President's Executive Order to mandate proof of citizenship for voting.

[Aloha Hoosier]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

 

[UncleMark]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

This is the purview of the Congress and the states, not the executive.

 

[76-1]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

As with many of those E.O.'s, eventually getting a ruling from the Supreme Court is nearly entirely the point of the operation...

In my opinion, anyone against having verifiable citizenship when it comes to voting is For cheating the system...

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

This is the purview of the Congress and the states, not the executive.

According to COH, a president has no authority to do anything.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

That EO purports to do a whole lot more than require ID verification. But I'm not sure how much effect it would actually have. Who uses the national voter registration form, anyway?

 

[Lucy01]

That EO purports to do a whole lot more than require ID verification. But I'm not sure how much effect it would actually have. Who uses the national voter registration form, anyway?

Let me get this straight, you’re not a supporter of Voter ID?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That EO purports to do a whole lot more than require ID verification. But I'm not sure how much effect it would actually have. Who uses the national voter registration form, anyway?

Yes,, there’s more, and I expect a court to rule against this too.

 

[UncleMark]

That EO purports to do a whole lot more than require ID verification. But I'm not sure how much effect it would actually have. Who uses the national voter registration form, anyway?

Trump views his EOs as royal decrees. Questioning them is tantamount to treason.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Yes,, there’s more, and I expect a court to rule against this too.

Yeah I doubt any of it would be upheld. I just don't think it actually does much, anyway. Just for show.

 

[iuwclurker]

As with many of those E.O.'s, eventually getting a ruling from the Supreme Court is nearly entirely the point of the operation...

In my opinion, anyone against having verifiable citizenship when it comes to voting is For cheating the system...

I’m a red-blooded American and always have been. Why do I have to prove that to you or anyone else? How about you ****ing prove I’m not?

Furthermore, I don’t cheat. Prove that I do.

 

[hoot1]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

Wondering if my birth certificate would be satisfactory proof, assuming I
can find it.

Remembering my Uncle Frank who was born in 1896 having a birth certificate which read "Male and last name" as in "Male Smith". Apparently they had trouble coming up with a first and middle name for Frank at the time.

For most of his life those who knew him well called him "Dot".

An unscrupulous illegal, unlike Frank, could probably find a way to prove citizenship.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Wondering if my birth certificate would be satisfactory proof, assuming I
can find it.

Remembering my Uncle Frank who was born in 1896 having a birth certificate which read "Male and last name" as in "Male Smith". Apparently they had trouble coming up with a first and middle name for Frank at the time.

For most of his life those who knew him well called him "Dot".

An unscrupulous illegal, unlike Frank, could probably find a way to prove citizenship.

The EO says no on birth certificates, probably because of his other EO meant to end birthright citizenship.

 

[ButHerEmails]

According to COH, a president has no authority to do anything.

This won’t last long, as republicans are vehemently opposed to executive orders.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Wondering if my birth certificate would be satisfactory proof, assuming I
can find it.

Remembering my Uncle Frank who was born in 1896 having a birth certificate which read "Male and last name" as in "Male Smith". Apparently they had trouble coming up with a first and middle name for Frank at the time.

For most of his life those who knew him well called him "Dot".

An unscrupulous illegal, unlike Frank, could probably find a way to prove citizenship.

USAID has 13 different groups that create "reproduction" birth certificates, SS Cards and membership cards to United Federation of Planets.

 

[hoot1]

USAID has 13 different groups that create "reproduction" birth certificates, SS Cards and membership cards to United Federation of Planets.

Joe, thank heaven we have free enterprise to subvert government interference in achieving justice for all regardless of country of origin.

 

[hoot1]

Joe, thank heaven we have free enterprise to subvert government interference in achieving justice for all regardless of country of origin.

Bring this up just to show how our values can conflict with what we consider important at certain points in time.

 

[UncleMark]

The EO says no on birth certificates, probably because of his other EO meant to end birthright citizenship.

