Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election

[wamose]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

The truth is that Biden was elected by a sizable margin in a free and fair election. Get over it. Stop lying

 

[wamose]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

The truth is that Biden was elected by a sizable margin in a free and fair election. Get over it. Stop lying

Too much CNN, Qdog. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

 

[postman]

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Why wouldnt it be Constitutional?

Because it would be in effect an "ex-post facto" law. The new certification would be a law written after the fact of the election, and changing election law during an election cycle.

A legislature could take back the peoples suffrage, and chose to decide the electors directly. But they have to make that decision before the election starts.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

Source: RawStory

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

The truth is that Biden was elected by a sizable margin in a free and fair election. Get over it. Stop lying

Too much CNN, Qdog. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Oh plerase! I'm afraid? Look in the mirror .You people are brain washed. Or brain dead. And you are an existential threat to democracy by casting doubt about our election integrity

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

I don't think it's a good idea, but what makes it unconstitutional? The states can choose their electors in any manner they see fit. They don't even have to hold a popular vote.

I don't know if that's what the men who wrote the Constitution exactly had in mind, but earlier in our nation's history, many states chose their Electors legislatively, without putting it to a vote of the people; and this is perfectly Constitutional.

There is certainly no valid reason why it would be unconstitutional for the legislature of of a state to serve as a check on the electoral process, at this point, in the event of possible fraud or cheating; as long as it is done in accordance with properly-enacted and consistently applied laws.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why wouldnt it be Constitutional?

Actually I will conceed [sic] that point. The constitution state that electors shall be chosen in a maner [sic] detyermind [sic] by the state legislatue [sic]. But having siaid [sic] that, do you honestly believe that to defy the will of the people is in keeping with the spirit of a representitive [sic] democracy? Do you think that it is appropriate or politcally [sic] wise to disenfranchise a majority of voters

Now, you're just moving the goalposts.

In any event, this last election provided us with several very vivid demonstrations as to how an election can be hijacked to subvert and disenfranchise the expressed will of the people.

Ideally, we want to prevent that from happening in the first place, but failing that, there is really no rational reason not to set up the legislature with the ability to act as a check in case that does happen.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

White, male, Christian land owners. Right? Oh, that would be the only kind of landowners that should exist in your racist, mysoginist [sic], bigoted bubble.

It's always funny when some left wrong-wing loon, in trying to accuse his opposition of racism and misogyny, ends up only exposing his own racism and misogyny.

And his abject illiteracy as well.

 

[postman]

I don't know if that's what the men who wrote the Constitution exactly had in mind, but earlier in our nation's history, many states chose their Electors legislatively, without putting it to a vote of the people; and this is perfectly Constitutional.

There is certainly no valid reason why it would be unconstitutional for the legislature of of a state to serve as a check on the electoral process, at this point, in the event of possible fraud or cheating; as long as it is done in accordance with properly-enacted and consistently applied laws.

That legislature serving as a check, is the part is what's unconstitutional. They have to pick how the election will be handled BEFORE the election, and not to change rules during an election cycle.

Any judgement by the legislature after the election is held, would be ex-post facto.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Raw Sewage....The fakest of fake nooz.

So you say that this is not happening?

If you're going to claim that something is happening, you're going to have to do better than to cite a source that is known for publishing only extreme left wrong-wing propaganda and outright lies.

It would also help if you could manage to be someone who was known for anything other than spewing only extreme left wrong-wing propaganda and outright lies, but we both know that there's no way that you're ever going to achieve that.

 

[postman]

In any event, this last election provided us with several very vivid demonstrations as to how an election can be hijacked to subvert and disenfranchise the expressed will of the people.

Just look at Georgia. The people chose Biden. And when the "will of the people" was questioned, they voted Biden a democratic majority in the senate.

Nothing expresses the "will of the people" more accurately than voting for the same party in two separate elections.

 

[Crepitus]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

It's a terrible idea. Its a terrible idea for either side. The will of the people must stand.

 

[Crepitus]

Raw Sewage....The fakest of fake nooz.

So you say that this is not happening?

If you're going to claim that something is happening, you're going to have to do better than to cite a source that is known for publishing only extreme left wrong-wing propaganda and outright lies.

It would also help if you could manage to be someone who was known for anything other than spewing only extreme left wrong-wing propaganda and outright lies, but we both know that there's now way that you're ever going to achieve that.

Then you guys need to stop using gateway pundit and such.

Fair enough?

 

[postman]

Ideally, we want to prevent that from happening in the first place, but failing that, there is really no rational reason not to set up the legislature with the ability to act as a check in case that does happen.

Then make it that it requires a super majority (66%) and not just 51%, that can be had by a straight party-line vote.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh plerase [sic]! I'm afraid? Look in the mirror .You people are brain washed. Or brain dead. And you are an existential threat to democracy by casting doubt about our election integrity

This is a republic, not a democracy.

And it is your side that is an existential threat to it, as proven by the many blatant examples of cheating and fraud perpetrated by your side during this last election.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That legislature serving as a check, is the part is what's unconstitutional. They have to pick how the election will be handled BEFORE the election, and not to change rules during an election cycle.

Any judgement by the legislature after the election is held, would be ex-post facto.

I disagree with your application of the term “ex post facto”, in this context.

The laws would be applied, as having been duly enacted before the events in question.

It is certainly not realistic to suppose that the legislature can know before an election takes place, whether fraud and cheating will occur, or to what degree, to know ahead of time whether they need to step in as a check against that fraud and cheating. This is a determination that could only possibly be made after the voting has taken place.

 

[postman]

This is a republic, not a democracy.

And it is your side that is an existential threat to it, as proven by the many blatant examples of cheating and fraud perpetrated by your side during this last election.

Except there have been no proven examples of cheating and election fraud. At least not large enough to change the outcome, or even put it in question.

 

[postman]

I disagree with your application of the term “ex post facto”, in this context.

The laws would be applied, as having been duly enacted before the events in question.

It is certainly not realistic to suppose that the legislature can know before an election takes place, whether fraud and cheating will occur, or to what degree, to know ahead of time whether they need to step in as a check against that fraud and cheating. This is a determination that could only possibly be made after the voting has taken place.

A constitutional law would be where the legislature, by their determination of fraud, throw out the entire election.
It would be ex-post facto to pass a law rendering any legislative judgement, even an affirmation, as to the outcome of the election.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except there have been no proven examples of cheating and election fraud. At least not large enough to change the outcome, or even put it in question.

The evidence has been all over every part of the Internet that isn't controlled and censored by the Democraps and their complicit stooges in the mainsleaze media.

Here Is The Evidence