Posted on 07/20/2021 4:51:15 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin
Challenges to the presidential electors for GA, MI, NV, and WI all failed when the House members making the objections failed to gain the support of a single U.S. Senator. Together these states comprised 48 EV, which was more than enough to flip the election result. But what if a duly elected U.S. Senator was unable to participate in that process because a fraudulent pretender was wrongfully certified in his/her place? Would that make the entire Jan. 6-7th certification of Joe and Ho's "victory" null and void in either a quo warranto action, or reopening of that certification by Congress?
Watch them.
The courts.
I see the problem now. You seem to think a comma is the end of the sentence. Courts are NOT within the plenary powers of elections between state legislatures and Congress. And no, I am not repeating my previous posts on plenary issues; it's been a long journey for me. You've responded to my posts mentioning courts and state executive offices vs election law and plenary powers previously.
You could be right. But they won’t be around next year.
That is where we are today, and if you think playing by objective rules while the other side ignores them is your ticket to power, you are sadly mistaken.
Yes, using the Left's own weapons against them is *NOT* currently a conservative stance. That is why we keep losing. Trump understood this, and that's why he won.
I think that had Hitler been forced to stay within his own borders, the war would have either started earlier, or not at all.
You can't grow food in a stone.
Your contempt for the Constitution is duly noted. So I see.
This is a good example of your deliberate intent to misunderstand something which is said to you. It is not the constitution which is contemptible, it is the liars telling us crap is in there when it is absolutely not.
Within your range of comprehension.
Generally beyond anyone's comprehension.
Some won't. But most will.
Within your range of comprehension.
Ain’t that the truth.
Another FRaud crapping all over everything.
He could have tried, but in the end it would have been forced upon him anyways. You see, there was no obvious evidence of widespread fraud getting Trump elected. What fraud there was appeared on the Hitlery side.
Pence didn't even object to the clear coup that occurred. He didn't even squeak like a mouse.
Please stop posting this nonsense.
Your position is nonsense, but yet you keep insisting on posting it. Why don't you apply your own advice to you?
Anyone who thinks the nation should roll over for fraud should not be heeded.
Watch them.
And no, I am not repeating my previous posts on plenary issues; it's been a long journey for me.
And for that small blessing please accept my profound thanks.
Fix election fraud and it might happen. It might have already happened but we didn't know it because of election fraud and lying "news" services.
It's what he excels at.
Or facts from your posts.
It is not the constitution which is contemptible, it is the liars telling us crap is in there when it is absolutely not.
I completely agree. Yet you continue to do so.
Stop trying to stuff words in other people's mouths. We simply disagree with you regarding what is a correct interpretation of constitutional intent. This is a far different thing than declaring case law as being more authoritative than the US Constitution.
Case law is inferior, but the constitution does not mean what you claim it means.
Anyone of mediocre or lesser intelligence.
You are too modest.
No, you can't grow facts from my posts because facts exist in objective reality, and do not spontaneously emerge from writing. Writing only recognizes facts, it does not create them.
I completely agree. Yet you continue to do so.
This is your faulty perception expressing itself once again.
Can you expand on this? I just read the Throckmorton ruling again, and I'm interested in your opinion of it.
If I'm reading it correctly, the Court discussed the notion of "fraud vitiates every thing" and its application to the case at hand (a land grant based on an allegedly fraudulently dated deed).
It sounds like the Court accepted the idea that if the people entrusted with process were simply negligent in recognizing a fraudulent document or testimony, that was not enough to later overturn a ruling by the court.
However, if the people in the positions of trust had a stake in the outcome where fraud was found to result in the desired outcome, or agents for one side sold out to the other side and compromised their obligations to the losing side, or where coverup of prior fraud was proven or perjured testimony was tried and convicted, then the Court would rule on the side of relief.
The case being discussed in Throckmorton was found to be the former scenario, but the logic of "fraud vitiates every thing" was clearly laid out in the decision.
So, what's you take on it?
Thanks,
-PJ
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.