It may be stupid, but there is nothing unconstitutional about letting “illegals” vote, it’s called FEDERALISM.

Men's room urinals, or voting booths? In reality only one of them is a legitimate use of your time.

Public urinal or voting booth?  hmm hard to tell the difference at first glance.  I wonder if it qualifies as protected “political speech” either way? .  

The government screws the people at every turn. But still, EACH TIME, the people turn back to that same government to solve the very problems that the government created. Amazing really to watch it happen over and over. The borders are wide open. The “election process” is rotten to the core. Fraud is rampant, but the essential problem that permits all of this to happen remains the same. The people don’t understand the real purpose of the “government”, or the constitution they claim to “love”.

Today I am going to discuss a real hot button for a lot of people, the issue of illegals voting.  Let me be blunt. The Congress has NO SAY in whether “illegals” vote. Just as they have no say in whether someone “needs to show a driver’s license” in order to vote. Those are issues to be decided by EACH STATE.

Back to the constitution “conservatives” don’t see that they support internally inconsistent positions and thus UNDERMINE their own supposed position about a “limited” federal government.  They support the feds stopping illegals from voting because they see that as another issue of “law and order”, which is THEIR HOT BUTTON.  But they complain that “liberals” push for the feds to encroach on the states rights on “social and economic” issues, which are the libs hot buttons.   They don’t see that this is all by design.  The “split” is designed to GROW the fed’s power regardless of which party is “in office”.

Of course letting people vote who sneak in to this “country” illegally is a BAD IDEA.   But If the people in a state want to authorize a BAD IDEA and give members of “ISIS” living in Syria the right to vote in their state elections for President or for their congressman or for anything else, there is precisely “Richard” that the Feds have to say about it UNDER the constitution.  That is what true “federalism” IS.  And that is what the back to the constitution crowd claims to want.  But they don’t SUPPORT IT when it doesn’t do what THEY like.  Just like the liberals. 

With all the no means yes and yes means no confusion out there, I see that this congressional staffer has made a note to remind her boss.

With all the no means yes and yes means no confusion out there, this congressional staffer took it upon herself to make a note to help remind her boss in one of the few places he might actually see it.  This is exactly the kind of can do attitude that makes America great.   Oh, and our diversity. 

So let’s just look at what the holy constitution says and let me prove to you once again that the Feds IGNORE what is written in the Constitution and the back to the Constitution crowd’s position pushing for fed enforcement is NONSENSICAL.

First of all, NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENT. NONE. Your state can appoint its electors anyway it cares to. I have written on this twice.  Go read them if you want a lot of details, But I will briefly show you once again what the constitution says.

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Clear as day. The states APPOINT their electors however their legislature directs. Period. You have no right to vote for the President. Zero. And if you still have any doubt then go checkout what I wrote about the big “disputed” election of 1800 where Jefferson cheated his way to the presidency. In that election 4 states specifically changed their electoral “appointment” method, and took the popular vote away from the people in order to enter into a deal with other states to assure a certain outcome.

There is nothing in the constitution that would prevent a state from “appointing” its presidential electors by letting illegals vote. Nothing. Think about it, if the state doesn’t even have to let ANYONE vote, how and why would it not be allowed to let “illegals” vote if it cared to? Of course a state could allow illegals to vote in the “appointment” of the states members to the electoral college, because a state could choose to appoint their electors by using a lottery.

So now lets focus on electing their Congressmen. Here is the pertinent portion, Art. 1 Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

Am I the only person who thinks this looks creepy? What in the heck is going on here?? lol

Am I the only person who thinks this looks creepy? What in the heck is going on here?? Is this the lesson you want you children to learn?? Oh, and it’s brought to you by Carl’s Jr. lol

So simple and straightforward. All you do is LOOK and see what the qualifications are to choose the members of the state’s “most numerous branch of the legislature”. If they are using that same eligibility standard for congressional electors, then they have met the “constitutional requirements. End of analysis.

