By Matt Underwood The White House is working on an executive order on elections, the press secretary has confirmed, and this has naturally sparked a flurry of reactions. It’s the kind of announcement that immediately gets people thinking: what’s the angle here? What’s the goal? And, perhaps most importantly, is it even legal?
It’s crucial to understand that the power to set election laws and procedures primarily resides with state legislatures and Congress, not the president. While an executive order can certainly be issued, it doesn’t automatically override existing state or federal laws. That’s a fundamental principle of how our system of government is structured. So, any order coming from the White House on elections needs to be carefully examined in the context of this separation of powers.
The immediate reaction from many is skepticism, and frankly, a degree of outright anger. There’s a prevailing sentiment that the administration might be trying to circumvent election results they don’t like. This raises questions about the order’s true intent and its potential to interfere with the democratic process. The idea of the executive branch overstepping its bounds and meddling in state-run elections is a red flag for many.
The history of voting in this country is complex, and the current political climate is charged. There’s a heightened sensitivity to any actions that could be perceived as voter suppression or attempts to undermine the integrity of elections. The echoes of past instances of perceived election irregularities, like the discussions about mail-in voting, only amplify this tension.
The focus on the use of executive orders is worth noting. While these orders can be powerful tools, they are not laws in the same sense as acts of Congress. They apply within the executive branch, and they can be challenged in court. This brings up an interesting question: if the executive order is perceived as an overreach, what will be the response? The judiciary, and the state’s rights, may quickly become involved.
There is a sense of inevitability attached to the pushback. Many observers are adamant that an executive order that attempts to control state elections will be struck down.
The conversation quickly pivots to the more critical point: Where is the line between valid executive action and an unconstitutional power grab? This isn’t just a legal question; it is also a fundamental test of the balance of power in our government.
The focus on states’ rights is prominent. Elections are run at the state level, and the Constitution grants the states significant authority over how elections are conducted. Those who champion states’ rights will likely view this order with suspicion, seeing it as an attempt to diminish the power of the states.
One of the more alarming fears is an attempt to limit the franchise – in other words, to make it harder for certain groups to vote. The concern is that an executive order could be used to suppress voting, either directly or indirectly. There are fears of it becoming some kind of way to give the power only to the “white landed gentry,” as some have said.
The conversation naturally delves into the potential for this executive order to create chaos and instability. If the order is seen as illegitimate, it could lead to protests, legal challenges, and further division within the country. Some are even going so far as to suggest that it could be a catalyst for a “civil war.”
The discussion inevitably circles back to the core point: the legality of such an order. This has become an all-too-familiar dance in the current political climate, and whether the order is ultimately successful will depend on the courts.
Many people are asking why we’re even considering or entertaining this idea. Why are we even discussing this person’s authority, given that his actions often seem at odds with the Constitution?
There is no room for debate on this topic: this isn’t a controversy; this is a clear-cut violation of the law.
In the end, all of the arguments come down to the fundamental question of who controls elections: the states, or the federal government. The consensus is that the Constitution makes it clear: it’s the states. So, any executive order that attempts to change this balance of power is almost certainly doomed to fail.