The constitution delegates the power to select electors to the state legislatures (which would include the voting process for that state). The PA legislature never approved the expanded mail-in voting that PA used for this election
The PA legislature did approve of it, but the law they passed was unconstitutional because the PA Constitution gives specific requirements for mail-in ballots.
theres 2 things re Act 77 that expanded mail-in ballots in PA from what I gather when listening to Bannon discussing this with Sean Parnell (the other plaintiff in this case):
The law (Act77) was passed with the goal of expanding the use of mail-in ballots but is unconstitutional because of specific requirements in the PA Constitution that are needed in order to change the conditions of use of mail-in ballots as the law was intent in doing.
After the law was passed, the PA governor and election officials went in just before the election and amended the law by going to the PA supreme court and basically took out safeguards put in the law (Act77) itself for accepting mail-in ballots. They went to the partisan PA supreme court and did not go through the legislature to do it. And that is also unconstitutional.
for both violation 1) and 2), SCOTUS can accept to hear the case. But especially in violation 2) as that is basic constitutional law 101 that affects every state : only the legislative branch can enact and amend laws, not the executive or judiciary branch as it has been done in PA.
That is my understanding of the situation . If I am wrong somewhere, dont hesitate to correct me.
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
Also, it's worth noting that the legislature had given the authority over voting in PA to the Secretary of State. They are in the process of rescinding this.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
But SCOTUS cannot hear a case based on the PA constitution. The PA Supreme Court is cucked.
Edit: I see a lot of people getting butthurt about this response. The US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not a PA law violates the PA constitution. There are other, ongoing cases regarding the Constitutional validity of the voting deadline changes (among other things), that Trump will almost certainly win.
They'd review if the provision violated federal constitutional provisions, like the 13 Amendment. They won't review if a state law violates a state constitution.
We literally had laws like that for decades in the U.S. and it was legal depending on state. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that freed slaves that were brought from slave states into states that prohibited slavery. It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution, and the 14th amendment to affirm that citizens have the same rights no matter what state they're in. But the 14th Amendment didn't give the federal government supremacy over the states in all matters.
One of the strengths of the U.S. is giving strong preference to local governance versus having all power centralized in Washington, D.C. (the swamp), I hate seeing people here in addition to the left asking for more central government.
Edit: Nevermind, this reply was in regards to the treatment of observers. The SCOTUS can probably hear this case on the basis on how Federal law allows the election of Federal elected officials.
PA cannot add any laws that would violate the Federal Constitution or Federal law. That's Supremacy Clause. (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
In this theoretical scenario, legalizing slavery is in contradiction to the Constitution, and includes Federal charges, they can still be charged under Federal laws and go to jail in a Federal jail, no matter what the law is in PA or under the PA constitution.
The only law that I'm aware of regarding observers of State Elections are part of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Federal observers in certain States and Counties.
It's clear that the PA election officials only adhered to the letter of the law, and not the spirit in regards to observers. Since it is politically advantageous of the PA Supreme Court to tell the GOP observers to get fucked, they did.
The whole reason why we have observers is to make sure there isn't any shitty behavior by election officials. Cheating in some fashion has been going on in this country for centuries by different political machines, where observers help prevent it. Cheating happened in 2020, that's why they kicked out the observers.
Be outraged over this.
Put in on your wishlist for a Federal Law to be put in place rights for observers. Hopefully for a Voting Rights Act of 2021 or 2023.
And it can also come back and bite them in the ass regarding SCOTUS cases regarding the fraud in this election, and be used as a reason for the PA legislature to send no electors, or electors for Trump.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
Agreed, also these aren't state elections they are federal elections that are impacted (Presidential, house of representatives) so that also provides standing.
Those cases are probably based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. I guess the GOP could argue that this constitutional amendment violates the rights of legal voters and is also a violation of equal protection under the law. I wonder if it'll be successful.
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
Fuck any SCOTUS justice if they rule against us or if they punt it back to state courts. Also, if they punt it back while they all 9 claim to be "anonymous" and don't make themselves known publically because they are too chickenshit then fuck all the conservative justices.
No it doesn’t. Idk why this low level shit is getting passed around so much. The state appoints electors, not the legislature, the legislature gets to choose the manner in which that happens. They chose to do it by popular vote and they had to direct that manner by nov 3, the date congress set for the election. Legislature does not get to change it after the fact, at least not untill unless scotus rules on the constitutional clauses stoping them.
