Posted on 12/09/2020 5:33:44 AM PST by Zakeet
I am not an attorney. But I did attend one year of law school before being drafted in the Vietnam war back in the 60s. And I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. 😂
Seriously, I heard and read several places on the internet that the seven or eight states had "joined" in with Texas in the lawsuit, but legally how they did that I don't know. Again, I would have to defer to your attorney friend.
And I was wrong about it being on the docket meant it would be heard. The court will await the responses from the four states by tomorrow's deadline before they decide to actually hear the case or not. I apologize for misleading you. It can be confusing to the rest of us too.
But I think the court will agree to hear the case because it is a true constitutional issue case, not a fraud case like the president's lawyers are pursuing. It is an important case that affects the integrity of our elections and possibly, as a result, the future of the Republic.
Texas alleges that the fours states violated the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, the due process clause and the Electoral Clause. Their main argument is that all four states violated the Electoral Clause of the constitution by not conducting their elections in accordance with the procedures set down by their own state legislatures and prescribed by their state constitutions. Election officials allegedly violated that clause by altering election procedures in violation of state law.
Whether the court will agree to take the case is still up in the air. If they did hear the case and rule in Texas' favor, they probably wouldn't nullify the elections. They would probably instruct the state legislatures to pick another slate of electors than the ones the states have already certified.
If the state refused or the electors they picked in conjunction with the other 46 states, did not add to 270 electoral votes for either candidate, then the whole mess is thrown into the House to decide.
Currently Republicans have an advantage there with 27 Republican delegations and the democRATS with 22 state delegations. But then there are RINOs who may not vote for Trump but rather Biden.
So nothing is settled yet and we are a ways from this thing being over.
Thanks for responding.
Some glimmer of optimism here. . . Texas STRONG!!!!!
Oh, no apology necessary. And — to be clear — the attorney I know isn’t really a friend. In fact, i was hoping he was wrong so I could rub it in... 😂
Well, at this point I certainly hope the court decides to hear the case. I think it’s pretty clear the states unlawfully changed the rules, and I agree with you that — if they rule in favor of Texas — they’ll kick the resolution back to the states.
In my opinion, it’s a win-win for them to take the case — they can essentially strengthen election law, or the constitutional rules for elections, while at the same time punting back to the states for resolution (i.e. they don’t have to affect the election outcome).
The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the president and vice president. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804. The new rules took effect for the 1804 presidential election and have governed all subsequent presidential elections.
Under the original rules of the Constitution, each member of the Electoral College cast two electoral votes, with no distinction made between electoral votes for president and electoral votes for vice president. The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes—provided that number equaled a majority of the electors—was elected president, while the presidential candidate receiving the second-most votes was elected vice president. In cases where no individual won a vote from a majority of the electors, as well as in cases where multiple individuals won votes from a majority of electors but tied each other for the most votes, the House of Representatives would hold a contingent election to select the president. In cases where multiple candidates tied for the second-most votes, the Senate would hold a contingent election to select the vice president. The first four presidential elections were conducted under these rules.
The experiences of the 1796 and 1800 presidential elections – showing that the original system caused the election of a President and Vice-President who were political opponents of each other, constantly acting at cross-purposes – spurred legislators to amend the presidential election process, requiring each member of the Electoral College to cast one electoral vote for president and one electoral vote for vice president. Under the new rules, a contingent election is still held by the House of Representatives if no candidate wins a presidential electoral vote from a majority of the electors, but there is no longer any possibility of multiple candidates winning presidential electoral votes from a majority of electors. The Twelfth Amendment also lowered the number of candidates eligible to be selected by the House in a presidential contingent election from five to three, established that the Senate would hold a contingent election for vice president if no candidate won a majority of the vice presidential electoral vote, and provided that no individual constitutionally ineligible to the office of president would be eligible to serve as vice president.
Let's keep our fingers crossed that whatever the outcome, it will improve Trump's chances of regaining his win from the treasonous thieves.
from your moth to God’s ears....in ancient Greek theatre this was know as the “deus ex machina” ending to the show!!
TN has joined.
“Tennessee had joined an amicus brief in the case, meaning the state is offering its support to Texas but is not a party on the lawsuit. Led by Missouri, Tennessee is one of 17 conservative states that signed the brief.”
Knoxville News Sentinel
They just joined approx. one hour ago. 17 States now.
Oklahoma I should say.
Perhaps you would be so helpful as to post those specifically.
I can’t imagine why legislatures would want to do that, or that they even can, if split electors is not in their current law. They will have to follow their existing constitutions and laws.
Most states are winner-take-all for electors. It gives the state maximum power in the selection of the President.
The only way California will ever go split, for instance, is if Pubbies get the majority.
Excellent take, and thank you.
I do think Executive action like you describe is the “Plan B” to a civil and legal remedy.
See Rule 17. In matters of original jurisdiction the matter is placed “on the docket” upon receipt of a motion for leave (permission) to file. The Court thereafter may grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that additional docu- ments be fled, or require that other proceedings be conducted.
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.