60 days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a State in connection with any special Federal election.”

Experts note that noncitizen voting in federal elections already is illegal and is exceedingly rare. Foreigners who cast ballots in presidential or congressional elections risk prosecution and deportation if caught.

White House aide Will Sharf said Tuesday that the order will use federal data to verify eligible voters and direct the United States Postal Service to take new measures to verify that mail-in ballots are being sent to eligible voters and properly returned.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said states will be required to receive a bar code from the USPS that will be placed on mail-in ballot envelopes.

“The states run these elections — if they want to use the US mail, the US Postal Service, they’re going to get a code, a bar code, from the US Postal Service and they’re going to put that on the envelope and we’re going to have one envelope per vote,” Lutnick said, standing behind Trump in the Oval Office.

n recent weeks, the president has demanded that Congress pass a proof-of-citizenship requirement and other changes to election law as part of a bill dubbed the “Save America Act,” but it has failed to gain traction in the Senate.

Trump, who has declared voting by mail cheating, defended his own vote by mail in a recent Florida special election, saying, “Because of the fact that I’m President of the United States.”

States may decide to ignore this order, or the USPS altogether, because EACH ballot has a code unique to the REGISTERED voter and voters must be citizens to receive a main-in ballot.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BohoBabe · M
We know that Trump is doing whatever his fascist puppet-masters are telling him. I want to know what Democrats are going to do to stop this. At some point where need to stop blaming the Fascists and start blaming the people who are supposed to be anti-fascist.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe The Democrat-run states, will refuse to comply and continue to run elections the same way. They will use the courts to try to clock the Executive order and take it to SCOTUS because it's unconstitutional.

What else can they do?
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest After they win, they need to do whatever they can to imprison the people who tried to pass these laws. That's what they should have done in 2021, but of course, Democrats can't imprison Republicans, because that would be going against precedent.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe courts decide it.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest Then the Democrats should take over the courts and arrest the Republicans.
Democracy can't survive this system where the Republicans go on a non-stop crime spree, then Democrats are in office, everything is calm for a few years, then Republicans win and continue the crime spree. Democracy can't handle this wimpy obama-ass strategy of "looking forward, not backwards."
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe
Democracy can't handle this wimpy obama-ass strategy of "looking forward, not backwards."

I realize this may seem normal to you, because of your country's history of making things happen using force, but we have a Constitution and elections. Insisting on looking forward is the opposite of Trump who wants to rehash the 2020 elections.

In the USA, we have two options: Courts and Elections.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest First of all, the reason Fascism happened in Germany is because of this attitude. The government could have just banned the NSDAP. In the case of America, the government could have arrested all of the Republicans involved in the Fake Electors Plot, which was illegal. The Constitution also prohibits Trump from holding public office because he engaged in an insurrection against the democratic government.

What I'm saying requires force, but nothing illegal. I'm saying the Democrats should have arrested the Republicans who broke the law on 1/6, and they all should have been permanently banned from holding public office again. But Democrats won't do that because it would be unprecedented. It would have been a drastic change to the normal "business as usual" style of American politics.

Secondly, if the election actually was stolen in 2020, then Trump would be in the right. The reason Trump is in the wrong is because we all know the election wasn't stolen. When Obama said he didn't want to look back, he was being a pussy. "Looking back" meant arresting war criminals like Bush and Cheney. Instead, Obama let them have a pass, and the Republicans were emboldened to be even more lawless and fascist.

Yes, we have courts and elections. But that means nothing if the Democrats aren't willing to use those courts.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe
Yes, we have courts and elections. But that means nothing if the Democrats aren't willing to use those courts.

I'm confused about why you think the Democrat Party is not using the court system.

You also might be confused because you think Obama came AFTER Trump.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest Because the Republicans committed a massive crime spree the first time Trump was president, then when Biden was president, nobody went to prison.

The reason I partly blame Obama is because when he was asked about charging the Bush-Cheney admin for the war crime they committed, his answer was that he didn't want to look backwards, he wanted to look forwards. Basically, he decided to let them get away with it. This greatly emboldened the Republicans because they knew they could do whatever they want, the Democrats would do nothing to enforce the law.

Yes, I know that nobody could have predicted Trump would be THIS corrupt, it's not a normal situation. But even if Trump was just a regular corrupt Republican, the party would still continue moving towards Fascism because of what Obama allowed.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe
the party would still continue moving towards Fascism because of what Obama allowed.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that Congress authorized Bush to go to war, and this time you're blaming Obama for something that was done before his time as President. He wasn't even officially a Senator at that point.

