Posted on 10/31/2022 12:51:35 PM PDT by cotton1706
My take is that the constitution leaves it to the states unless there is non republican form of government as in cheating. A state cannot be allowed to cheat because that effects the entire country. So only if a state enacts rules that cause cheating can they be taken to task by the Federal government. And only to stop the policies leading to cheating. And there are several states doing that. If a state like CA can do whatever they want there then will never be another honest election there every again.
Only for President, and exactly as laid out by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution:
Section 4 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The language in the Constitution was intended to provide a backup to the elector selection process when the legislature in a state determines that an election was illegally conducted or otherwise corrupted and invalid. It specifically removes this important function from the judicial power and places it with “the people” through their representatives.
You can’t assume that representatives will ignore evidence and only vote along party lines in a critical function like this. The same holds for the impeachment process that requires a bipartisan supermajority to remove an executive or judicial branch official from their power.
MSM makes the elitist and snarky assumption that “the people” are too stupid and partisan to manage their own country. Let’s go back to a king or, even better, a dictator.
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 Place of Chusing Senators.It seems that the states can also direct the manner of holding elections for the Senate and House, but Congress can overrule those laws with their own.
At this time, I'm not aware of any laws that were passed by Congress to direct the manner of holding Congressional elections, but that doesn't mean they won't try going forward.
-PJ
Hilarious. The left is about to go full insurrection.
The stupid burns.
“That is, to impose a Republican government on the country by allowing state legislatures to set election rules on their own, without any pesky interference by their governors or state courts.”
THAT’S WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! Legislatures set the rules. Not judges. Not governors. Not bureaucrats. Not the Secretary of State. Hence why there were so many illegal votes in so many states putting this child groping pervert in the oval office.
I then went for Article II Section I because there is no corresponding clause regarding Congress.
-PJ
The question is can a state legislature ignore that state's constitution?
The very constitution that created the legislature in the first place.
“That is, to impose a Republican government on the country by allowing state legislatures to set election rules on their own, without any pesky interference by their governors or state courts.”
Effing idiot. That is exactly precisely the language of the US Constitution. Governors, AGs and state courts have ZERO constitutional role is selecting electors.
ultra mega dark conservative majority, they meant to say.
I wish!
“impose a Republican government on the country by allowing state legislatures to set election rules on their own, without any pesky interference by their governors or state courts”
Well, that pesky Constitution says specifically that state legislatures set election rules and that Congress can overrule state legislatures. Some citizen enacted laws have been ok’d by the Supreme Ct. (because they are actual state laws).
What the Constuition does not say is that courts and Governors have any say in setting election rules.
It was a copy and paste error. I left in "Section 4" in my quote, when it should have said "Section 1"
So the government in California is unconstitutional because they are practicing a form of direct democracy because California citizens are able to propose laws and constitutional amendments without having to go through the legislature.
“So the government in California is unconstitutional because they are practicing a form of direct democracy because California citizens are able to propose laws and constitutional amendments without having to go through the legislature.”
No in those cases the people are acting as their own legislature. It’s still republican since the laws created apply to all.
But it is the closest to an actual democracy as you can get.
This author is a complete idot if he thinks this is an “ultra conservative” court. At best it has two strong conservatives, three raadicals and the rest are neither and sway with case.
Oh, geee — I dunno -— after all, it’s not as if some superior, governing document like, say, a Constitution contains any relevant language bearing upon the matter, but — just perhaps — if such a document existed, and if it contained language along the lines of States having to guarantee to their Citizens a Republican form of government — that’d be something of a game changer.
Yaknow.
And let's not forget "exponential", also meaning "increasing".
What a bunch of crap! These people are idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.