Posted on 12/08/2020 5:41:35 AM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
The State of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before midnight on Monday challenging the election procedures in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on the grounds that they violate the Constitution.
Texas argues that these states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures. Additionally, Texas argues that there were differences in voting rules and procedures in different counties within the states, violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Finally, Texas argues that there were “voting irregularities” in these states as a result of the above.
Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors. The lawsuit says:
Certain officials in the Defendant States presented the pandemic as the justification for ignoring state laws regarding absentee and mail-in voting. The Defendant States flooded their citizenry with tens of millions of ballot applications and ballots in derogation of statutory controls as to how they are lawfully received, evaluated, and counted. Whether well intentioned or not, these unconstitutional acts had the same uniform effect—they made the 2020 election less secure in the Defendant States. Those changes are inconsistent with relevant state laws and were made by non-legislative entities, without any consent by the state legislatures. The acts of these officials thus directly violated the Constitution.
"This case presents a question of law: Did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause by taking non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors? These non-legislative changes to the Defendant States’ election laws facilitated the casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law..."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Only there is no such Constitutional guarantee. You don’t even have a Constitutional right to cast a vote for the POTUS. The POTUS is elected by electors chosen by each state. The electors are chosen in a manner determined by the state legislature.
You certainly FPS have the right to vote for the electors in your state, but that’s because your state’s legislature determined that electors are to be chosen by popular vote, either as a statewide winner take all slate, or by each congressional district electing one elector (if you live in Maine or Nebraska). Your state could change that at any time and there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. If your state awards electors based on a coin flip, whether the daily high temperature in the capital on Election Day is an even or odd number, or any other way you can think of, it’s perfectly constitutional.
State legislatures have the sole power to determine how electors are to be chosen, which is the basis of this lawsuit — governors and state courts overrode the state legislatures method in the states being sued. That IS unconstitutional, but I’m not sure whether SCOTUS will have the stones to overturn the election results.
Rules don’t apply to Socialists apparently.
**************
THAT is the basic underlying issue. The election fraud is shining a very bright light on it. Its about time we fix the abuses.
If SCOTUS does nothing about it its tantamount to condoning it. Then the remedy is up to us.
“our people”? You mean the statists that hang an “R” on their lapel and think they can do whatever the hell they want? Even if it is in gross violation of our rights?
How?
Seriously?
Naa, I was just referring to our voters in Georgia - they’re not taking the the Kook-Aid being offered by Wood and Powell, at least by current polling.
If other red states would join this suit, SCOTUS in no way could avoid it......
IMHO, and I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV....
Here's my analogy:
In a local or state election, the voter would have the standing to challenge illegal, invalid, or unauthorized votes.
In the electoral college "election", the electors (and the states they represent) would have similar standing to challenge illegal, invalid, or unauthorized electors.
My first ?? also.
Seems true.
In that case however, case may have to wait until after states send electors.
And, IMNO, if multiple red states would join in suit, SCOTUS could in no way refuse the case.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Actually, if such an objection occurs (a member of each body needs to raise the objection), the joint session separates for two hours to debate and vote on the objection. The objection must be sustained individually by both the House and the Senate to result in the rejection of the EVs from that state.
I’m guessing that here isn’t a single honorable ‘Rat in the whole contingent, so the objections in the House will fail, anyway.
Great and interesting news...
Whoa, that’s good information that I—and I bet a LOT of other people— knew nothing about.
Thanks for posting it!
I'm only commenting on the reportage: Texas is asking the Supreme Court to order the states to allow their legislatures to appoint their electors
Ordering something be done and ordering something be allowed to be done aren't the same thing. Now, I didn't read through all the legalese of the case so maybe the reporter got it wrong. If someone has found the precise language of the ask from the suit, please post.
Yea...sorry. I get’cha. I don’t wanna be that guy.
All red states should join in this
Thank you. That was my thought, too, and it only makes sense.
The SC will hear this case and side with Texas.
Possibly, but the timing also disrupted safe harbor which is a good thing
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.