Not to mention that while the Iraq was a colossal mistake, and fraud was used to justify it, it was not classified as a war crime.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest I'm not blaming Obama for the war or the crimes, obvi he couldn't have stopped them. I'm blaming him for not using his position as president to hold Bush accountable, thus emboldening the Republicans to continue committing crimes, knowing there probably won't be any consequences.

The war crimes were things done to detainees, not the war itself. However, lying to congress is a crime, and it's pretty clear that a bunch of Bush admin Republicans did that in order to get the war.

Every day we see Trump manically screaming about imaginary crimes, demanding the DOJ investigate anyone who doesn't show him proper loyalty. I want Democrats to do that, but for actual crimes, of which there are more than plenty.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe You continue to gloss over the fact that Congress authorized Bush to act snd Obama's only course of action was to issue new guidance to the Pentagon on treatment of prisoners.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest But the Bush admin lied to congress. They then committed war crimes during the war. Obama could have used the bully pulpit to get the DOJ to go after the last admin. I don't understand why Republicans can do this with fake crimes, but Democrats can't do this with real ones.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe You don't seem to understand what the 3 different branches of government do.

The President cannot be prosecuted for anything Federal crimes he may have committed while on the job. This is confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Republicans are not really getting away with stuff, Trump is getting away with stuff. The President can do whatever he wants. Only two things can stop him:

1. The Supreme Court, if SCOTUS deems it unconstitutional. Then if the President refuses to comply, it is up to Congress to appoint someone to carry the SCOTUS orders.

2. If Congress votes with a 2/3 majority to override the President's orders.

3. If Congress Impeaches AND Convicts the President.

4. 25th Amendment, section 4, which is called by the Vide President, and a majority of the Cabinet approves the removal of the President.

Which one of these things do you think the Democrats have control over?

Congress has a MAGA majority and the only way to change that, is the mid-term elections.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest So why couldn't Democrats use the bully pulpit the way Trump does? Why couldn't the Democrats publicly demand the DOJ go after the Bush admin when Obama was president, or the Trump admin when Biden was president?

Republicans are absolutely getting away with stuff because Trump wasn't the only person involved in the Fake Electors Plot. If the DOJ did its job, there would have been mass arrests of Republicans after 1/6.

By the time Biden became president, it was 100% clear that the Republicans fully embraced Fascism. So why didn't Biden pack the court so that it had a Democrat majority?

Yes, right now MAGA controls all three branches. I think that after the midterms, the Democrats will control congress. My question is, what will they actually do to fight back? Like I said before, I'm tired of people blaming Fascists for doing Fascism. We need to start blaming the opposition for allowing Fascism.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe Jesus Christ!

I've explained to you 10 times already: Congress approves the Iraq War, and the President is NOT liable while in office.

His Cabinet also did NOT exceed the limitations set by the Attorney General.

Obama had control of Congress for exactly 2 years. His first two years.

Obama's DOJ had no basis to go after the Bush administration for abuse of power or criminal activities.

What Democrats will do, if they win control, is what is prescribed by the law, and not act like they're above the law, because you move forward and allow the courts to do their thing.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest Let's focus on one topic at a time.

Congress approves the Iraq War, and the President is NOT liable while in office.

But after Obama took the presidency from Bush, then Bush becomes liable for any crimes he committed as president, correct? At that point, Bush was no longer president.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe Dude, this is the last response here. The President is NOT liable for anything while he's President. It doesn't mean that the next guy can prosecute him. You should try to understand what "he's not liable for ANYTHING he did while President". Period.

He can send a SEAL team to execute Chuck Shumer and his liability is ZERO. Not during the term of his presidency, and NOT in any other Presidency, from that moment forward. This was confirmed by SCOTUS.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest That's absolutely not true. This was confirmed by the current SCOTUS as a way to protect Trump. This was not the case back when Obama was president.
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe
This was not the case back when Obama was president.

Like I said, this has ALWAYS been the case. Learn something.

Article II provides absolute immunity from civil liability for official acts

Before Trump, the Supreme Court (e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald) has argued that immunity is necessary for the president to act independently without fear of lawsuits.
BohoBabe · M
@Northwest Article II doesn't actually mention immunity from civil liability. The SCOTUS has decided that based on who was on the bench at the time, but that's not really what it says in the Constitution.

So legally speaking, it would have been possible to arrest Bush. Whether or not that actually would have happened, what the SCOTUS at the time would have said, that's a different issue. Can we agree on that?
Northwest · M
@BohoBabe
Article II doesn't actually mention immunity from civil liability

It's really pointless to continue this discussion. He is immune from both civil and criminal acts, FOR OFFICIAL acts. I gave you the specific case.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.