Posted on 11/29/2020 12:38:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
“””The Constitutional issue is that the PA court and Gov Wolfe changed their election laws...not the PA legislature as required.”””
Not exactly correct. The PA Constitution explicitly states the requirements for absentee ballots.
To amend the PA Constitution the Legislature must pass the Amendment twice and then the voters get the final say by voting on the Amendment proposed by the Legislature.
RE: I don’t expect the Pennsylvania Legislature to remedy the problem. The PA Republican Controlled Legislature created the ACT 77 knowing it violated the PA Constitution
I think with this, all avenues for a Trump overturn of this sham election are closing. What can 73 million Americans who do not accept the result of the election do come 2021? we can’t refuse to pay taxes...
Will never happen.
We win by losing, right?
I don’t know how a country with both legislature and executive branches controlled by Democrats with lots of RINO’s give us any kind of “win”.
Will packing the Supreme Court, giving amnesty to millions of illegals, dismantling the wall, providing free Healthcare to illegals, and giving statehood to DC and Puerto Rico thus adding 4 more liberal Senators give us any win?
right
Yeah, I don’t get it but I’ve seen it before. Supposed conservatives seem to crave the approval of those who aren’t worthy to be pissed on by Clarence Thomas.
I’d do the right thing, and if there’s any wobblers, I’d vote against those types with an air of “How do you like me now, bitches?”
I am sorry to bear bad news. But here is my honest assessment after reading the PA Supreme Court decision:
1- The Supreme Court decision is based purely on a question of state law, and the doctrine of “latches” which is basically, undue and prejudicial delay.
2- The decision was unanimous, with Republicans siding with Democrats.
3- As I have said elsewhere, this whole show was extremely poorly managed. DJT was warning us, months ago, about the problem with universal mail-in ballots.
4- The PA Supreme Court pointed out that the universal mail-in ballot law, which may or may not violate PA Constitution, was enacted a year ago, and to challenge it now, after millions of people used it to vote “in good faith” is undue delay.
5- As I have said elsewhere, I do not see how the SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear this. This is PA Supreme Court, interpreting PA state law on the doctrine of latches. There is no Federal question for SCOTUS to review.
Sorry to be bearer of bad news.
What about PA law that explicitly states that all mail-in ballots must be received by 8 pm, November 3 and any ballots received AFTER that legislated deadline cannot be counted?
That is explicitly stated in PA LAW and the United States Constitution also says that election law is established by the STATE LEGISLATURES!
The PA courts cannot over ride what is explicitly stated in the law. Only the legislature can change the law.
Yes, but that is a different issue.
The issue that went before the PA Supreme Court was: Did the PA State legislature (Republicans, mind you) violate PA Constitution by allowing universal mail-in ballots?
That is clearly a question of PA law, and not subject to review by any Federal court.
The point you raise is different: Did the PA Supreme Court’s decision allowing counting of late ballots violate US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states that state LEGISLATIVE branch, (not JUDICIAL branch) chooses electors?
This last question was not before the PA Supreme Court. It does, however, raise a non-frivolous Constitutional question. My understanding is that it is pending in a Federal Court somewhere, and can ultimately be reviewed by the SCOTUS. It is also my understanding that there was fewer than 5,000 late arriving ballots, so not enough to swing the PA election.
BTW, although this does raise a non-frivolous Constitutional question, there is a critical concept in Federal judiciary: if a question is moot, Federal courts must abstain. Reason? Federal courts can only adjudicate an actual dispute. If there is no case or controversy, then a Federal adjudication is basically legislating from the bench, which violates the separation of powers.
“ To amend the PA Constitution the Legislature must pass the Amendment twice and then the voters get the final say by voting on the Amendment proposed by the Legislature.”
My point is that the way it was done, via PA SC & Wolf was NOT correct nor Constitutional.
This is a constitutional crises requiting a constitutional solution which is codified in Art II.
USC Art II passed in 1789.
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.