The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!
A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.
It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.
Arguments?
Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?
There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!
I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"
Thank you for your honest attempt!
I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.
Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.
This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.
Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.
Has that any meaning or is it just more spam?
I wouldn't disagree on the point that some insanity is involved. But you fail to get us any closer to any answer.
There is no genuine legal concern behind Trump and his Trumpsters acting out over the election. They're just throwing a fit because they didn't get their way.
This is not for you. Either make a contribution or go play.
Already did. Every single, legal "argument" I've seen protesting the results of the election is utter bullshit. The premise of your thread - "states' criminal malfeasance" - is pure fantasy, stirred up by an unscrupulous President and his army of idiot Trolls on the internet. You're what's fatally flawed about this country - not the Constitution.
There's some legitimate doubts being put forward on Georgia's administrating the election in a legal manner, and those allegations will need to be presented by Texas (and others) to the Scotus.
That is, if the Scotus decides to hear arguments.
Was there? Are you presenting a legal and binding decision?
Don't lose track of the question:
Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?
I haven't lost track of anything. I'm just tired of the stupid games. You're trying to put out an air of "serious jurisprudence" around an issue that's pure populist horseshit.
Or, as Arizona put it:
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."
Pennsylvania also had a nice response:
"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an a front to principles of constitutional democracy."
The Texas lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's Trump, and Trumpsters, throwing a fit because they lost. Fuck them.