Skip to comments.
TX Lt. Governor Dan Patrick: ‘Maybe We Should Take Joe Biden off the Ballot in Texas for Allowing 8 Million People to Cross the Border’ (VIDEO)
The Gateway Pundit ^
| November 21, 2023
| Mike LaChance
Posted on 12/20/2023 9:59:17 PM PST by Dr. Franklin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
To: All
maybe??
21
posted on
12/21/2023 6:03:15 AM PST
by
SteveH
To: nickcarraway
So, Patrick wants to legitimize what Colorado did? Why doesn’t he just become a Democrat?
Some people can’t recognize sarcasm !! He knows this is unconstitutional and will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
22
posted on
12/21/2023 6:15:34 AM PST
by
DrHFrog
To: DrHFrog
Some people can’t recognize sarcasm !! He knows this is unconstitutional and will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
How is it unconstitutional for the state legislature to put conditions on presidential electors? It's a plenary power under Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 2, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." Since the legislature can require that those electors be pledged to a candidate, it may also set conditions for any such election, if such an election occurs at all. That is so because there need not be a general election to elect electors. The legislature may appoint them itself as its plenary power. This is what the Florida legislature was planning to do if Bush didn't win Bush v. Gore at SCOTUS. What is unconstitutional if for a court to decide conditions for presidential electors absent any legislation from the state legislature.
23
posted on
12/21/2023 6:48:08 AM PST
by
Dr. Franklin
("A republic, if you can keep it." )
To: Dr. Franklin
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the LEGISLATURE thereof may direct
Given your argument that the state can regulate the appointment of electors, this action is not constitutional as it was the judiciary not the legislature of Colorado who enacted this ruling. Additionally it had nothing to do with the electors of Colorado, as it was applied to the Republican Party primary, a primary that has nothing to do with electors. “We conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the court’s majority wrote.”
The Republican Party in Colorado does not need to have a primary to determine their candidate - they simply hold a caucus and nominate Trump (assuming he wins the caucus). The Court would then likely move to exclude him from the General Election Ballot and it would be back to the Supreme Court.
I do not see the Supreme Court letting this stand - we shall see soon enough.
24
posted on
12/21/2023 12:22:31 PM PST
by
DrHFrog
To: Bullish
How about they take all Democrats off the ballot for all offices? Let them play defense for a change.
25
posted on
12/21/2023 5:06:17 PM PST
by
Tymesup
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-25 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson