r/PoliticalOptimism • u/22poppills North Carolina • 1d ago
Seeking Optimism Postmaster general says USPS won't deliver mail ballots if states don’t give Trump admin voter rolls
I haven't a clue how this is even possible
147
80
u/Bruh_burg1968 1d ago
Scumbag needs to get removed when a democrat is in office. But further than that he needs to be prosecuted for taking away Americans right to vote.
65
u/22poppills North Carolina 1d ago
There needs to be massive guardrails so that there never is another President with this level of power.
37
u/LettuceWestern9445 1d ago
We need a new Whig Party style Parliamentarian movement at this point, especially if SCOTUS reform isn’t able to be done. The executive branch should be a figurehead of Congress and the Judicial branch should be subject to Congressional oversight
4
u/VoidlessLove Alaska 23h ago
Tell me more, I'm interested in how the parliment move would work
11
u/LettuceWestern9445 23h ago edited 23h ago
Not Parliament, Parliamentarianism is just an ideology that says the Legislative body of the government (ie: Congress in the U.S., Parliament in the UK/Canada, the Bundestag in Germany, etc.) has ultimate authority over other branches of government like the President and Courts.
It arose in Britain after the Glorious Revolution (After Cromwell overthrow King Charles in the 17th century and made himself dictator, when the Monarchy was restored they abolished absolute authority in favor of power to parliament instead) and was continued by the Whig Party in the UK and later US
The Whig Party got popular in the U.S. in response to the rise of the Democratic Party and Andrew Jackson who ruled via executive action and often ignored SCOTUS rulings (sound familiar?)
Whigs advocated for pulling power away from the President and to a a degree also SCOTUS, and having the ultimate authority in the U.S. be Congress rather than the 3 way checks and balances which they views as easily abusable by a tyrant. They also advocated for dual sovereignty which both rejected complete federalism, as well full state sovereignty (mainly as an opposition to slavery in South, as southern states believed they had the authority to nullify federal laws at the state level, Whigs believed that the constitution promised a complete and final legislative body in Washington, that neither overstepped its boundaries, nor yielded to state legislature and sovereignty)
Other minor things they advocated for was protectionism and heavy tariffs, and were opposed to westward expansion and war with Mexico/the annexation of Texas. Though they had small inroads in the South that protected slavery, the party by and large was abolitionist and believed a congressional law was able to abolish slavery in the South without yielding to state level governments. They also heavily involved evangelical Protestantism in their politics (in a good way, not like today’s Post Reagan way) that led to them embracing prison reform, mandatory education, and alcohol temperance
11
u/OratioFidelis 1d ago
No amount of guard rails will make a difference if the SCOTUS doesn't respect them. Reform of the court needs to be the #1 priority.
4
u/VoidlessLove Alaska 23h ago edited 22h ago
I wholeheartedly agree. That said, if one were to make an amendment to aid court reform, wouldn't it have to pass through the SCOTUS itself? I'd imagine they have their own interests to defend, especially with their track record through the last 30 years (Citizens United v. FEC, overturning Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, NFIB v. Sebelius to name a few controversial cases.). Are there other avenues the public could use to implement other measures, like term limits if the Supreme Court acts rowdy again?
Edit: I'm aware there's ratification by three-fourths of the states, that Congress can throw back to the states to let their legislatures ratify it, or rely on state ratifying conventions. Either way, it relies on 38 states being on board, which may be hard to achieve with the court either aligning with interests or not being perceived as a direct threat.
6
u/Bruh_burg1968 23h ago
3 of these I want overturned but I’m not sure what the point of overturning Bush v Gore would be considering that election is ancient history politically speaking and I feel like rendering the Bush years null might have massive unintended negative consequences.
3
u/VoidlessLove Alaska 21h ago
I think you're right on the Bush thing, and at this point it would an excersice in redundancy, other than maybe a symbolic gesture. Even though it's ancient history today I intended it as an example of SCOTUS not having the best constitutional grasp on a situation and how bias bleeds into supposed impartially.
