Has Sen. Manchin Sunk HR1?

Legislation Washington DC has sued Joe mansion, a Democrat from West Virginia so HR one, also known as for the people all today my Washington DC line Democrats are taking on one of their own Joe mansion mansion opposes the voting rights bill and there is now a coordinated effort to pressure mansion phone lines are open for your questions right now 100-684-3110 is it possible we might change a few things here and there were going to do with worry. We've had discussions with center mansion and their continuing and now your home state from Chuck Schumer) about where Sigurd Job. It should really is when it comes to HR, one for the people act also the idea that losing his vote would be important if he also was voted to override the filibuster because that's what that's what it would take to first take to get to the next step of actually passing this federal takeover of our voting systems, but in the op-ed in the Charleston Gazette so that it West Virginia. The S Virginia speaking to his constituents. He said one he's not doesn't support HR wad is to partner so there's no report there's up in any Republican support for whatsoever and to, he's not going to support getting rid of the filibuster.

Now you put that out weeks before Chuck Schumer and the Democrats even pled this on the Senate floor for a vote. What is that mean what you're talking about Joe, but it should. I think you know there there. He has real problems with issues with HR wad and this for the people act. We also reference to this the John John Lewis, voting act, which is not actually been there skylight bullet points on it. Add framework audit but it's not a legislative text, and so is that what Chuck Schumer was talking about a Civil War open to changes were in walk-through for you exactly what is in HR wad that is I give this federal takeover of what the Constitution is very clear. I read in article 1 of the Constitution. Section 4 hardly submitted for holding of elections for sender's representatives should be prescribed each state by the Legislature thereof of the state. This, again, I do I'll just give you one example of how Washington would be involved listed. This would set it the ability for states to determine their registration voting practices totally gets tripled.

Even though under article 1, section 4 just read, but also would mandate with their calling ethics standards for the Supreme Court that if if the federal government.

That is the one court in the U.S. Constitution.

This is that that exist that the that the inferior courts are Arctic Courts of Appeals, district courts, those that were set up by Congress over there set up they did fall under article 3. That date that that they have their own ability to act as a separate branch of government.

This idea that they would be putting it.

Whatever that means. With ethics that's that's kind of out of the back door to Washington DC quickly with that is that to me.

Job answered is putting out the right message. The city of West Virginia that that you he's a no on this as it stands right now it and he's not supporting the filibuster move.

I think it's a pretty big it's a pretty big mountain to move for them to get him not only to support the legislation. He said he won't to his constituents and let Leslie made significant concessions to him, which is possible but to do that. They also have to get him to say yes on the filibuster move which which there's if he's not the only Democrat Sen. is expressed potential ocular opposition that you journey to huge development but I really think his constituents need to be a little bit wary here and actually really pay attention over the coming weeks. Obviously if he doesn't support HR one and if he doesn't support guarding the filibuster than both of those two items are dead to Jordan about expressing support for the John Lewis voting rights act a building. We have no idea what a look like by the time he gets the United States Senate that Bill could very well the very much like S. Once a few votes for that bill but the substance is the same as S1 and he hasn't kept his promise right to exist idea that we just urged like a baby gate with him that be his potential race is nobody to remove the filibuster talk that the Québec challenges facing Americans for substantial time in our value our freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now. ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable and voiceless to protect. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life casings were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/step-by-step so the most egregious provisions of this legislation which is is big today will be a protecting voting rights with a new look at what what it's really doing iTouch that one of those. Mandated new ethics verse at first, Supreme Court justices, you as attorneys we have ethics each district each state that you are a member of the bar has ethics.

Some differ slightly, their federal ethics their state ethics boards there ethics issues that arise as attorneys you take classes on law school and ethics of illicit you on and on and on the idea that the that I get. It's more we talk about a takeover of the voting system were also direct taking over trampling over on separation of powers so you know I think that but there's something at play here with you here. People say while this isn't dead yet that the bigger question. There is, that means there's some some communication. That's why picking up on is that while this may not be the piece of legislation.

Job answered Center for West Virginia is willing to put his foot that is say about your support.