So what does meet with his approval?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

Yeah I doubt any of it would be upheld. I just don't think it actually does much, anyway. Just for show.

Do you think the executive has authority under section (b) (1)? I think the language is broad enough to include proof of citizenship.​

​

§20508. Federal coordination and regulations​

(a) In general​

The Election Assistance Commission-

(1) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3);

(2) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office;

(3) not later than June 30 of each odd-numbered year, shall submit to the Congress a report assessing the impact of this chapter on the administration of elections for Federal office during the preceding 2-year period and including recommendations for improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms, and other matters affected by this chapter; and

(4) shall provide information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under this chapter.

(b) Contents of mail voter registration form​

The mail voter registration form developed under subsection (a)(2)-

(1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;

(2) shall include a statement that-

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and

(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;


(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and

(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application-

(i) the information required in section 20507(a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;

(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and

(iii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.

( Pub. L. 103–31, §9, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 87 ; Pub. L. 107–252, title VIII, §802(b), Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1726 .)

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Bring this up just to show how our values can conflict with what we consider important at certain points in time.

Are you drinking, or am I? (this comment probably isn't meant to be contradictory) but I understand obfuscation similar to quantum physics, Unless of course I use it. Then it makes perfect sense. So, are you with me or are you aint?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Do you think the executive has authority under section (b) (1)? I think the language is broad enough to include proof of citizenship.​

​

§20508. Federal coordination and regulations​

(a) In general​

The Election Assistance Commission-

(1) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3);

(2) in consultation with the chief election officers of the States, shall develop a mail voter registration application form for elections for Federal office;

(3) not later than June 30 of each odd-numbered year, shall submit to the Congress a report assessing the impact of this chapter on the administration of elections for Federal office during the preceding 2-year period and including recommendations for improvements in Federal and State procedures, forms, and other matters affected by this chapter; and

(4) shall provide information to the States with respect to the responsibilities of the States under this chapter.

(b) Contents of mail voter registration form​

The mail voter registration form developed under subsection (a)(2)-

(1) may require only such identifying information (including the signature of the applicant) and other information (including data relating to previous registration by the applicant), as is necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process;

(2) shall include a statement that-

(A) specifies each eligibility requirement (including citizenship);

(B) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and

(C) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury;


(3) may not include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication; and

(4) shall include, in print that is identical to that used in the attestation portion of the application-

(i) the information required in section 20507(a)(5)(A) and (B) of this title;

(ii) a statement that, if an applicant declines to register to vote, the fact that the applicant has declined to register will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes; and

(iii) a statement that if an applicant does register to vote, the office at which the applicant submits a voter registration application will remain confidential and will be used only for voter registration purposes.

( Pub. L. 103–31, §9, May 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 87 ; Pub. L. 107–252, title VIII, §802(b), Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1726 .)

I was wrong. I thought you would criticize this EO because it’s contrary to what you’ve argued for years. First, the expanding power of the Executive, and second, how the federal elections are managed by each individual state. However, you now act like you’re the President’s lawyer.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I was wrong. I thought you would criticize this EO because it’s contrary to what you’ve argued for years. First, the expanding power of the Executive, and second, how the federal elections are managed by each individual state. However, you now act like you’re the President’s lawyer.

Regardless of what I think of this law, (a Clinton era law) what do you think of the presidents authority I asked about?

 

[hoot1]

Are you drinking, or am I? (this comment probably isn't meant to be contradictory) but I understand obfuscation similar to quantum physics, Unless of course I use it. Then it makes perfect sense. So, are you with me or are you aint?

Joe, don't know about you, but do admit to having been drinking as my grandson has been kind enough to deal with a plumbing problem in a home built in 1912.

As I write this, the project has taken 3 hours with no end in sight.

Roger over and out.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Regardless of what I think of this law, (a Clinton era law) what do you think of the presidents authority I asked about?

