That does not allow Secretaries of State to arbitrarily change the voting regulations such as happened in numerous states that extended the deadlines for mail in ballots and nixed the post mark and signature verification requirements.
Check history, bud. Many times, readers are subjected to lies in the debates on this discussion board because know-it-all idiots like you post whatever they want to be true and nobody challenges it.
I live in Georgia and I know full well what the sorry bastard, Raffensperger did...illegally.
Here's the gist of it:
And this happened in other states as well....aided by Marc Elias, Bitchillary's favorite go-to shyster lawyer.
The Georgia changes were made by a consent decree based on the Secretary of State agreeing to Stacey Abrams demands.
National File delivers fearless, independent journalism. No corporate agenda. Just the truth. Breaking news, politics, culture, and more.
nationalfile.com
On March 6, 2020, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, took it upon himself to quietly sign off on a legal agreement with officials from the Democrat Party of Georgia, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, that would fundamentally alter the way absentee ballots were processed across the State of Georgia.
The attorney handling the legal representation for the Democrat organizations was none other than Marc Elias from Perkins Coie. If the name rings a bell it’s because he is Hillary Clinton’s consigliere. Elias and Perkins Coie have been handling legal wrangling for Democrat election operations across the country.
....
As is the case in every state in the Union, the right to change election processes and election law lies exclusively with the state legislatures and not the Secretary of State, the State Supervisor of Elections, or the Judiciary.
For starters, had nothing to do with ballot deadlines and postmarks. It didn’t nix signature requirements either. There was nothing “fundamentally” different about how they’re handled.
"We’ve uncovered a second secret agreement between corrupt Georgia election officials and the Democratic Party machine. This agreement is also illegitimate and its purpose too was to steal the election.
We previously reported about the corrupt actions which Georgia’s Chief Elections Official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger took to help steal the 2020 Georgia election for the Democrats. That involved a secret March 6, 2020 “Consent Agreement” to alter absentee ballot procedures, between Republican Raffensperger and his State Election Board as defendants against the Democratic Party.
But then we found another election law complaint, this one filed by Stacey Abrams’ nonprofit, the “New Georgia Project,” (NGP) filed on May 8, 2020. (See full agreement here or here.) Hillary attorney Marc Elias of Perkins Coie was behind this agreement as well.
Georgia’s General Assembly, was never even informed about this first secret agreement so it likely it knows nothing about the second one."
MLB for example siding and working with the government to get the public to accept HR1...its not gonna happen but watching them pull on their brown shirts should alarm us all.....
There was a lawsuit brought by the Dems against the State.
OUTSIDE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS the State capitulated to the Dems and made an agreement as described in the consent decree that was signed by the State officials, NOT BY THE COURT. The Dems agreed to and did drop their case. The legislature was not informed of the agreement. Neither the court nor the legislature had anything to do with the agreement.
A second consent decree (also kept secret from the Georgia legislature) made more concessions to the Democrat Party.
Did you bother to read the linked article? If not, you have no business discussing this topic. If you did, you are severely lacking in the ability to comprehend written English. Either way, I'm done discussing this issue with you.
Consent decrees are not out of court settlements. They’re public, not secret. If the legislature didn’t pay attention, they didn’t pay attention.
There was a lawsuit brought by the Dems against the State.
OUTSIDE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS the State capitulated to the Dems and made an agreement as described in the consent decree that was signed by the State officials, NOT BY THE COURT. The Dems agreed to and did drop their case. The legislature was not informed of the agreement. Neither the court nor the legislature had anything to do with the agreement.
A second consent decree (also kept secret from the Georgia legislature) made more concessions to the Democrat Party.
Did you bother to read the linked article? If not, you have no business discussing this topic. If you did, you are severely lacking in the ability to comprehend written English. Either way, I'm done discussing this issue with you.
Consent decrees are not out of court settlements. They’re public, not secret. If the legislature didn’t pay attention, they didn’t pay attention.
No you didn't. She tried to, and failed. All she did was point out that there are limitations on free speech, an obvious fact. That's the case with all rights. The government is prohibited from regulating speech by the First Amendment. But that doesn't mean it can't pass laws prohibiting using free speech to harm others (slander, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...).