The filibuster legislative filibuster is he open to it in some other way basically give me what I I want up put it in terms that are better, you're more acceptable to me and suddenly you know I'll get to this report to talk about the that the nationalizing of the sky, the trampling over the first without a bite to save lives with, watched her walk you through this now with all of you vow to take your phone calls on it 100 684 31 to is a lot of misinformation audit. This had to already get past the legislative filibuster. Then consider Vance's vote would be crucial, but he would also have to be crucial in that vote to two in the legislative filibuster, which is also cities against there's two ways to hold his feet to the fire on this. What is you say your get the legislative filibuster. You know like this legislation is totally partisan. That's okay, but except for the fact that the first impeachment trial with 70% of your state was voting for President Trout and an ideal for good and well.

Job answered new the right way to vote. That first impeachment trial. He still voted to impeach he still joined Democrats that it was that a meaningful voter didn't change anything that he that makes a lot of calculations based off that.

But just as the first first kind of parade of horrible's HR one spent a lot of time on this one. I just think it's it's it's just tells you how they want this federal takeover shield is matching funds available to Presidential candidates if they want to comply with limits on fundraising, though it is doing that anymore because you can add this note that it it it's outdated the system doesn't doesn't. That is not is a you utilizable that it would expand that program to further federal elections to create a six to one funding that she would tell them that you challenge our broadcast we have an ACLJ right we talk about you.

Is it double the impact this is six times the impact with your federal tax dollars. So any small donor contribution so that they can select $200 or less in a congressional or Presidential campaigns of the putting themselves in this to get matching funds so every $200 that a candidate race.

The federal government would give $1200. This is a given that this is this is $1200 of your text.

But don't worry they want you to be involved in the process that I can get a $200 fee that could be substantial in a daughter big enough to get that six times matching challenge that the government was to run on its own. They were giving a $25 voucher so you can support any campaign that you want. I don't know how you get the voucher. I do like the federal government giving you money that you have to then used to donate to a campaign. How would that that's that's getting into some some areas that are also very sticky. This is just the start of the of the legislation or the tech to Harry Hutchison on the ethics of support.

What is this funding issue. I think it it's Congress is like a bailout for themselves makes a whole lot easier for most congressional races.

You don't have to raise more in a couple million dollars. You raise a lot of money elicits a very very targeted specific races but he pouring in from across country as a whole lot easier to raise that if every turnabout you give $1200, but I would note that the idea that it would ethics reforms or the courts. Harry right away I be there trying to ask they they had their job in the U.S. Senate taken it out to vote to confirm companies are not think they could voted down, they can prevent the present in the pics but that's their role in it cut. It is there and that we have a separation of powers absolutely serve the attempt to impose a new ethics rule on Supreme Court justices, in my judgment goes beyond the boundaries of the United States Constitution, and I think Democrat Supreme Court justices, at least those nominated by Democrat Pres. they would've posters on it is clearly I think in violation of the Constitution, but this is a very subtle and a very crafty move by the Democrats because it is really about providing an opening salvo in the Supreme Court's dream of packing the Supreme Court. So if they can pass this particular provision. And let's assume the Supreme Court invalidates it, then they will go to the next step which is to try to pack the Supreme Court in order to nominate justices who agree with their interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Essentially they believe the Democrats believe in what might be called living constitutionalism, which means that the tax means nothing. It's all about feelings about emotions is about sentiments. It's about a sense of fairness. Imagine Alexandra a Conseil Cortez on the United States Supreme Court. And even though she's not a lawyer, there's nothing that prevents her from joining the Supreme Court and emoting as a Supreme Court justice going forward. So this is the essential problem. I think with this provision imposing ethics requirements on Supreme Court justice is very evident that is just just one example fan at the second example that it I want to get people's thoughts on this from across the country is your state hasn't it it's ability to set up these methods for voting. Every state is a little different every but but every state is different also a in population and have the urban areas, city areas that had areas, rural areas we some states predominantly role. Other states. Major cities have dominate the map and then you got the rulers that they can still make decisions that make sense for people and if you don't like it give the ability take to change your move states fist. If you feel like you know your people… California if you feel like you.your cut a dud fighting for his little move all your there's lots of states to choose from and you get to make that choice, but then if they make the move, which was a rush to move this kata number three on the list to put in place the same voting protocols that were rushed through to say the least haphazardly made cause a lot of confusion lead to chaos and wash it it in the United States is Washington, United States of America and they want to take that and they want to codify it into law so that everyone is registered automatically unless you opt out again.

