Posted on 12/10/2020 7:39:17 PM PST by Enlightened1
Oh good!... thats a lot of Democrat AGs now who can be impeached for cause.
It’s rather simple.
Any changes to the election that were done by anyone other than the legislative branch of an individual state is null and void.
End of story, kaput.
Iowa is the reverse of KY. Its Dem SOS wanted to join the DC etc filing against TX. But in Iowa the Gov needs to approve such acts and Gov. Reynolds refused her permission. Apparently she can't act for TX on her own. Don't know whether the IA GOP legislature can do anything along the lines of ID. Gov. Reynolds mentioned much of this was organized via the respective GOP and Democrat AG umbrella groups. Because Iowa didn't have a GOP AG it wasn't on their mailing list to act. In response she set up a different mechanism so GOP AGs could contact her office, separately from our AG, in such political cases.
What happened to PA and KS and NE?
Hm. It could be that the double negative is throwing me off, or I missed it completely.
For example, from reading your post (not the article) it sounded like you were saying that you didn’t understand how a state like Maine could side with Texas and insert itself into the lawsuit.
Is that example correct?
Or are you saying that some states might want to insert themselves into the lawsuit on the side of the “defendant” states and “side” with them?
THAT I don’t really understand how that could happen, it just seems like that statement would be common sense. What state would insert itself as a defendant if it wasn’t placed there by the aggrieved party in the lawsuit.
If so, I think the way you worded it just threw me off...if that is indeed what you meant.
Maryland is siding with Sleepy Joe and the Fraudulous Fourm, of course, represented by the anti-Trump mutant Brian Fr0sh. My state is a seething embarrassment to the entire world, and therefore, nobody should move here.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
They joined ND, SD and NM...
“Battle lines being drawn”
This isn’t CWII. This is Patriots vs. the CCP and their corporate and political lackeys in the US.
Twenty First Century siege warfare. Good luck libs when the shelves of your Whole Foods store are empty?
“For example, from reading your post (not the article) it sounded like you were saying that you didn’t understand how a state like Maine could side with Texas and insert itself into the lawsuit.”
Are you joking? You misread what I said twice! Haha!
Try rereading the entire post. Maybe that will help you?
“In addition to the above, Ohio joined Texas today and Wyoming decided to stay out of it.”
The article is incorrect. Ohio didn’t join Texas completely.
The Ohio brief opposes Texas lawsuit’s goal to effectively delay the Electoral College from voting Biden the next president. It states that the USSC lacks authority to order state legislatures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to appoint presidential electors.
However, while the brief disagrees with Texas’ call to hold up the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14, it encourages the USSC to rule on whether the election changes made by the states are unconstitutional.
And DE, OK, ND & SD, LOL.
LOL. As well as North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Mexico.
The best explanations I've seen say the Constitution is a contract between individual sovereign states. And they agreed in the contract's language by what mechanism they'd accept a President to be elected over all of them. By ignoring that agreed upon mechanism the states being sued were in breech of that contract. The response to that breech is for the compliant states to sue the non-compliant ones. The court with jurisdiction is specified by the contract to be the Supreme Court. A very straightforward complaint.
What SCOTUS can do about it is not as straightforward. But it can probably bar them from choosing electors via their unconstitutional mechanism. Leaving them the options of choosing no electors, choosing null electors instructed to abstain or choosing partisan electors by the legislature's choice. Thus SCOTUS would void the steal but not directly pick the President. The affected political branches, the respective state legislatures, would have to stop hiding and make political decisions. As was the norm when the contract was first signed. State legislatures chose all the presidential electors then. And also chose the Senators, until that was changed by the 17th. They answer to their respective constituents and should be the next best available proxy for those constituent's wishes. So in a representative republic are appropriate to chose presidential electors reflecting those wishes.
There would thus be a LOT of politicking going on as the minority tries to convince the majority to vote for their guy ANY way they can. Many probably won't like that. But, at root, the fault is their own for letting their executive and judicial branches screw things up in a system designed for the legislatures to be the most powerful branch. They may be scared by the evident willingness of the minority Democrats to step over the line to evil tactics. But if they are wise they'll come to understand that they are the majority. And their safest option is to bond with that majority and use its power to swat down any illegal or evil actions by the minority even though that may take work and be messy initially.
NOPE! nearly every state SOS or Gov/leadership has peicked a side - the legal citizens of those states may differ.
Yep, can’t eat without the wheat.
I agree. ‘Pod.
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.