THE SCAMBURGLAR… STEALING YOUR VOTE

A Ruling That Changes the Question

On October 1, 2026, a federal judge in Miami, a Biden appointee, delivered a ruling that sent shockwaves through the Department of Justice. U.S. District Judge David Leibowitz dismissed a federal criminal charge against Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox, a Jamaican national accused of illegally voting in the 2020 presidential election. The decision was met with immediate, predictable outrage from commentators, who rushed to frame it as a "jaw-dropping" display of activist overreach. Judge Leibowitz however thinks he rendered an opinion in strict constitutional originalism that should make conservative jurists proud.

The facts of the case are admittedly troubling. According to federal prosecutors, Cox entered the United States as a tourist in 1999, overstayed her visa, and later used a fraudulent U.S. Virgin Islands birth certificate to register to vote. She allegedly cast ballots in multiple elections between 2012 and 2020. Under any reasonable standard of law, she should face the consequences of those actions.

But the critical question before the court was not whether Cox committed a crime. The question was whether Congress had the constitutional authority to pass the specific law used to prosecute her.

The statute in question,

18 U.S.C. § 611, was enacted in 1996 to criminalize noncitizen voting in federal elections. In his ruling, Judge Leibowitz pointed out a fundamental, baseline reality of his redefinition of American civics: “Congress has no power to say who can vote or who cannot vote in federal elections — that foundational power is reserved for the States.”

________________________________________

One Judges Flawed Thinking

BUT here is the "chink in the armor" of the liberal judge’s opinion.

If congress has no constitutional right to pass laws regarding who can vote in federal elections, then Huston we have a problem. If Judge David Leibowitz opinion is allowed to stand it would mean that black people, 18 thru 20-year-olds and women can no longer vote. Because it was congress that passed the laws that explicitly gave these groups the constitutional right to vote. So, if Congress cannot pass voter eligibility laws you are out of luck.

According to Judge David Leibowitz rational in his ruling, I suggest that if the federal government has no standing in who is eligible to vote in federal elections that opens the argument that in fact federal entities including the court has no authority or standing to even rule or accept a case like this, therefore his ruling would invalidate his ruling.

Do you see how crazy this has become? Do you understand the ramifications of this decision? The reach and scope of such a decision is breathtaking for the amount of authority that would be nullified for congress, government entities and including federal courts. That is how insane these people have become. Because if this stands and is allowed to propagate to its full conclusion states’ rights would destroy progressive constitutional arguments using the 14th amendment which has been the foundational reasoning used by the liberals to manipulate the constitution throughout the modern era.

This could turn out to be the springboard to launch a new states' rights crusade that could be a reversal of every liberal policy ever done in conservative states or for liberal states could signal the conclusion of the constitution as we know it. With the amount of control liberals are gaining through blue cities in conservative states like my own Missouri, it really makes you wonder if we have not discovered another progressive socialist plan for their takeover.

This decision is a stunningly wrongheaded assertion that flies in the face of American history. If we accept Judge Leibowitz’s logic as law, we aren't just letting one defendant off the hook. We are functionally erasing a century of civil rights progress and dismantling the very idea of a unified federal electorate.

________________________________________

We Cannot Ignore History

To understand how dangerous this Judges ruling is, we must look past the modern political noise and look at history books. If Congress truly has zero authority to dictate voter eligibility in federal elections, then what happens to our most foundational voting rights?

Let us look at the precedents Congress has established and enforced for generations:

• The 15th Amendment: Passed by Congress in 1869 and ratified in 1870, it explicitly gave formerly enslaved Black citizens the right to vote by declaring that voting rights could not be denied by race.

• The 19th Amendment: Passed by Congress and ratified in 1920, it prohibited states and the federal government from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex, finally giving women their rightful place at the ballot box.

• The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the constitutional voting age to 18.

• The Voting Rights Act of 1965: A monumental piece of federal legislation signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which used explicit federal authority to strike down discriminatory state voting restrictions like literacy tests.

Every single one of these historic milestones was passed by Congress and signed by a president. Every single one of them dictated who could or could not be excluded from voting in federal elections. Yet, under Judge Leibowitz’s absolute "states-only" rule, Congress supposedly lacks the basic constitutional right to pass laws saying who is eligible to participate in a federal election. If Federal Government has no standing here, then where does it stop. Do illegals vote, how about children, or maybe pets.

________________________________________

OREGON v. MITCHELL and the Federal Question

The Constitution's Elections Clause and its broader structure give Congress clear authority to pass laws regulating federal contests. While states are responsible for administering elections, Congress absolutely retains the power to set the boundaries for federal offices like the presidency and the Senate. Indeed, as legal experts have noted in landmark cases like Oregon v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court has previously upheld the federal government's authority to regulate specific qualifications, such as voting age, for federal-level elections.

To be sure, defenders of the ruling will argue that individual state laws still protect the integrity of the vote. Judge Leibowitz noted that Florida remains free to prosecute Cox under its own state-level citizenship requirements. But relying on a patchwork of 50 different state standards for a federal election is a recipe for chaos. A nation must have the power to protect its own federal sovereignty at a national level.

This flawed ruling must not stand. The Department of Justice has already filed its notice of appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and this case is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, the Justices must firmly remind the lower courts of what history has already proven: Congress damn sure has the power to pass laws securing federal elections. If it doesn't, the constitutional bedrock of the American constitutional republic begins to fracture.

________________________________________

So now, I Don’t Know Which Way to Cheer

And that may be the strangest part of this entire case.

I would hope a decision this contrary to constitutional law would get people to finally see the preposterous limits these activist judges are going to push their liberal agenda, even when it includes overturning their own authority.

If the judge is proven right that Congress has essentially no authority to determine who can vote in federal elections, then the implications could reach far beyond this one defendant.

Either way, this case has opened a constitutional door that may be much bigger than the people who opened it intended.