[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 4, 2022 11:38:17 ago (+3/-2)*
Suspend disbelief. I’m not stretching on that headline. I honestly do not believe the Supreme Court can avoid nullifying the Presidential Election… if President Trump, and some of you too, will plead this in court.
While this article poses interesting questions about the upcoming elections, it has nothing to do with the presidential election.
In the Presidential election, versus elections for any other office, states appoint electors, those electors vote on a specific day, the VP counts the vote, and the candidate with the most votes win.
This was done exactly in accordance with the Constitution, and Trump lost. People do not vote for president. They vote to support a candidate for president and the states use that vote to appoint their electors.
Again, the coming election will be interesting as a few key swing states have already suggested the results will not be in on time. But this isn't applicable to the presidential election.
Here is the decision, which is about congressional elections and talks about the decision being narrow in scope.
Except many of those electors were unlawfully chosen by the individual States. Also the Dual electors that were sent were also not dealt with according to the rules and proceedings on conducting dual electors. The Election (ballots for the actual election count of deriving States electors) is set for the day of. As defined in the constitution.
Except many of those electors were unlawfully chosen by the individual States.
So, file criminal charges against those responsible but that doesn't change the count or the results. The states sent delegates. The delegates voted. The votes were count. Biden won. This has multiple SCOTUS precedents, as recent as Bush v Gore.
Also the Dual electors that were sent were also not dealt with according to the rules and proceedings on conducting dual electors.
They most certainly were. The VP counted the votes of the delegates that he determined were the appropriate delegates. There was nothing improper about what he did.
The election of congress is set on election day, the vote for president happened on the day prescribed. Biden got the most electoral college votes.
Again, the people do not vote for president. Article 1 section 4 is about congress.
'So, file criminal charges against those responsible ' Exactly, the Constitution points out the only place for redress for how the election is conducted is in the States legislatures only they have Authority to change alter pass determine mediate on State election law not the various US courts, that all these blowhard grifters (lin wood, Powell. Flynn, Trump et al) don't know this is laughable.
'The VP counted the votes of the delegates that he determined were the appropriate delegates.' Nope, the Dual electing process was interrupted by the jan6 nonsense and the discussion for determination was cut short and when they reconvened, they simply decided to forgo any further discussion and proceeded straight to the vote. This is what they actually reported in the press at the time of how the vote was made. T It is like a Murder trial jury having deliberations interrupted by a fire drill and them coming back to a call that 'lets just find him Guilty cause it's getting late).
'The election of congress is set on election day' And therein lies a cogent part of the problem the election of congress to count electors was based on voting that ran past the day of the election with unlawful ballots coming in up to three weeks (the Constitution points out only ballots received by 12pm on the day the election are valid to be counted) after the day of the popular vote for choosing the electors. You're simping for an unlawful process.
The place to argue this is in the individual State legislatures. That supposed law makers and lawyers fail to disseminate this info to citizens to enable redress is beyond jooed. Plus you're actually propagating THE MSM narrative. what a clown.
If after the fire, the jury decides that you're guilty instead of asking for more time to discuss the merits, you're guilty. No one making the decision on Jan 6th to move to a vote has contended, after the fact, that they were under duress to continue improperly. And if the constitution specifies a time to vote, there should be and was a vote.
And again, Article 1 Section 4 is about electing LAWMAKERS, the Congress. Not electors. We don't elect electors. The state appoints electors and they vote in the college. If a state passes a law to determine electors, it's on the state to uphold their laws and a failure by the state to uphold state law is of no consequence at the federal level. To date, not one Secretary of State or Governor, sitting at the time, has opposed the official count of the college or suggested that the wrong delegates were counted. The state appointed their electors, the electors voted at the proper time. The votes were properly counted. Biden won.
If the MSM narrative was what I'm saying, it wouldn't make one fuck to me. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. This scotus decision isn't about electing a president or electors for the electoral college. Justice Soutor said, very clearly, that this case was extremely limited in scope and addresses the part of the constitution dealing with electing house members (because Senators were appointed by the states at the time).
But you're right, it doesn't seem reasonable that anyone with a law degree and a license to practice law would hold this out as legit.
Problem is they never actually got to discuss the merits. Just a lets go straight to the vote after being interrupted, completely against actual procedure. Rather than allowing someone a chance to plead their innocence , the judge rules you guilty because 'at this point what does it matter' before you even give your side.
Plus its not the jurisdiction of the Us Courts per say , it has to be determined in the individual states Legislatures. Thats why he stated it was limited in scope and why all the 50 whatever court cases were thrown out before hearing evidence and why scotus deemed it 'MOOT'. These issues have to be brought before the states legislatures first. I'm not the only one that understands this, its what the constitution actually sets out for the remedy of elections not ran according to procedure governing rules and regulations for state elections, there appears to be a deliberately refusal of any advocating for this by any one with any influence or authority . Completely jooed.