People can’t seem to wrap their brains around something being this simple, but it is. They find it hard to believe because they have been so baffled with BS their whole lives. But you don’t have to be a “constitutional expert”, you just have to be able to read.

Now we’ll do the Senate. The 17th amendment which changed the way the Senate was chosen used the exact same “most numerous branch” language. To wit (figured I’d throw in a bit of legal jargon for yucks):

The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

Identical language, means identical analysis. And poof, just like that, we are done. Let’s get a cup of coffee.

So now we have come full circle. If the state “elected” its “most numerous branch of the legislature” by a ballot that was open to members of ISIS living in Syria as well as to citizens in the state, then guess what? THAT is how they would then be allowed to vote for their congressmen and senators. There is nothing else to it. The provision is straightforward. It is left entirely to the states to decide who is eligible to elect their congressmen and senators.

It's true, identical twins, identical analysis. It's a simple rule. Identical twins, identical analysis. A yes from one is a yes from both. YES WE CAN.

 It’s a simple fundamental legal rule I use all the time. Identical twins, identical analysis. A yes from one is a yes from both. YES WE CAN.

I’m sorry if this is shocking to you. I’m sorry if you don’t believe me. But it is simply an undeniable FACT. The feds have NO say in whether illegals get to vote.

The Feds are only entitled to control the time place and manner of the elections by “altering” whatever the states have decided to do. Here is art 1 section 4:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

It just can’t be any clearer. Time place and manner are not ELIGIBILITY. They are time place and manner. Again, end of analysis.  Do you see how fantastically simple this was to prove? Yet still the confusion and outright lies continue unabated.

My bet is that even after reading what I just showed you, that many people STILL will not believe me. Such is the level of brainwashing.

So think about this. Remember back to when you were dutifully sitting quietly while the state agent indoctrinated you into the myth and fantasy of what the “united states” government is during your “education”. Remember how they told us that the states all used to have very different and “restrictive” voting eligibility requirements. They told us that only rich white guys could vote. Remember that? Of course you do.  In fact we are now constantly reminded of how this is evidence that we are a terrible hateful racist chauvinistic country and need to pay more taxes to the government to fix all of these past wrongs. So they are telling you, in effect, what I just told you, that the states set eligibility.

And if you STILL don’t believe me then answer this simple question. 


There would have been NO reason for those amendments. Congress could have just passed laws to “fix” all of the terrible racist chauvinist transgenderist anti-veganist hate into the love we all experience today. Do you see that? The very existence of those amendments, once again proves my point about illegals voting.

I found this slide from an NSA presentation on their long range planning. If you are a real patriot and love freedom and liberty under the constitution then you will do the right thing and pretend you never saw it. National security threat and all, I'm sure you understand.

I found this slide from an NSA presentation on their long range planning. If you are a real patriot and love the freedom and liberty the constitution gives you then you will do the right thing and pretend you never saw it. National security threat and all, I’m sure you understand.

The exact SAME analysis applies for illegals as it does to women, AA’s or “minors” etc. There is no difference. The only way the feds can regulate the area is to get a constitutional Amendment passed, just like they had to do with the other eligibility areas.

Now that I have opened your eyes to that harsh reality. Let me explain a couple of things about what those voting amendments even do, because most people don’t even understand that.

Most people think the amendments mean that a state MUST let all of those different types of people vote. Wrong. THE AMENDMENTS DO NOT SAY THAT.

All they do is prohibit denying or abridging the eligibility to vote BASED upon age sex and race. They do not create any right to vote. They don’t mandate that everyone in those categories must be allowed to vote. They only prohibit a state from using any of those categories as the BASIS to deny someone eligibility to vote. States can still deny people in the categories voting eligibility, they just can’t do it BASED upon the category. Do you see the difference? Probably not, because you weren’t trained to trick people with word games like politicians and lawyers have been. So let me show you.

The operative language is the same in each amendment. Here is one example.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

I bolded the operative language. It doesn’t grant a right. It only says, in effect, that to the extent they have a right that the right cannot be denied or abridged based upon being 18 or older.

