If blame is to be assigned for the Jan. 6th protest, our S.C. should be at the top of the list!

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.
But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.
That is not what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said about the law.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the issue was that Texas has no standing in the matter.
U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states
The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.

In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.
Texas and every other state in the union has standing in the matter because the violations impact them and not just the individual states implicated. The refusal to consider the case was a result of shakedown, the fear of more democrat violence.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.
One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.
But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.
No excuse voting was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. Also the state Supreme Court has the right to interpret the state's constitution.
No, it wasn’t. It was not legislated, it was decreed.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
I'm a republican but really don't like my fellow Republicans. A large majority of them believe an invisible omnipotent being is their best friend. Trump could easily convince them that purple aliens make milk shakes out of frog anuses and those milk shakes power the sun. People in Nebraska have no say in the arrest of a meth dealer in Minnesota and vice versa. I don't know about the other states but Pennsylvania has a long history of cheating in elections but this is the responsibility of citizens of Pennsylvania not the citizens of Texas. To my knowledge the federal government has never held an election in the entire history of this country. States hold their own elections.

Most Trump supporters aren't retarded idiots that believe in a magical sky daddy but a very large number are that retarded. If they believe in a magical god that is their best friend then they will believe anything. Trump has a valid concern but he knew full well that there was no legal recourse. He was just pandering to idiots.

With that being said I sure hope Trump runs for president under a third party in 2024. That would be epic.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
I'm a republican but really don't like my fellow Republicans. A large majority of them believe an invisible omnipotent being is their best friend. Trump could easily convince them that purple aliens make milk shakes out of frog anuses and those milk shakes power the sun. People in Nebraska have no say in the arrest of a meth dealer in Minnesota and vice versa. I don't know about the other states but Pennsylvania has a long history of cheating in elections but this is the responsibility of citizens of Pennsylvania not the citizens of Texas. To my knowledge the federal government has never held an election in the entire history of this country. States hold their own elections.

Most Trump supporters aren't retarded idiots that believe in a magical sky daddy but a very large number are that retarded. If they believe in a magical god that is their best friend then they will believe anything. Trump has a valid concern but he knew full well that there was no legal recourse. He was just pandering to idiots.

With that being said I sure hope Trump runs for president under a third party in 2024. That would be epic.
The states have an obligation per the US constitution when it comes to elections. Lots of trump supporters are aware of this. You need to check your retardation.
 

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
I'm a republican but really don't like my fellow Republicans. A large majority of them believe an invisible omnipotent being is their best friend. Trump could easily convince them that purple aliens make milk shakes out of frog anuses and those milk shakes power the sun. People in Nebraska have no say in the arrest of a meth dealer in Minnesota and vice versa. I don't know about the other states but Pennsylvania has a long history of cheating in elections but this is the responsibility of citizens of Pennsylvania not the citizens of Texas. To my knowledge the federal government has never held an election in the entire history of this country. States hold their own elections.

Most Trump supporters aren't retarded idiots that believe in a magical sky daddy but a very large number are that retarded. If they believe in a magical god that is their best friend then they will believe anything. Trump has a valid concern but he knew full well that there was no legal recourse. He was just pandering to idiots.

With that being said I sure hope Trump runs for president under a third party in 2024. That would be epic.
The states have an obligation per the US constitution when it comes to elections. Lots of trump supporters are aware of this. You need to check your retardation.
When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual. The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.

What is this constitutional duty that you reference that requires folks in Idaho to enforce Massachusetts election laws? I call BS.

On a related note: Is Jesus your best friend too?
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.
I'm a republican but really don't like my fellow Republicans. A large majority of them believe an invisible omnipotent being is their best friend. Trump could easily convince them that purple aliens make milk shakes out of frog anuses and those milk shakes power the sun. People in Nebraska have no say in the arrest of a meth dealer in Minnesota and vice versa. I don't know about the other states but Pennsylvania has a long history of cheating in elections but this is the responsibility of citizens of Pennsylvania not the citizens of Texas. To my knowledge the federal government has never held an election in the entire history of this country. States hold their own elections.

