Replies

Dr. Franklin wrote: “No, decisions by the courts that complaints were premature, parties had no standing to bring them, were estopped by laches, or became moot are not adjudications on the merits. Even if they were, nothing stops the state legislatures from reversing certifications and/or appointing different electors prior to the time they are counted.”

So, you believe we should throw out the Constitution when you can’t even pass the necessary hurdles to get a hearing on the merits?

So, you believe we should throw out the Constitution when you can’t even pass the necessary hurdles to get a hearing on the merits?

The Constitution clearly recognizes that VPOTUS receives and counts the electoral votes. Implicitly, he has the authority to delay that event due to unforeseen events, particularly if the constitutional bodies with the power to appoint the presidential electors, the state legislatures, request a delay. While the courts have claimed the power to interpret the Constitution, no where does that appear in that document. Andrew Jackson, most notably, disagreed with that opinion. When the courts, headed by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS refuse to hear cases and issue opinions about election fraud, and other illegalities, what moral authority do they have? Those who don't like VPOUTS's actions can try to take him to court. Assuming they are determined to have standing, such attempts will be dismissed as a violation of separation of powers. The courts have no authority to tell the President of the Senate how to do his job.