I can't say it much beyond what I know because that’d be speculation, but the generally held definition of the word certification is “a document attesting the truth of a fact or statement”. so it would seem that the certification process of the state is a formal testament by the board of canvassers, election board, some sort of election regulation body or authority stating in a binding manner “we do hereby attest to the truth of this election and its result”.
I think this is right because, of course when anybody says they're telling the truth but they were actually lying, you might seek out a legal remedy to challenge their character and their assertions of the truth if what have said caused damage to you. Essentially, it appears it can be boiled down to that the certification is a statement that is grounds for a legal challenge. I suppose that in another mirrored clown world, unlike the one we live in now, if there was a state where the president was a clear victor but that state refused to certify their election, in favor of that candidate (notwithstanding fraud in this hypothetical), then the claim would be the same but reversed.
IE “you gave this election to my opponent and there was arguable and probable wrongdoing in the election, so I challenge it as illegitimate” (Trump currently) might be legally pursued the same as the statement “This was a clearly fair election an I want it fair and square, yet you refuse to grant me the credit that I have rightfully won by virtue of this election. I challenge that you should certify this result because it is obvious your resistance is baseless.”
(The second reads differently if there is fraud in the scenario of course, as we're seeing now, but that seems to be the gist of it.)
Again, I'm still a law student and not yet a barred attorney at this time. I'm trying to learn, and I learn best by explaining topics to others best I can, and am corrected when necessary. If someone could do me that courtesy if needed, I'd appreciate it. Hope this helps out with understanding.
Here's my concern:
It's one thing to have an audit or even a recount to better understand where the election would have gone if it had been more legitimately counted. However, it is another thing entirely if the evidence is properly preserved and untampered with enough to prove that point when it comes time. What might be called “intentional spoliation” for instance.
This is why having the legislatures of the state possibly select the electors regardless of election results, as is the law an as was placed to abate this specific kind of voter fraud that is so widespread, can be potentially dangerous. Most people do not understand that the vote of the people can be overruled by a legislature under these circumstances, though these circumstances are specific in obviously quite rare. They may perceive, an I'm sure the media would encourage this interpretation, that the legislature is selecting electors against what they perceive as a legitimate election is in fact denying the will of the people. If the legislature does this in a particular state, that state’s citizens on the left will undoubtedly riot more so than they have ever done, at any time, in any city before. I could imagine it arising to CHOPx10 levels. We have to be very careful about how these people are 1) easily manipulated, 2) how easy it is to rile them up, and 3) how the msm WILL exploit both. We're walking a fine line here legally that is not necessarily intuitive to understand, and the people that would react violently to that are not interested in being explained to rationally. It’s kinda an optics thing.
I think this could be fixed, personally, by either the state legislatures or by the Supreme Court. However, in the former, we would see more widespread chaos of a far more dangerous variety, because it would be more immediate to their locations. In the latter that fire would be set, all at once around the country, but it will be slower to grow because the evidence wouldn't be in proximity to these rioters and they would instead have to read and think about what the ramifications are of the Supreme Court decision over a couple of days. At least, before they finally snap.
This is going to be a research experiment to end all research experiments in terms of sociopolitical science.
Just anything to not have a president threatening to pack the supreme court imo. That was the biggest threat to come from this I think. Is it constitutional even? Can trump do anything in his second to prevent this?
They were planning to riot even if trump won fairly, setting up minefields on the lawn of the Whitehouse lol. The conversation on trump and optics has long sailed, just deploy the national guard, let them rage on Twitter and be done with it.
Well said. I believe that the left will think it was stolen from them either way. They already believe that the Supreme Court Justices are shills for Trump (Thanks to MSM) and the Legislature making the decision with be too complicated for many to understand.
We have to remember, most on the left don’t believe there is ANY path to victory for Trump, and all this legal wrangling is just a temper tantrum by the President... (also due to MSM reporting)
Can you explain what is being certified when there a acknowledged legal problems with the vote? Is it just, "Yep. We counted what we saw." ?