I don't know how you do that if you're if it's automatic ended at at and by the way, in most states would you go to your ID or your driver's license that that they will they will ask you and it's not very hard to register to vote it in any state I've lifted or the District of Columbia, where I have been voted before as well is the very simple process very quick process to register to vote, but they they they like – lies that he would expect they would basically nationalize the mailing Valley mail-in ballot process. No more voter ID it out to this idea of the exact opposite of what everybody said were the problems of the last election it cut cast doubt on that put down people's minds wrong or right and which led to chaos and that yet they would they want to codify that into law, and I want to do it in a one-size-fits-all wage or 90 look and even if it weren't rushed, which it clearly was in 2020 led to confusion and led to your right, people being not confident in the outcome of it, even if it weren't rushed even if in various states. Jordan decided to make some of the state changes in a thought out process for future elections and maybe every state didn't look like each other. What this would do. Jordan is we do take that authority away from the states and say no, the state of Washington has to do elections like the state of New York, the state of California has to do elections like the state of Massachusetts and by the way, I not only do they have to do the same. Who gets to decide how they get into at the federal government gets to decide how they want to do is adorn. I really think that the election that we saw in 2020 would actually be the high water mark. It is shocking as that may sound, there's only one direction for this to go if Washington DC is making all the calls and that is that these roles would get worse. It would get Lee more problematic for states and the federal government would continue to absorb more power as their commentators are saying that they feel like this legislation is teetering that may lead to bigger profit by the evisceration that children it's not that every time I read it I feel like there's an opening that makes nerves filibuster and makes you nervous about this legislation if they visited a name change change only one.

A society can agree that the most vulnerable in return. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition like it will show you how you are personally pro-life battle supports and the publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases, the rights of pro-life activist ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the abortion industry and what Obama care means to the pro-life side of the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans or substantial time in our Valley freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights in court in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do our work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ issues that I've got your bases if you watch a our social media to watch the broadcast to her this was to listen to his interview with Chris Wallace from Foster subbasin came out of that topic comes that the trust that app but listen carefully, because what were talking about the show is the problems with this as it pertains to voting and in trampling on state constitution that is not were Job ages problem is because in his own words, it's the additional funding mechanism that he says have nothing to do with voting that he thinks is Mexico like a bloated piece of legislation.

It's too partisan, not so. It said that he's looking at a different way. We are as we go through the problems we see with this. I which by the way, I'll just give you little tease, our right of the backers were just working through the top 10 problems here. We haven't gotten to the speech czar.

I'm not kidding you. That's a direct quote from the legislation, a speech czar is a country with a First Amendment right to free speech. We don't need someone to police at all and if you again the idea of you together yelling cracked fire to credit theater. We have courts we have legal systems. We don't need the federal government with speech source as it relates to voting as it relates to politics as it relates to elections and again I'm just kind of previewing that for you will get into it further and the broadcasts. The final will be dialogue because you know where the organization that the basically executed watch was gutted the IRS and especially their ability to try and get an and politically pick winners and losers when it comes to applying for tax-exempt status for either C3 organization, especially C4 organizations HR one before the people I would permit the IRS permit the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of organizations before granting tax-exempt status. Okay I to save up getting really deepens that for our second half hour because that is what we fought at the IRS is what again courts determine was wrong, illegal misconduct by the IRS to consider politics to consider not just politics but they give the ACLJ Francis is a 501(c)(3) organization that you would provide legal services.

This church at no cost but to get a look at our policy persuasions were to be of the IRS that power again of you are basically installing a Lois Lerner on steroids.

