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.
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.