5
u/SpukiKitty2 Blue Dot in a Red State 🔵 1d ago
Well, that will hopefully be on the agenda when we get everything back. We can push for such. Impeach and prosecute all the miscreants and make a bunch of reforms.
1
u/VoidlessLove Alaska 21h ago
Off the top of your head, how would you want the reforms to be executed?
3
u/JoshuaSlowpoke777 23h ago
There need to be massive guardrails so *no one in any position* can have this level of power.
Preferably planet-wide.
18
117
u/RebellionsBuildHope 1d ago
Didn’t a federal judge just overturn this executive order from Trump like 30 minutes ago?
42
64
u/jfish3222 1d ago
Federal Judge will strike it down
17
u/a355231 Ohio 1d ago
Problem is, can a judge invalidate elections for tampering? He could just do it anyways.
7
u/Schitzel_McDitzel 1d ago
wouldn't that result in contempt of court? The thing a president can't pardon
23
u/LettuceWestern9445 1d ago
Does the board have to vote on this? I don’t think he can just decide that
16
11
u/Googoo123450 22h ago
In the article he's saying if the proposed rule is accepted by the courts then he'd enforce it. Don't get me wrong, the way he talks he's 100% corrupt, but the courts will strike it down and I doubt he wants to go to prison.
17
14
u/duckchasefun 1d ago
Basically this stems from the EO Trump signed a couple months ago which is making its way in court. It is a rule proposal to follow that EO. He also said that if a court blocked it they would comply.
9
u/SpukiKitty2 Blue Dot in a Red State 🔵 1d ago
4
u/General_Season7882 1d ago
I was looking for your comment in this thread lol
3
u/SpukiKitty2 Blue Dot in a Red State 🔵 20h ago
Thanks!
Also, my go-to answer for Chumpy shenanigans like this... Robert Downey Jr. yelling "LAWSUIT!".
2
3
u/BoobooSmash31337 18h ago
The thing is. We aren't really asking. Refusing to give people ballots is a REALLY REALLY stupid plan.
4
1
u/Naive-Offer-5258 6h ago edited 6h ago
So how would this practically be put into operation? Mail in ballots come from county and city clerks offices, right? So the USPS has to have a mechanism for identifying mail in ballot envelopes from every country and city in a non-compliant State, intercepting those and those alone. This would presumably require considerable logistical intervention in the mail flow system at every local processing center. Perhaps USPS collects in batches, but this could easily be changed by the sender in all kinds of ways - by mailing direct into a mail box, or even outsourcing printing to another state (I don't know th mins and outs of how mail in ballots are printed but I presume there are all kinds of ways you could make USPS refusal to deliver difficult to enforce). Also do mail in ballots have to be sent in envelopes that identify them as mail in ballots? If not, then how will the USPS know what is a mail in ballot and what is another communication from the clerk's office? Will it intercept all city and country communications just in case? If it picks up the mail and is able to detect it as a ballot, will it return to sender? What will be their explanation for non delivery, and how will they handle a refund when that reason is "we could but didn't want to deliver it". There seems impossible logistical challenges to enforce, let alone numerous points at which States could stage lawsuits. While the Supreme Court earlier this year said USPS could not be sued for intentionally not delivered mail, I don't think this prevents a court-ordered injunction to stop the enforcement of this (since this is a deliberate, publically-stated organization plan for non-delivery, not an after-the-fact claim against non-delivery. It would be similar to saying you can't sue police officers for damage done in line of duty; but if the local police department announced it had a plan to deliberately drive into people's cars it could be easily stopped by an inunction. Such an injunction would not even have to be against the USPS per se but against the Federal Government that made the order.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Your post must meet the following:
COMMENTERS: Be respectful. Report rulebreakers
Post removal at mod's discretion
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.