Marjorie Greene RAGES on Twitter after Judge Says Lawsuit Disbarring her from Running for Re-Election can PROCEED

[Leviticus]

The funny part is how they are barring her. Its an old law from reconstruction. Basically, anyone who took part in a rebellion or insurrection cant run for office. Alot of former confederates were kicked out of congress following the war using this law.

The lawsuit basically claims that Greene had prior knowledge of the 1/6 attack, through her ties to the Proud Boys and others who planned it and should be barred from office under this law.

 

[Pellinore]

A state can determine how their voting goes. If enough of them make the same decision, it can easily become a federal law. It's called a Constitutional Convention. You know, like the one where the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and the new Constitution was adopted in 1787. And that provision is still active in the Constitution of the United States. I don't know how many times it's been used but if memory serves me right, one ended Prohibition.

You just can't stand it that there are ways to change the constitution without you domestic terrorists grabbing your guns.

A Constitutional Convention is what it's called when 2/3 of the States *introduce* a change to the Constitution, as opposed to Congress introducing an Amendment. A Constitutional Convention has been used exactly once, in 1787, to draft the Constitution. It has been attempted several times, but has never come terribly close to happening, possibly because calling one could (at least in theory) open up the entire Constitution to a page one rewrite, which would be an existential disaster.

What you're thinking of with the 21st Amendment is during the *ratification* half of the process. Article V allows a proposed change to be ratified by 3/4 of State Legislatures, or 3/4 of State Conventions. The 21st is the only one to be ratified by State Conventions; every other one was ratified by Legislatures.

All the mumbo-jumbo can get pretty confusing, but you get full points for knowing about the State Conventions in the first place. Most people don't even know about them.

 

[Pellinore]

That's not what happened though. There were like 18 states that all decided they would submit their electors to the national popular vote winner, regardless of how the votes turned out in their states. Do you not agree that also is trying to overturn the will of the people, and steal an election?

Except that "The People" do not vote for President in this country at all, and never have; Electors do, on behalf of the State. Federal law says Electors can vote any way they want, including contrary to their own State's popular vote, and in fact that is what they were put in place to do if the Electors' consciences deemed it necessary.

Some State laws allow these "faithless electors" without restriction, others can fine or replace them, and still others don't allow it. All any State has to do is change its faithless elector law to require them to vote by the national popular vote, and it's done. No stealing required.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't agree with it. But if it's the law then both sides should benefit from it. Colorado is one of the states that passed that but it doesn't come into affect until the 2024 Presidential election. We have time to reverse it at the ballot box either by passing a law that does it or dump the ones that voted it in in the first place. Just remember, the courts are tied up right now with the reintroduction of the Jim Crowe laws.

And what are you worried about. If your Orange Deity wins the popular vote doesn't that help him? I guess that makes it harder for your Orange Deity to try and steal the election like he tried to do in 2020/21. I do have to give it to you. You certainly like to peer over the fence into your neighbors yard, throw your garbage into his yard and then complain about him having a crappy back yard.

Would it help republicans? Maybe, but generally it's the dems that win the popular vote. Like I said, they would have never agreed to such a thing if they ever thought it would help the right. This was a Democratic win mechanism.

However, if you are not opposed to it, and think that it's OK for them to engage in such a thing, then that's OK. I believe republicans have full control in states, both legislature and executive, to control about 220 electoral votes, and then in other states where they control the Legislature but dems control the executive, their control moved up to about 298 electoral votes.

So, those legislatures can just join together and decide to cast their electoral votes for the republican candidate, repubs win every time. Of course, that would completely go against the will of the people, but, hey, if we're "going around the constitution", then might as well take advantage of it on both sides.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Except that "The People" do not vote for President in this country at all, and never have; Electors do, on behalf of the State. Federal law says Electors can vote any way they want, including contrary to their own State's popular vote, and in fact that is what they were put in place to do if the Electors' consciences deemed it necessary.

Some State laws allow these "faithless electors" without restriction, others can fine or replace them, and still others don't allow it. All any State has to do is change its faithless elector law to require them to vote by the national popular vote, and it's done. No stealing required.