Who is protected would be protected by federal law to impose their political beliefs because you have to assess the political beliefs or groups and something like your political beliefs you just disappeared to the IRS system that that is just again Job matches not say that's where his problems are and say that's what makes me very still nervous and why we still have to take this wide will to choose a day forgiveness on people's radar because I feel like he's throwing out what his issues are not necessarily the issues that he's like not see eye to eye with us on all the issues and then of course this the filibuster issue should be the be-all and end-all or cut it any way to kind of pause through before you make major legislative changes on either side of the aisle, you should.

You're correct. To be nervous.

Jordan locally get to the issue about the Lois Lerner rule expertly got thoughts on that. But let me just give our listeners a view into how the legislative process is very likely to work in a scenario like this. Joe mentions that he doesn't like S1 because of of these provisions that are in it, but he does like the John Lewis voting rights act while Speaker Pelosi herself says that that bill, which is basically a placeholder from a bill that was introduced last sessions deals mostly with preclearance requirements from the Department of Justice set all that aside Jordan. She herself says that's a bill that won't be ready until the fall will what will make it ready, Jordan. I'm here to tell you that the thing that is very likely to make that bill ready to pass is that they're gonna lift provisions from S1.

The four people act they're gonna drop them into the John Lewis voting rights act in there to move that for through the house and send it to the United States Senate.

You're gonna end up with the bill in the United States Senate that is named in the John Lewis voting rights act, but the substance is mainly going to be the S1 bill and it's good to be specifically on the voting provisions and I'm here to tell you. Jordan Joe mentions correct about some of the extraneous provisions being problematic. The voting provisions specifically Jordan. Those are the worst provisions in this bill. Those are the provisions that take the ability for states to protect the integrity of elections and remove them from the states and moved into the federal government were we know those protections are can be watered down so when that day comes when the fall comes in.

There is a bill in the U.S. Senate name the John Lewis voting rights act and it looks a lot like S1 and Joe mansion says he's gonna vote for it because it's got the voting provisions in their Jordan. Those are the problematic provisions. It's ridiculous.

I want to hear of it is our exists with Chris Wallace on Sunday by 31 is Chuck Schumer making a mistake in pushing this big bail before the people act and saying that he was once about on iPad by the end of the month and to if he does bring it to the floor. Will you vote against that voting is a bedrock of our democracy and open fair secured voting weeks to go around the world and explain and show and observe voting for procedures in a democracy, and now we can practice what we preach and were going to basically do an overhaul and 800 page overhaul of the voting rights or what we call for the people act and think there's a lot of great things. I agree. And that piece of legislation. But there's an awful lot of things it basically don't pertain directly to voting again were talking about is things directly relate directly voting he's talking about sport which by the way they put a fork in for his home state of the audio I get all bets are off.I do think the filibuster form is also different. Meet some of this was going to be a political vote is 8C were all united. It's the bad Republicans who voted suppress voter rights in his issues.

Any outages to give you some of the highlights organ intertidal of the IRS issue also you know they love to live in Russia and intellectual interference in this that they hacking the systems. What a velvet ran through one system that makes a little bit easier to hack when you have states independently setting up their their own system. The best suit them and and that I give is being set up by the their representatives who are most local within the state representative level or simply mid-level or delegate level of that of course states it it it it and this idea that that alone makes us more vulnerable.

But I want you to understand speech are your speech rights, political candidates, speech rights is in this legislation.

Speech czar so you get $25 and a voucher to donate any campaign you want. Which by the way, just I don't like that it all within the 621 matching challenge that the federal government was to run for a house and city candidates and submitting members of Congress and Senate take a bailout for politician ended the Presidential level of that matching exist major candidates to utilize the more because it restricts your ability to raise a certain amounts of money that's unnecessary that with the Internet. Your billing your able to reach out to a lot of people.

So get a lot of time at the second half hour and will take you.

Because of this one 864, 31 to 23. But the idea of a speech czar regulating politics today for your for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us, ACLJ.org, where you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ live from Washington DC and our top 10 most egregious visions of HR one for the people act and the reason we bring it up because Joe Bateson has made an issue because he came an op-ed opposing it. Wonderful sounds wonderful. The vote is not for a few about two more weeks if they are still the same track. He also sees opposed to a game of the filibuster sounds great but also he basically in that op-ed lays out what he would vote for. So he's given Chuck Schumer the roadmapping by the administration roadmap. He has not expressed problems with so far that I've seen of anything that that we brought up so far like the like.

