Posted on 02/08/2024 6:55:13 AM PST by CFW
Always substitute the phrase “corrupt bureaucracy” for “our democracy”.
Gotta keep the grift alive.
Oh, so a state can restrict voters to voting for only one set of electors. Gotcha.
The beginning of the end of our Republic resulted from the North’s win in the Civil War. The country ceased to be the united States and became the United States. States could not withdraw from the union. Later Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court decisions stripped almost all rights from the states thereby making them just semi autonomous divisions of the Fed Gov.
But the very idea of "groups of voters" having "rights" different from a right of every individual voter violates both Privileges and Immunities clauses.
This was in 1872, and they voted for Grant, who won anyway withiut them
“Always substitute the phrase ‘corrupt bureaucracy’ for ‘our democracy’.”
Or, as Charlie Kirk says, when they say “democracy”, substitute it with “oligarchy”.
You are both mistaken. There most definitely is language in the Constitution related to presidential elections.
That is essentially true. How is it different from what I posted in #372 above?
But then it is not quite true, of course, it is not a matter of "feel" but a matter of congressional votes. (3 US 15)
And that ought to remind us daily of how fragile our government is when both chambers are held by a political party that vows to "remake" America.
Right — but it’s not an “election” like any other. It’s an election carried out by electors who are selected through the manner proscribed by each state legislature.
Lol. The Supreme Court decided it had the power of judicial review and poof they have it.
It’s not in The Constitution.
Re: 412 - Excellent point and thank you for making.
Here’s the C-SPAN video of the SCOTUS Hearing, with annotations as to who is speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VpJKUscNaM
LIVE(replay): President Trump Gives Remarks on Supreme Court Case at Mar-a-Lago - (Feb 8, 2024)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H12JnUVbE4
Begin at 1:15PM Case read in and.....Ajourned until Friday 16th of Feb. at 10:00
President Trump speaks from Mar A Lago at 1:25PM ... ended 12:41PM
(I did not find where the Supreme Court gave a statement, except to ajourn until Feb 16th)
Yes, yes. There IS a Presidential election, it takes place in December, there are 538 voters and if there is a person with 270 or more votes the decision is final.
Jason is a sleazy partisan lawyer. He evaded questions and constantly interjected partisan attacks against Trump. The justices would often interrupt and try to get him to answer direct questions.
He was also sneaking in leftist talking points in the record and many times they had little to do with his answer to a question. It seemed forced. Almost like he was prodded to do that in their prep sessions.
From Linkedin
“Jason is a trial lawyer with a long track record of success representing clients in a wide variety of high-stakes litigation matters, including mass torts, antitrust, commercial contract disputes, intellectual property, and professional malpractice. Jason has received widespread recognition for his work. He was honored in 2022 and 2023 as one of Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Litigators in America and was recognized as a member of Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under List.”
Jason clerked for Honorable Justice Elena Kagan of the U.S. Supreme Court and Honorable Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit. Jason graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2011, after earning a B.A. in Government from Harvard University in 2008.”
I always thought that trying to use congressional proceedings as equivalent to legal precedents was very dubious. A senate “conviction” could lead to a real trial of course.
From the CSPAN transcript. Apologize for all the caps. Wow - what a statement. I heard that live and couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
Jason Murray -
“... TRUMP CAN ASK CONGRESS TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY, BUT UNLESS HE DOES THAT, OUR CONSTITUTION PROTECTS US FROM INSURRECTIONISTS. THIS CASE ILLUSTRATES THE DANGER OF REFUSING TO APPLY SECTION THREE HAS WRITTEN. THE REASON WE ARE HERE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND TRIED TO DISENFRANCHISE 80 MILLION AMERICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST HIM AND THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE HE BE GIVEN ANOTHER CHANCE...”
Thank you! I am going to make the time to read the comments very carefully.
I can see from the responses in the thread that I seem to have poked a little bit of a yellowjacket nest - just from making a general observation about how women, in general, have responded to sociological and cultural changes, their tendency to vote based on “feelings”, rather than logical consequences of outcomes.
I can even see this in myself, at this age. As an example... I will vote for Trump, based on logic, reason, and his acts as President, not on his tweets, off-hand statements that are offensive...
But, if he were to state that he would immediately “day 1” end Medicare, reduce SSI, and change the retirement age to 75, I would tend to go to straight to my “feelings” and vote for someone who promised a gentler approach to a culture which has become dependent on the government giving then taking away.
Don’t get me started on the “lockbox”. I do sometimes wonder if we are so far gone that it is too late for the grand experiment our founding fathers gave us.
And, I often think that they didn’t intend for everyone to vote. They intended those intelligent enough to understand the issues, who were productive economically, and who had property to protect - not those who would rob Peter and give it to lazy Paul.
The long slow slide is underway, and we women bear our fair share of the blame!
I don’t know who you are or what you claim to know……
…but I didn’t confuse anything.
Yes. I don't see the Supreme Court or any inferior court wading into that can-o-worms.
Gerald Ford said "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history" and he's correct, as Impeachment is first and foremost a political remedy.
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.