Most Trump supporters aren't retarded idiots that believe in a magical sky daddy but a very large number are that retarded. If they believe in a magical god that is their best friend then they will believe anything. Trump has a valid concern but he knew full well that there was no legal recourse. He was just pandering to idiots.

With that being said I sure hope Trump runs for president under a third party in 2024. That would be epic.
The states have an obligation per the US constitution when it comes to elections. Lots of trump supporters are aware of this. You need to check your retardation.
When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual. The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.

What is this constitutional duty that you reference that requires folks in Idaho to enforce Massachusetts election laws? I call BS.

On a related note: Is Jesus your best friend too?
Robbing liquor stores in Delaware does not impact who the US president is in Texas. The presidential election in Delaware does.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
14,858
Reaction score
6,730
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual. The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.
Robbing liquor stores in Delaware does not impact who the US president is in Texas. The presidential election in Delaware does.
I had almost that exact same thought, when I saw the idiotic attempt an an analogy, thought in a broader way. A liquor store robbery in Delaware doesn't impact the people in Idaho. But the Presidential election, though divided up into a collection of state events, affects the entire nation. It most certainly is the concern of the people in one state, if the election in another state is rife with fraud.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
1,893
Reaction score
384
Points
140
" Lying Because None Is Willing To Call Them On It "

* Criminals At Large *

All legal votes were counted.
That statement is emphatically false .

Republicans showed up in person at the voting polls for the very reason of complying with the methods passed by the legislatures and the abridgments to the voting methods that were not passed by the legislatures were unlawful and criminal and a violation of civil wrights of citizens .

The laws on the books that had been passed by state legislators , at the time of the election , determine the manner and place by which legal votes are to be counted , and those methods were not followed and the laws were broken - Can Federal And State Legislators Be Prosecuted By We The People For Breaking Article 1 Section 4 Of Us Constitution ? .

All states except 16 offer no-excuse mail-in or absentee voting. The 16 states offer only in-person voting, which requires transportation and could deter voters concerned about infection—particularly those who are older or have underlying medical conditions that put them at high risk for poor outcomes.
 
Last edited:

vasuderatorrent

VIP Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2015
Messages
4,215
Reaction score
228
Points
85
Location
North Carolina
When someone robs a liquor store in Delaware, the cops, the sheriff, and all the way up to the Delaware Attorney General can refuse to arrest that individual. The state of Idaho cannot step in and demand that individual be arrested. If there is misbehavior at county boards of election in Wisconsin then the Wisconsin State Board of Elections has full jurisdiction.
Robbing liquor stores in Delaware does not impact who the US president is in Texas. The presidential election in Delaware does.
I had almost that exact same thought, when I saw the idiotic attempt an an analogy, thought in a broader way. A liquor store robbery in Delaware doesn't impact the people in Idaho. But the Presidential election, though divided up into a collection of state events, affects the entire nation. It most certainly is the concern of the people in one state, if the election in another state is rife with fraud.
The Federal government didn't hold an election. 50 states held 50 seperate elections. I understand your point but in reality we follow the laws. Sometimes laws are fair. Sometimes they are not. Trump doesn't get to make up laws just because a huge percentage of his follows are idiots (like you). The president isn't selected by the people. (Ever heard of the electoral college?) The president is decided by the electors. It is up to each state to select the electors from their state. If something was foul the Supreme Court would have heard it.

Lets join united and refuse to be dumb.
 

beautress

Always Faithful
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
17,419
Reaction score
9,392
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
Maybe the Communists do not wish to have Texas as a state anymore. If the Democrat communists actually pass the "nobody can criticize any Democrat in leadership or membership for any reason" law, it would be smarter to divorce rather than to murder the outraged spouse who no longer tolerates lying, extortion, and divisiveness of Joe's handlers who have no use for those who insist on having the truth told them.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
39,971
Reaction score
7,140
Points
1,130
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
The Texas petition to file a bill of complaint was hot garbage from the beginning. Texas has no standing to challenge the voting laws of other States, as it had no plausible harm caused by OTHER people voting. Had the Supreme Court accepted the case, it would have been a 50 way battle royale of every state suing every other state each time the slightest change was made to any voting law or implementation.