Maybe this will clear it up.  Most states deny “felons” the right to vote EVEN THOUGH most felons are men or women over the age of 18, which are protected classes or categories. But members of those “protected classes/categories” can be disenfranchised in that situation because they aren’t being disenfranchised on account of their being in one of the protected classes.  They are being disenfranchised because they are criminals.  And “criminal” is not a protected class.  Get it?   And guess what, if a state WANTED to let all CRIMINALS vote, they could do that TOO.  Because the amendments are about who can’t be RESTRICTED, not who can  be ALLOWED to vote. 

He is protected, and so is she! It's called freedom. Look into it.

He AND she are BOTH protected.  He/she is apparently tearing up just thinking about all the freedom.  

Let me give you another example of permissible “overlapping classes” that you will probably find shocking. Could a state elect its congressmen and state reps by allowing only people who have assets of 10 million dollars or more to vote?


Because again, they are NOT DISCRIMINATING BASED ON AGE SEX OR RACE, AND Financial worth is not a protected class! Women, men, blacks, whites, old, young all are “EQUALLY” welcome to vote, provided they each have at least 10 million dollars. The state would thus be applying its “standard” in a “permissible way” because it is not BASED upon any of the prohibited classes or categories.

Here’s one more example.  Could a state only allow “anyone” who can solve some puzzle to vote? YES, for the same reasons.

And so again we come full circle and ask…. can a state allow “illegals” to vote in their elections??


Now why any state would do any of those things, or whether they should are VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS than whether they are allowed to “under” the constitution. Do you see that?

States are free to set their own eligibility requirements. If they wanted to make knot tying ability the standard, then they would be free to do that. Though personally I would go for the bra option.

States are free to set their own eligibility requirements. Personally, I would probably concentrate on the bra option, I mean, I don’t vote anyway. 

This kind of word game is just one of the ways they screw you with all their “positive laws”. The holy constitution is no different. IF the words they want are not there they read them in. And if words they don’t want are there, they read them out! Then they tell you that all these words make you free, Free FREE! And you believe them.

Surely it’s clear by now that the feds must have an amendment to regulate this issue.  But guess what? The feds stopped bothering with details like the constitution a long time ago, because the people are so brainwashed that they imagine the feds can pass laws about anything they want. Think about drugs. They needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw booze, but now the feds claim to have the right to outlaw whatever drugs they care to? How? What changed in the holy constitution? Nothing. It makes no sense. The distinction between booze and drugs is just a made up word game approved by “the supreme court” which is just the feds themselves. It is asinine. But the people worship this system as though it is actually their “liberty”.

Let me finish by showing you how the feds just ignore the holy constitution once again and lawlessly usurp the states authority over the issue of “aliens voting”. Take a look at 18 USC 611 Voting by Aliens.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.

You should now be able to see how laughably unconstitutional this purported “law” is. “Alien” v.  citizen status is an eligibility category no different than men v. women, black v. white, or 18 v. 21. The feds have no authority over eligibility categories. They only have authority to regulate time place and manner.

Now I suspect some people are thinking, but what about “equal protection”?!! They might as well say that the feds can do it because the feds have electrolytes!  People have no idea what the phrase “equal protection” means “in the law”. For the most part, you only get “equal” protection if you are entitled to “protection”, and you only get protection if you are a protected class. It is just another word game used to confuse the people. Much too complicated to explain here and now.  But let me quickly dispel any notion that the so called equal protection clause would somehow authorize this blatantly unconstitutional over reach by congress on “aliens”.

I asked this congressman about the constitutional support for the Alien voting act and he just laughed. I think he was drunk.

I asked this congressman about the constitutional support for the Alien voting act and he just laughed. I think he was drunk.

If the “equal protection clause” somehow gave Congress any power to regulate eligibility categories, such as “aliens”, then there never would have been a need for the 3 other amendments on the eligibility classes of race, sex, and age. Do you see yet?

