Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If their legislatures determine the certification is fraudulent, they can pass a resolution selecting the electors for their state. This power is given each state legislature directly by the Constitution, and ONLY to the state legislatures.
I believe that they need the strength of a court ruling to invalidate the original results. THAT is why the Trump campaign has filed, and lost, more than thirty suits.
The legislators need something to hide behind. They need a judge's ruling or they will be seen as corruptly stealing an election.
We know that this dirty game is being pushed by Trump, and we know that is why his surrogates have been working so hard to convince you and all the world of fraud, but there hasn't been any proof. The judges demand proof. The judges believe in justice, they dedicate their working lives to it.
So now we see you people reverting to type: authoritarians. You don't care HOW you get Trump back in, you just want it. Many of you have disdain for the very concept of democracy and boldly announce that feeling right here for all of us to see. It is pretty disgusting.
If a states legislature determines there was sufficient fraud to cast doubt on the election, it is within their power to select delegates. This is done via resolution of each legislature. The Constitution delegates to state legislatures exclusively the method of selecting electors. They are not bound by any constraint to select electors from what they determine is a fraudulent vote. There is no limitation imposed on state legislatures by the Constitution in this regard, and they are the single entity which has sole authority to select delegates. Courts and executive branches are not involved.
Nowhere is it written that a state legislature can unilaterally declare that there is sufficient fraud and empower themselves to change the election rules. You are making this up. It’s your fantasy. I have no idea where you are getting this garbage.
You are attempting to redefine things that the Supreme Court already settled.
If such precedent existed, you would be able to post it. Instead, all you have done is post Constitutional passages that have been defined by the courts to mean exactly the opposite of what you are representing.
Here's a sober, realistic account of how this is likely to go down, from a local Pa. paper (Link below). As I said further up, the legislature is unlikely to follow along with this inane move, even if the legislature is Republican dominated (the most recent and withering court defeat for Team Trump came a few hours ago from a Trump-appointed judge, as several people have pointed out). I'll go with this account from a local paper over someone blathering away on a Steve Bannon podcast any day: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/n...ss/6440328002/
Larger news outlets don't even consider this idiotic move worth covering, at least not yet, because nothing will come of it. It's just ho-hum Team Trump as usual, getting ready to fail again. Nothing to see here.
Last edited by Moving415; 11-27-2020 at 03:20 PM..
Here's a sober, realistic account of how this is likely to go down, from a local Pa. paper (Link below). As I said further up, the legislature is unlikely to follow along with this inane move, even if the legislature is Republican dominated (the most recent and withering court defeat for Team Trump came a few hours ago from a Trump-appointed judge, as several people have pointed out). I'll go with this account from a local paper over someone blathering away on a Steve Bannon podcast any day: https://www.yorkdispatch.com/story/n...ss/6440328002/
Larger news outlets don't even consider this idiotic move worth covering, at least not yet, because nothing will come of it. It's just ho-hum Team Trump as usual, getting ready to fail again. Nothing to see here.
The Mockingbird feature of Hammer requires the majority of a controlled population to respect only hammer selected authorities.
Regardless the Pennsylvania Legislature will meet on Monday, and will decide if it wishes to change the electors, if it does, the only limit is the electors be selected by December 8, 2020. A resolution declaring the election in doubt, and the certification in doubt, then directing certification of electors as directed is within each state legislature's power. Decertification by the state legislature is more appropriate than by a court as each state legislature is given sole authority over elector selection. It is also binding. The legislature isn't bound to allow a fraudulent election to stand. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming. A fraudulent election is not binding on electors a state legislature will send to Congress.
The Mockingbird feature of Hammer requires the majority of a controlled population to respect only hammer selected authorities.
Regardless the Pennsylvania Legislature will meet on Monday, and will decide if it wishes to change the electors, if it does, the only limit is the electors be selected by December 8, 2020. A resolution declaring the election in doubt, and the certification in doubt, then directing certification of electors as directed is within each state legislature's power. Decertification by the state legislature is more appropriate than by a court as each state legislature is given sole authority over elector selection. It is also binding. The legislature isn't bound to allow a fraudulent election to stand. The evidence of fraud is overwhelming. A fraudulent election is not binding on electors a state legislature will send to Congress.
Exactly everyone's point. And individual legislators--Republicans--have said repeatedly that they would not override the will of the people and appoint new electors. Trump flew two of them to Washington to no avail. You all have a tendency to jump on news and announcements made by semi-insane people, and it always comes to naught. A Trump-appointed federal judge gave a scathing rebuke to Trump's team today, on top of the one last week (Team Trump lost its appeal) because there was no case. Why on earth would the legislators opt for new electors? The courts have found no fraud. You do not think these things through and jump on news as if some kind of victory has been won. It's been reassuring to me to see that the courts are considering matters of law, not partisanship. Again, the legal score: 40 cases, 39 losses. I think we're done here. Oh, the Supreme Court you say? I doubt the high court will even hear this case. Again, we're done.
Last edited by Moving415; 11-27-2020 at 04:29 PM..
Did you miss the nearly 4 hour presentation to the Pennsylvania legislators which clearly demonstrated massive fraud.
As to courts. Funny thing, our founders didn't leave elector selection up to courts, or the executive branch, or to federal law, it exclusively allows the legislature of each state to determine who the electors are. This power has no effective limit, other than electors must be named by December 8. Prior rules or laws do not bind the state legislatures, they are given this as an unrestricted power directly from the Constitution. Courts are not needed or involved.
Did you miss the nearly 4 hour presentation to the Pennsylvania legislators which clearly demonstrated massive fraud.
As to courts. Funny thing, our founders didn't leave elector selection up to courts, or the executive branch, or to federal law, it exclusively allows the legislature of each state to determine who the electors are. This power has no effective limit, other than electors must be named by December 8. Prior rules or laws do not bind the state legislatures, they are given this as an unrestricted power directly from the Constitution. Courts are not needed or involved.
Still waiting for that precedent or court opinion on this fantasy of yours.
Did you miss the nearly 4 hour presentation to the Pennsylvania legislators which clearly demonstrated massive fraud.
As to courts. Funny thing, our founders didn't leave elector selection up to courts, or the executive branch, or to federal law, it exclusively allows the legislature of each state to determine who the electors are. This power has no effective limit, other than electors must be named by December 8. Prior rules or laws do not bind the state legislatures, they are given this as an unrestricted power directly from the Constitution. Courts are not needed or involved.
That of spectacle Giuliani and his Keystone Kops? That was for the MAGAT audience of dead enders.
That unhinged display has no force of law. Why didn’t Giuliani make his presentation in front of a judge? Because his job is to keep throwing sh!te up against the wall and keep all of you deplorables riled up.
Obviously it’s working....
Man oh man, how disappointed you’re going to be on 1/20/21.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