It's the same with religious freedom, or the right to bear arms. The Constitution prohibits government from infringing on either, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom, or rob a bank with a gun. The government can always act, in fact, is obligated to, when someone is violating the rights of others.
Slander and libel law is just one example of government regulating speech. Copyright law is another. Getting a permit to peacefully protest in any major metropolitan area in the US is another.
And those "limitations" you speak of, are what lets the government control speech the way it does.
Forcing the cake maker to make a cake with messaging and or symbolism condoning something forbidden under their faith, is PRECISELY forcing them to propagate speech they disagree with.
Their business, their art, their speech. It should be the same exact concept as what we're talking about.
There was a lawsuit brought by the Dems against the State.
OUTSIDE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS the State capitulated to the Dems and made an agreement as described in the consent decree that was signed by the State officials, NOT BY THE COURT. The Dems agreed to and did drop their case. The legislature was not informed of the agreement. Neither the court nor the legislature had anything to do with the agreement.
A second consent decree (also kept secret from the Georgia legislature) made more concessions to the Democrat Party.
Did you bother to read the linked article? If not, you have no business discussing this topic. If you did, you are severely lacking in the ability to comprehend written English. Either way, I'm done discussing this issue with you.
Consent decrees are not out of court settlements. They’re public, not secret. If the legislature didn’t pay attention, they didn’t pay attention.
No you didn't. She tried to, and failed. All she did was point out that there are limitations on free speech, an obvious fact. That's the case with all rights. The government is prohibited from regulating speech by the First Amendment. But that doesn't mean it can't pass laws prohibiting using free speech to harm others (slander, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc...).
It's the same with religious freedom, or the right to bear arms. The Constitution prohibits government from infringing on either, but that doesn't mean you can practice human sacrifice in the name of religious freedom, or rob a bank with a gun. The government can always act, in fact, is obligated to, when someone is violating the rights of others.
Slander and libel law is just one example of government regulating speech. Copyright law is another. Getting a permit to peacefully protest in any major metropolitan area in the US is another.
And those "limitations" you speak of, are what lets the government control speech the way it does.
They're not examples of government control of speech. They are limitations on the freedom of speech. The same sort of limitations that exist with any of our Constitutional rights. It's the difference between saying "human sacrifice is illegal, regardless of your religious beliefs" and saying "Islam is illegal". The first isn't "regulating" religion, it's just saying you can't use religion as an excuse to kill people. Laws against slander or harassment aren't regulating speech. They're simply saying you can't harass or slander people. Hopefully you're able to understand the difference.
But let me ask you this - why is it so important to you to claim that government can regulate speech? Why do you want to invalidate the First Amendment?
Forcing the cake maker to make a cake with messaging and or symbolism condoning something forbidden under their faith, is PRECISELY forcing them to propagate speech they disagree with.
Their business, their art, their speech. It should be the same exact concept as what we're talking about.
Forcing the cake maker to make a cake with messaging and or symbolism condoning something forbidden under their faith, is PRECISELY forcing them to propagate speech they disagree with.
Their business, their art, their speech. It should be the same exact concept as what we're talking about.
Using your speech to limit the speech of other people is not exercising free speech. The only entity that should be allowed to regulate speech is the government, if at all. I will continue to repeat that. Only 2/3 of congress and states can make any decision on what is or isn't acceptable speech, not a "private platform."
But let me ask you this - why is it so important to you to claim that government can regulate speech? Why do you want to invalidate the First Amendment?
As far as I am concerned, the First Amendment has already been invalidated. Whatever unfettered form it existed as in the past no longer exists in today's society. It's hard to say, but I am only following this to the logical conclusion.
Take colleges that benefit from government grants/endowments and take active roles in censoring speech on their campuses. The government has every right to pull the money and demand they follow law and precedent pertaining to the First Amendment, but they don't. They continue giving money to these colleges and demand no compliance in return insofar as free speech is concerned.