And the "Stop the Steal" folks would never have accepted any ruling from the Supreme Court. Anything that contradicts their conspiracy is folded into it. You had everyone from the Georgia Governor to the Georgia Secretary of State to the Georgia Voting Implementation Manager all debunking their 'stolen election conspiracy'.....

...and the Stealers just folded them into the conspiracy.

Anyone who doesn't ape the conspiracy is part if it. And shocker, the Stealers folded the Supreme Court into their silly little conspiracy too.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
479
Reaction score
207
Points
143
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
So the SCOTUS ruled in a manner some people didn't like and that is a justification for trying to assasinate/execute the elected Senators and Representatives and hang the VP?

Really?
So Citizens United gives anyone who doesn't agree with it the right to ,murder police officers?
And calling Trump's emoluments lawsuits moot gives anyone the right to execute members of the SCOTUS?

Now you see why you people can't hold office anymore. You don't understand the Constitution, the law, democracy, or why it's not a good idea to turn your underwear inside out so you can wear them another week.
 

Dadoalex

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2021
Messages
479
Reaction score
207
Points
143
So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal question

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Well, you quoted lots of stuff but nothing you quoted give the federal government the power to decide how a state conducts its elections. Sure, you covered who can vote and who they can vote for but the voting processes are left to the states and, THEREFORE, the state of Texas, no matter how many Trump sycophants sign on to their suit, and which Cruz, Hawley, and the rest of your Harvard/Yale educated Trump suckups should know, has no standing to tell PA how to conduct their elections.

Washington (state) didn't sue all the states without no-request absentee voting did they? Know why WA didn't sue TX? BECAUSE WA DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL TX HOW TO CONDUCT ITS ELECTIONS. An argument YOU would be making if, in fact, WA were to sue to overturn the TX vote.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal question

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Well, you quoted lots of stuff but nothing you quoted give the federal government the power to decide how a state conducts its elections. Sure, you covered who can vote and who they can vote for but the voting processes are left to the states and, THEREFORE, the state of Texas, no matter how many Trump sycophants sign on to their suit, and which Cruz, Hawley, and the rest of your Harvard/Yale educated Trump suckups should know, has no standing to tell PA how to conduct their elections.

Washington (state) didn't sue all the states without no-request absentee voting did they? Know why WA didn't sue TX? BECAUSE WA DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL TX HOW TO CONDUCT ITS ELECTIONS. An argument YOU would be making if, in fact, WA were to sue to overturn the TX vote.
The US constitution stipulates that states must legislate election rules.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,300
Reaction score
3,301
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



JWK



When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Thanks johnwk I agree with the lawmaker who stated plainly that ALL Americans share responsibility for DC. This includes people who participated in the election whether agreeing or disagreeing with the contested changes involving mail-in ballots. This dispute over the rules means 40-60% of the millions voting for Republican, Libertarian or other candidates or not voting at all never consented to the election rules and have rights to dispute its validity as binding on us.

I believe we can argue for discrimination by creed, and sue Democrats as a Party for conspiring to violate civil rights and protections of the laws from discrimination. Unless we are all accommodated and treated equally as individuals, to the same standards that Democrats demand for LGBT identify, beliefs, practices and expressions to be protected by law and included in public policy without bullying or harassing, then it is discrimination by creed and class to require the public to accommodate beliefs and practices of 4% of the population while lobbying to bully, exclude, override or "seek to deprogram by re-education" 40-60% of the population for having beliefs in opposition to Liberal Statism that Democrats as a Party have sought to establish through Govt using solicited donations to collectively "deny, deprive, disparage" equal civil rights and liberties of such persons based on creed and class.
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,300
Reaction score
3,301
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal question

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Well, you quoted lots of stuff but nothing you quoted give the federal government the power to decide how a state conducts its elections. Sure, you covered who can vote and who they can vote for but the voting processes are left to the states and, THEREFORE, the state of Texas, no matter how many Trump sycophants sign on to their suit, and which Cruz, Hawley, and the rest of your Harvard/Yale educated Trump suckups should know, has no standing to tell PA how to conduct their elections.