The Legislature can decide the electors at the last minute if it so chooses and can absolutely go against popular vote. One good cause would be the discovery of massive fraud, but a more likely cause would be the discovery that the winning candidate was unfit for office (such as having secretly been born outside the U.S. or only being 30 years old).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
Edit: sorry, my first sentence comes off as too combative. It should say, “we need them to introduce the proof of fraud in court, so the legislature can act on it.” I didn’t mean to dismiss the fraud that has been proven, just meant to say it is harder to act on when it hasn’t been demonstrated in court. I’m leaving original below.
But someone has to prove fraud somewhere that isn’t a YouTube video or Twitter thread so the legislature has something to act on.
I’m so pissed at these lawyers because they aren’t even trying. Look at the PA SC dismissal today. It says there was a failure to allege any fraud, then goes on to note that is exactly what Rudy did last week.
No one is talking about fraud in the courts! Of course the act of invalidating millions of ballots is going to be an extreme remedy if they were all cast according to the process as laid out. I’d be fucking pissed if I followed the rules and my ballot was thrown out because someone else decided they didn’t like the rules.
If they would enter evidence of fraud, the solution of invalidating votes is much easier to arrive at.
The secretary of state changed the voting rules without legislative approval, which is illegal under the constitution because the legislature did not give the sos the power to do that
2 things when a court wants to allow unconstitutional laws. Many times courts rule that because an action on law hasn’t occurred then there is no basis for a hearing. Then if the action has occurred they say you should have asked prior to the unconstitutional act. Cant win. The court can have it both ways.
That's not how it works, the PA Constitution would have to have been amended according to the processes set forth for amendment by the PA Constitution. The government CAN NOT violate it and their Supreme Court isn't a body intended to enable exceptions or circumventions of the Constitution, but to enforce it dutifully.
This decision completely ignores the obvious violation of the PA Constitution - the justices even played themselves when they complained that the suit didn't make any claims of fraud... you know why it didn't? Because it's not a requirement... the law is unconstitutional and that's all there should be to it.
The remedy need not be the total invalidation of the vote, but this court viewed that as the only logical outcome - but giving the State an opportunity to re-vote, in person, is beyond the capacity of these people.
Legislature the other day said that that never went through them - Governor signed it immediately upon it hitting his desk. Then said any challenge would be immediately veto'd
Why did they try so hard to push this through without the legislature. very interesting.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
The constitution delegates the power to select electors to the state legislatures (which would include the voting process for that state). The PA legislature never approved the expanded mail-in voting that PA used for this election
The PA legislature did approve of it, but the law they passed was unconstitutional because the PA Constitution gives specific requirements for mail-in ballots.
theres 2 things re Act 77 that expanded mail-in ballots in PA from what I gather when listening to Bannon discussing this with Sean Parnell (the other plaintiff in this case):
The law (Act77) was passed with the goal of expanding the use of mail-in ballots but is unconstitutional because of specific requirements in the PA Constitution that are needed in order to change the conditions of use of mail-in ballots as the law was intent in doing.
After the law was passed, the PA governor and election officials went in just before the election and amended the law by going to the PA supreme court and basically took out safeguards put in the law (Act77) itself for accepting mail-in ballots. They went to the partisan PA supreme court and did not go through the legislature to do it. And that is also unconstitutional.
for both violation 1) and 2), SCOTUS can accept to hear the case. But especially in violation 2) as that is basic constitutional law 101 that affects every state : only the legislative branch can enact and amend laws, not the executive or judiciary branch as it has been done in PA.
That is my understanding of the situation . If I am wrong somewhere, dont hesitate to correct me.
Oh shit, a WoW reference!
Shadowland is out. We should all band together and form a MAGA guild!
Best concise explanation of the situation. I have only been researching legal concepts for a little over a year, and it is amazing how easy it is to poison the well of information because of how complex and often convoluted the whole thing can be.
The people need this kind of no nonsense breakdown in order to not be swayed by manufactured opinions.
Half the time it seems like the activists in the Judiciary dont grasp the underlying concepts.
Seems like a good time to get into constitutional law practice. Obviously job opportunities in that field are not being filled by our best and brightest for the most part. (Obvious exceptions being Amy Coney Barret, Linn Wood, Sydney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Rudy Giuliani.)
So the more complicated. The suit is, the easier it is to find judgement against it. In other words KISS.
Mods, give this man a "Constitutional Scholar" flair
Is this the case in which several states' attorneys general filed amicus briefs? Seems like there's a lot of support.