Does a copy of an ID in order to demonstrate citizenship count as "other formal authentication?"

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Joe, don't know about you, but do admit to having been drinking as my grandson has been kind enough to deal with a plumbing problem in a home built in 1912.

As I write this, the project has taken 3 hours with no end in sight.

Roger over and out.

OK, now we are one the same page. I have an algorithm!.
I put in 1912, plumbing, grandson, expert grandpa.

I ran the results 6 times.
It always came back, 4 trips to town minimum, every time !
NOW, you stay back, drink. He has to go it alone just to learn from his own mistakes. We teach now, we don't pay the failure!! It's the only way really !

I chuckle as I can see that you have a go getter grandson. That is something to be proud of, so drinking to celebrate is the only logical thing to do!

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Does a copy of an ID in order to demonstrate citizenship count as "other formal authentication?"

Are you asking if the copy needs to be certified as authentic?

The prohibition pertains notaries or other ways to authenticate the application.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

Are you asking if the copy needs to be certified as authentic?

The prohibition pertains notaries or other ways to authenticate the application.

The operative word being "or". Absent a notary, does providing a copy of your ID in order to demonstrate citizenship count as an "other formal authentication?"

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

While I support verification of citizenship for voting in federal elections, but I seriously doubt the President can mandate this to the states in an EO:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/26/g-s1-55927/trump-voting-citizenship-executive-order

The Executive Order:

Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and

www.whitehouse.gov

This will go to the courts too. Is the plan to overwhelm the courts with these orders?

I’m not even sure Congress could do this with statute, let alone POTUS via EO.

I would be stunned if it gets anywhere in the courts. And he knows that. The purpose is to make Democratic state AGs challenge it in courts - to help him drive the narrative of Dems wanting illegal immigrants to have voting rights.

The feral genius strikes again.

If I’m the Dems, I’m staying the hell away from this, not saying a word about it, finding some other plaintiff and some independent group to finance the lawsuit.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

feral genius

Lol

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Lol

I can’t take credit for that. Wish I could!

That’s Axelrod’s description of Trump - and I thought it was so perfect that I had to steal it.

Honestly, he’s a political figure that other politicians and political scientists ought to study carefully as objectively as they can manage. And I’m serious about that.

They shouldn’t look past all the crap, because the crap is integral to what he does. I’m not saying they should mimic it. Because I don’t think a normal human being could do that - almost anybody else would come off as ridiculously inauthentic.

But he, on the other hand, is authentically ridiculous. Many of his supporters seem to genuinely fall for it. But I’m convinced that some others are in on the joke - and gleefully play along with whatever he wants to do…irrespective of how bad a particular policy, or action, or comment may be.

As for his opponents and detractors, to a man they correctly see him as authentically ridiculous. And they point this out, ad nauseam. They ran out of superlatives years ago. And yet….

The whole thing is surreal.

 

[iuwclurker]

I can’t take credit for that. Wish I could!

That’s Axelrod’s description of Trump - and I thought it was so perfect that I had to steal it.

Honestly, he’s a political figure that other politicians and political scientists ought to study carefully as objectively as they can manage. And I’m serious about that.

They shouldn’t look past all the crap, because the crap is integral to what he does. I’m not saying they should mimic it. Because I don’t think a normal human being could do that - almost anybody else would come off as ridiculously inauthentic.

But he, on the other hand, is authentically ridiculous. Many of his supporters seem to genuinely fall for it. But I’m convinced that some others are in on the joke - and gleefully play along with whatever he wants to do…irrespective of how bad a particular policy, or action, or comment may be.

As for his opponents and detractors, to a man they correctly see him as authentically ridiculous. And they point this out, ad nauseam. They ran out of superlatives years ago. And yet….

The whole thing is surreal.

Trump’s entire life he has sought acceptance from the highest status people. Failing that, he sought it at the next lower level. He finally has found it with the lowest common denominator.

