Ask yourself why the left is so desperate to stop We the People from deciding on our own leaders. They engage in voter fraud. They try to keep candidates off of ballots. They engage in propaganda campaigns. A whole lot of effort to obtain power and control over people.
Trump Celebrates Winning Legal Fight to Stay on California Ballot
Interesting. Recalls the time the Democrats kicked Strom Thurmond off the ballot in South Carolina when he first ran for Senate. He had to run as a write-in, which he did, and won, becoming the first of only two Senate runs to do that (the other being Lisa Murkowski).
But this of course is a state law, not a party. Let's have a look under the hood. From the link:
>> “[W]hile this Court understands and empathizes with the motivations that prompted California,” England said in his decision, “the Act’s provisions likely violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States.” <<
Weak, weak argument, since
NOWHERE in the United States Constitution does that underlying document call for any kind of popular Presidential election AT ALL. And it never has. What the COTUS
does say is this:
Each State shall appoint,
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
That's called "Article II" if you're scoring at home Buttsoiler. Or even if you're by yourself, it's still called Article II.
To break this down into tiny words that even a Buttsoiler can figure out, it means each state gets to pick its electors ANY WAY IT WANTS. It
can require tax returns to hold an election; it
can require
shoe sizes to hold an election. It can not bother to hold an election AT ALL.
It can throw darts at pictures of candidates, pick names out of a hat, or consult a Ouija board. It can take a random telephone poll. "In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" means exactly what it says. And we've been through all this in examinations of the Electoral College and how it works, Buttsoiler, while you were over in the corner playing with yourself.
Whelp --- the state of (in this case) California passed this law as part of a Manner it may direct, exactly as the Constitution lays out. So there is literally NOTHING in the Constitution to "violate". One also can't help noticing the use of the qualifier "likely" in what's purported to be a legal decision. Legal decisions can't be made on the basis of "likely". That's the whole point of having laws and Constitutions ---
exactitude. Everything's spelled out. That a judge can muddle through his job without knowing all this is kind of disconcerting, but I guess when you're desperate you reach for whatever you can grab, huh Buttsoiler?