This POS says this is an "effort to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters." UNLESS YOU AUDIT THE VOTE IN THE FACE OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, YOU HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IS!
yes I think that point 2) is where other states joined in because a SCOTUS decision on that point would affect them as well.
Also, it's worth noting that the legislature had given the authority over voting in PA to the Secretary of State. They are in the process of rescinding this.
I know people are hopeful for this, but the House leadership has expressed no intention of holding a session to even hold a vote for it.
Justice David N. Wecht wrote: “Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.”
Let this prick know that in the face of all this evidence of fraud, the will of the voters is NOT clear! You can send them your feedback here:
http://www.pacourts.us/comments-and-inquiries
The state legislature gave away their responsibility to the state executive. Separation of powers? Apparently not.
Isn’t this akin to the line item veto? One branch cannot give up their Constitutional duty to another branch, which is why Congress couldn’t give their budgetary authority to the President.
Welcome to the root of Michigan's fuckery
So your telling me Pa republicans passed a stupid law then
"We don't wanna do it. You do it."
Sincerely
-Please vote for me again.
Also pay me more next time while I do even less.
Yes.
Yes, which leaves this lawsuit in the incredibly bizarre position of the plaintiffs suing to argue that their own actions were unconstitutional. The judge didn't seem too impressed.
But SCOTUS cannot hear a case based on the PA constitution. The PA Supreme Court is cucked.
Edit: I see a lot of people getting butthurt about this response. The US Supreme Court cannot rule on whether or not a PA law violates the PA constitution. There are other, ongoing cases regarding the Constitutional validity of the voting deadline changes (among other things), that Trump will almost certainly win.
They'd review if the provision violated federal constitutional provisions, like the 13 Amendment. They won't review if a state law violates a state constitution.
We literally had laws like that for decades in the U.S. and it was legal depending on state. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that freed slaves that were brought from slave states into states that prohibited slavery. It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution, and the 14th amendment to affirm that citizens have the same rights no matter what state they're in. But the 14th Amendment didn't give the federal government supremacy over the states in all matters.
One of the strengths of the U.S. is giving strong preference to local governance versus having all power centralized in Washington, D.C. (the swamp), I hate seeing people here in addition to the left asking for more central government.
Edit: Nevermind, this reply was in regards to the treatment of observers. The SCOTUS can probably hear this case on the basis on how Federal law allows the election of Federal elected officials.
PA cannot add any laws that would violate the Federal Constitution or Federal law. That's Supremacy Clause. (Article VI, Paragraph 2).
In this theoretical scenario, legalizing slavery is in contradiction to the Constitution, and includes Federal charges, they can still be charged under Federal laws and go to jail in a Federal jail, no matter what the law is in PA or under the PA constitution.
The only law that I'm aware of regarding observers of State Elections are part of the Voting Rights Act, which permits Federal observers in certain States and Counties.
It's clear that the PA election officials only adhered to the letter of the law, and not the spirit in regards to observers. Since it is politically advantageous of the PA Supreme Court to tell the GOP observers to get fucked, they did.
The whole reason why we have observers is to make sure there isn't any shitty behavior by election officials. Cheating in some fashion has been going on in this country for centuries by different political machines, where observers help prevent it. Cheating happened in 2020, that's why they kicked out the observers.
Be outraged over this.
Put in on your wishlist for a Federal Law to be put in place rights for observers. Hopefully for a Voting Rights Act of 2021 or 2023.
And it can also come back and bite them in the ass regarding SCOTUS cases regarding the fraud in this election, and be used as a reason for the PA legislature to send no electors, or electors for Trump.
Yes they can.
SCOTUS can definitely hear state constitution issues if it believes other states or the federal Constitition is affected. In fact SCOTUS has overruled state constitutions that criminalized homosexuality because it violated federal law.
The legislature could argue that the governor changed the rules they agreed to.
Agreed, also these aren't state elections they are federal elections that are impacted (Presidential, house of representatives) so that also provides standing.
Those cases are probably based on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. I guess the GOP could argue that this constitutional amendment violates the rights of legal voters and is also a violation of equal protection under the law. I wonder if it'll be successful.
I OBJECT, to your username, on grounds of personal jealousy. Do you Pede guilty?
I upvoted you because I think you should be able to ask about what you did, but I believe the SC could theoretically hear the case on the basis on the US public being impacted by the results in PA, thus making it a federal issue.