Okie, then since repubs control enough state legislatures to pretty much take the election every time, then let's let then enter into their own compact.

 

[Vrenn]

Would it help republicans? Maybe, but generally it's the dems that win the popular vote. Like I said, they would have never agreed to such a thing if they ever thought it would help the right. This was a Democratic win mechanism.

However, if you are not opposed to it, and think that it's OK for them to engage in such a thing, then that's OK. I believe republicans have full control in states, both legislature and executive, to control about 220 electoral votes, and then in other states where they control the Legislature but dems control the executive, their control moved up to about 298 electoral votes.

So, those legislatures can just join together and decide to cast their electoral votes for the republican candidate, repubs win every time. Of course, that would completely go against the will of the people, but, hey, if we're "going around the constitution", then might as well take advantage of it on both sides.

What I support is for the Es to have to vote like the majority in a given state. That's the way Colorado is now but it's due to go with the popular national vote for 2024. So you think that really stupid laws can be done just by the MAGA crowd?

 

[basquebromance]

watch live here

 

[ThisIsMe]

What I support is for the Es to have to vote like the majority in a given state. That's the way Colorado is now but it's due to go with the popular national vote for 2024. So you think that really stupid laws can be done just by the MAGA crowd?

I'd be more in favor of proportional representation. I'm not sure I'm in the camp of winner take all. Nothing says "no representation" like your state awarding all the electoral votes to the candidates who win the state popular vote, and the people who voted for the other guy get nothing.

Wouldn't it make more sense if the state split 70%D 30%R, then 70% of electoral votes go to dems and 30% goes to repubs? Seems like that would be the best way to represent everyone, rather than, if 51% of California votes dem and 49% votes repub, then all of calis electoral votes go to the dem and the, nearly half of Cali, gets nothing (that's just an example, I don't know the actual split).

Wouldn't that actually be a more fair way to do it?

 

[Rigby5]

I am far left, but this is the stupidest and most illegal thing I have ever heard of.
Frankly I think the law was criminally illegal even in 1866, since the whole USA is based on armed rebellion.
You don't then get to pick and choose which rebellions are good and which are bad.
If taking part in a rebellion is bad, then the whole continental congress would have had to have been disqualified.

 

[g5000]

Marjorie Taylor Gazpacho is taking the stand right now.

 

[g5000]

Wow. She doesn't even remember the oath of office she took!

 

[basquebromance]

she's not answering the questions, she's just giving speeches

this feels more like the theater during arguments before the Supreme Court

 

[g5000]

Gazpacho is dodging and weaving like mad. She won't even admit she believes the election was stolen under direct questioning.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

Gazpacho is dodging and weaving like mad. She won't even admit she believes the election was stolen under direct questioning.

Lol she just keeps saying “my opinion”

 

[g5000]

she's not answering the questions, she's just giving speeches

this feels more like the theater during arguments before the Supreme Court

Greene falsely claims husbandâs voting record reveals a âscamâ

U.S. Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene falsely claims husband’s voting record reveals a ‘scam’. ‘He only voted one time,’ county election official tells the AJC.

www.ajc.com

 

[g5000]

Lol she just keeps saying “my opinion”

And yet refuses to admit it has been her opinion the election was stolen.

 

[whitehall]

Most people merely post on twitter but somebody named Mark Filipowski claims that republicans "rage". Do lefties really believe this stuff?

 

[g5000]

Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress​

​

In one post, from January 2019, Greene liked a comment that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In other posts, Greene liked comments about executing FBI agents who, in her eyes, were part of the "deep state" working against Trump.

In one Facebook post from April 2018, Greene wrote conspiratorially about the Iran Deal, one of former President Barack Obama's signature foreign policy achievements. A commenter asked Greene, "Now do we get to hang them ?? Meaning H & O ???," referring to Obama and Hillary Clinton.


Greene replied, "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

Most people merely post on twitter but somebody named Mark Filipowski claims that republicans "rage". Do lefties really believe this stuff?

Shut up

 

[Mac1958]

She's hiding behind her lawyer's skirt.

Uh, if he were wearing one.