My brainwashed friend, the only reason the feds went through the charade of getting those other amendments, including the one on booze, is because at that time the people had not been brainwashed sufficiently, so a lot of people knew that Congress needed an amendment EACH time.

That’s no longer the case.  We have now arrived at the United Statist of Utopia.  50 plus years of federal education control, media brainwashing, history rewriting, pervasive prescription drugging, spraying, fast food stuffing and mindless porn/social media consuming have made sure the people are as ignorant, docile and compliant as needed.

The “back to the constitution” crowd and its shameless promoters simply don’t understand the document they claim to love so much, or they intentionally misrepresent it.  It’s only one or the other. 

I’ve said it before, I will say it again.  Why do you think they allow that whole “conservative” “back to the constitution” crap to be beamed endlessly into your homes and cars, and for the purveyors  of it to get so RICH??  Do you honestly think they would allow that to happen if the “back to the constitution” ideas being peddled by them had any actual chance of creating meaningful change to the system THEY CONTROL? My friend, fairy tales are for children.  It really is so transparently silly I wonder how much of the pap that they spew they even believe.  Probably not much.

So we can all agree we have that in common. Great, that's one less thing dividing us as a "country". lol

I think we can all agree on this. Maybe I should use this as my platform when I run for president.

Look,  the constitution and the fairy tale surrounding its “adoption” is, at its heart, a deception and a usurpation of your REAL rights. That’s all it is. Why revere it and its “authors”? It facilitates theft by a giant entity that is controlled by and benefits the rich and powerful.  They  use it to put you in a cage whenever you don’t do what they demand. Why, pray tell, do you imagine that the constitution is a good thing for you when you obviously know NOTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD by those who benefit from its existence??? Because you’ve been brainwashed my friend.  Because you’ve been brainwashed and fleeced since the day your were born and you have no idea what you are actually supporting.

Until people see the government AND the constitution for what they REALLY are, the hapless masses will continue to support them and therefore they will continue to support their own enslavement. And getting people to do THAT is the REAL PURPOSE for all of the constitution worshiping they push. 

Okay I am done for today. I have to go rewatch the 9th republican debate again just to be sure I didn’t miss something.  I take my civic duty seriously. I only wish everyone else did.  Take care my brainwashed Brethren.  Move towards the light and tell someone the truth about the law.

And the truth shall set you free.

   And the truth shall set you free.

14 thoughts on “It may be stupid, but there is nothing unconstitutional about letting “illegals” vote, it’s called FEDERALISM.

  1. tena

    why couldn’t we class action lawsuit them for failure to provide a “REPUBLICAN” form of government? All laws are supposed to apply to everyone equally and AMEXICA is the most corrupt nation run by special interests. I just don’t know what to do about all the ignorance and criminality.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Thanks Tena, the answer is we won’t “have standing” etc. The courts will throw it out. You might want to read my article on how they Turned the First Amendment on its head. It explains the issue of the “right to a redress of grievances” not being abridged. The courts have usurped all sorts of power and the people in fact have NO IDEA what the courts are even there to do. Read my article on Scalia and the courts.

      There is not much to do about all the criminality and ignorance. Until people grasp the VERY FUNDAMENTAL concept that voting does NOT EQUAL FREEDOM there is NO chance to change things. I have been at this for a while and it has become abundantly clear people are NOT going to wake up. So I don’t put as much energy into as I used to. I used to believe I could make a difference. I have learned that is really only technically true. I can make a very very very small, no smaller, lol difference. And that’s okay. But I’m not going to kill myself to make such a small difference. I am here for my own sanity and to commiserate with like minded souls. If we can wake a few more. Great.

      The material I have on this site is more than sufficient for anyone who goes through it to see the reality of what we’re dealing with and it is NOT pretty. But unless people understand that nothing about the holy constitution or getting “back to it” will fix what is actually wrong, then there is no point in even trying those fixes. Because they will NOT work. They can’t work. The structure as it is now accepted. CANNOT work. You can’t have a single entity in charge of “checking and balancing ITSELF” lol That is absurd. The founders KNEW this. So did many regular people for a long time. But not any more. That is lost.