Washington (state) didn't sue all the states without no-request absentee voting did they? Know why WA didn't sue TX? BECAUSE WA DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL TX HOW TO CONDUCT ITS ELECTIONS. An argument YOU would be making if, in fact, WA were to sue to overturn the TX vote.
Dear Dadoalex
The issue was contested states that didn't follow Constitutional agreed standards requiring state legislatures to VOTE on rule changes. Contested changes were made by other administrative means or offices without actually voting.

You are right that we have not addressed issues where state decisions affect national policy and representation. A similar issue surrounds DC seeking statehood when this indirectly and unintentionally affects national representation due to interference and influence of political parties that hijack and abuse the Senate to force party agenda on all 50 States by gaining a majority.
This was not the intent of the Senate, but this interference by Party has caused simple State elections to become an issue of protecting representation of other States. Similarly to voting on DC statehood where equal rights of those citizens has been denied until a solution is found that doesn't cause other citizens in other states to get oppressed by "partisan dominance in the Senate" outside Constitutional rules.

I believe we will need a Convention of States by Party to set up a third system, outside Constitutional govt, for people to represent themselves by Party in ordervto keep Political Beliefs and representation out of federal govt and process. Only where Parties agree on common policies should those be implemented by state or federal govt accordingly. Where we disagree can be kept separate by State or by Party for taxpayers to fund or defund at will. Thus, I propose the Electoral College district system be expanded to provide taxpayers representation by Party outside formal govt, similar to party conventions or media not regulated by govt. And resolve conflicts there, so agreed solutions can be recommended to govt to implement. We could also agree to separate External from Internal positions of President and VP to have the top two tickets both serve together but in separate capacities and administrative roles as approved by the people, parties and states. And as for DC and PR, these districts/territorities could be added as sovereign municipalities or island states under Hawaii or Alaskan statehood. So ANY district or territory not represented by the current system could opt to annexed under Hawaii to have liberal/Democratic representation in the Senate, or join under Alaska to have Conservative representation while keeping the Senate at 100. All Native settlements could be included this way by adding them to either Alaska or Hawaii where the Kingdom of Hawaii has continually petitioned to restore its native sovereignty. We can have both internal sovereignty and external national security if we agree to separate these. For external govt I recommend keeping states at 50 and change the rest through an INTERNAL system of govt that resolves policy issues based on proportional representation, conflict resolution, and either consensus or separation by Party. So it doesn't interfere with rights of people and states through the external system governed by the Constitution.
 

RoshawnMarkwees

Assimilationist
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
25,435
Reaction score
6,713
Points
280
Location
Middle class, suburban ghetto.
So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.
The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal question

JWK

When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Well, you quoted lots of stuff but nothing you quoted give the federal government the power to decide how a state conducts its elections. Sure, you covered who can vote and who they can vote for but the voting processes are left to the states and, THEREFORE, the state of Texas, no matter how many Trump sycophants sign on to their suit, and which Cruz, Hawley, and the rest of your Harvard/Yale educated Trump suckups should know, has no standing to tell PA how to conduct their elections.

Washington (state) didn't sue all the states without no-request absentee voting did they? Know why WA didn't sue TX? BECAUSE WA DOESN'T HAVE STANDING TO TELL TX HOW TO CONDUCT ITS ELECTIONS. An argument YOU would be making if, in fact, WA were to sue to overturn the TX vote.
The US constitution stipulates that states must legislate election rules.
Which PA didn’t do.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top