 

[BradStevens]

I can’t take credit for that. Wish I could!

That’s Axelrod’s description of Trump - and I thought it was so perfect that I had to steal it.

Honestly, he’s a political figure that other politicians and political scientists ought to study carefully as objectively as they can manage. And I’m serious about that.

They shouldn’t look past all the crap, because the crap is integral to what he does. I’m not saying they should mimic it. Because I don’t think a normal human being could do that - almost anybody else would come off as ridiculously inauthentic.

But he, on the other hand, is authentically ridiculous. Many of his supporters seem to genuinely fall for it. But I’m convinced that some others are in on the joke - and gleefully play along with whatever he wants to do…irrespective of how bad a particular policy, or action, or comment may be.

As for his opponents and detractors, to a man they correctly see him as authentically ridiculous. And they point this out, ad nauseam. They ran out of superlatives years ago. And yet….

The whole thing is surreal.

They've learned from him already and are implementing it. Vance, and Ramaswamy are two good examples.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Trump’s entire life he has sought acceptance from the highest status people. Failing that, he sought it at the next lower level. He finally has found it with the lowest common denominator.

It’s confounding as hell.

I don’t know what everything is going to look like 4 years from now when all the dust has settled — assuming he makes it that long. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that his is not going to be an inconsequential presidency.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

It’s confounding as hell.

I don’t know what everything is going to look like 4 years from now when all the dust has settled — assuming he makes it that long. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that his is not going to be an inconsequential presidency.

Interesting take from the Guardian.

Donald Trump is moving fast and breaking things, but that may result in a better US | Simon Jenkins

The chance of the president succeeding in his radicalism is small, but amid the chaos are challenges to convention that were overdue, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

www.theguardian.com

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

They've learned from him already and are implementing it. Vance, and Ramaswamy are two good examples.

It will be interesting to see if other pols can be as successful as he’s been using these kinds of tactics — or if, like his persona, it’s something that is entirely unique to him.

My guess (and hope) is that they can’t. Because I just don’t think they can be separated.

No other POTUS in my lifetime would have the audacity to do what he’s doing here. If the thought even occurred to them to try, they’d run it through multiple policy advisers, the OLC, maybe the FEC. It’s almost certainly not legal, so it wouldn’t get past any of them if he had.

So, on one hand, it’s totally reckless. On the other, I simply can’t deny the political savvy. He’ll get absolutely lambasted by the courts for overstepping any sense of bounds of his constitutional authority.

And he will absolutely bask in that headline.

 

[iuwclurker]

It’s confounding as hell.

I don’t know what everything is going to look like 4 years from now when all the dust has settled — assuming he makes it that long. But one thing I am pretty sure of is that his is not going to be an inconsequential presidency.

He’s already consequential for at least three things. One, he’s activated a large swath of voters who clearly felt disenfranchised. That’s a positive but basically happened eight years ago so that’s not this presidency.

Two, he truly has a mandate from his above constituency to carry out sweeping changes.

Three, I don’t know about FDR or others but in my lifetime I don’t remember a president from the get-go acting with such velocity in so many different areas. For all the questioning of his underlings, he’s managed to delegate sufficiently that seems to be free to manage all these areas and have time for golf meetings with Zelenskyy and others.

Hard to believe he’d be this fired up if he’d beaten Biden four years ago and hard to believe someone else will come along and match his tempo.

Xpost x2

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

It will be interesting to see if other pols can be as successful as he’s been using these kinds of tactics — or if, like his persona, it’s something that is entirely unique to him.

My guess (and hope) is that they can’t. Because I just don’t think they can be separated.

No other POTUS in my lifetime would have the audacity to do what he’s doing here. If the thought even occurred to them to try, they’d run it through multiple policy advisers, the OLC, maybe the FEC. It’s almost certainly not legal, so it wouldn’t get past any of them if he had.