EDIT. If my memory serves, I only know this because of a thread where some guy began Constitutional law in college and became involved in as some Constitutional law review concerning actual elections and electing state electors, evidently he had been involved in this group for like over 20 years doing like white papers for states legislatures on procedurual conduct and was familiar with all the actual legislation like the back of his hand and i come across him during the Kracken stage of Powell etc and he was looking for help on Great awakings, the chans and ytube etc attempting to get this info to trump and had reached out personally to bannon and wood and all them faggots and was pulling his hair out bc no one was getting back to him, but essentially there were a couple ways to combat and reticfy the election malfeasance. the first and quickest was the fact ballots received after the day set out for the election are simply null and void according to the constitution (unless limited scope for mail/ late ballots which governing legislation has to be approved by a full sitting states legislature, not just a Sec of state and seconded by a single member without a full sitting (raffensburger et al), the second and more longer arduous way was having to go through each individual states legislature to rule on the unlawful procedures that happened in multiple states and thereby either electing on the count without all the unlawful votes, lack of ballot watchers, signature verification, chain of custody, unilaterally unlawful loosening of mail ballots verification, issues with vote changing on unreadable ballots, machines connected to the internet etc etc or having a complete lawful do over, all according to the constitution.
The election process for lawmakers is not the election process for president. You can't take decisions about Art1Sec4 and try to apply them to Art2 processes.
For president the state appoints electors. They did that. The electors went and voted. No one objected to not having time to debate. None of the states objected to their appointed electors. You're trying to insist there is an issue here but there isn't. There are literally 100 steps to prevent fraud and they were all followed.
the first and quickest was the fact ballots received after the day set out for the election are simply null and void according to the constitution
Oh holy fck , im not confused. If that process to choose those lawmakers is fraudulent too, then those lawmakers that are choosing the president are also fraudulent. But regardless ...
It says it in the actual legislation 'the day set for the election' , anything received after that day has to be a verified lawful late ballot etc with chain of custody and signature verification etc. You can go find out about it, but since your so stuck on it's completely legitimate and nothing was wrong, i dont think you would actually care.
The "legislation" that you're referring to is article 1 section 4 of the constitution for electing CONGRESS. It has nothing to do with electing the president.
Gore argued that he won in FL. They were in the middle of a recount when the Florida electors voted for Bush. SCOTUS then stopped the count and called it for Bush. SCOTUS said the electors voted, the vote was accurately counted by the VP, Bush wins.
You're calling out a case that is for electing CONGRESS and pretending that decision also applies to electoral college electors. They don't.
If they are allowed to extend counting time, they can see what the legitimates total to, then tailor the fraudulent ones to be just enough to tip things the other way. This lets them use the minimum number of illegitimate votes, to be less detectable.
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 16:42:02 ago (+1/-0)
Yep. It why they shut down counting in many counties on the day to then allow mystery ballots to show up and also to wait for counts of 'late ballots' in other states. All unlawful according to the constitution.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 4, 2022 11:38:17 ago (+3/-2)*
While this article poses interesting questions about the upcoming elections, it has nothing to do with the presidential election.
In the Presidential election, versus elections for any other office, states appoint electors, those electors vote on a specific day, the VP counts the vote, and the candidate with the most votes win.
This was done exactly in accordance with the Constitution, and Trump lost. People do not vote for president. They vote to support a candidate for president and the states use that vote to appoint their electors.
Again, the coming election will be interesting as a few key swing states have already suggested the results will not be in on time. But this isn't applicable to the presidential election.
Here is the decision, which is about congressional elections and talks about the decision being narrow in scope.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/67/
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 3 points 2.5 yearsNov 4, 2022 15:41:06 ago (+3/-0)
The Election (ballots for the actual election count of deriving States electors) is set for the day of. As defined in the constitution.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2.5 yearsNov 4, 2022 17:52:03 ago (+0/-1)
So, file criminal charges against those responsible but that doesn't change the count or the results. The states sent delegates. The delegates voted. The votes were count. Biden won. This has multiple SCOTUS precedents, as recent as Bush v Gore.
They most certainly were. The VP counted the votes of the delegates that he determined were the appropriate delegates. There was nothing improper about what he did.
The election of congress is set on election day, the vote for president happened on the day prescribed. Biden got the most electoral college votes.
Again, the people do not vote for president. Article 1 section 4 is about congress.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 16:31:33 ago (+0/-0)*
Exactly, the Constitution points out the only place for redress for how the election is conducted is in the States legislatures only they have Authority to change alter pass determine mediate on State election law not the various US courts, that all these blowhard grifters (lin wood, Powell. Flynn, Trump et al) don't know this is laughable.
'The VP counted the votes of the delegates that he determined were the appropriate delegates.'
Nope, the Dual electing process was interrupted by the jan6 nonsense and the discussion for determination was cut short and when they reconvened, they simply decided to forgo any further discussion and proceeded straight to the vote. This is what they actually reported in the press at the time of how the vote was made. T
It is like a Murder trial jury having deliberations interrupted by a fire drill and them coming back to a call that 'lets just find him Guilty cause it's getting late).