I can't say it much beyond what I know because that’d be speculation, but the generally held definition of the word certification is “a document attesting the truth of a fact or statement”. so it would seem that the certification process of the state is a formal testament by the board of canvassers, election board, some sort of election regulation body or authority stating in a binding manner “we do hereby attest to the truth of this election and its result”.
I think this is right because, of course when anybody says they're telling the truth but they were actually lying, you might seek out a legal remedy to challenge their character and their assertions of the truth if what have said caused damage to you. Essentially, it appears it can be boiled down to that the certification is a statement that is grounds for a legal challenge. I suppose that in another mirrored clown world, unlike the one we live in now, if there was a state where the president was a clear victor but that state refused to certify their election, in favor of that candidate (notwithstanding fraud in this hypothetical), then the claim would be the same but reversed.
IE “you gave this election to my opponent and there was arguable and probable wrongdoing in the election, so I challenge it as illegitimate” (Trump currently) might be legally pursued the same as the statement “This was a clearly fair election an I want it fair and square, yet you refuse to grant me the credit that I have rightfully won by virtue of this election. I challenge that you should certify this result because it is obvious your resistance is baseless.” (The second reads differently if there is fraud in the scenario of course, as we're seeing now, but that seems to be the gist of it.)
Again, I'm still a law student and not yet a barred attorney at this time. I'm trying to learn, and I learn best by explaining topics to others best I can, and am corrected when necessary. If someone could do me that courtesy if needed, I'd appreciate it. Hope this helps out with understanding.
So we will be likely granted an audit
But fuck dude, are we going to make it on time? I don't want this to go to a house vote, God knows how many more RINOs lurk
Here's my concern: It's one thing to have an audit or even a recount to better understand where the election would have gone if it had been more legitimately counted. However, it is another thing entirely if the evidence is properly preserved and untampered with enough to prove that point when it comes time. What might be called “intentional spoliation” for instance.
This is why having the legislatures of the state possibly select the electors regardless of election results, as is the law an as was placed to abate this specific kind of voter fraud that is so widespread, can be potentially dangerous. Most people do not understand that the vote of the people can be overruled by a legislature under these circumstances, though these circumstances are specific in obviously quite rare. They may perceive, an I'm sure the media would encourage this interpretation, that the legislature is selecting electors against what they perceive as a legitimate election is in fact denying the will of the people. If the legislature does this in a particular state, that state’s citizens on the left will undoubtedly riot more so than they have ever done, at any time, in any city before. I could imagine it arising to CHOPx10 levels. We have to be very careful about how these people are 1) easily manipulated, 2) how easy it is to rile them up, and 3) how the msm WILL exploit both. We're walking a fine line here legally that is not necessarily intuitive to understand, and the people that would react violently to that are not interested in being explained to rationally. It’s kinda an optics thing. I think this could be fixed, personally, by either the state legislatures or by the Supreme Court. However, in the former, we would see more widespread chaos of a far more dangerous variety, because it would be more immediate to their locations. In the latter that fire would be set, all at once around the country, but it will be slower to grow because the evidence wouldn't be in proximity to these rioters and they would instead have to read and think about what the ramifications are of the Supreme Court decision over a couple of days. At least, before they finally snap. This is going to be a research experiment to end all research experiments in terms of sociopolitical science.
Just anything to not have a president threatening to pack the supreme court imo. That was the biggest threat to come from this I think. Is it constitutional even? Can trump do anything in his second to prevent this?
They were planning to riot even if trump won fairly, setting up minefields on the lawn of the Whitehouse lol. The conversation on trump and optics has long sailed, just deploy the national guard, let them rage on Twitter and be done with it.
**Just found this place!!! First post...
Well said. I believe that the left will think it was stolen from them either way. They already believe that the Supreme Court Justices are shills for Trump (Thanks to MSM) and the Legislature making the decision with be too complicated for many to understand.
We have to remember, most on the left don’t believe there is ANY path to victory for Trump, and all this legal wrangling is just a temper tantrum by the President... (also due to MSM reporting)
Should be interesting...