But in 2000 Bush V Gore it was basically decided that the Legislature can tell the state popular vote to BTFO.
" The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."
I HIGHY recommend Pedes start familiarizing themselves with Bush V Gore...2 big takeaways:
" It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).""
Meaning if there is ballot fraud, you are losing your suffrage rights because your vote is being drowned out
Understanding that the Constiution says:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,... "
Meaning the state LEGISLATURE is ultimately responsible for picking electors. States have just written laws that a statewide popular vote decides. So another exert from Bush V Gore:
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.)."
Meaning a state legislature can tell the vote totals to get bent.
Which is why this whole DNC play could be optics for further character assasination.
They want to frame it currently as, "Trump wont concede."
Next step is to shit all over a conservative SC that will uphold the rule of law. They get away with this as normies blindly accept any bs the media hits em with.
Didn't Newsom in California do mandatory mainl-in voting via executive order? Wouldn't that mean all of the ballots in Cali that got sent out without being requested (actual legal absentee ballots) are null and void?
If a state wanted its citizens to have mail-in voting, they had to pass it legally, through the state legislature. If mail-in voting was done through the courts or executive order by the governor or any body NOT the state legislature, that was an unconstitutional act, and those votes are not valid.
I'm not a lawyer, that's just what my understanding of Mark Levin's take is (he is a constitutional lawyer).
Edit: I think "pass it legally" should have read "pass it Constitutionally". I think that is weightier.
Again though, that's IF the courts side with us. Any Justice on the SCOTUS that rules in our favor is going to have to face a lifetime of hatred and literal assassination attempts on them and their families. Lifetime of active Secret Service for them. Lifetime of not being able to go out to a restaurant and experience any normalcy...
Do you think all 5 of the conservative Justices are ready for that? Because if even one dissents, they win 5-4. It's high stakes right now, man. Not gonna panic until it's over, but it's dire right now.
If there's a time to invoke the constitution to up hold justice, this would be it.
Not only this...
But in 2000 Bush V Gore it was basically decided that the Legislature can tell the state popular vote to BTFO.
" The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).
The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/00-949
I HIGHY recommend Pedes start familiarizing themselves with Bush V Gore...2 big takeaways:
" It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964).""
Meaning if there is ballot fraud, you are losing your suffrage rights because your vote is being drowned out
Understanding that the Constiution says:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,... "
Meaning the state LEGISLATURE is ultimately responsible for picking electors. States have just written laws that a statewide popular vote decides. So another exert from Bush V Gore:
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.)."
Meaning a state legislature can tell the vote totals to get bent.
We have MANY avenues open to us here.
Wow
Civics is really fun
Which is why this whole DNC play could be optics for further character assasination.
They want to frame it currently as, "Trump wont concede."
Next step is to shit all over a conservative SC that will uphold the rule of law. They get away with this as normies blindly accept any bs the media hits em with.
Is this why POTUS was pushing for us to vote in person so hard??
Didn't Newsom in California do mandatory mainl-in voting via executive order? Wouldn't that mean all of the ballots in Cali that got sent out without being requested (actual legal absentee ballots) are null and void?
If a state wanted its citizens to have mail-in voting, they had to pass it legally, through the state legislature. If mail-in voting was done through the courts or executive order by the governor or any body NOT the state legislature, that was an unconstitutional act, and those votes are not valid.
I'm not a lawyer, that's just what my understanding of Mark Levin's take is (he is a constitutional lawyer).
Edit: I think "pass it legally" should have read "pass it Constitutionally". I think that is weightier.
Again though, that's IF the courts side with us. Any Justice on the SCOTUS that rules in our favor is going to have to face a lifetime of hatred and literal assassination attempts on them and their families. Lifetime of active Secret Service for them. Lifetime of not being able to go out to a restaurant and experience any normalcy...
Do you think all 5 of the conservative Justices are ready for that? Because if even one dissents, they win 5-4. It's high stakes right now, man. Not gonna panic until it's over, but it's dire right now.
This Levin guy knows some stuff. He should have his own show
:D
But, they are Democrats. I do interpret it this way also.
Interesting