'The election of congress is set on election day'
And therein lies a cogent part of the problem the election of congress to count electors was based on voting that ran past the day of the election with unlawful ballots coming in up to three weeks (the Constitution points out only ballots received by 12pm on the day the election are valid to be counted) after the day of the popular vote for choosing the electors. You're simping for an unlawful process.
The place to argue this is in the individual State legislatures. That supposed law makers and lawyers fail to disseminate this info to citizens to enable redress is beyond jooed.
Plus you're actually propagating THE MSM narrative. what a clown.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 19:30:30 ago (+0/-0)
And again, Article 1 Section 4 is about electing LAWMAKERS, the Congress. Not electors. We don't elect electors. The state appoints electors and they vote in the college. If a state passes a law to determine electors, it's on the state to uphold their laws and a failure by the state to uphold state law is of no consequence at the federal level. To date, not one Secretary of State or Governor, sitting at the time, has opposed the official count of the college or suggested that the wrong delegates were counted. The state appointed their electors, the electors voted at the proper time. The votes were properly counted. Biden won.
If the MSM narrative was what I'm saying, it wouldn't make one fuck to me. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it. This scotus decision isn't about electing a president or electors for the electoral college. Justice Soutor said, very clearly, that this case was extremely limited in scope and addresses the part of the constitution dealing with electing house members (because Senators were appointed by the states at the time).
But you're right, it doesn't seem reasonable that anyone with a law degree and a license to practice law would hold this out as legit.
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 01:09:32 ago (+0/-0)*
Plus its not the jurisdiction of the Us Courts per say , it has to be determined in the individual states Legislatures. Thats why he stated it was limited in scope and why all the 50 whatever court cases were thrown out before hearing evidence and why scotus deemed it 'MOOT'.
These issues have to be brought before the states legislatures first. I'm not the only one that understands this, its what the constitution actually sets out for the remedy of elections not ran according to procedure governing
rules and regulations for state elections, there appears to be a deliberately refusal of any advocating for this by any one with any influence or authority . Completely jooed.
EDIT. If my memory serves, I only know this because of a thread where some guy began Constitutional law in college and became involved in as some Constitutional law review concerning actual elections and electing state electors, evidently he had been involved in this group for like over 20 years doing like white papers for states legislatures on procedurual conduct and was familiar with all the actual legislation like the back of his hand and i come across him during the Kracken stage of Powell etc and he was looking for help on Great awakings, the chans and ytube etc attempting to get this info to trump and had reached out personally to bannon and wood and all them faggots and was pulling his hair out bc no one was getting back to him, but essentially there were a couple ways to combat and reticfy the election malfeasance. the first and quickest was the fact ballots received after the day set out for the election are simply null and void according to the constitution (unless limited scope for mail/ late ballots which governing legislation has to be approved by a full sitting states legislature, not just a Sec of state and seconded by a single member without a full sitting (raffensburger et al), the second and more longer arduous way was having to go through each individual states legislature to rule on the unlawful procedures that happened in multiple states and thereby either electing on the count without all the unlawful votes, lack of ballot watchers, signature verification, chain of custody, unilaterally unlawful loosening of mail ballots verification, issues with vote changing on unreadable ballots, machines connected to the internet etc etc or having a complete lawful do over, all according to the constitution.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 06:19:52 ago (+0/-0)
The election process for lawmakers is not the election process for president. You can't take decisions about Art1Sec4 and try to apply them to Art2 processes.
For president the state appoints electors. They did that. The electors went and voted. No one objected to not having time to debate. None of the states objected to their appointed electors. You're trying to insist there is an issue here but there isn't. There are literally 100 steps to prevent fraud and they were all followed.
Where does it say this?
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 15:44:52 ago (+0/-0)
If that process to choose those lawmakers is fraudulent too, then those lawmakers that are choosing the president are also fraudulent. But regardless ...
It says it in the actual legislation 'the day set for the election' , anything received after that day has to be a verified lawful late ballot etc with chain of custody and signature verification etc.
You can go find out about it, but since your so stuck on it's completely legitimate
and nothing was wrong, i dont think you would actually care.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 19:46:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2.5 yearsNov 7, 2022 19:59:39 ago (+0/-1)
Gore argued that he won in FL. They were in the middle of a recount when the Florida electors voted for Bush. SCOTUS then stopped the count and called it for Bush. SCOTUS said the electors voted, the vote was accurately counted by the VP, Bush wins.
You're calling out a case that is for electing CONGRESS and pretending that decision also applies to electoral college electors. They don't.
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 2 points 2.5 yearsNov 4, 2022 20:22:29 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] dassar
[ - ] dassar 1 point 2.5 yearsNov 6, 2022 16:42:02 ago (+1/-0)