Latest news with #DemocraticNationalParty
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity – a move that underscores how deeply divided the country remains over what "election integrity" really means.. Though the executive order Trump signed was titled, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," the Democratic National Party (DNC), which led a group of plaintiffs in challenging the order in federal court, argued that it was an attempt to encroach on elections and disenfranchise voters. In the end, both sides won out – sort of, and at least for now. Here's what to know about the case in question: Trump Asks Scotus To Strip Protected Status For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Venezuelan Migrants U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ultimately left in place three key parts of Trump's executive order, including a provision requiring states not to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, in a partial victory for the Trump administration. But she sided with Democratic plaintiffs in blocking, for now, both a new proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms and a provision directing election officials to verify the citizenship of would-be voters. Read On The Fox News App Unequivocally, yes. That's exactly the problem modern presidents face when trying to make lasting policy changes through executive orders – a tactic increasingly favored by both Democrats and Republicans. It's a risky way to govern for two reasons. The first is that these orders can just as easily be overturned by the next commander-in-chief (as has been on display under the last four administrations). They also risk being halted in federal courts, where U.S. judges are explicitly tasked with serving as a check on the president, and are free to pause or halt such orders from taking force, should they determine they are outside the scope of the executive branch's authorities. That also doesn't mean that district courts need to have the final say on the matter. Trump's Executive Order On Voting Blocked By Federal Judges Amid Flurry Of Legal Setbacks Kollar-Kotelly stressed last month that voter registration laws and the ability to regulate elections are set by Congress and by individual states, not the executive branch. Both states and Congress can pass laws so long as they do not "needlessly impose" an undue burden on voters under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the executive branch, which does not share in these abilities to make and pass election-related laws, is not entitled to the same standard of legal review, according to the judge. "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections," Kollar-Kotelly said in her ruling. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda The Trump administration is, of course, free to appeal the decision to higher courts, should it choose to do so. "President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in response to the ruling last month. But its next steps remain unclear. To date, the administration has not appealed the matter, and officials have not said definitively whether they plan to do article source: A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Fox News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
A US judge partially blocked Trump's election integrity order from taking force. Is that legal?
Last month, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity – a move that underscores how deeply divided the country remains over what "election integrity" really means.. Though the executive order Trump signed was titled, "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," the Democratic National Party (DNC), which led a group of plaintiffs in challenging the order in federal court, argued that it was an attempt to encroach on elections and disenfranchise voters. In the end, both sides won out – sort of, and at least for now. Here's what to know about the case in question: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ultimately left in place three key parts of Trump's executive order, including a provision requiring states not to count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, in a partial victory for the Trump administration. But she sided with Democratic plaintiffs in blocking, for now, both a new proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal voter registration forms and a provision directing election officials to verify the citizenship of would-be voters. Unequivocally, yes. That's exactly the problem modern presidents face when trying to make lasting policy changes through executive orders – a tactic increasingly favored by both Democrats and Republicans. It's a risky way to govern for two reasons. The first is that these orders can just as easily be overturned by the next commander-in-chief (as has been on display under the last four administrations). They also risk being halted in federal courts, where U.S. judges are explicitly tasked with serving as a check on the president, and are free to pause or halt such orders from taking force, should they determine they are outside the scope of the executive branch's authorities. That also doesn't mean that district courts need to have the final say on the matter. Kollar-Kotelly stressed last month that voter registration laws and the ability to regulate elections are set by Congress and by individual states, not the executive branch. Both states and Congress can pass laws so long as they do not "needlessly impose" an undue burden on voters under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But the executive branch, which does not share in these abilities to make and pass election-related laws, is not entitled to the same standard of legal review, according to the judge. "Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States – not the President – with the authority to regulate federal elections," Kollar-Kotelly said in her ruling. The Trump administration is, of course, free to appeal the decision to higher courts, should it choose to do so. "President Trump will keep fighting for election integrity, despite Democrat objections that reveal their disdain for commonsense safeguards like verifying citizenship," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in response to the ruling last month. But its next steps remain unclear. To date, the administration has not appealed the matter, and officials have not said definitively whether they plan to do so.
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sound Off: March 23, 2025
Seems odd that someone would actually post that 'saving money doesn't seem like the goal' of the current administration. 20 million illegal immigrants ushered in, over 4 million got-away, and not one judge intervened. 261 horrible illegal immigrants deported and now it's a Constitutional crisis that must be stopped. Reason number 678 why Democrats hate America. That whole following the law and obeying judges' rulings was neat while it lasted, huh America? The Democratic National Party has imploded. They've attacked the only legitimate leader, in Sen. Schumer. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez polls better than Schumer. I'm looking forward to DOGE finishing off with the closing of Social Security offices and the elimination of phone assistance for Social Security. Good luck, old heads. Better figure out that whole Internet thing in a hurry. And try not to get scammed. In probably a futile attempt to counter the daily liberal misinformation: egg prices are down, inflation is down, gas prices are down. News in the USA is full of articles, interviews, and pundits criticizing President Trump. Of course the same was done to President Biden. You can be sure the citizens in Russia, North Korea, and China would not be able to criticize their presidents without being arrested, imprisoned, or murdered, so it does not bode well for the future of free speech and press in America that President Trump expresses admiration and friendship for the leaders of those dictatorships rather than for the leaders of democratic European countries. Beware. Be aware. I'm always amazed at how upset Republicans, the party of boycotts, gets when the shoe is on the other foot. We desperately need to teach civics in schools. Naturalized citizens know more about the constitution than most Americans. I see the Democrats love their safe haven on the DNC-run ABC, The View. It is a far cry from the legendary Barbara Walters' intentions. That's why it was called The View. So sad. Those of you who criticized presidents Obama and Biden for going on too many vacations, what about President Trump's weekly trips to Florida? Steve Bannon has admitted that work is being done to allow President Trump to run again in 2028. Excellent. Send your Sound Offs to soundoff@
