Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.
The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.
JWK
I agree it is the Republican mantra to keep people from voting...In Florida they had a good clean election yet the legislature and the governor are changing the existing laws to make it harder to vote....Typical GOP BS.There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
for presidential elections:
Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.
Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections
In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...www.everycrsreport.com
What Texas is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.
We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.
We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.
What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.
The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.
Texas wants to take that right from the states.
I agree it is the Republican mantra to keep people from voting...In Florida they had a good clean election yet the legislature and the governor are changing the existing laws to make it harder to vote....Typical GOP BS.There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like. The Constitution allows states to make their own laws on voting and elections.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
for presidential elections:
Although the Constitution is silent on various aspects of the voting process, it seems to anticipate that states would be primarily responsible for establishing election procedures. Federal authority to regulate federal elections, however, is specifically provided for in the Constitution. There are two main provisions at issue—Article I, Section 4, cl. 1, which provides Congress the authority to set the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, and Article II, Section 1, cl. 4, which provides that Congress may designate the “Time” for the choosing of Presidential Electors.
Congressional Authority to Direct How States Administer Elections
In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections. The federal government, however,...
What Texas is opening the door to is my state can sue Texas for not having the proper electric system for their state and not joining with the other 49 states on a national grid.
We could sue them for not properly regulating business, energy and environmental safety.
We could also sue them for their laws that violate a woman's right to privacy and her own body.
What Texas wants to do is take away the citizens of each state's right to vote and legislate in their own state.
The constitution gives each state the right to create their own laws within that state.
Texas wants to take that right from the states.
It's manifestly evident that the SC ran from their duties with regard to the 2020 lawsuit and the presidential election. John Robert's claim that Texas, and twenty other states, had no viable interest in seeing to it that
Pennsylvania, and the other corrupt swing states that threw the election to Joe Biden, didn't violate their own state as well as federal laws, was absurd since all those citizens were disenfranchised and denied their constitutional rights to a fair and honest election.
They were literally denied their right to have a say in a vital federal election and denied equal protection
under the law.
Roberts also falsely claimed that the SC was not the proper venue for this suit though when multiple states
sue one another (in such a crucial matter) what good is the SC at all if it will not intervene in a matter that
only this court is equipped to adjudicate?
Joe Biden and the democrats stole the election and they couldn't have done it without John Roberts and
the corrupt and illegitimate Supreme Court.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.
The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.
JWK
The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.
The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.
News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster fuck doesn't happen.
You'd better LEARN something before you open your misinformed lie hole.
The vote of Texans, and the twenty-two other states that signed on to the Texas suit, had no right to equal protection under the law?The SC followed the law and the Constitution .. Texas had NO standing.. I know Trump is ridiculously stupid, but surely you are intelligent enough to LEARN.
News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster fuck doesn't happen.
You'd better LEARN something before you open your misinformed lie hole.
Do you have a JD? Look up "Standing".
You don't seem to mind ignoring the will of voters as long as you get your way.Absolutely Yes they were. They should have ignored the 81 million voters and the Electoral College that voted for Biden, and just given it to Trump. No need for Democracy in a Democracy.
Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:
"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."
The fundamental constitutional requisites to establish standing are that the plaintiff(s) must have:
1) suffered some actual or threatened injury;
2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant(s); and
3) that the injury can be redressed by the Court.
Now that we know the basis for standing, What is the Court’s rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
Apples and oranges. The issue isn't choosing presidential electors but the actual voting itself.Additionally, and with respect to the Robert's Court obvious dereliction of duty to hear the Texas Lawsuit, this dereliction of duty was eloquently summed up in an amicus curiae brief by Citizen’s United:
"When one state allows the Manner in which Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court."
You have to realize that every state can chose it's own method for selecting the presidential electors. From letting the people chose by popular vote, to having the legislature chose them by whatever means they see fit, to not choosing electors at all, and sitting out the election, like what happened in the first presidential election.
Since each state makes that choice, and is the sole body in charge of it's elections, other states can't impress their ideals onto any other state.
Any challenge to the way a state runs it's election gives standing to the candidates, and the residents of that state. It doesn't give standing to anybody in the whole entire world with an interest in the outcome of the US presidential election.
The first presidential election proves that's absolute nonsense. The states at the time had widely different schemes for how they chose their electors. From proportional allocation of electors, to winner take all, to having the legislature not give the people the franchise at all.News flash: There is no "law" that says one state can screw over other states by changing their election laws.
In a national election the fifty states are linked and interdependent and ALL states are dependent upon
one another to follow their laws so something like this '20 cluster fuck doesn't happen.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.
The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.
JWK
Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
Apples and oranges. The issue isn't choosing presidential electors but the actual voting itself.
Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.
That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.
Each state can choose for itself how that is to be done but Pennsylvania's election laws have to be
formed by their own state legislature....not in an ad hoc individual way by a single individual, as
Pennsylvania did.
That's illegal and unconstitutional, son.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.
The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.
JWK
Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
Look up the legal definition of Standing.
Where in the Constitution does it say that? How can an election process that has been established by legislature and signed by the Governor a year prior to an election be considered unconstitutional? If it was unconstitutional why did Texass wait until after the election to sue?There was not a case of corruption it was a case of how one legislative body made voting rules that other states did not like.
The truth is, the Texas Lawsuit is about government officials engaging in and condoning unconstitutional election practices.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various unconstitutional practices mentioned in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc. And this is very frightening.
JWK
Your deflections are noted. It is irrelevant as to when a violation of our Constitution is brought to the attention of our Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, by refusing to address and resolve the various violations of our federal Constitution raised in the Texas Bill of Complaint, is to allow even more corruption and voter irregularities into our federal election process, which most assuredly will lead to the kinds of elections which take place in Venezuela, Cuba, etc.
In any event, I see you never attempted to answer the fundamental question: what is the rational and legal reasoning to believe Texas did not have standing, and did not raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the defendant States conducted their elections?
JWK
Look up the legal definition of Standing.
Try paying attention to what HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED
JWK
“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
