20 State Attorneys General Say HR 1 is Unconstitutional

[two_iron]

Time for that fucking divorce....

Let's ask the window-licking retard...

 

[Crepitus]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

Article I allows the states the right to hold their own elections and control elections in their states. Just for starters.

So why were you kids going to the supreme court over the rules
in certain states for the last election?

 

[Bush92]

Election integrity is essential to a democracy and liberal's need to stop playing the phony race card.

Which is why you cultists bought the Big Lie about the election being stolen.

It was. Just the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Bush92]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

Article I allows the states the right to hold their own elections and control elections in their states. Just for starters.

So why were you kids going to the supreme court over the rules
in certain states for the last election?

Never made it there. Will now. High Court will crush this rank childish, partisan, unconstitutional bill into dust...if it even passed the Senate... which it will not. SCOTUS should issue advisory ruling letting House Democrats know it is DOA on arrival big time if it ever makes it to High Court.

 

[dudmuck]

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

States must comply with 14th and 15th amendments.
The voting rights act of '65 were to ensure the constitutional voting rights are followed in the states.
Restricting voting rights to millions of voters is what's unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[Crepitus]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

In what way is it unconstitutional?

Congress cannot change state election laws.

Which ones do they want to change?

 

[Crepitus]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

Article I allows the states the right to hold their own elections and control elections in their states. Just for starters.

So why were you kids going to the supreme court over the rules
in certain states for the last election?

Never made it there. Will now. High Court will crush this rank childish, partisan, unconstitutional bill into dust...if it even passed the Senate... which it will not. SCOTUS should issue advisory ruling letting House Democrats know it is DOA on arrival big time if it ever makes it to High Court.

Lol, why? Because they are tRump heavy?

 

[Bush92]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

In what way is it unconstitutional?

Congress cannot change state election laws.

Which ones do they want to change?

Vote harvesting. They want no contact trail from the partisan harvester until it reaches the courthouse. No oversight of ballots... thousands upon thousands of ballots. No voter ID laws, no signatures... Democrats like elections to be carried out in the dark shadows.

 

[Bush92]

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

States must comply with 14th and 15th amendments.
The voting rights act of '65 were to ensure the constitutional voting rights are followed in the states.
Restricting voting rights to millions of voters is what's unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

What does either one have to do with simple task of obtaining an ID? Showing it when you have a fucking month to early vote? It's called "ELECTION INTEGRITY!"

 

[Toro]

It was. Just the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

That was completely rejected by the courts.

But your feelings are what matters the most!

 

[Bush92]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

Article I allows the states the right to hold their own elections and control elections in their states. Just for starters.

That is untrue according to article 1 section 4 of the Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" (Article I, section 4)

That's for members of Congress but what if it's a Presidential election year?

Electoral College is sacrosanct.

For the demoncRats globlalists thugs nothing is sacred.

They are on a mission of destruction.

They will stop at nothing until total destruction of America is achieved.....or until they are stopped.

Because they hate the United States and love communist China.

 

[Bush92]

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

They issued an advisory ruling on the 1965 Voting Rights Act back in 2013 (?) I believe. You're correct on the process...but with 2022 coming around the bend...I hope they take extraordinary measures to check these extraordinary measures by the legislative branch of government.

 

[Bush92]

It was. Just the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.

That was completely rejected by the courts.

But your feelings are what matters the most!

How, when no court heard a case? They never accepted any of the Trump legal arguments based on procedural grounds at intitial filing. Then time ran out and the pretenders were inaugurated.

 

[Bush92]

Time for that fucking divorce....

Let's ask the window-licking retard...

View attachment 463915

Harris will run the show pretty soon. Lost Joe will be in his basement shitting his pajamas and sucking his thumb.

 

[dudmuck]

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

States must comply with 14th and 15th amendments.
The voting rights act of '65 were to ensure the constitutional voting rights are followed in the states.
Restricting voting rights to millions of voters is what's unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

What does either one have to do with simple task of obtaining an ID? Showing it when you have a fucking month to early vote? It's called "ELECTION INTEGRITY!"

