The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day."
Many people who come from immigrant families often misinterpret this section and err by substituting the intent of the Founding Families of the US with the opinions and biases of immigrants. Here is how section 4 was actually interpreted by the Founders and how it is interpreted by their descendents.
Article 1 Section 4 is actually divided up into 2 seperate clauses that do two different things.
The first clause is the election clause and, contrary to the opinions of immigrants who had no role in the development of the Constitution nor in its ratification, does not grant Congress ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to dictate elections all over the US.
In fact the authority granted to Congress over elections applies only to elections for the House. It does not apply to local elections, state elections nor does the power extend to Presidential elections. Nor does it apply to Senate elections. The other thing it is important to keep in mind is that this clause does not empower Congress to seize control of redistricting from the states. The Constitution does not grant Congress any say in how Congressional districts are drawn once seats have been officially allocated to the states. Once a state recieves a number of seats, those seats are the state's to draw however the hell it wants. And yes, states have a right to exclude noncitizens in drawing districts.
The reason this power was given Congress had nothing to do with race or national origin but everything to do with preventing political corruption and election fraud where a state could pass election laws that are deliberately designed to prevent one candidate's voters from going to the polls. The states are allowed to do this but the Congress can over rule them when it comes to House elections. The Congress cannot overrule state election laws when it comes to Presidential or Senatorial elections. The problem with the recent HR1 is that the people who introduced it, coming from other countries and not know the actual intent of the America's founding families or the intent involved in writing this section, would have usurped state power over elections at the local and state level as well as for both the Senate and President in addition to taking away state's right to decide for themselves how to draw their House districts.
This would not be an issue if communist California's foreign dominated government was not bent like hell on conquering and subjugating and punishing the 27 states that voted for Trump. And before I continue, I just want to point out that the 27 states that voted for Trump make up the majority of the US while the 23 states that voted for Biden make up the minority of the US. The fact that you can have a President who won a minority of states testifies to the power the minorities already have in America where they can overrule the wishes of the majority and the system was designed this but I will get into this when its time to talk about Article II.
If you want to stop the House from making elections laws even for the House, you need to amend the Constitution to do that. If you want the House to have the power to decide how districts are drawn and to regulate how Non House elections are held then you have to change the Constitution.
The election clause is what gives states primacy in regulating elections for President and for the US Senate as well as at the state and local levels. And the other big concern was that states would refuse to hold Congressional elections.
Congress has exercised this power in the past but only as it relates to elections to House of Representatives.
Congress power to control elections is extremely limited and not absolute or open ended.
And contrary to what immigrant communities might think the Constitution does empower the states to impose reasonable restrictions on how and when ballots are accessed by voters. What the states and Congress can't do add to the qualification requirements for candidates beyond what is in the Constitution itself. For example in 1995's US Term Limits vs Thornton, the US Supreme Court ruled that neither the states nor Congress had the power to enact term limits which the Court majority ruled required a Constitutional amendment. It made a similar ruling in Citizens United.
Nor can the states or Congress enact that laws that favor one group of candidates over another or that are designed to acheive a specific election outcome. Such scenarios are called election rigging. The dispute between HR1 and the newly passed state elections are examples of this where in the House you have Democrats trying to change the law to rig the elections so that no one but Democrats from outside the US will win. While in the states you Republican legislatures rewriting the laws to ensure that only Republicans win. The US Supreme Court already dealt with this in 2001's Cook vs Gralike. In its ruling, the Court struck down a provision that required election officials to print a special warning on the ballot next to the name of any candidate for Congress who refused to support an amendment to the U.S Constitution that would impose term limits for Congress. The Court explained that the provision exceeded the state’s power under the Elections Clause because it was “plainly designed” to favor candidates who supported term limits, while placing others at a disadvantage. It's unconstitutional to require ballots to label candidates as Democrats or Republicans or Pro Choice or Pro Life. It's also unconstitutional to mandate the inclusion of their gender or ethnicity on to the ballots.
WIth regards to who in the state decides election laws, the Constitution states quite clearly that only the legislatures can make the election laws. However the people of the state can change the law also but only by strong showings in referendums.
While most powers are not delegable, some are. For example the legislature can delegate the power to draw districts to somone else.
The second clause of this section mandates that Congress meet at least once a year to conduct business. When the Constitution was first written, debated, and adopted, Congress was not supposed to be a career for anyone. It supposed to be nothing more than a hobby for hobbyists or a part time job for part timers. The current habit of many politiicans to make serving in Congress a full time career with billions in tax payer funded benefits and freebies is quite contrary to the intent of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. LIke the President, members of the House and Senate are expected to serve for a only a coule of terms and then retire to give someone else a chance. You are not supposed to stay in Congress for your entire life. With the exception of the US Supreme Court, there are no life long terms of service for any political office in the US.
Comments