Forcing the cake maker to make a cake with messaging and or symbolism condoning something forbidden under their faith, is PRECISELY forcing them to propagate speech they disagree with.
Their business, their art, their speech. It should be the same exact concept as what we're talking about.
Using your speech to limit the speech of other people is not exercising free speech. The only entity that should be allowed to regulate speech is the government, if at all.
"The only entity that should be allowed to regulate speech is the government"
It's exactly this absolutely upside down POV that I don't get. Where do you come up with this?
Refusing to accommodate someone else's speech is in no way "regulating" it. It's just saying "not on my website". That's all. It's simply not the same as saying - "If you do that, you'll go to jail", which is how the government does things.
Only 2/3 of congress and states can make any decision on what is or isn't acceptable speech, not a "private platform."
Well, that's in no way specified in the Constitution. Private businesses and individuals are under no obligation to accommodate people against their will (misguided civil rights law notwithstanding). And I don't know why you'd want them to be.
This is exactly the same principle highlighted in the "bake the cake" nonsense. Forcing people to accommodate people and views they disagree with is just plain wrong, regardless of the excuse.
But let me ask you this - why is it so important to you to claim that government can regulate speech? Why do you want to invalidate the First Amendment?
As far as I am concerned, the First Amendment has already been invalidated. Whatever unfettered form it existed as in the past no longer exists in today's society. It's hard to say, but I am only following this to the logical conclusion.
"My house already has some damage, so burn it the ground!". Sorry, I'm not there yet.
Take colleges that benefit from government grants/endowments and take active roles in censoring speech on their campuses. The government has every right to pull the money and demand they follow law and precedent pertaining to the First Amendment, but they don't. They continue giving money to these colleges and demand no compliance in return insofar as free speech is concerned.
There was a lawsuit brought by the Dems against the State.
OUTSIDE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS the State capitulated to the Dems and made an agreement as described in the consent decree that was signed by the State officials, NOT BY THE COURT. The Dems agreed to and did drop their case. The legislature was not informed of the agreement. Neither the court nor the legislature had anything to do with the agreement.
A second consent decree (also kept secret from the Georgia legislature) made more concessions to the Democrat Party.
Did you bother to read the linked article? If not, you have no business discussing this topic. If you did, you are severely lacking in the ability to comprehend written English. Either way, I'm done discussing this issue with you.
Consent decrees are not out of court settlements. They’re public, not secret. If the legislature didn’t pay attention, they didn’t pay attention.
I agree that "secret" is a misnomer for the consent decrees. That adjective was in the article I linked. However, the legislature was not informed of or aware of the illegal actions of the secretary of State in making the agreements.
By definition consent decrees ARE issued for out of court settlements. Any civil dispute between plaintiffs and defendants can be resolved by a settlement agreement reached out of court. If a lawsuit is underway, the parties can present their signed agreement to the court and request dismissal of the suit. The court then issues a consent decree and closes the case.
The court does not construct the agreements but simply records them in dismissing the case. That action does not change the agreements into law.
In one such agreement between the State and the Democrats regarding the form of the Gwinnett County absentee ballot envelope, the following wording is part of the agreement:
By entering into this agreement, Plaintiffs do not concede that the challenged absentee ballot envelope design is constitutional. Similarly, by entering into this agreement, Gwinnett Defendants do not concede that the challenged absentee ballot envelope design is constitutionally defective.
n.
A judicially approved agreement between parties to a suit, especially an agreement by a defendant to cease activities alleged by the government to be illegal in return for an end to the charges.
n.
A decree of a court giving effect to an agreement between the litigating parties.
n.
an agreement between two parties that is sanctioned by the court; for example, a company might agree to stop certain questionable practices without admitting guilt
That does not allow Secretaries of State to arbitrarily change the voting regulations such as happened in numerous states that extended the deadlines for mail in ballots and nixed the post mark and signature verification requirements.
Check history, bud. Many times, readers are subjected to lies in the debates on this discussion board because know-it-all idiots like you post whatever they want to be true and nobody challenges it.
I live in Georgia and I know full well what the sorry bastard, Raffensperger did...illegally.
