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.
Tell them they knowingly certified fraud. A person without ulterior motives would clearly see that there is enough going on here to at least warrant a thorough investigation.
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.
They can on the grounds that separation of powers clause was violated in this case.
PA77's modifications that removed the safeguards were done through PA Scotus by going around the legislature. In effect, Wolf made the State's court a new legislative body. Without the House and Senate unable to do their job does violate separation of powers clause, as well equal protection and dredges up other legal issues.
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.
The issue is does PA77 alone warrant a SCOTUS review...possibly not
However,
PA77's modifications and other shady issues where PA courts rewrote the law without input of the state's legislature does violate separation of powers. That is where SCOTUS can review and possibly order PA's SCOTUS to toss out the law by precedence set out by its own constitution.
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.
There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
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.
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!
I’d be there!
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
Tell them they knowingly certified fraud. A person without ulterior motives would clearly see that there is enough going on here to at least warrant a thorough investigation.
Why waste our time?
The state legislature gave away their responsibility to the state executive. Separation of powers? Apparently not.
Them doing this type of thing is the reason the Governor and the courts are running all over them.
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.
After this year i would expect every pede to be a constitutional scholar.
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.
They can on the grounds that separation of powers clause was violated in this case.
PA77's modifications that removed the safeguards were done through PA Scotus by going around the legislature. In effect, Wolf made the State's court a new legislative body. Without the House and Senate unable to do their job does violate separation of powers clause, as well equal protection and dredges up other legal issues.
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.
<It took the 13th Amendment to get rid of slavery as an institution>
Did I miss the part of a civil war to do this?!
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.
The issue is does PA77 alone warrant a SCOTUS review...possibly not
However,
PA77's modifications and other shady issues where PA courts rewrote the law without input of the state's legislature does violate separation of powers. That is where SCOTUS can review and possibly order PA's SCOTUS to toss out the law by precedence set out by its own constitution.
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.
There was no amendment. They just went ahead and did it. Same with how the PA legislature handed over selection of electors in 1938 to the Sec. of State. Its all just a bunch of backhanded deals in PA.
I OBJECT, to your username, on grounds of personal jealousy. Do you Pede guilty?
Winnocent
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.