Fuck any SCOTUS justice if they rule against us or if they punt it back to state courts. Also, if they punt it back while they all 9 claim to be "anonymous" and don't make themselves known publically because they are too chickenshit then fuck all the conservative justices.
I think you might be retarded. Nothing you said was in any way connected to what you replied to.
Anaconda is always saying that shit
His posting history has been completely erratic since the election. Seems normal enough before then. I wonder if he's been hacked?
Shh these are top tier trolls. The Elite shitposters of .win. Just watch.
Plot twist: Neither are wrong
It’s a copy pasta as low effort as it is
LOL. I thought you were Anaconda’s alt account.
So many mysteries to solve. Better get AG Barr on it....Now wait for it...Phuckt.
No it doesn’t. Idk why this low level shit is getting passed around so much. The state appoints electors, not the legislature, the legislature gets to choose the manner in which that happens. They chose to do it by popular vote and they had to direct that manner by nov 3, the date congress set for the election. Legislature does not get to change it after the fact, at least not untill unless scotus rules on the constitutional clauses stoping them.
The Legislature can decide the electors at the last minute if it so chooses and can absolutely go against popular vote. One good cause would be the discovery of massive fraud, but a more likely cause would be the discovery that the winning candidate was unfit for office (such as having secretly been born outside the U.S. or only being 30 years old).
Well, technically Trump got the popular vote, since a large margin of the Biden votes were fraudulent.
They claim they don't want to rule against the will of the people, but by refusing to appoint Trump electors, they are doing EXACTLY what they claim to be against...
That claim has to first be proven - or, in the very least, the judge(s) must believe it.
Edit: sorry, my first sentence comes off as too combative. It should say, “we need them to introduce the proof of fraud in court, so the legislature can act on it.” I didn’t mean to dismiss the fraud that has been proven, just meant to say it is harder to act on when it hasn’t been demonstrated in court. I’m leaving original below.
But someone has to prove fraud somewhere that isn’t a YouTube video or Twitter thread so the legislature has something to act on.
I’m so pissed at these lawyers because they aren’t even trying. Look at the PA SC dismissal today. It says there was a failure to allege any fraud, then goes on to note that is exactly what Rudy did last week.
No one is talking about fraud in the courts! Of course the act of invalidating millions of ballots is going to be an extreme remedy if they were all cast according to the process as laid out. I’d be fucking pissed if I followed the rules and my ballot was thrown out because someone else decided they didn’t like the rules.
If they would enter evidence of fraud, the solution of invalidating votes is much easier to arrive at.
...or born in Kenya?
The secretary of state changed the voting rules without legislative approval, which is illegal under the constitution because the legislature did not give the sos the power to do that
But Act 77 is in direct violation of the state constitution for PA, you stupid leftie shill.
This is true but this is something the legislature should have sent to the court beforehand and had the PA SC make a ruling on.
2 things when a court wants to allow unconstitutional laws. Many times courts rule that because an action on law hasn’t occurred then there is no basis for a hearing. Then if the action has occurred they say you should have asked prior to the unconstitutional act. Cant win. The court can have it both ways.
And then theyd get struck down because they havent been injured yet lol. You're a a brainlet , Chang.
That's not how it works, the PA Constitution would have to have been amended according to the processes set forth for amendment by the PA Constitution. The government CAN NOT violate it and their Supreme Court isn't a body intended to enable exceptions or circumventions of the Constitution, but to enforce it dutifully.
This decision completely ignores the obvious violation of the PA Constitution - the justices even played themselves when they complained that the suit didn't make any claims of fraud... you know why it didn't? Because it's not a requirement... the law is unconstitutional and that's all there should be to it.
The remedy need not be the total invalidation of the vote, but this court viewed that as the only logical outcome - but giving the State an opportunity to re-vote, in person, is beyond the capacity of these people.
I don't disagree, that doesn't make it constitutional however.
this from a comment 9 days old and fuel of shilling, ok sure whatever you say guy.
Don’t dignify
Deport
Legislature the other day said that that never went through them - Governor signed it immediately upon it hitting his desk. Then said any challenge would be immediately veto'd
Why did they try so hard to push this through without the legislature. very interesting.
Legislature started it, but governor signed it through after legislature gave up on it.
For it to be legal, it would have had to have been past through 2 legislative meetings, posted in 2 newspapers in every county in the state, AND voted upon by the people this general election.
There was no way to legally pass it before this election and they knew it.
at the hearing the other day they said it never went through them at all. So.......
This sounds like a disagreement for the SCOTUS to decide.