For instance, if it were just getting into it and in one half hour broadcast the public funds of campaigns federal fines on corporations out on their campaign of funding in the decision to two again utilize as a private business if if they set up the right apparatus but also the matching for a congressional candidate anything I would go back to for second most members of the House of Representatives are not coming from like the most heavily targeted districts in the country. We get high profile races were both cave-ins have to raise millions of dollars to compete with each other.

Even if the house level times in primaries and state to receive God's a blue state or red state where that that district is basically whoever wins the primaries got that you know see for as long as they like, and so that becomes very competitive but every freight freight house race this and race the more expensive but for a house race. If you get $1200 every 200 bucks to raise that that alone.

To me it just reeks of corruption wanted that number is right below the level of reporting, $250 and but you've got open secrets of his website. You can see you look at me. See rev donate you to look up anybody neighbors over $250 is usually the number that gets reported was just under that number and they get six times. At about that, alone, to be think you be heavily abused one of the craziest provisions I've ever heard about your nanny want to just give you a hypothetical. Let's say there's a congressional race. You know somewhere in Kansas and let's say there's eight candidates running. Maybe you support. One of them and I support a different one of them and so we each give our preferred candidate $200 Jordan by affect what we have done is actually subsidized the candidate. We don't prefer the one we don't like to the tune of six times that number so I give $200 to candidate a and by default you and the rest of the taxpayers have to give that candidate $1200, even though you do not support the Jordan. It is forced subsidization of candidates you don't support people listen to this broadcast probably don't support people like Alexandria across your protest will guess what. Under this legislation. Your tax dollars are going to find her campaign and one other point I would make sure this is a discussion we had internally as a team. There's so much conversation out there about dark money and money that we don't know where it comes from funding campaigns. Can you imagine the incentive. If every taxpayer can actually be the vehicle through which their small dollar conservation fusion can be multiplied by six times. If you think dark monies a problem now. I think there's probably a debate to be had about that. But if you think there's a problem now just wait till this provisions in law and another for eight that if regulators invite Democrats track that adds I ended that was a very got through.

So another one. This would this one so it if they want to mimic California, which again California blue state right now heavily blue.

There's a recall Google see what happens with that different show entirely, but say let's take that apply to the whole country, what would that mean permanent mail-in ballot so legalize ballot harvesting disregard voter ID laws. I will talk about how are they disregarding the voter ID laws as well because it come up with an interesting mechanism to try that one. Put this all of your radars is I think Joe Bateson's op-ed is correct. He opposes this as it stands is not against the provisions were talking about so so and he's put forward what he would support, which again states he can be a very quick name change and maybe a couple small provisional chain so we gotta watch very carefully focuses not yet everyone wants you to think is that the challenges facing Americans are substantial time in our value our freedom sword constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades ACLJ has been on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress and in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do more work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms. In the event remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing become a member today ACLJ only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice. Is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, we've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition like it will show you how you are personally support publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in emotion and what Obama care means to discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to question your free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/. This legislation permits states that permit state forces states to expand availability at which you get some states have done with success is Oregon got with out to all the mail-in ballot. Now if you do the population. Oregon it's it is not the same size as California is that synthesizes New York or for any the thickest. That's nothing against Oregon and you'd be a beautiful state but but they they've also the implemented it over time. It was a test. They've got it in place and that that the people decided through their representatives they would before that way to force that on states is very different knowing of the faults does Janice have a good question on my water, California hey Janet, welcome secularly on their way there, and for all of the great work Al Qaeda acute to Michael regarding HR 1 B infant nationalizing the voting process but I think the Constitution outlines that each state has the right and the authority to determine the voting process in their state selling a bill like this that seek to change all of that require constitutional amendments. It's interesting there would if this were to pass very certainly, there would be legal challenges to whether or not this violates article 10 section 4 what does it does it violate other provisions of the Constitution.

