Imagine, if you will, a lab that produces a product essential to the life and health of those who depend on it.

If that product is PURE, it is an inestimable blessing.

If that product is corrupted or tainted, it is detrimental, even poisonous to its consumers.

Therefore, the law - not to mention common sense - mandates that the product be PURE.

Also imagine that YOU are hired as the Head of the Quality Control Department that produces that product. YOU are charged with ensuring the purity of the product produced by the lab. The health and very lives of your consumers depend on how perfectly you meet your responsibilities.

Finally, imagine that you, in your capacity as Head of Quality Control, are prohibited from testing any of the ingredients used to produce the product, and from testing the final product itself.

• You must simply TRUST that those from whom you purchase the ingredients are providing the quality necessary - though they themselves are prohibited from any verification procedures to ensure that to be true.

• You must also TRUST that there are no errors or sabotage committed by lab technicians and others involved in the production of the product or its ingredients.

Under those circumstances, there is no way you can reliably fulfill your responsibility to your consumers mandated by your employment contract and job description.

Sooner or later, something will go wrong, with potentially disastrous, even existential, consequences.

No thinking person would accept such a situation.

The person responsible for the quality of the product MUST be given the authority to establish a verification process.

The same logic applies to the workings of the U.S. government.

• The hypothetical “lab” in the analogy is the electoral process

• The “product” is the democratically-determined electoral results that fuel the health of the American Republic.

• The ingredients that produce that product are the voters.

Both the ingredients and the ultimate product must be verifiably

quality controlled to ensure the reliability of the product. 

The Constitution is clear that “quality-pure” voters in a federal election MUST be citizens, born or naturalized.

Constitutionally, our Republic is to be “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

“We the People” are, per the Constitution, legal American citizens ONLY.

Guests who enter the country legally from elsewhere are welcome and fully embraced as long as they do not threaten our way of life. But they are not part of “We the People” unless and until they qualify for and complete the naturalization process to become legal citizens.

Guests, however “permanent” or long-term, have NO constitutional right to a voice in federal elections (nor at this point any state elections). Quite the opposite.

Constitutionally and legally, they must be excluded from the process to avoid poisoning or tainting the purity of the product.

It is impossible to identify and remove prohibited ingredients (non-citizens) from the ultimate product (election results) without identifying them.

Currently only one state in the nation makes any quality control effort beyond asking a question and trusting the response with no research or follow-up.

Therefore, the president of the United States must have the authority to implement testing procedures in order to fulfill the duties of the oath of office to execute the demands of the Constitution and federal law.

The President of the United States is the Head of the Quality Control Department, by virtue of being the Chief Executive of the country.

• The Constitutionally prescribed job of the executive branch of the government is to execute the Constitution and laws of the land.

• That means the president has the authority to ensure that the Constitution and the federal laws are followed - that is the Oath of Office, the employment contract and job description.

Can the President of the United States Mandate National Voter ID?

Regardless of where the often politically charged courts ultimately come down on the issue, the real and undeniable answer is an unequivocal

YES.

Requiring a verifiable (government issued, photo included) Voter ID of anyone casting a vote is constitutional, legal and common sense. It is a necessary element in the multi-faceted battle to protect the country from the corruption of foreign intervention.

And as Chief Executive and Head of Quality Control, the president has the right and responsibility to impose that mandate in the form of an Executive Order (EO), which the current president has done.

Of course, the EO has been challenged in the courts, and a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly upheld the challenge, claiming the Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress.

EIPCa disagrees. The judge forgets the point made above, that the Constitution assigns the right to vote to citizens only, and assigns the president to be the Chief Executive, in charge of ensuring the Constitution is followed. 

It does not need to assign the president a direct role in regulating elections in order for that regulation to be within presidential authority. As the saying goes, “The Buck Stops Here,” with the Chief Executive.

The White House’s response to the ruling is that in issuing the EO, the president has exercised his lawful authority to ensure the Constitutional mandate that only citizens cast votes in U.S. federal elections, and that the EO will be vindicated by a higher court.

EIPCa agrees that if justice is truly blind, the Executive Order will hold.

click here for pdf