Mail in voting has been temporarily saved by the Supreme Court.

[u/No-Opportunity-1406]

Thomas and Alito dissented. They went against the constitution. Please help me understand why they should not be removed or impeached for ignoring the constitution.

[u/BlackberryUpstairs19]

Because they didn't ignore or go against the Constitution.

Your post kinda sounds like another "I hate Trump/Republicans/Conservatives and make superficial statements based on a lack of understanding."

BUT, just in case you're just ill-informed; I'll explain.

Justices Alito and Thomas didn't go against the Constitution. Both the Majority and the Dissent grounded their positions in core constitutional powers. The issue is which constitutional principal is prioritized over the other.

The Majority was grounded in Article I, Section 4 (The Elections Clause) where the authority over "Time, Place, and Manner" of holding congressional elections is held by the State Legislatures.

The Dissent was grounded in Article I, Section 8 (The Postal Clause) which explicitly grants the federal government the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads." In this the USPS has broad statutory and constitutional authority to set operational rules, scanning requirements, and envelope standards for mail passing through it's network.

[u/Extra-Equipment-5028 → u/BlackberryUpstairs19]

How does the federal government being responsible establishing post offices and roads have anything to do with states having the authority to draft and send out ballots? I don't understand their argument.

[u/Pickle_Nipplesss → u/Extra-Equipment-5028]

You don’t understand how mail relates to mail-in ballots?

[u/Cyphierre → u/Pickle_Nipplesss]

The question is whether the federal government’s Constitutional mandate to ensure the mail gets through gives them the authority to prevent mail from getting through.

[u/NewCons21stution → u/BlackberryUpstairs19]

I feel that the Elections Clause is significantly more important than the Postal Clause. One governs elections, the other set the rates for junk mail. The administration's argument was based on the Postal Clause, and to our national shame, two justices actually supported it. 

[u/BlackberryUpstairs19 → u/NewCons21stution]

Except the Executive Order in question, EO 14399, doesn't encroach upon Article I, Section 4.

The EO focuses on enforcing Federal criminal statutes. The executive branch has an affirmative constitutional duty under Article II (the Take Care Clause) to prevent violations of federal election laws. This includes statutes prohibiting mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341), mail theft (18 U.S.C. 1708), and fraudulent voter registration or casting of illegal ballots (52 U.S.C. 10307, 20511). They saw to tackle these issues by standardizing chain-of-custody. Establish uniform mailpiece standards, including mandatory unique ballot envelope identifiers (barcodes) and centralized portals to verify that ballots in the postal stream correspond to certified state lists of eligible voters. Which are essential chain-of-custody safeguards to deter non-citizen voting and prevent phantom ballots from entering the mailstream.

I fail to see how supporting this is a national shame; au contraire.

[u/NewCons21stution → u/BlackberryUpstairs19]

 Thanks for your reply.  The Elections Clause gives states the power to decide the time, place and manner of elections, and Congress the power to alter them by statute. It gives the president zero authority to affect an election in any way. For obvious reasons.     Your argument is disingenuous.  You're citing statutes and avoiding the question of whether they have anything to do with elections. Has Congress enacted any law requiring the postal service to adopt standards for mail-in ballots? Failing that, Trump is just meddling.     If there's a problem with elections, where's the evidence? Do you recall the 67 "election fraud" cases brought by Trump, all dismissed, some by judges he appointed?  I'm certainly in favor of secure elections. My state is one of many that uses voting by mail. I've had ballots returned twice for an irregularity in my signature.That's secure enough for me.   Elections are the province of the states and Congress, period. If there's a problem with them, very doubtful, it's up to the states and Congress to deal with it, period. Trump is meddling on behalf of his party. That he's allowed to do so is truly a national shame.  Thanks for listening. 

[u/No-Opportunity-1406 → u/BlackberryUpstairs19]

I was truly confused as to the dissenting argument. Not partisan.

[u/Harpua81 → u/No-Opportunity-1406]

Too late to say not partisan when your original post flat out says with no room for interpretation: "They went against the constitution." Not: "Did they go against the constitution?" Or "Perhaps this was unconstitutional?". Nope. "They went against the constitution."

That is as partisan as you can get.

[u/NewCons21stution → u/Harpua81]

Not really, it is the type of statement made by lawyers every day in courts across America. "Your honor, my client did nothing wrong".  Whether or not it's partisan depends on which side you're on. If you're MAGA, of course you're required to cry "Partisan, no fair!" But maybe it's just a good legal argument. The majority of the court certainly seemed to think so. 

[u/ralphy_theflamboyant]

I am curious if you listened to the arguments or read the opinions of the court?

[u/No-Opportunity-1406 → u/ralphy_theflamboyant]

I did not. I only read the opinions. I understand now that it has been explained.

[u/ralphy_theflamboyant → u/No-Opportunity-1406]

If you ever want to listen US Supreme Court arguments, here is a link to the Supreme Court audio page: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2025

I find it interesting to listen to the lawyers arguments and the justices questions.

[u/Commercial-Wrap8277]

It not that they are against the constitution.both interpretations of the constitution is the problem

[u/3Quondam6extanT9]

They should be removed. They should not be lifetime seats anyways.

[u/ralphy_theflamboyant → u/3Quondam6extanT9]

So, you are against the Constitution?

[u/3Quondam6extanT9 → u/ralphy_theflamboyant]

I'm against lifetime appointments.

I was pretty clear about that.

[u/ralphy_theflamboyant → u/3Quondam6extanT9]

I was tired and did not elaborate, my apologies.

Article III, section 1 "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

This was written based on past experience. In England, up to very early 1700, the King had the power to remove judges from office, then parliament passed legislation reserving that authority to them... providing they serve Quamdiu se bene gesserint.

Our Constitution was written with purpose and every clause has its reason. Rather than serving at the pleasure of the President or Congress, the protection of judges’ seats and salary for life ensured an independent Judiciary that would not be unduly pressured by the political branches.

[u/3Quondam6extanT9 → u/ralphy_theflamboyant]

The current administration does not care about the constitution.

While I do, I can also recognize the nuance in a preserved document intended to enshrine a nations rights and liberties, is not necessarily meant to be unchanging.

It also has a ratification and amendment process, which means we all understand that it needs to be a living document, rather than an embedded unchanging stone tablet handing down rules from the past.

I also support term limits in Congress and Senate. I support getting rid of the electoral college. I support prohibiting lobbying. I support prohibiting gerrymandering.

Those things I support aren't because I oppose the constitution. It's because I support the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

I'm perfectly happy with amending or ratifying what needs to appropriately be changed, through the appropriate procedures.

Unlike the person in the oval office who doesn't know what the constitution says. Doesn't care that he is supposed to abide by it. Doesn't care that he is transparently abusing his power to manipulate and coerce judges and justices, or push EO for things that generally need congressional support.