By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin expressed a willingness to take extreme measures to combat alleged voter fraud, stating he would “throw out the Constitution” to ensure only citizens vote. Despite subsequent backtracking, Mullin advocated for the SAVE America Act, a proposal requiring in-person voter registration with documentation like birth certificates or passports. This act, supported by Donald Trump, would disproportionately disenfranchise millions of eligible American voters lacking such documentation, according to a study by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement.
Read the original article here
The idea of “throwing out the Constitution” has recently surfaced, not as a mere hypothetical, but as a statement attributed to a Republican senator from Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin. This declaration, made in the context of discussing plans ahead of the midterms, has sparked considerable debate and concern. Mullin’s initial comment, as reported, suggested a willingness to disregard the Constitution to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting. He expressed a desire to prevent what he termed “games” that might occur in certain areas, though he was careful not to explicitly name any specific locations or political groups.
The immediate aftermath of Mullin’s statement saw him quickly attempt to retract or clarify his words, asking how soon he could take back what he had said. He then explained that he meant “throw it out as an argument,” appearing to acknowledge the shock his initial phrasing had elicited. This rapid retraction, however, has done little to quell the apprehension surrounding the sentiment behind his initial remark, with many interpreting it as a revealing glimpse into a broader political strategy.
The context of Mullin’s comments is particularly significant, as it comes amid discussions about election security and the integrity of voting processes. He explicitly linked his desire for strict citizenship verification in voting to concerns about potential manipulation, suggesting that any vote cast by a non-citizen is “one too many.” This focus on non-citizen voting, while a recurring theme in some political discourse, has been amplified by Mullin’s strong language.
Furthermore, Mullin has also made statements regarding the deployment of ICE agents. He indicated that ICE would only be present at midterm polls if a “threat” arises, such as a bomb threat. This suggestion has been met with particular alarm, with some observers drawing parallels to past election-related bomb threats in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania. The implication drawn is that such threats could be fabricated to justify the presence of ICE agents, potentially leading to the suspension of elections for “national security” reasons.
This line of thinking has led to accusations that Republicans are preparing to suspend democratic processes and establish a form of dictatorship, with Mullin’s remarks being seen as an unintentional admission of this plan. The comparison to a “Fourth Reich” and a move towards fascism has been made by critics who are deeply disturbed by the rhetoric and its potential implications for the future of American democracy.
Mullin’s past profession as a plumber has also been brought up by some critics, who use it to frame his statements as uninformed or abrasive. This personal detail is often juxtaposed with the gravity of the constitutional matters being discussed, suggesting a lack of understanding or respect for the foundational principles of the nation.
The accusation that Mullin has violated his oath of office, which requires him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, is a serious one. Many point out that in more stable political times, such statements could have led to impeachment proceedings. The current political climate, however, is seen by some as one where such actions might be overlooked or even supported by a segment of Congress.
The claim that “Democrats always want to throw out the Constitution all the time” is particularly contentious. Critics argue that Mullin is fabricating this assertion to deflect criticism and to lay the groundwork for his own party’s actions. They question who these Democrats are and what specific instances Mullin is referring to, suggesting he is making baseless accusations.
The concern that Mullin’s words will be used against him in future legal or political battles is also a recurring theme. His seemingly impulsive statements, particularly the “throw out the Constitution” remark, are seen as potentially damaging evidence that could be quoted in various contexts.
The oath taken by military members and federal workers to uphold the Constitution is also highlighted by those who are alarmed by Mullin’s comments. The implication is that such individuals are bound by a higher duty to the Constitution than politicians who express willingness to disregard it.
The idea that “they have already thrown out the Constitution” is a sentiment echoed by many who feel that the document has been repeatedly violated or undermined for some time, particularly under recent administrations. Mullin’s comments are seen by some not as an outlier, but as an explicit acknowledgment of an ongoing trend.
The argument that “any vote cast by a non-citizen is one too many” is met with counterarguments about the potential for stripping away valid votes from citizens. Critics also question the basic math and understanding of voting processes by those who express such concerns.
The suggestion that the reporter in the exchange was not Dana Bash, as stated in some accounts, adds another layer of confusion and raises questions about the accuracy of reporting surrounding the incident.
Ultimately, the core of the concern revolves around the perceived intent behind Mullin’s statements. Whether his initial remark was a genuine expression of a radical viewpoint or a rhetorical flourish meant to provoke, the sentiment has been interpreted by many as a dangerous signal of a willingness to undermine constitutional protections in pursuit of political objectives, particularly in the lead-up to critical elections. The rapid attempt to backtrack and the subsequent justifications only seem to confirm, for many, the underlying anxiety about the future of democratic governance.