Posted by
Message
1BIGTigerFan
LSU Fan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
41009 posts

If the Pennsylvania SOS said they weren't counting any white votes from the election?

Then went ahead and certified that result and sent those EC votes to congress. Does Pence have to include those delegates?

The answer is no, because it would be a violation of the constitution. So for all you leftist and rinos saying he had no choice, that is just patently false.

Pennsylvania's SOS and courts made changes and violated the Constitution. So why would it matter in what form the Constitution was violated for the VP to discard those votes and send it back to the legislatures to clarify? It wouldn't, so stop saying he had no choice but to certify the votes.


CheEngineer
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2019
4234 posts

Yes multiple states violated their state constitution and voting laws but nothing was done so I hear by summon Judge Dredd to resolve all these issues.



Replies (0)
Replies (0)
181
LightHeat
Member since Oct 2020
281 posts

quote:

Pennsylvania's SOS and courts made changes and violated the Constitution. So why would it matter in what form the Constitution was violated for the VP to discard those votes and send it back to the legislatures to clarify? It wouldn't, so stop saying he had no choice but to certify the votes.


What were the changes that violated the Constitution (do you mean the US Constitution or the Constitution of Pennsylvania)?
This post was edited on 1/10 at 1:10 pm


TheFolker
Kentucky Fan
Member since Aug 2011
5030 posts

By violating the Pennsylvania constitution they violated the US constitution.
This post was edited on 1/10 at 1:14 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
295
1BIGTigerFan
LSU Fan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
41009 posts

The US Constitution.


LightHeat
Member since Oct 2020
281 posts

quote:

The US Constitution.


What was the violation?


1BIGTigerFan
LSU Fan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
41009 posts

It says only state legislatures have that authority.


LightHeat
Member since Oct 2020
281 posts

(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10 at 1:43 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
LightHeat
Member since Oct 2020
281 posts

quote:

It says only state legislatures have that authority.


That’s plausible to me, but not clearly right. And it does seem like the Trump campaign would have a laches problem. Do you know what happened at the Supreme Court when this argument was made specifically for Pennsylvania (I don’t)?



Auburn1968
Auburn Fan
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
12338 posts

The dems on the PA Supreme Court eliminated the signature check and extended the time mail-in ballots could come in by three days.

The rejection rate for mail-ins dropped to virtually nil and that alone accounted for over 80k votes that would have been rejected under normal rules based on previous election rates .

The dem PA SC turned mail-in voting into a cattle call for fraud.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
150
1BIGTigerFan
LSU Fan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
41009 posts

They wouldn't hear it. And neither would the SC. So nothing was solved and you have 75 million voters that feel disenfranchised.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
150
1BIGTigerFan
LSU Fan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
41009 posts

quote:

not clearly right.

It's what it says.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
10
Volvagia
LSU Fan
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
50710 posts

quote:

The answer is no, because it would be a violation of the constitution. So for all you leftist and rinos saying he had no choice, that is just patently false.


This lie needs to stop, because literally the only basis for it is “because I read it on social media and would like it that way.”

Here is the Constitution on the matter:

quote:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.


At no point is It suggested that the VP can chose which ones to open. He is explicitly directed to open all votes that have been certified by the states. Stating otherwise is what is “patently false.”

There is a mechanism to overturn a state at the federal level, but the VP doesn’t unilaterally posses that authority. He can’t even evoke it. The trigger is elsewhere.


So GTFU with not only your refusal to educate yourself on even the basics about a document you claim to hold dear, but your degenerative attacks on anyone who doesn’t automatically accept your daydreaming “alternative facts” as truth.
This post was edited on 1/10 at 2:16 pm


BuckeyeFan87
Ohio State Fan
Columbus
Member since Dec 2007
25219 posts



Replies (0)
Replies (0)
10
Obtuse1
Wofford Fan
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
18981 posts
 Online 

quote:

The US Constitution.



First, quote the passage and second what action was taken outside if the legislature in PA.


Meauxjeaux
Memphis Fan
98721 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
35230 posts
 Online 

quote:

What were the changes that violated the Constitution


All of them if they weren’t enacted by the state legislators.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
32
ruzil
Southeastern LA Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2012
15986 posts

quote:

they weren't counting any white votes from the election?



Your example would have far greater effect if they weren't counting POC and lgbt votes.


Bulldogblitz
Mississippi St. Fan
In my house
Member since Dec 2018
24147 posts

quote:

they weren't counting POC and lgbt votes.


Why would those two groups be voting at all, the dems suggest they are too dumb to get an id.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
30
LightHeat
Member since Oct 2020
281 posts

It's Article II, Section 1:

quote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.


Here's what I mean when I say it's not clear to me: the text says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". In Pennsylvania, the Legislature passed election laws that were presented to and signed by the Governor. The laws do not dictate everything (for example, the location of polling places, the equipment used, etc.), nor could they. When the law is silent, and the SOS takes some action, 99% of the time it's fine. So it would seem to me that the US Supreme Court would not find a violation of the federal constitution unless the SOS does something that contradicts Pennsylvania law. Otherwise elections would be completely unworkable.

So what did the SOS do that contradicts Pennsylvania law?
This post was edited on 1/10 at 2:36 pm


Obtuse1
Wofford Fan
Westside Bodymore Yo
Member since Sep 2016
18981 posts
 Online 

quote:

Here's what I mean when I say it's not clear to me: the text says "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".


You are half way to the point I was planning to make. Via the US Constitution the state's legislature is responsible for directing the manner of the election, but no legislatures goes to the point of mandating every granular part of an election. It is essentially delegating portions of the process. The key thing is they have oversight and if the governor, SOS or the election commission do something they don't like they can step in and mandate it be done in a different manner if they don't they are giving tacit approval to the method outlined by another body given part of the responsibility of holding the election. Just like a CEO of a company doesn't mandate every granular process of employees but if they see something they don't like they can change it. Lots of people think only the swing states had non-legislative changes in the election process however this is fairly common even in non-COVID years and very common last year. The governor of Texas extended the early voting unilaterally but no one is complaining about that, the TX legislature was aware of the changes and could have easily mandated the extension not happen, they did not, giving tacit approval and the extension occurred. Outside of an 11th-hour change (that timing would be up for debate), the legislature had an opportunity to step in. The courts are always likely to see this as a laches issue if the legislature had time to act and did not.


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram