Posted on 01/01/2021 8:42:49 AM PST by Kaslin
after that, if Pence doesn't throw suspect states out, its got to be martial law...
Arguably a major reason that more people aren’t more aware of alleged irregularities or violations of the Constitution concerning fraudulent vote counting by Democratic-controlled swing states is because Supreme Court wrongly ignored its constitutional obligation to listen to the Texas case complaining about election fraud imo.
Interestingly, standing in Court is said to be defined by “current doctrine” instead of the Constitution.
"In the United States, the current doctrine [??? emphasis added] is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they/it are/is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law.” —Standing (law)
On the other hand, regardless that the Court argued that Texas didn’t have the standing to complain about alleged vote-counting fraud in other states, Justice Joseph Story had indicated the following about the Court trying to resolve conflicts between the states.
Based on the history of conflicts between original colonies which sometimes led to the "most serious public mischiefs," Story explained that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention included the states v. states clause (3.2.1) to require the Court to unconditionally (my word) give conflicted states a last resort to try to settle their differences to avoid armed conflict.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged vote-counting fraud in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has done the following imo. The Court has not only wrongly helped to increase tension between conflicted states, but has also starved lawmakers of information that they need to make the best decisions.
Corrections, insights welcome.
I think it means there is enough pressure for them to act like they are fighting the steal.
Well, my Senate representative is Kamala. How does that work out??
Hope this is not a premature emission!
Democrats’ Sore Loser Hypocrisy Is Damaging Democracy | Opinion
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-sore-loser-hypocrisy-is-damaging-democracy-opinion/ar-BB1aS33T
Let’s say for the sake of argument that 100% of House Republicans object, how will that stop Joe Biden from being President?
They won’t have to worry about re-election, KING SENILE WILL MAKE THE US A MONARCHY. NO R will ever hold office again without a Revolutionary War 2.
It's funny how what people "know"
often isn't actually so. /poet
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
George Washington was the architect of the Constitution. He was tremendously concerned that he and his soldiers efforts would go to waste if something was not devised that would be better than the Articles of Confederation.
Washington wrote letters for the better part of 10 years, gathering people at his home to stir an interest in creating a workable government. The one man who took the greatest interest in Washington's ideas was James Madison. Washington and Madison worked together. George as the idea man and James as the educated and well-read man who knew the history of the Roman Republic.
So, did you know that they worked together and then got everyone else interested?
Gouverneur Morris was part of the committee that put the wording together. He did not come up with all the ideas. That was done YEARS before he got involved.
Something else you probably did not know about the Declaration of Independence. Most people think that Jefferson wrote it completely by himself. He did not. He was part of a group called the Committee of Five. Jefferson was asked to write it out because he was good with words and he had great penmanship.
He wrote a first draft which was many pages long and he wrote a couple of paragraphs denouncing slavery as evil. When he handed in his first draft the other four said in effect, "Look, we agree with you on the slavery thing, however we are declaring our independence from the King of England. It should be on one page like a resume. Have an intro, a list of reasons to leave, and a conclusion. That's it."
He wrote out exactly what they wanted on his second round.
Years later as he was putting together his University of Virginia, Jefferson got a letter from one of his good friends who asked how he wrote the Declaration and he said, "I just put down what was common opinion at the time." He never did claim to be the sole person involved in the writing of the Declaration.
I didn't say you don't know what you're talking about.
I implied that what many people think they know simply isn't so.
So, did you know that they worked together and then got everyone else interested?
That isn't in my version of events. GOT LINK?
Gouverneur Morris was part of the committee that put the wording together. He did not come up with all the ideas. That was done YEARS before he got involved.
(except as noted below)
So you credit Morris with some ideas now?
When James Madison put together all the ideas for our Constitution...
But...but...according to you nobody had any ideas except Madison (well, with the exception of Washington's help)
Isn't that called "changing the goalpost to fit the narrative"?
I never said he came up with ALL of the ideas. You claim Madison did that. (well, except for Washington's input, according to you) However, the article I linked to gives Morris, not Madison, credit for some of the "ideas" in the Constitution.
Bless your heart, your thesis must have been sadly wanting.
You are kind of a nasty person aren’t you?
Not at all. I just have an aversion to BS.
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.