Daily Archives: 2 March 2023

“Ran out of Time”

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington, DC, City Council, dominated by the Progressive-Democratic Party as it is, voted a month ago to allow non-citizens, including illegal aliens, to vote in city elections, so long as they have been “resident” in the city for at least 30 days.

Congress has a 30-day review window during which it can override DC Council-passed laws and remove them.  The Republican-led House did so, but the Progressive-Democrat-led Senate…did not. As Fox News meekly put it, the Senate ran out of time before the review period ended.

No, the Senate didn’t run out of time. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) wouldn’t even let the matter come to the floor for a vote. Apparently, he didn’t want his majority caucus to have to be on the record as favoring non-citizens voting in American elections.

This needn’t be the end of the matter, though, the 30-day window is a statute, not a constitutionally set limit. Here’s what Art I, Sect 8, of our Constitution has to say on the governance of the District of Columbia:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States….

That exclusive legislation over the District means that a later Congress can withdraw DC laws allowed under prior Congresses. This business of allowing non-citizens—including those illegal aliens—to vote in American elections, a quintessential factor in being an American citizen, needs to be rescinded. Elections have consequences, and we have another one coming in a year-and-a-half.

I have a caveat to this, though. Some might suggest that DC’s voter rolls might be useful things to search for illegal aliens in the District, round them up, and deport them. That must not happen. Government must not run around searching jurisdictions’ voter rolls to find illegal aliens, no matter how convenient such a search might seem.

Government must never be allowed to any search voter roll for groups of folks of whom Government, from administration to administration, disapproves and…silencing…them. The only purpose for a voter roll, the only legitimate purpose for local government searches of them, is to establish eligibility to vote in a jurisdiction and to remove individuals who are not eligible from those rolls. The Federal government must not be involved in such searches.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Wallace has the right of it—and exactly so—in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section:

The Republicans should be sending one message to the American people loud and clear: The Democrats want to cut your Social Security benefits by 26% in 10 years. There is no other pertinent debating point. If the GOP is going to be vilified for trying to save the program with responsible alterations, the alternative should be made clear. Should the Democrats have their way, the program will collapse, and everyone will face major cuts to their benefits. That’s their Plan A. The GOP offers Plan B.

Those 26% are the size of the reduction in Social Security payouts to then-existing retirees when the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money in those 10 years, and payouts after that come solely from incoming payroll tax collections.

The Progressive-Democratic Party politicians in both houses plainly don’t care about that damage to our retirees, preferring instead to keep the threat of reduction as an active cudgel with which to attack their political opponents. That’s why they react to loudly against any effort by Republicans and Conservatives to adjust Social Security in order to save it and avoid that 26% cut in benefits.

The Republicans and their Conservative allies, though, do need to stop cowering behind glittering generalities and instead be explicit in their solution, how it will work, and when/over what schedule it will be implemented.