They've been laid out and amended over time to constitutional limits on Presidential elections electoral college. All these things that are running at the state level member I was lectured to get certified at the state level through their their procedures and then then it gets to Congress and they have their role to play, but I again they can pass legislation and then you'll find out in court Harry C would see what sticks and see what doesn't stick. That's always even that that's with any piece of legislation.

I think there's serious problems with that, but again it will type it. I guess they've brought to greatest interview I did when you are relying on court to save you.

That is still be the place of last resort. Absolutely. So I think the caller is precisely correct in her constitutional analysis. However, it's also important to note that there is an important predicate unto the caller's question and that quote caller's question must be submitted to whom Democrats and then we need to ask the Democrats do they believe in the Constitution. My answer is absolutely not. They believe in what might be called a living Constitution, so they believe that through litigation argumentation and rational analysis. They can overwhelm the Supreme Court and then encourage the Supreme Court to overlook the actual text of the Constitution. So Jordan I think you are correct, it is always tricky to rely on court judgments and keep in mind that the Democrats have a backup plan. What is the backup plan to pack the United States Supreme Court and so at the end of the day. I think American citizens should be activated, they should take action now to oppose this legislation and any subsequent legislation that basically takes provisions from it. Because the best way of preventing this law from taking effect is to prevent its passage in the first place. I want to go to the the weak ties with the legalizing about harvesting again. There states that allow that there states that don't II don't like the idea of ballot harvest elites taking advantage of people vulnerable people whether they are in care facilities whether they are new to newer to the country's citizens and it get the gist it's right for corruption. But when you put again. Some states have decided they will allow that that that again this gathering of votes and then they still try to say what people have to ask for your help with that of Philip the value of those love it causes problems. This would nationalize that whatever we talked about how it would disregard voter ID laws.

How does it do that would force states that this this this absurd. It would force states to allow sworn statements to be used in place of ID and allowing for signature verification so no ID, no signature verification just a sworn statement and you can submit that through Vota a photo if the voter registers online whose photo editors of signature and there's no ID, who you but eventually for anybody than to just put up put up a photo, put it online and by the way, is another federal government database of of of of you are in the US is another way it tracking your voting in it in the ability to get just it just reeks of thin to me.

This provision also the idea that what we don't even have the system in place you talked about our chat.

The fact that when they tried to roll out the healthcare.gov website how it really crashed immensely. That is not even close to having people vote in elections, especially Presidential year elections and the idea that you can just bypass any kind of verification by putting in a photo. I guess in your address in a photo if they don't have your ID, we don't have an ID is nothing to match that to love all you have to do is submit his signature. Jordan didn't put in place of a photo identification. That means you don't have a photo identification loss mistaken pass a photo identification law, but of the federal government says Nana. Now you have to accept a signature in place of it you don't have the photo ID volley we discount lift up to a higher level for a second term because I think all of these in all of these are provisions that you've talked about our are really just an effort at unchecked power from the left in Washington DC and Nancy Pelosi said something to her colleagues in a press release a couple of days ago that I think is worth injecting the conversation here. She said we are at an urgent moment because of the Republican assault on our democracy and endure night.

I think all of us can concede that there are probably some on both sides who are trying to win at all costs, even willing to abandon the framework to listen to what she follows that up with. She says, by contrast, congressional Democrats have brilliantly and patriotically proposed legislation to respect the sanctity of our democracy.

So Jordan. She is saying that if the federal government is going to come in and eviscerate state photo ID laws and say that you have to take a signature verification in its place that that is a brilliant and patriotic proposal to respect the sanctity of our democracy. Jordan it's not that it's an effort to achieve unchecked power from Washington DC, it can't check the signature because they can get on it that ID to match the chair with any If you want to do the photo option, but you don't have to have an ID to do that because you could just with photo online that match it to any any sense to me that this would be again at states would also be forced Harry to count provisional ballots that were cast outside of the voters correct precinct that to me that's what that really steps on. I think article 1 section for this idea that that there is a well totally have to catheters provisional. You've got account of his actual votes, even when it's not the problem of the state but of the voter and by the way most of the time if if you are having an issue with it should up the wrong precinct that correct precinct is not too far away. It's usually in a mile or two away specially in major election years because there's a lot of different precinct set up in an early voting.

