Posted on 10/26/2023 4:43:38 AM PDT by central_va
“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.”
I realize that we live in a post-Constitutional, post-Christian America, however, if one wants to follow the Constitution, then it is crystal clear that only the state LEGISLATURES can change election law - not the governors or secretaries of state unilaterally like we saw in 2020 “because covid”.
Further, due process requires the Courts to address the matter. They failed to do so and are the cause of all of this including Jan. 6.
The language also clearly states that Congress can change elections laws, which is what the Dems were trying to do with Biden and they nearly accomplished it were it not for Sinema and Manchin... now is the time for the new Speaker to attach voter ID and ban on ballot harvesting to government funding.
And I SMH...no legal standing? An unbelievable conclusion by the SC.
Hmmm...... Syracuse, New York, bad America
That’s exactly right, but I will address this particular point in the context of my own state, where this came up in multiple legal challenges.
1. Under the state election laws, the voting is required to be carried out according to provisions A, B and C.
2. However, state law gives the governor or Secretary of State the power to do X, Y and Z when a “state of emergency” is declared.
3. X, Y and Z blatantly contradict A, B and C.
4. So we have two conflicting state statutes — both of which were duly passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
5. The state courts decided in favor of X, Y and Z.
6. When legal challenges were filed in Federal court, the court gave a two-fold response: (A) “There is no basis for a Federal court to overrule a state court in a matter of state law,” and (B) “It’s not the job of the Federal courts to fix the conflicting laws passed by your stupid state government.”
THE END.
Election denier, anti-vaxxer, climate change denier, its all the same crowd.
Russia, Russia, Russia!
Thank you for saying (typing) that truth. Thank You
Not a problem. Mike Johnson is likely to be the next Vice-President of the United States.
Elections are valid and beyond reproach only when Democrats win.
Leftist TRASH site. Don’t waste your time.
Thank You for that TRUE FACT. Thank You
They all tried to overturn the 2016 and the 2000 elections so what is their point.
MAGA Mike!
“In a hypothetical question example that played out multiple times in 2020, State X has no legal standing to use the Federal courts to compel State Y to enforce its own election laws. This is where the infamous Texas lawsuit was destined to fall flat on its face regardless of the actual facts of the case.”
If it was destined to fail, it was not because it lacked merit, but because the SC lacked depth.
The presidential election is a nationwide election - every voter and every state has an equal stake in how it is decided. PA, GA, AZ, WI, and MI failed to prevent election fraud in their large Democrat controlled urban counties, putting the wrong candidate in the Oval Office.
How do the State of Texas and the other 21 states that joined that lawsuit lack standing?
It was a bad SC decision.
Overturning a massively rigged and fraudulent election is a bad thing? Seriously? WOW!
fixed
“...subvert the will of the voters”
As soon as I saw that line, I knew AP had to be involved in this.
The barf alert is the attribution, “File AP”.
1. It’s not a “nationwide election.” It’s the aggregated result of 51 separate election or selection processes. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t even require states to hold elections to select their presidential electors. This is why each state has its own election officials, their own in-person and absentee ballot processes, it’s own poll hours on Election Day, etc.
2. Once you accept the idea of a “national election,” you inevitably empower Congress to override all state laws and impose national standards for all aspects of elections. This is not a good thing. More importantly, there is no constitutional basis for it.
3. Related to the previous point … Once you accept the idea that Federal courts have the legal authority to override a state government in a presidential election, you’ve already lost the battle AND the war.
How do the State of Texas and the other 21 states that joined that lawsuit lack standing?
I explained this elsewhere on this thread. States have no standing to use Fedral courts to enforce laws in other states. Period.
Texas had an additional “standing” issue in 2020. They were filing a Federal lawsuit accusing other states of violating their election laws, but Texas itself also had problems with some major local jurisdictions (Harris County/Houston, for example) violating TEXAS election law. So under the legal standards Texas was using in its lawsuit, its own electoral votes should have been disqualified.
The Dems use words to strike fear. For example, questioning election integrity they call “trying to over turn and election”. Also, A Congressional trespass event with a handful of antifa instigators causing property damage is called “an insurrection”. You get the point.
The Constitution confers upon the legislature of each state the power to direct the manner in which the electors are chosen.
That being the case, why is it that the state’s executive branch certifies whether the electors were chosen legally? If the electors were not chosen according to the manner in which the state’s legislature directed, then the Constitution has been violated. - specifically, the US Constitution has been violated.
Potential violations of the US Constitution are the purvey of the United States, not just the state in which the violation occurred.
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.