Here's the gist of it:
And this happened in other states as well....aided by Marc Elias, Bitchillary's favorite go-to shyster lawyer.
The Georgia changes were made by a consent decree based on the Secretary of State agreeing to Stacey Abrams demands.
National File delivers fearless, independent journalism. No corporate agenda. Just the truth. Breaking news, politics, culture, and more.
nationalfile.com
On March 6, 2020, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, took it upon himself to quietly sign off on a legal agreement with officials from the Democrat Party of Georgia, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, that would fundamentally alter the way absentee ballots were processed across the State of Georgia.
The attorney handling the legal representation for the Democrat organizations was none other than Marc Elias from Perkins Coie. If the name rings a bell it’s because he is Hillary Clinton’s consigliere. Elias and Perkins Coie have been handling legal wrangling for Democrat election operations across the country.
....
As is the case in every state in the Union, the right to change election processes and election law lies exclusively with the state legislatures and not the Secretary of State, the State Supervisor of Elections, or the Judiciary.
For starters, had nothing to do with ballot deadlines and postmarks. It didn’t nix signature requirements either. There was nothing “fundamentally” different about how they’re handled.
"We’ve uncovered a second secret agreement between corrupt Georgia election officials and the Democratic Party machine. This agreement is also illegitimate and its purpose too was to steal the election.
We previously reported about the corrupt actions which Georgia’s Chief Elections Official, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger took to help steal the 2020 Georgia election for the Democrats. That involved a secret March 6, 2020 “Consent Agreement” to alter absentee ballot procedures, between Republican Raffensperger and his State Election Board as defendants against the Democratic Party.
But then we found another election law complaint, this one filed by Stacey Abrams’ nonprofit, the “New Georgia Project,” (NGP) filed on May 8, 2020. (See full agreement here or here.) Hillary attorney Marc Elias of Perkins Coie was behind this agreement as well.
Georgia’s General Assembly, was never even informed about this first secret agreement so it likely it knows nothing about the second one."
Forcing the cake maker to make a cake with messaging and or symbolism condoning something forbidden under their faith, is PRECISELY forcing them to propagate speech they disagree with.
Their business, their art, their speech. It should be the same exact concept as what we're talking about.
Sanctioning of an agreement via a consent decree is to give the court the authority to punish either side for not adhering to the agreement. It does not obligate the court to agree with either side.
I highlighted part wording of one agreement wherein the plaintiffs did not concede that a contested item was constitutional and the defendants did not concede that the same item was constitutionally flawed.
So one side holds that the item was unconstitutional.
The other side holds that the item was constitutional.
It cannot be that both of them are correct.
Which side does the court sanction?
I think I mentioned the date changes and postmark rules before we honed in on Georgia. The extension of deadlines happened in Pennsylvania and was even extended again by the errant PA Supreme Court. A judge in New York required the counting of mail-in ballots that showed no postmark. Signature verification was arbitrarily dismissed by election officials.
Establishment of election procedures (in all 50 states) is left solely to the LEGISLATURE of each state by the US Constitution. Judges, Governors, Secretaries of State, Election Officials are NOT authorized to change those requirements that are specifically called for by established state laws.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor.
"Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order," McConnell told a news conference in his home state of Kentucky.
Big business ties with Republicans began fraying under former President Donald Trump's leadership and the party's focus on voting restrictions has soured businesses embracing diversity as key to their work force and customer base. Major Georgia employers Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines have spoken out against the law signed by Governor Brian Kemp, and Major League Baseball pulled the 2021 All-Star Game out of the state over the law strengthening identification requirements for absentee ballots and making it a crime to offer food or water to voters waiting in line.
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell lashed out at corporate America on Monday, warning CEOs to stay out of the debate over a new voting law in Georgia that has been criticized as restricting votes among minorities and the poor. McConnell warned companies there could be risks for...
www.yahoo.com
Uh oh, Mitch is talking tough again. Watch out Coke.
I have it straight now.
You don't know how the 1st amendment works.
You may have the right to do it, that doesn't mean you're protected from repercussions from doing it.
nationalfile.com
