Will Congress use its unused 232-year-old power -- just in time to save our republic?

[marmar]

Will Congress use its unused 232-year-old power — just in time to save our republic?
The Constitution gives Congress the power to overturn restrictive voting laws — and now is the time to use it

By THOM HARTMANN
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 27, 2021 6:00AM


The founders of this nation, and the framers who wrote our Constitution, created (as Ben Franklin famously said) a constitutional republic: a government "deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed" through citizens' (then white men) right to vote.

They referred to this as "republicanism" because it was based on the Greek and Roman republics (then thousands of years in the past but still remembered and idealized), and when put into law they called it "a Republican Form of Government."

Today that form of government is in crisis in America, as that core right to vote that defines republicanism is under attack by Republican legislators in red states across our nation.

"In emergency, break glass" is the almost-never-used option available should a building catch fire or otherwise be in crisis. There's a similar alarm and safety valve built into the U.S. Constitution that, like that glass in so many buildings, has never before been used to protect our republic.

....(snip)....

The Freedom to Vote Act is more urgently needed with every passing day, as multiple Republican-controlled states openly (and ironically) tear down actual "republican principles" of representative government by continuing to pass laws that pre-rig election outcomes. ................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/27/will-congress-use-its-unused-232-year-old-power--just-in-time-to-save-our-republic_partner/

[CrispyQ]

1. Interesting article.

It would take the kind of boldness I haven't seen from the democrats in a very long time.

[Hortensis]

8. :) One way of looking at it is that we're in the midst of simmering

insurrection and overthrow of our government, failing that impending civil war, largely in reaction to decades of enormous changes both causing and created by Democratic boldness.

We keep winning and changing the law as our nation changes, bold as brewing hell considering the decades of anxiety and growing anger it's caused nearly half the nation. To the point that they're now committing to overthrowing democracy as the only way to finally stop what is to them appallingly real Democratic boldness.

But of course I know what you mean. Now we're also afraid and also seeking bold, aggressive, immediate action to save us.

This clause is legally a loose boulder that with weight could come down on instead of supporting our weight. The reasons for considering invoking it now are obvious, but the strategy for using it in ultimately likely winning moves is less clear. I'd be interested in hearing more about that.

[OnDoutside]

2. No

[Effete Snob]

3. Breathtaking ignorance

"The Guarantee Clause, however, has never been used as a part of our everyday politics or law: Most people, in fact, have never heard of it."

While it is likely true that most people have never heard of it, anyone with a working understanding of the history of Constitutional law is familiar with the role of the Guarantee Clause during Reconstruction.

The Guarantee Clause was the ENTIRE BASIS for the Reconstruction Acts.

The Civil War was "part of our everyday politics" for a while, in case the author is unaware of that fact.

It is also a substantial part of the basis for the principle that states cannot secede from the United States. (And, no Texans, there is not some Texas-based exception to that rule (see, e.g. Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)).

Sad, but not surprising.

[empedocles]

4. TY

[ShazamIam]

5. I agree and it must have been the foundation of the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts.

I am not educated or informed about the topic except in the casual news reader manner, and appreciate your comment.

[FreepFryer]

7. It's written terribly as well. He was on Russia Today for a long time...

...maybe they wrote it.

[thatdemguy]

6. Here is an interesting look at it from harvard law

I am reposting from another thread. It seems like harvard review sees it as relating between the states and the federal gov, not individual rights.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2018/12/the-guarantee-clause/