      Now people think that the federal govt’s “checks and balances” is some holy thing that even COULD work and that the courts are a barrier “if proper people are on there”. THOSE are all NOT true. Any objective HONEST review of the history of the laws and the courts will show that. But people do not get an honest objective history. They get lies from govt schools. And govt licensed, accredited, certified, funded, approved, etc. books, experts and schools. So that fact is now lost.

      Until that fact is part of the mindset of the people, the rest is a waste of time if you want real change.

      So that is the situation. I wish it were not. But reality must be dealt with. You can deny reality, but you cannot deny the effects of reality. lol And yet, the people do. lol even when the effects are RIGHT in their faces. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. This is why my message is not popular. People want 10 easy steps. People want to believe that all we need to do is have an amendment convention or get term limits or on and on. None of that will work. But it sells baby. It sells. Because it dovetails with the whole patriotism thing that is in peoples’ minds. Who put that there? lol exactly.

      Being proud of what something actually is and does? Great. Being proud of something just because it is? that’s silly. How many people make that distinction with this country and what it ACTUALLY IS and actually DOES? .001% maybe. Anyway this rant is long and people don’t want to hear it. So let’s make america great again and just get on with it. lol Take care Tena I hope I answered your question. — L

      1. Crocodile

        Like you wrote many times in your articles, those who are in control know people can be led (even till death) with “something for nothing” and “hope”, so a lot of hope is pounded into people’s heads through that tube 99,9% are watching daily.

        Hope and Change, make the country great again.

        They are rolling on the floor…..

        Continue your de-programming “crusade”, LegalMan !

        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Thank you Crocodile for the comment. I will continue to post here. If for no other reason than what Nock said, just because I feel I have some truth to share. If people find it of value great, if they don’t, then so be it. lol

          I have enjoyed poking a lot of fun at the world on twitter recently. What a total sh*t show it really is. The world has become satire at this point. — L

  2. Sam

    What is a democracy and how does that effect who does or doesn’t vote: de·moc·ra·cy
    noun: democracy
    a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
    Citizen: cit·i·zen
    noun: citizen; plural noun: citizens; noun: cit.
    a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.

    Any person in violation of the laws of the land cannot vote, as it is a felony to enter America illegally, no illegal alien can vote by law — as it is the States responsibility to determine a voters rights and who can vote, and, because every state in America denies non-citizens any right to vote, it is illegal for non-citizens to vote in America.
    The rest of this junk is just junk, and criminal.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well Sam you pretty much summed up the mind block that constitutionalists have. Did you even read the article? I doubt it. I suspect your blood pressure started to rise when I didn’t show proper deference to the holy constitution. Lol.

      There are so many things about your response that make no sense. Starting with the fact that we DO NOT live in a democracy. Then even the copy pasted definition you present says by the “whole population or all the eligible members”. Which of course makes MY POINT. We are a republic at best and only those who are eligible can vote. Eligible being the operative phrase.

      Then you say each state determines voters rights. Again making my point. Then you say any person in violation of the law of the land cannot vote. Which of course is just not true. Then you ignore the fact that the people of many non states do in fact vote in choosing the candidates in the primaries. So again your points are disproven.

      Then apparently your mind shut off because you summarize by saying the rest is criminal. I assume you are referring to my article. I see you are about as consistent with your application of those constitutional rights your seem to cherish as the holy oracles of the Supreme Court are. And you probably imagine yourself to be a law and order guy as well. Having no idea at all what you run around and preach to people. My friend until you learn a bit of intellectual humility to see that you don’t even understand what you think you know so well, you will never dig yourself out.

      Thank you for reminding me why it is pointless to even try and discuss most topics with ordinary people. Thank you for providing an excellent example of why we are so laughably and unalterably screwed. Next time someone asks me “what we can do to fix it”. I will direct them to your comment when I tell them not much because the people on whole live in a dream land they cannot awake from. Even if you speak directly to them they will refuse to hear or see.

