That those states carried out elections that were unconstitutional, or at least that’s how I interpret it.
Libs/Dems will do anything for power
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
So throw out the votes is the remedy? What other course of action would you propose? If you want to fix the law, fine. Just don't wait until you lost the election to decide you care.
I personally think a recount of the votes with scrutiny of the signatures and verification of voter registry is critical.
You can't throw out the votes that came in illegally because voters were told otherwise and voted accordingly.
If only one vote per registered voter is counted and that vote is scrutinized to guarantee authenticity than that will satisfy me.
There are more Dems than Reps and if more of the Dems voted legally, so be it.
That might be the most sane thing you've said in weeks. So all good on the states that have audited/recounted the votes and certified the election in them?
The recount didn't verify signatures or voter registration criteria.
It just recounted all the ballots that passed the loose protocols in place at the time of the original vote counting.
That's why there was little change in the results.
MAYBE IF I PUT THIS IN ALL CAPS AND BOLD AND YOU PLUG ONE EAR THIS WILL REGISTER THIS TIME. YOU KEEP ARGUING THAT THE REFERENCE TO LEGISLATURE MEANS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. EXCEPT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD (INCLUDING AS RECENTLY AS TWO TERMS AGO) THAT LEGISLATURE AS USED IN ARTICLE I SECTION IV OF THE CONSTITUTION REFERS TO THE PROCESS OF ADOPTING LAWS NOT THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE BODY . THE FEDERAL COURTS ARE APPLYING A LONG CHAIN OF PRECEDENT EXACTLY AS INTENDED. IF ARTICLE I SECTION IV WAS READ IN THE MANNER THAT YOU KEEP SAYING THAT IT SHOULD BE, IT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF OVERRIDING THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTING LAWS (E.G. IT WOULD READ THE GOVERNOR'S VETO POWER OUT OF EXISTENCE), WHICH WOULD BE ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM WHICH YOU OTHERWISE VIEW AS SACROSANCT. YOUR ARGUMENT TAKE TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION IS THAT UNLESS A LAW SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. THE STUPIDITY OF THAT VIEW WAS SETTLED IN 1803 IN MARBURY V. MADISON.
AS BURR SAYS IN HAMILTON, "THE CONSTITUTION IS A MESS . . . IT'S FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS". HE WAS RIGHT. IT WAS DRAFTED BY COMMITTEE PRE-WORD PROCESSOR. JUST LIKE ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT IT HAS TO BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY NOT ON A SECTION BY SECTION BASIS.
Last edited:
Interpretation is why Judges should be non partisan. At least with Trump's appointments were are on the right track.
And yell at the US SC and give them your BS. At this moment they have yet to decide the numerous law suits before their court. Will they take the cases up? And if they do what decision will they make?
In these extreme times changes were made to allow for state election changes. The US SC may end up deciding if some persons were enfranchised and if so what to do about it.
I'm citing actual text in the Pa and US constitutions.
And, fyi the process of writing laws IS NOT UP TO JUDGES, sorry you can't interpret that differently.
You might want to stick to talking about things that you actually know something about (however, I suspect that may render your functionally mute), because clearly you have zero clue about the law.
PA Code Chapter 25 Section 3046, which was adopted by the PA legislature and governs elections specifically provides that the courts "shall settle summarily controversies that may arise with respect to the conduct of the election; shall issue process, if necessary, to enforce and secure compliance with the election laws; and shall decide such other matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this act". Pursuant to that last sentence the PA legislature clearly, knowingly and expressly granted the power to interpret and carry out the intent of the act to the courts. Ergo, your assertion that the courts of PA do not have the power to interpret the relevant statute is simply wrong by the plain language of PA law. Further, this is not the first time the PA courts have utilized such power to change requirements related to an election. The courts previously extended deadlines for voting in the event of natural disasters w/o objection by the PA legislature. As such, the legislature is effectively estopped from asserting that it did not intend to delegate such power to the courts via the last clause of the above language.
The question is whether by expressly declining to act via the legislative process the PA legislature effectively revoked the above delegation of power in this instance, because extending the deadline would be inconsistent with the indicated intent of the PA legislature in declining to act. But differently, by declining to act did the legislature demonstrate a clear intent that it did not wish to allow for the action taken by the PA supreme court. As such, there is an open question of whether by acting when the legislature declined to act that the court was not carrying out the intent of the legislature, but there is zero dispute that the applicable PA law expressly delegates the power to do equity to the courts of PA.
Therefore, whether you wish to interpret the election clause via an originalist, textualist, or other recognized method, the legislature clearly delegated the power to the courts on this matter. The question is merely whether the court exceeded the scope of its delegated authority, which is a different matter than what you are claiming.
It's not a fk controversy. It's not even an interpretation. It's a change to a low approved by the State Legislature.
A Judge is not authorized to write legislation. Contrary to your liberal bs opinion.
If the Judges were doing their job the would have said to the Legislature "You cant change the election laws in the Constitution without following the protocol put in place for such changes." They did just the opposite, the rewrote the legislation.
So you have a double wammy, Illegal legislation and Judges overstepping their authority.
So we can have this conversation in a week or so when the US SC decides the Texas Case, which 17 other states have now joined.
FYI, I said three weeks ago that this should be the fight the Trump legal team should pursue.
Once the Texas case gets laughed out of court just like all the others, the right will come up with another completely idiotic argument that you'll fall in line with.