So, on one hand, it’s totally reckless. On the other, I simply can’t deny the political savvy. He’ll get absolutely lambasted by the courts for overstepping any sense of bounds of his constitutional authority.

And he will absolutely bask in that headline.

I'd like to think you're right, but I keep remembering that MAGA is fundamentally a nativist movement, so if someone could authentically tap into that same distrust of others that Trump has, they could possibly make it work. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that it could happen.

 

[iuwclurker]

It will be interesting to see if other pols can be as successful as he’s been using these kinds of tactics — or if, like his persona, it’s something that is entirely unique to him.

My guess (and hope) is that they can’t. Because I just don’t think they can be separated.

No other POTUS in my lifetime would have the audacity to do what he’s doing here. If the thought even occurred to them to try, they’d run it through multiple policy advisers, the OLC, maybe the FEC. It’s almost certainly not legal, so it wouldn’t get past any of them if he had.

So, on one hand, it’s totally reckless. On the other, I simply can’t deny the political savvy. He’ll get absolutely lambasted by the courts for overstepping any sense of bounds of his constitutional authority.

And he will absolutely bask in that headline.

He’s also genuinely being the not-politician he originally claimed to be. That and his ego free him to do whatever he decides without concern for reproach. He’s basically flipping lame duck on its head.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

One, he’s activated a large swath of voters who clearly felt disenfranchised.

One thing to note here is that he has very weak coattails in this regard. And that has to be exasperating for normie Republicans.

They’re paralyzed by him, too. They can’t safely belly up against him, because he seems to have enough sway with Republican primary voters to end careers. He’s not batting 1.000 on that score, but it’s up there in Tony Gwynn territory.

What he doesn’t have is the ability to mobilize enough voters in general elections to get his preferred candidates elected. In both of his victories, he overperformed down ballot Republicans in many places. In ‘24, he won states like AZ, NV, MI, WI, and NC where Republicans lost statewide races. They just eked out a razor thin majority in the House.

In the ‘18 and ‘22 midterms, Republicans have fared poorly. And there’s no reason to think that won’t happen again next year.

I’m honestly lost for an explanation. It defies so much of what I thought I knew about electoral politics. And, honestly, I think the same is true for people who get paid big money for political advice and analysis. They’re as much at a loss for answers as the rest of us.

 

[iuwclurker]

One thing to note here is that he has very weak coattails in this regard. And that has to be exasperating for normie Republicans.

They’re paralyzed by him, too. They can’t safely belly up against him, because he seems to have enough sway with Republican primary voters to end careers. He’s not batting 1.000 on that score, but it’s up there in Tony Gwynn territory.

What he doesn’t have is the ability to mobilize enough voters in general elections to get his preferred candidates elected. In both of his victories, he overperformed down ballot Republicans in many places. In ‘24, he won states like AZ, NV, MI, WI, and NC where Republicans lost statewide races. They just eked out a razor thin majority in the House.

In the ‘18 and ‘22 midterms, Republicans have fared poorly. And there’s no reason to think that won’t happen again next year.

I’m honestly lost for an explanation. It defies so much of what I thought I knew about electoral politics. And, honestly, I think the same is true for people who get paid big money for political advice and analysis. They’re as much at a loss for answers as the rest of us.

One simple explanation would be people tend to dislike politicians and his voters just don’t see him as a politician.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'd like to think you're right, but I keep remembering that MAGA is fundamentally a nativist movement, so if someone could authentically tap into that same distrust of others that Trump has, they could possibly make it work. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that it could happen.

Maybe. But I remember when candidates like Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan basically tried to run on similar platforms.

It’s probably right to say that they faced very different electorates in very different moods than Trump did. But it’s definitely right to say that they lacked his soulless, bare-knuckled, and bald-faced guile.

Who in the hell else would even conceive of doing a rope-a-dope move like this? Vivek?

It wouldn’t be out of bounds at all to say that this is a deliberate violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws. There’s nothing faithful about this. Not good faith, anyway.