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.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as a direct violation of article II Section 1 para. 2 of the federal constitution. The legislature directed the manner in which the electors would be selected, and the court did a backhanded modification.
Any modification to the election process that was not directed by the state legislature should automatically be void in a presidential election by definition as set forth in the plain language of the 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.
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.
That's my point though. If the state's supreme court decides those backhanded deals are all above board and totally ok, despite everyone knowing they're not, who do you go to for redress? The Supreme Court is just as likely to avoid this case as to take it up.
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.
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.
No one who has not read (and studied in detail) the federalist papers can assert themselves as a scholar of the constitution. Change my mind.
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.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I see it as a direct violation of article II Section 1 para. 2 of the federal constitution. The legislature directed the manner in which the electors would be selected, and the court did a backhanded modification.
Any modification to the election process that was not directed by the state legislature should automatically be void in a presidential election by definition as set forth in the plain language of the 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.
<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?!
Uh.. yes?
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.
That's my point though. If the state's supreme court decides those backhanded deals are all above board and totally ok, despite everyone knowing they're not, who do you go to for redress? The Supreme Court is just as likely to avoid this case as to take it up.
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.