      You are doing your part my friend in keeping everyone in chains and from what I can tell you’re not only proud of it you are, as is typical, unreachable.

      It is amazing to see no matter how many times I see it. Best of luck to you. — L

      1. Carey Nottingham

        I came across a quote today that I thought was quite fitting, in light of Sam’s wee diatribe. Written in an editorial piece about Freedom Club’s (FC) manifesto, “Industrial Society and Its Future,” discussing how the MSM concluded the writings were the ravings of a lunatic – a “lone nut,” I wanted to share:

        “It is often the case that one can most readily learn about society by watching its reactions, across the spectrum, to those who would challenge it” (Autonomous Anarchists Anonymous, 1995, p. 8).

        carry on, legalman, carry on…

        ~ Carey

    2. Bill in IL

      Poor, befuddled Sam, doesn’t even know the type of government he is living under, therefore the rest of his junk is just junk and criminal.

      1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

        lol, that’s funny Bill. As Homer Simpson said, “it’s funny, because it’s true.” lol

        The level of utter brainwashing and outright ignorance is a source of both amusement and despondency for me depending on my mood and whether I have to actually DO anything in response to it. When it is just opinion, I laugh. When it is opinion translated into “law” well, it loses a bit of its humor for me. But I take solace in the absolute joke that the overall system is, and the shocking level of non-thought that is going on in “the public discourse”. Sam actually thinks he is informed. Think about THAT. lol — L

  3. Carey Nottingham

    another thought provoking post. people worship those who rule – period – it makes sense that there is no need to pass amendments the way they used to.

    United Statis Utopia *giggle* I think people have been getting “big ass fries” with their freedomness vaccinations. Oh, did you hear? even if you have been vaccinated before, the new vaccine may help protect you in ways the previous vaccine did not.

    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      I did not hear that Carey about the new and improved vaccines. But I’m sure they will do all sorts of things that the old ones could not. I think I’ll run over and get a few extra just to be sure. — L

  4. consent-to-be-governed

    Legal Man:
    Excellent commentary on the upcoming elections and current campaign debates! I can’t wait to get int that booth and get me some more Freedom! Once a week I visit the WAWA Gas station. Today in America everything is self-service so I insert my CC, select the fuel type, stick the nozzle in the little hole and fill er up. At the conclusion of the transaction a 1 foot long receipt is produced with countless details on the receipt concerning the purchase. What receipt do the registered voters get when they vote?

    It starts with the Birth Certificate, then the SS-5 [SSN], then the Drivers License then Selective Service, then information returns of income as a result of working for a living, then Registered Voter, then Jury Pool. One contract after another whereby the ignorant masses trade away their God given rights for benefits and privileges as a Federal Employee. Every federal form contains penalties of perjury language above the signature line. They want to know if you are lying now or if you intend on lying later by signing their form under penalties of perjury.

    To become a perspective juror there are three key questions:
    1. Do you reside in XXXX County?—> resident=inhabitant=foreigner. The prospective juror is a resident of the “State” and domiciled in Washington DC.
    2. Are you a U.S. citizen?—–> 14th amendment juristic person with only civil rights.
    3. Can you read, write and understand the English language?
    Note: Question three is a trick question. The prospective juror is agreeing that they read 28 USC Chapter 5 Section 81 to 131 [districts] and the historical notes. In the event that they understood the meaning then they would realize they are ineligible and disqualified to be a prospective juror, but don’t let that get in the way of committing perjury on their form, which is a crime.

    Millions of “state” Citizens / nationals have contracted into the wrong status as 14th amendment citizens and signed away their “state” Citizen / national status as defined in INA 1952 Sec. 101(a)(21) = 8 USC 1101(a)(21). Then to make matters worse they submit a USPS 1583 as a resident in the U.S. with their home as the office of the person [federal official]. The 1583 is very clear that it is used to serve process.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *