And About The Stolen Election....

[Skylar]

So glad you asked.....because now I'm gonna ram it down you throat:


Here comes proof....PROOF.....and it will leave you speechless.




The Constitution is known as ‘the law of the land.’

The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress are found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force.

The Constitution as Supreme Law

http://www.let.rug.nl › usa › outlines › government-1991




The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. It is written in English….no ‘interpretation’ is required.



Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

​

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

supreme.justia.com



But....this occurred: courts altered voting rules.
“In Pennsylvania, the question was whether the state’s Supreme Court could override voting rules set by the state legislature. In North Carolina, the question was whether state election officials had the power to alter such voting rules.”
NYTimes

Sooo.....no, the election was not correctly decided, and we don't actually know who won the election.





Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Supremacy Clause | Wex | US Law

So your 'proof' is your laughable assumption that the courts, state legislatures, secretaries of state and electoral college have no authority on what is or isn't aligned with the constitution. But that your interpretations are authoritative and override them all.

So.....Just run of the mill Sovereign Citizen bullshit, where you are the sole arbitor of what is and isn't constitutional.

Can you show me where in the constitution (state or otherwise) where YOU have the sole judicial power to interpret the constitution? Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

Is that it? Just you insisting that you are the law? Laughing.....no wonder you keep abandoning your arguments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So your 'proof' is that the courts, state legislatures, secretaries of state and electoral college have no authority on what is or isn't aligned with the constitution. But that your interpretations are authoritative and override them all.

So.....Just run of the mill Sovereign Citizen bullshit, where you are the sole arbitor of what is and isn't constitutional.

Can you show me where in the constitution (state or otherwise) where YOU have the sole judicial power to interpret the constitution? Because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

Is that it? Just you insisting that you are the law? Laughing.....no wonder you keep abandoning your arguments.

No, you imbecile.....read more carefully....or have someone with more than a single digit IQ explain what I wrote:


ONLY STATE LEGISLATURES CAN ALTER TIME, PLACE, OR METHOD OF VOTING FOR FEDERAL OFFICERS.


Who has the lawful right to alter the “time, place, and manner” of national elections.....you know.....like the 2020 presidential election?







Is it state governors,



election officials,



attorneys general,



state courts,



state constitutions,



sec’ys of state,



election commission......

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!

Only the elected legislature has that authority: the Consitution says the legislature has the exclusive authority.

Better look up 'excluive,' you drop-out.


Every Democrat agency who changed the “time, place, and manner” of national elections was illegitimate.



!

 

[Skylar]

No, you imbecile.....read more carefully....or have someone with more than a single digit IQ explain what I wrote:


ONLY STATE LEGISLATURES CAN ALTER TIME, PLACE, OR METHOD OF VOTING FOR FEDERAL OFFICERS.


Who has the lawful right to alter the “time, place, and manner” of national elections.....you know.....like the 2020 presidential election?







Is it state governors,



election officials,



attorneys general,



state courts,



state constitutions,



sec’ys of state,



election commission......

NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!

Only the elected legislature has that authority: the Consitution says the legislature has the exclusive authority.

Better look up 'excluive,' you drop-out.


Every Democrat agency who changed the “time, place, and manner” of national elections was illegitimate.



!

These issues have already been adjudicated. The conflicts you insist invalidate the election were not found to be in conflict with the constitution by actual courts of law. No court has found the 2020 election to be invalid or in violation of the constitution.

So why would I ignore the state and federal courts, imbued with the judicial power.....and instead accept that YOU are the sole arbiter of what is constitutional?

Is that all you've got, Judge Dread? You screaming over and over that YOU are the law?

 

[PoliticalChic]

These issues have already been adjudicated. The conflicts you insist invalidate the election were not found to be in conflict with the constitution by actual courts of law. No court has found the 2020 election to be invalid or in violation of the constitution.

So why would I ignore the state and federal courts, imbued with the judicial power.....and instead accept that YOU are the sole arbiter of what is constitutional?

Is that all you've got, Judge Dread? You screaming over and over that YOU are the law?

Yes....it has: in Bush-Gore.

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)



McPherson v. Blacker



Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.



In your face.

 

[Skylar]

Yes....it has: in Bush-Gore.

Not only has it been decided in the US Supreme Court that only the state legislature, and not any court, may alter or set the dates, but this played an important role in the 2000 Gore v Bush case.



“U.S. Supreme Court

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)



McPherson v. Blacker



Argued Oct. 11, 1892 Decided Oct. 17, 1892



“The validity of a state law providing for the appointment of electors of President and Vice President having been drawn in question before the highest tribunal of a state as repugnant to the laws and Constitution of the United States, and that court having decided in favor of its validity, this Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment under Rev.Stat. § 709. Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.



Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)

McPherson v. Blacker

supreme.justia.com

The Supreme Court should require that no ballots received beyond the 5 o’clock deadline of election day be counted.



In your face.

And by 'in your face', you mean you continue to ignore the courts rulings on the 2020 election, which found it legitimate and constitutional?
Again, Poli.....you insisting that YOUR interpretations are the sole legal authority, but the courts are not.....isn't 'proof'.

The state and federal courts already adjudicated the 2020 election, the application of ballot boxes, absentee ballots, all of it. And the courts found no constitutional conflicts in the 2020 election. The courts never found the 2020 election invalid.

Your argument fails......at the judicial power. The rulings of the courts are legally authoritative. Your interpretations aren't.

So much for your 'proof'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And by 'in your face', you mean you continue to ignore the courts rulings on the 2020 election, which found it legitimate and constitutional?
Again, Poli.....you insisting that YOUR interpretations are the sole legal authority, but the courts are not.....isn't 'proof'.

The state and federal courts already adjudicated the 2020 election, the application of ballot boxes, absentee ballots, all of it. And they found no constitutional conflicts. They've never found the 2020 election invalid.

Your argument fails......at the judicial power. The rulings of the courts are legally authoritative. Your interpretations aren't.

So much for your 'proof'.

You lying scum: if you were an American, you'd know that the Constitution is the law of the land.....but you're not: you're a Democrat.

I proved the Constitution makes any change not performed by the state legislature illegal.


But on the bright side, you have fulfilled the role you were born to fulfill: proving that I am never wrong.



Now....get back under your rock.

 

[Skylar]

You lying scum: if you were an American, you'd know that the Constitution is the law of the land.....but you're not: you're a Democrat.

I proved the Constitution makes any change not performed by the state legislature illegal.


But on the bright side, you have fulfilled the role you were born to fulfill: proving that I am never wrong.



Now....get back under your rock.

You're offering us your interpretations of the Constitution as your proof. And your interpretations of the constitution are not the law of the land.

You're literally arguing that we should ignore EVERY state and federal court ruling about the 2020 election as lacking authority and instead accept your personal interpretations of the constitution as the singularly legal authority in our nation.

Laughing......no.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're offering us your interpretations of the Constitution as your proof. And your interpretations of the constitution are not the law of the land.

You're literally arguing that we should ignore EVERY state and federal court ruling about the 2020 election as lacking authority and instead accept your personal interpretations of the constitution as the singularly legal authority in our nation.

Laughing......no.

Interpretations????


You insist on being lying scum????


Fine.

There is no 'interpretation' of the word "exclusive."

Let's see what you've learned: who predominates, the Constitution or a state court?

Answer the question!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Interpretations????


You insist on being lying scum????


Fine.

There is no 'interpretation' of the word "exclusive."

Let's see what you've learned: who predominates, the Constitution or a state court?

Answer the question!!!!!

Yes, your interpretations. Which are NOT the law of the land.

You're offering standard Sovereign Citizen bullshit, insisting that if you interpret the constitution or a court ruling as supporting you, then the entire nation is beholden to whatever you make up.

Nope.

ACTUAL courts have already adjudicated these issues, the ballot boxes, the absentee ballots, all of it. And the ACTUAL courts didn't find conflicts with the constitution in the 2020 election. The ACTUAL courts didn't find the 2020 election to be illegitimate.

So much for your 'proof'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're offering us your interpretations of the Constitution as your proof. And your interpretations of the constitution are not the law of the land.

You're literally arguing that we should ignore EVERY state and federal court ruling about the 2020 election as lacking authority and instead accept your personal interpretations of the constitution as the singularly legal authority in our nation.

Laughing......no.

"You're offering us ...."


There is no 'us,' you gutless little worm......there's just you......and I wiped up the floor with you.



"The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.

In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at by “The Daily Show” and the other temples of the status-anxious. Conservatives are not susceptible to groupthink. Jon Stewart transmits the party line to idiots so they know who to hate. The act of applauding a joke rather than laughing at it is a public gesture that serves no purpose other than assuring everyone that you are part of the group." See chapter 14 of "Demonic," by Coulter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, your interpretations. Which are NOT the law of the land.

You're offering standard Sovereign Citizen bullshit, insisting that if you interpret the constitution or a court ruling as supporting you, then the entire nation is beholden to whatever you make up.

Nope.

ACTUAL courts have already adjudicated these issues, the ballot boxes, the absentee ballots, all of it. And the ACTUAL courts didn't find conflicts with the constitution in the 2020 election. The ACTUAL courts didn't find the 2020 election to be illegitimate.

So much for your 'proof'.

Lying scum: "exclusive" is directly from the Constitution.

Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”



A number of Democrat states allowed

it state governors,







election officials,







attorneys general,







state courts,







state constitutions,







sec’ys of state,







election commission......





to alter “time, place, and manner” of elections.




When can I expect you to change your avi to "LyingScum"????

 

[Skylar]

"You're offering us ...."


There is no 'us,' you gutless little worm......there's just you......and I wiped up the floor with you.



"The mob mentality is irresistible to people with a desperate need to be popular, and are perennially afraid of getting a bloody nose on the playground of life. A tell-tale sign is the use of terms like “us” and “we” when they write, or speak…as these pronouns speak of popularity, of membership in the larger group…i.e. the mob.

In fact, an easy way to identify a conservative, is to look for the folks who aren’t afraid to be sneered at by “The Daily Show” and the other temples of the status-anxious. Conservatives are not susceptible to groupthink. Jon Stewart transmits the party line to idiots so they know who to hate. The act of applauding a joke rather than laughing at it is a public gesture that serves no purpose other than assuring everyone that you are part of the group." See chapter 14 of "Demonic," by Coulter.

By 'us', I mean everyone. You're insisting that your personal interpretations of the constitution and court rulings OVERRIDE the actual courts, the state legislatures, the secretaries of states, the electoral college. That's the argument you've presented us.

Your personal interpretations are NOT the law of the land. Again, for the seats in the back: your personal interpretations of the constitution and court rulings are NOT the law of the land. This simple fact obliterates your entire argument.

ACTUAL courts, imbued with the judicial power, have contradicted you. The ACTUAL courts haven't found the 2020 election to be in contradiction of the constitution. The ACTUAL courts haven't found the 2020 election to be stolen or illegitimate.

ACTUAL courts of law vs. your personal interpretations have the same winner every time.

Not you.

 

[Skylar]

Lying scum: "exclusive" is directly from the Constitution.

Wherein we find this:
Under the second clause of Article II of the Constitution, the legislatures of the several states have exclusive power to direct the manner in which the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed.
Such appointment may be made by the legislatures directly, or by popular vote in districts, or by general ticket, as may be provided by the legislature.”



A number of Democrat states allowed

it state governors,







election officials,







attorneys general,







state courts,







state constitutions,







sec’ys of state,







election commission......





to alter “time, place, and manner” of elections.




When can I expect you to change your avi to "LyingScum"????

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the constitution. You do not possess the judicial power. Your legal interpretations of the constitution or court ruling do not constitute ANY kind of legal evidence. No election's legitimacy depends on your personal agreement.

You're nobody.

So your 'proof' is you citing yourself on what the constitution is 'supposed' to mean. And ignoring every court ruling on the 2020 election.

I can see why you keep abandoning your arguments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By 'us', I mean everyone. You're insisting that your personal interpretations of the constitution and court rulings OVERRIDE the actual courts, the state legislatures, the secretaries of states, the electoral college. That's the argument you've presented us.

Your personal interpretations are NOT the law of the land. Again, for the seats in the back: your personal interpretations of the constitution and court rulings are NOT the law of the land. This simple fact obliterates your entire argument.

ACTUAL courts, imbued with the judicial power, have contradicted you. The ACTUAL courts haven't found the 2020 election to be in contradiction of the constitution. The ACTUAL courts haven't found the 2020 election to be stolen or illegitimate.

ACTUAL courts of law vs. your personal interpretations have the same winner every time.

Not you.

Who chose you as the spokesperson for all the imbeciles?????


Was there a ballot, a vote between you and Quasimodo????????


Grow a backbone, coward.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your interpretations of the constitution aren't the constitution. You do not possess the judicial power. Your legal interpretations of the constitution or court ruling do not constitute ANY kind of legal evidence. No election's legitimacy depends on your personal agreement.

You're nobody.

So your 'proof' is you citing yourself on what the constitution is 'supposed' to mean. And ignoring every court ruling on the 2020 election.

I can see why you keep abandoning your arguments.

Interpretations????


You insist on being lying scum????


Fine.

There is no 'interpretation' of the word "exclusive."

Let's see what you've learned: who predominates, the Constitution or a state court?

Answer the question!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Who chose you as the spokesperson for all the imbeciles?????


Was there a ballot, a vote between you and Quasimodo????????


Grow a backbone, coward.

Laughing.....rejecting you as the sole arbiter of all law is easy, Poli. As you're nobody.

I'm not going to ignore the actual courts or their rulings in favor of whatever interpretation you want to make up.

Is that it? Is that your 'proof'? Just you insisting that you define the law and the courts must be ignored?

Well that was easy.

 

[Lastamender]

Laughing.....rejecting you as the sole arbiter of all law is easy, Poli. As you're nobody.

I'm not going to ignore the actual courts of their rulings in favor of whatever interpretation you want to make up.

Is that it? Is that your 'proof'? Just you insisting that you define the law and the courts must be ignored?

Well that was easy.

Trump files defamation lawsuit against CNN, vows to sue others ‘who have defrauded the public’ regarding the 2020 election

Trump files defamation lawsuit against CNN, vows to sue others ‘who have defrauded the public’ regarding the 2020 election President Donald Trump announced his intent to file lawsuits against sev…

petersantilli.com

 

[Skylar]

Interpretations????


You insist on being lying scum????


Fine.

There is no 'interpretation' of the word "exclusive."

Let's see what you've learned: who predominates, the Constitution or a state court?

Answer the question!!!!!

You are not the constitution. Your interpretations are not the constitution.

The question you're actually asking is....who predominates: Your personal interpretation of the constitution or an actual state court.

And the answer is, of course, a state court.

Or the federal courts. Remember, they've rejected your claims too. These issues were already adjudicated. You lost.

 

[Skylar]

Trump files defamation lawsuit against CNN, vows to sue others ‘who have defrauded the public’ regarding the 2020 election

Trump files defamation lawsuit against CNN, vows to sue others ‘who have defrauded the public’ regarding the 2020 election President Donald Trump announced his intent to file lawsuits against sev…

petersantilli.com

Oh, Trump can't file any suit he wants. But as his essentially perfect record of failure in court regarding his "Big Lie" demonstrates......filing a suit by itself doesn't amount to much.

There's a reason why Trump voluntarily dismissed his OWN court case in Georgia less than 48 hours before the trial was to begin: his claims don't do well when subject to the actual standards of the law before actual judges.

If genuinely sues CNN (and it isn't laughed out of court immediately), CNN gets discovery. Trump's people have been pleading the 5th like they get a nickle for everytime they refuse to answer questions. The 5th is much harder to apply to civil cases. They'll have to answer. As will Trump. And CNN will have a field day with it.

Since Trump's core argument is his state of mind, CNN can bring in hearsay at their whim. As the establishment of state of mind is one of the largest hearsay exceptions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Laughing.....rejecting you as the sole arbiter of all law is easy, Poli. As you're nobody.

I'm not going to ignore the actual courts of their rulings in favor of whatever interpretation you want to make up.

Is that it? Is that your 'proof'? Just you insisting that you define the law and the courts must be ignored?

Well that was easy.

You low-life lying scum.....there is no "interpretation " in any of my posts.......nothing but 100% fact.


Three times I have provided the actual words of the Constitution.


You have been useful as a stereotypical lying low-life Democrat.

"Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life," by Sissela Bok​

“The role that one assigns to truthfulness will always remain central in considering what kind of person one wants to be—how one wishes to treat, not only other people, but oneself.

We gradually learn, from childhood on, what it is to lie and to be lied to. We know the power over others that deceit may confer; and how much easier it is to slip into a lie than to undo its effects.

Everyone makes mistakes of this kind; but it is another matter altogether to choose to knowingly deal with others through deceit. The most serious miscalculation people make when weighing lies is to evaluate th costs and benefit of a particular lie in an isolated case, and then to favor lies if the benefits seem to outweigh the costs. In so doing, they risk blinding themselves to the effect that such lying can have on their integrity and self-respect, ....