cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
IH3719492
Senior Contributor

Re: Improvement? Not much, evidence that's already been thrown once isn't evidence.

https://youtu.be/keANzinHWUA?t=428

What's going on here? 

 

Think this is the only place with CCTV cameras around the nation?

😂😂😂

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Improvement? Not much, evidence that's already been thrown once isn't evidence.

Joe Stinky Fingers Biden and The mattress Heels Up the Ho Harris was not elected by the American voters. They were elected by the vote counters.

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Improvement? Not much, evidence that's already been thrown once isn't evidence.

You’ll need a lot of the right players in on it:

Any state’s legislature could, theoretically, pass a law setting out a new method for designating presidential electors other than popular vote. However, they would have enact such a law prior to Election Day; they could not retroactively change, or just disregard, their current laws to defy the will of voters. State election laws and regulations must be established and in place prior to Election Day — they cannot be improvised or instituted on an ad hoc basis after the fact. Otherwise, every presidential election would descend into chaos, with state legislatures controlled by one party refusing to appoint electors pledged to the other party’s candidate, as the Lawfare blog observed:

The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected — meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may be again on the rise.

But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but are instead bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures — at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.

That said, the law is only relevant to the extent that is it enforceable. If Republican-dominated legislatures were determined to find excuses for ignoring their states’ election results, a Republican-controlled Senate were willing to facilitate the scheme, and a conservative judiciary were compliant in upholding the results, then such a plot might indeed succeed

IH3719492
Senior Contributor

Re: Improvement? Not much, evidence that's already been thrown once isn't evidence.


@r3020 wrote:

Joe Stinky Fingers Biden and The mattress Heels Up the Ho Harris was not elected by the American voters. They were elected by the vote counters.


And China.  Which ups the ante for their "collusion".

IH3719492
Senior Contributor

Re: Improvement? Not much, evidence that's already been thrown once isn't evidence.


@bruce MN wrote:

You’ll need a lot of the right players in on it:

Any state’s legislature could, theoretically, pass a law setting out a new method for designating presidential electors other than popular vote. However, they would have enact such a law prior to Election Day; they could not retroactively change, or just disregard, their current laws to defy the will of voters. State election laws and regulations must be established and in place prior to Election Day — they cannot be improvised or instituted on an ad hoc basis after the fact. Otherwise, every presidential election would descend into chaos, with state legislatures controlled by one party refusing to appoint electors pledged to the other party’s candidate, as the Lawfare blog observed:

The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected — meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may be again on the rise.

But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but are instead bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures — at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.

That said, the law is only relevant to the extent that is it enforceable. If Republican-dominated legislatures were determined to find excuses for ignoring their states’ election results, a Republican-controlled Senate were willing to facilitate the scheme, and a conservative judiciary were compliant in upholding the results, then such a plot might indeed succeed


Blah, blah, blah.... even CNN knows you're full of BS Brucie.   As I said, they were already prepping the lost souls for what is coming,   but it is NOT the only way. 

 

This will drag out and drag out.  All the while, the people get educated on all the tricks.  By the end, even the lost souls of the socialists will be demanding real vote reform.  

 

That's a lovely "boot" Biden's sporting.... 😂.    Looks a lot like the one McCain wore before he died....🇺🇸

Sure was peculiar watching a man die of a brain tumor without any neurological symptoms... 😂😂😂

bruce MN
Advisor

You are likely finally right about something

This will drag out.

Cohen, Niece Mary and anybody else with a long close history with David Dennison have assured everyone of that.

 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: You are likely finally right about something

Lawfare is probably a big player in this fraud. They certainly were in russia spygate. What a bunch of liars.

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: You are likely finally right about something

What brought up some blog for you here?

I just looked there and they don’t have any entries re what’s being discussed here. 

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: You are likely finally right about something


@bruce MN wrote:

What brought up some blog for you here?

I just looked there and they don’t have any entries re what’s being discussed here. 


 

@bruce MN wrote:

You’ll need a lot of the right players in on it:

Any state’s legislature could, theoretically, pass a law setting out a new method for designating presidential electors other than popular vote. However, they would have enact such a law prior to Election Day; they could not retroactively change, or just disregard, their current laws to defy the will of voters. State election laws and regulations must be established and in place prior to Election Day — they cannot be improvised or instituted on an ad hoc basis after the fact. Otherwise, every presidential election would descend into chaos, with state legislatures controlled by one party refusing to appoint electors pledged to the other party’s candidate, as the Lawfare blog observed:

sdholloway56
Senior Advisor

Re: You are likely finally right about something

Lol. Turdy is still pretending that Dennison isn’t completely compromised by Putin.