Most states red and blue at Harry allow people to pick what they want to go for the for the two weeks before the election, or sometimes even longer than that, you're absolutely correct.

The Democrats are extremely creative in doing one thing coming up with legislative proposals that favor them.

Keep in mind. For instance, if the Democrats opposed foreign interference in the 2016 election. Yet this particular bill makes it easier for foreign interference in upcoming elections with respect to voter suppression. The Democrats have majored in voter suppression going back to around 1872 around 1950. Keep in mind the segregationist South was controlled by Democrats, so they supported voter suppression. Now they oppose voter suppression. So what's their latest move they believe in constitutional suppression so another warrant we throw the Constitution out why because we believe as Democrats that favors us so each and every proposal in this legislation, and HR one is designed to entrench Democrats in office.

This is basically a two-step malady if you well. First, the Democrats have opened the border to a new pool of voters now they want to change the voting rules to allow those voters to get on a plane or potential voters to get on the plane in Timbuktu go to Mexico across the border and vote in a Louisiana election that is the Democrats down strategy, it's all about favoring them permanently. We come back. In this again. It is, it's a Democrat wish list because the voting which like intervention says that that his issues with that. Other reasons to oppose it, that they should help Democrat the IRS issue, save that for last visit would say this is again this is dangerous tools give divided only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice as is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition life will show you how you are personally pro-life battle and publication includes a look at all major ACLJ pro-life cases were fighting for the rights of pro-life activist the ramifications of Roe V Wade, 40 years later Planned Parenthood's role in the end what Obama care means to the pro-life discover the many ways your membership in the ACLJ is empowering the right to life question free copy of mission in life today online ACLJ/challenges facing Americans for substantial time and are now free to sort constitutional rights are under attack more important than ever to stand with the American Center for Law and Justice for decades now ACLJ on the frontlines protecting your freedoms defending your rights and courts in Congress to get in the public arena and we have an exceptional track record of success. But here's the bottom line we could not do her work without your support, we remain committed to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms than remains our top priority, especially now during these challenging times. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side, you're already a member. Thank you, are not well this is the perfect time to stand with us. ACLJ.org where you can learn more about her life changing work, become a member today ACLJ IRS through the parade of horrible and we talked about for its backup because the Chuck Schumer saved to a vote, regardless of where intervention is the also said he's talking to Joe that we have that sound about the shiver reads he's talking about basically they're not taking that is the end of this discussion that they say that really we can keep that discussion.

I going take a listen.

About one side to the truck shivered during the incident. Is it possible we might change a few things here and there.

What I do with what we've had discussions with center mansion and their continuing were going to do it. I mean to me is a pretty clear side of if Joe mansion if if what he's proposing through his op-ed is within the realm of reason and all these things that were talking about make their way through that.

The second question becomes is Joe mansion Fleck at all flexible is considerable at all. Flexible of the senator from Arizona on actually getting rid of the filibuster they had before. Get the IRS issue on this because the final point of this because we fought so hard to protect Americans at the ACLJ and M by the way, when we got that injunction against the IRS from ever targeting Americans to apply for these status groups groups for Texas as because of their political beliefs, policy orientations, the defect is that is change significantly the process and it's made it easier for Americans to organize at the grassroots level they want. They want to reverse that. But before before you to that.

They also want now commissions at the federal level to decide congressional districts that there are states and an egg in the voting parts of the voting rights act have been lifted outside sub statement, there were in place provision for states and had a history of of of Jim Crow laws of voting suppression where they had to go in and and get court approval that congressional approval fan that was the different they took it to courts to review with his alleged state legislative process and the court review but now Congress wants the ability to draw any site getting their six-time matching donation. They also want to draw their own congressional districts. It's an important distinction Jordan. Interestingly enough, one of the proposals in the John Lewis voting rights act would actually change some of this preclearance requirement.