ID requirements have extensive history of being used to discriminate against minorities.
Such as a year ago in north carolina, when judge Biggs shot it down due to racial discrimination.

HR1 says that if a state has a requirement for an individual to present an ID to cast a ballot, the state shall permit the individual to present to election officials a sworn written statement under penalty of perjury attesting to the individual’s identity and that they are eligible to vote.

see the fact check on HR1.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

States must comply with 14th and 15th amendments.
The voting rights act of '65 were to ensure the constitutional voting rights are followed in the states.
Restricting voting rights to millions of voters is what's unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

What does either one have to do with simple task of obtaining an ID? Showing it when you have a fucking month to early vote? It's called "ELECTION INTEGRITY!"

ID requirements have extensive history of being used to discriminate against minorities.
Such as a year ago in north carolina, when judge Biggs shot it down due to racial discrimination.

HR1 says that if a state has a requirement for an individual to present an ID to cast a ballot, the state shall permit the individual to present to election officials a sworn written statement under penalty of perjury attesting to the individual’s identity and that they are eligible to vote.

see the fact check on HR1.

Ballopedia,

The Voter ID requirements are very easy to address as shown here, Voter identification laws by state and this about North Carolina:

Under North Carolina law, voters must present one of the following forms of identification at the polls.[1]

• North Carolina driver’s license or non-operator ID that is unexpired or expired for one year or less
• Driver’s license or non-operator ID from a different U.S. State or Territory if the voter registered within 90 days of the election
• U.S. military ID or veteran ID
• U.S. passport that is unexpired or expired for one year or less
• North Carolina Voter ID Card that is unexpired or expired for one year or less
• Employee ID from an approved state or local government employer that is unexpired or expired for one year or less
• Approved student ID that is unexpired or expired for one year or less
• Tribal Enrollment Card issued by an approved state tribe or a federal tribe

=======

Democrats lie a lot about voter ID issues, they try hard to fight it despite that it is an easy process to follow.

 

[Votto]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

If they locked up innocent Japanese Americans during WW2, and were not stopped by the media or the GOP, they are capable of pretty much anything.

And even today, FDR is said to be one of the greatest Presidents of all time, even though they acknowledge that action as not Constitutional and purely racist.

They are mentally deficient.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

I noticed you're defending this BS meaning you're still in bed with the Demonicrats.

 

[GHook20]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

This could be a good thing. It will get tried in the SCOTUS and mail in and non-verified voting may get ruled as unconstitutional and glup we might get voting standards to protect our election. No mail in, voter ID, and no more ballot harversting, maybe even an end to gerrymandering.

 

[Moonglow]

20 state AGs denounce Democrats' HR 1 as unconstitutional

Twenty Republican state attorneys general signed a letter denouncing the House Democrats’ controversial election reform bill, HR 1, as unconstitutional.

www.foxnews.com

This absolutely amateurish grandstanding legislation was doomed from the start. Either House Democrats are ignorant of the Constitution of the United States, or they are just plain dumb. Well, they have wanted to ignore Constitution since Pelosi has been a leader in the Party.

I noticed you didn't point out the unconstitutional law nor how it was unconstitutional.

Article I allows the states the right to hold their own elections and control elections in their states. Just for starters.

That is untrue according to article 1 section 4 of the Constitution.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" (Article I, section 4)

That's for members of Congress but what if it's a Presidential election year?

IF there is nothing in the Constitution about presidential elections then how can this bill be unconstitutional?

It IS unconstitutional! Manifestly. The rules for each state election MUST be made by that state's legislature. For the Congress to usurp that function is patently unconstitutional.

The Democrats - in this as in many things - rely on one major shortcoming in the Federal court system: The Supreme Court cannot simply issue an advisory opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. In order for the law to "become" unconstitutional it is necessary for a Plaintiff with legal standing to file a complaint in Federal District Court, lose the case there and appeal it to the Circuit Court of Appeals, lose there, and go to the Supreme Court. It is quite likely that by the time the Supreme Court even SEES the case, it will be 2024.

Leftists are evil.

Then how did we get voting rules put out by the feds on eligibility?