H.R. 1: Democrats Act to Strip State Powers Over Elections by J. Christian Adams {theacru.org} ~ If you thought the midterm elections had problems, wait until you learn about Nancy Pulosi’s plan to terminate state control over American elections... Democrats in Congress have announced their top legislative priority, and it isn’t health care, immigration, or taxes. Instead, they want to centralize power over elections in Washington, D.C. H.R. 1 is number one on the legislative agenda because it is the number one priority of House Democrats, leftist groups, deep-pocketed dark money, and those who use election process rules to help win elections—or at least to cause chaos. The bill is a 571-page dreamscape of wild wishes and federal mandates on states. The Constitution decentralizes power over American elections and puts states in charge. H.R. 1 would undo that. Decentralization promotes individual liberty. When power over elections is centralized, it is easier for that power to be abused. When power over elections is decentralized, no single malevolent actor can exert improper control over the process. That is precisely why Democrats are so eager for Washington, D.C., to have more power over our elections. H.R. 1 has 218 cosponsors. It forces states to implement mandatory voter registration. If someone is on a government list—such as receiving welfare benefits or rental subsidies—then they would be automatically registered to vote. Few states have enacted these systems because Americans still view civic participation as a voluntary choice. Moreover, aggregated government lists always contain duplicates and errors that states, even without mandatory voter registration, frequently fail to catch and fix. H.R. 1 also mandates that states allow all felons to vote. Currently, states have the power under the Constitution to set the terms of eligibility in each state. Some states, like Maine, have decided that voting machines should be rolled into the prisons. Other states, like Nevada, have chosen to make a felony a disenfranchising event... H.R. 1 needs to be defeated. https://www.theacru.org/2019/01/10/h-r-1-democrats-act-to-strip-state-powers-over-elections/. |
On Tuesday, however, “The justices agreed to consider a petition backed by gun owners’ groups asking them to strike down New York City’s strict rules for carrying legally owned guns outside the home,” USA Today reports. “The rules do not allow gun owners to transport firearms outside city limits, even to practice ranges or second homes. Lower courts have upheld the city’s regulations.”
Gun-rights activists explained to the Supreme Court, “It is business as usual for draconian restrictions in New York, and this court’s transformational rulings remain theoretical for the city’s 8.5 million residents.” Yet the city contends, “Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against. Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.” Assuming expectations become reality, the city’s argument won’t pass muster with the Supreme Court.
The Wall Street Journal notes, “The case will put a spotlight on the court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, whose expansive view of gun rights while a lower-court judge came into focus during confirmation hearings last fall. In 2011, while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, then-Judge Kavanaugh dissented from an opinion upholding a D.C. law prohibiting semiautomatic rifles it classified as ‘assault weapons’ within city limits and barring large-capacity ammunition magazines.”
The Journal adds, “Judge Kavanaugh … wrote that ‘the Constitution disables the government from employing certain means to prevent, deter, or detect violent crime,’ a position that helped inspire the National Rifle Association to back his confirmation last year with a major advertising campaign.”
In November, our Brian Mark Weber observed, “The [Heller] ruling came far too late to push back against decades of leftist propaganda and activism designed to convince millions of Americans that the Second Amendment was far different from the other nine rights — that it was neither individual nor narrowly limited but collective and extremely limited. Since then, lower courts have had a field day misinterpreting the Constitution and upholding laws making it harder for citizens to acquire guns.”
He added, “All this would be of less concern if the Supreme Court and its new, more conservative majority would simply take up more Second Amendment cases and decisively reestablish the self-evident right of American citizens to defend themselves. Indeed, the High Court may be the last best hope for securing this right against a leftist obsession to take it away.” The Supreme Court this week made a positive step toward doing just that. And thanks to President Donald Trump’s sublime Supreme Court picks, the prognosis is looking good. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/60697?mailing_id=4030&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4030&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
Comments