I think there's a problem underlying their but yet I mean this is just another example of an egregious power grab by the federal government currently states have the ability to draw their congressional district within a certain framework. There are some guidelines. Like you said, based on past history that used have to get some preclearance through the Department of Justice. This would turn this all on its hedge ordinate. They use the guise of an independent commission that would draw congressional lines will who sets up the independent commission is the federal government Jordan Simon you think you think I got that commission is truly to be independent when the people who are appointing them are those who are elected officials in Washington DC. There is no chance this is just another example of Washington DC taking over an authority that belongs in the states Harry having the final one because I think this is the what. Again we fought to stop this week we represented. I will say this.

As always, Eric really brave Americans organizing the grassroots level, and they're willing to take on the IRS and of course we were we were willing to represent him. But you have to have clients represent. I always want to thank all of Scripture standing up. The IRS is no. No joke.

And remember during that process. Natalie was at the IRS but we also found that, which is what we would do when this became even a more height situation that the IRS was working with the FBI.

We had FBI agents showing up trying to interview our clients who literally going on spoken to a number these groups before over the over the years.

I these were real grassroots organizations were there group of 50, 60 people might get together in the local community once a month maybe organize your trip to go to bigger events or come together that the local organization together but they were put in place not just a speech czar that's included in this for the political Paper. They want the IRS again Harry go back to having the power elite have the power before but now legalizing what we we stopped in court, which is to consider political and policy persuasions of organization before grading taxes and status even though it specifically under the C4 rules. I mean it talks about in the IRS code what they can and can't do it it comes to policy and political bashing. That's all you need to be abiding by is the rules not not what your policy's provisions are or your persuasions are. I think that this this this to me is the most dangerous provision because it will ship it. They know what strength of the conservative movement is the ability for grassroots organizations to pop up quickly and organize and mobilize quickly so they want to be able to prevent a stop to it like they did the first time around, the tea party. I think your precisely correct.

So essentially this particular provision weapon nice is the IRS to go after political conservatives. In a sense, you could look at this as a provision that names Lois Lerner as a special prosecutor to investigate only conservative organizations that has been the history of the IRS. They have not been evenhanded in some sense you could argue from a constitutional perspective. They have been violating consistently. The first amendment rights of conservative organizations and this particular provision essentially reinstates the learn, but Lois Lerner rule and basically is designed to disenfranchise independent thinking and conservative Americans and all independent and conservative thinking Americans should rise up and oppose this particular provision, but also to they should oppose the entire bill of this bill hopefully will not pass this but this is accession point favor so many Democrats I have the hearings we did on Capitol Hill. Congressional hearings for that date. They they loved it.

We found this out through all that that work that we did represented groups sending letters to the IRS asking them to investigate this conservative group in their district that they don't like because maybe it is their posts go to their issues and policies and so they loved were trying to get to refer Americans who are again organizing the grassroots level they would refer them to the IRS and edit an odyssey that was wrong but now they would only build refer them to the IRS but under this they would have the IRS would that have the unchecked power to say. I guess there political persuasion something they disagree with and by the way, they would detect that the federal bureaucracy you're talking about voter registration and donations reports that you can look up like we talked about earlier in the 95 to 98% plus range. Going to Democrats during it's just shocking to me that there still support for this in Washington DC. The idea that a an individual or a group's political views should be one of the rubrics that the IRS or any other agency for that matter is allowed to look through to determine your tax status. That's just shocking that anyone would support that during this is not an accident. I minutes in this legislation that passed and it's not like this is ancient history. We saw this abused just about a decade ago. That's why we work so hard for this statutory provision, the Lois Lerner rule to actually be in statute. The fact that that is so soon after that abuse back on the table and backing this bill for reenactment a jury might be shocking that that the prevailing view in the lesson. Washington DC of it. But that's just reality.

Working with for this is this is new at the new left tried to and in the old leftist try to appease the new left edits totalitarian if it's the social site is a communist ideas that you trolling having speech czar's politics controller you get there matching challenge and donation trolling who gets approved by the IRS operate policy organization talk to Mark to get a sealed of the Lord is always on second.

For decades the ACLJ is been on the frontline protecting your freedom is defending your rights in court in Congress and in the public arena. The American Center for Law and Justice is on your side. If you're already a member thinking. If you're not well this is the perfect time to stand with us ACLJ.org or you can learn more about our life-changing work, member today ACLJ